HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-Development Services
ORIGINAL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: November 6, 2008
Subject: University Hills Specific Plan, SP No. 07-
01; General Plan Amendment No. 08-03; Tentative
Parcel Map No. 18969; Tentative Tract Map No.
18696; Tentative Tract Map No. 18140; Development
Agreement No. 08-02 - A plan for 980 dwelling units
on 404.3 acres located north of the terminus of
Campus Parkway.
From: Valerie C. Ross, Director
Dept: Development Services
File:
MCC Date: 11/17/2008
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
08/18/2008 Workshop presentation of the University Hills Specific Plan - no action taken.
Recommended Motion: That the hearing be closed, the Resolution be adopted, the Ordinance
be laid over for final adoption, and consideration of the Development Agreement be brought
back at a later date for consideration. ~ (). i( J#-
Valerie C. Ross
Contact Persou: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
Phone: 3330
Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Resolution, Ordinance Ward(s): 5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N/ A
Source: (Acct. No.)
Acct. Description:
Finance:
Council Notes: ~Gso 2ooJ'-<l2.2-
Ol<j) fVI~ - / ;)q /
~ 11/17) O<(j #:3r Agenda Item No.
II
/;2.- /- oe'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subiect: University Hills Specific Plan, SP No. 07-01; General Plan Amendment No. 08-03;
Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969; Tentative Tract Map No. 18696; Tentative Tract Map
No. 18140; Development Agreement No. 08-02 - A plan for 980 dwel1ing units on
404.3 acres located north of the terminus of Campus Parkway.
Baclmround:
Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 2), including the supporting
docwnents transmitted previously under separate cover for a complete project description,
analysis and staff recommendation.
On November 5, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project and
recommended that the Mayor and Common Council certify the Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report, adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt the
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan, approve Specific Plan No. 07-01, General Plan
Amendment No. 08-03, Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and
Tentative Tract Map No. 18140 based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Planning
Commission Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) as amended
by the Planning Commission and Standard Requirements (Attachment D).
The Planning Commission also recommended approval of Development Agreement No. 08-02,
subject to modifications to ensure payment of Development Impact Fees and to provide for the
maintenance of flood control and drainage facilities to be considered for inclusion in the
proposed Community Facilities District (CFD). The applicant concurred with the addition of
facilities maintenance in a CFD or in a Landscape Maintenance District (LMD), and also agreed
to amend the Development Agreement to commit to payment of current Development Impact
Fees, subject to fee credits that will be requested.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission passed on a vote of 4 -3, with Commissioners
Longville, Rawls, Heasley and Sauerbrun voting in favor, and Commissioners Durr, Mulvihil1
and Munoz opposed. Commissioners Coute and Hawkins were absent.
Financial Impact:
The Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements recommended for approval of the
project, along with the recommended revision of the Development Agreement to require
payment of current Development Impact Fees, would ensure a neutral or positive financial
impact to the City. Public financing through a Community Facilities District (CFD) is proposed
by the Development Agreement. The Council wil1 have discretion to place requirements on the
structure of a CFD to minimize financial risk to the City.
2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT - Continued
A Resolution (Exhibit 3) is proposed for approval of the project, including the following:
. University Hills Specific Plan (UHSP), SP No. 07-01;
. General Plan Amendment No. 08-03, which amends the land use and circulation elements
of the General Plan and several Figures of the University District Specific Plan;
. Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, the "master map" which establishes backbone
infrastructure and 38 parcels corresponding to planning areas ofUHSP;
. Tentative Tract Map No. 18696, a subdivision of3.11 acres for 26 single dwellings
. Tentative Tract Map No. 18140, a subdivision of6.9 acres for 44 single dwellings.
An Ordinance (Exhibit 4) is proposed to incorporate the University Hills Specific Plan in
Chapter 19.10 Special Purpose Districts of the Development Code.
Recommendation:
That the hearing be closed, the Resolution be adopted, the Ordinance be laid over for final
adoption, and consideration of the Development Agreement be brought back at a later date for
consideration.
Exhibits:
I. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachments
A Location Map
B* Draft University Hills Specific Plan (disk)
C Conditions of Approval as amended by the Planning Commission
D Standard Requirements
E* Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (disk)
F* Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation
MonitoringlReporting Plan (disk)
G* Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations (FEIR disk)
H Draft Development Agreement
* Distributed under separate cover and posted on City web site: www.sbcitv.org
3. Resolution
4. Ordinance
3
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO HEARING DATE: 11/17/08
PLANNING DIVISION
LOCATION MAP
PROJECT: University Hills Specific Plan No. 07-01
CALIFORNIA
STA TE
UNIVERSITY
SAN
BERNARDINO
L1rlLf:
MOUNTAIN
RD
u
NORTH
N
,
" I
~.~
NOr TO"~CALE
EXHIBIT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
University Hills Specific Plan: General Plan Amendment No. 08-03; Specific
Plan No. 07-01; Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969 (Subdivision 08-04); Tentative
No. Tract Map 18696 (Subdivision 08-06); and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140
(Subdivision 08-05); Development Agreement No. 08-02
3
November 5, 2008
5
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
OWNER:
Fontana Comers III, LP
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 950
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-466-5500
APPLICANT:
Mohamad Younes, for
Inland Communities Corp.
20250 SW Acacia Street, Suite 260
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-261 2700
REQUESTILOCATION:
University Hills Specific Plan (SP) No. 07-01 - A Specific Plan of Land Use establishing the
development standards and guidelines for development of up to 980 detached and attached residential
units, open space, parks and community facilities on a 404.3 acre site.
GPA No. 08-03 - corresponding amendments to the General Plan.
TPM No. 18969 - subdivision of the 404.3 acre site into 38 parcels corresponding to the 24 planning
areas and sub-areas of the Specific Plan, including 234.8 acres of open space.
TTM No. 18696 - Subdivision of3.11 acres (Planning Area 12) into 26 single family lots.
TIM No. 18140 - Subdivision of 6.9 acres (Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4) into 44 single family lots.
DA No. 08-02 - A Draft Development Agreement proposed for the project.
The proposed project site, previously known as the Paradise Hills Specific Plan, is located north and east
of California State University, San Bernardino, north of the current terminus of Campus Parkway.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay, Hillside Management Overlay, Designated High Wind Area, Biological
Resources Area, Archeological Resources Area
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
o Not Applicable
o No Significant Effects
o Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Ii!! Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007071155), Mitigation Measnres, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Ii!! Approval Recommendation to the Mayor and Council
Ii!! Conditions
o Denial
o Continuance to:
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 IT No. 18696, IT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page 2 oj 19
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The applicant, Inland Communities, proposes the University Hills Specific Plan on the site of the
previously approved Paradise Hills Specific Plan, The project site is located north and east of
California State University, San Bernardino, at the northern boundary of the City (Attachment A).
The University Hills Specific Plan would allow the development of up to 980 residential units,
ranging from detached single family homes to stacked flats/townhomes/condominiums, on 169.5
of the 404.3 acre site. The balance of the site, or 234.8 acres, would be dedicated as open space to
California State University as a "land laboratory" for the study of biological, cultural and
geological resources. The project will also include parks, a clubhouse and recreation center, a
system of internal open space areas to accommodate slopes and bio-swales, a system of internal
trails and regional trail connections, and roadway infrastructure to connect the site to the City's
existing circulation system. Two primary access points are proposed: one at Campus Parkway,
and one at Little Mountain Drive.
The following applications have been filed:
Universitv Hills Specific Plan (SP No. 07-01)
The University Hills Specific Plan (Attachment B) establishes the development standards and
guidelines which will guide the development of the 404.3 acre site. The Specific Plan acts as the
site-specific zoning ordinance for the project, and if approved, will be the governing document
for all development on the site in the future.
The Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were distributed to the
Planning Commission previously, and are posted for review on the City web site.
General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 08-03)
Approval of the project would require amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and
Circulation Element and the University District Specific Plan to recognize the land use
designations, roadways and other development plans of the University Hills Specific Plan.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969
The Tentative Parcel Map is a "master map" for subdivision of the 404.3 acre site into 38 parcels
corresponding to the Specific Plan planning areas, as well as open space lots and roadways, to
allow for financing and further subdivisions as needed to implement the Specific Plan.
Tentative Tract Map No. 18696
This Tentative Tract Map proposes subdivision of 3.11 acres into 26 single family lots (identified
as planning area 12), located in the center of the Specific Plan development area.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 IT No. 18696, IT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page3 of 19
Tentative Tract Map No. 18140
This Tentative Tract Map proposes subdivision of 6.9 acres into 44 single family lots (identified
as planning areas 2,3 and 4), located in the northwest portion of the Specific Plan area.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement has been requested by the applicant which will set forth the
responsibilities of the applicant and the City in the future development of the project. The Draft
Development Agreement is attached as Attachment H.
BACKGROUND
The University Hills Specific Plan is proposed for lands previously approved for development
under the Paradise Hills Specific Plan. The Paradise Hills Specific Plan was adopted by the
Mayor and Common Council in 1993. At that time, an Environmental Impact Report was also
certified. The Paradise Hills Specific Plan proposed 504 residential units and 175 acres of open
space. The development area consisted of229 acres, and extended much further north on the site,
into Badger Canyon. The density of the project was 1.25 units per gross acre, and 2.2 units per
net acre. Two types of product were proposed - a Foothill Residential product at a density 00.5
units per acre, and a Hillside Residential product, at a density of one unit per acre. The project
was never built, and no development activity has occurred on the site since 1993.
The Paradise Hills Specific Plan was prepared under the goals and policies of the previous
General Plan. With the adoption of the new General Plan in 2005, and the associated University
Hills Specific Plan, new goals and policies were established, and land use designations
corresponding to the Paradise Hills land use plan were assigned to the site. The land use
designations applied to the property currently include Residential Suburban (4.5 units per acre)
on the southern one-third; Residential Low (3.1 units per acre) for the center portion of the
property; and Open Space for the northern edge of the site. These designations are consistent
with the Paradise Hills Specific Plan.
The University Hills Specific Plan proposes a new land use concept for the site, which will
concentrate development in a clustered manner south of the San Andreas Fault, and preserve the
more sensitive lands in Badger Canyon as open space.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA)
The Development/Environmental Review Committee (D/ERC) reviewed the proposed Specific
Plan and associated applications in conformance with CEQA. Staff determined that the changes
associated with the project, when compared with the Paradise Hills Specific Plan and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of 1993, necessitated the preparation of an EIR to analyze
the impacts of the University Hills Specific Plan. A Notice of Preparation ofa Supplemental EIR
was circulated for public comment in August of 2007, and a scoping meeting was held on
August 12, 2007. In March of2008, after a more detailed review of the University Hills Specific
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 IT No. 18696, IT No. 18140
Hearing Dale: /1.05.08
Page 4 of 19
Plan, considering changes in conditions of the site since preparation of the Paradise Hills EIR,
and significant differences between the Paradise Hills and University Hills Specific Plans, the
D/ERC, with advice from the City Attorney's office, determined that the appropriate CEQA
compliance document would be a Subsequent EIR instead of a Supplemental EIR. The D/ERC
considered a revised Notice of Preparation of a Subsequent EIR at their meeting of April 17,
2008, and determined that the Subsequent EIR was the appropriate document to be prepared in
this case. A Notice of Preparation of a Subsequent ErR was published in The San Bernardino
County Sun, posted with the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors and the State
Clearinghouse, distributed to public agencies and interested parties, and posted on the City's web
page for a 30-day comment period beginning April 24, 2008. A second scoping meeting was
held on May 7, 2008. Comments received in response to both Notices of Preparation were
considered during preparation ofthe Draft Subsequent EIR (Attachment E).
The Draft Subsequent EIR was prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. The Notice of
Completion/Notice of Availability was published in The San Bernardino County Sun and posted
with the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors for a 45-day public review period from
August I, 2008 through September 15,2008. It was also distributed, along with the Draft SEIR
to the State Clearinghouse and responsible agencies. The Audubon Society and the Crestline
Soaring Society requested additional time to review the SEIR and submit comments. The
comment period was extended to September 30, 2008.
Comments on the SEIR were received from a number of agencies and private parties. Responses
to these comments were prepared and provided to the D/ERC for review. At their meeting of
October 16, 2008, the D/ERC determined that the responses adequately responded to the
comments received, and the D/ERC authorized distribution of the Final SEIR (Attachment F) to
the commenting agencies. In making its determination to release the Final SEIR for distribution
and to refer the project to the Planning Commission, the D/ERC independently reviewed,
analyzed, and exercised judgment in reviewing the Draft Subsequent EIR, comments received,
responses to comments, and the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMIRP). .
The Final SEIR, including responses to comments, was distributed on October 20, 2008.
The SEIR concludes that the mitigation measures included in the document, when implemented,
will reduce the impacts associated with built out of the project to less than significant levels in
most cases. However, the SEIR found that even with the implementation of mitigation measures,
impacts associated with air quality, population and housing and transportation would remain
significant and unavoidable. In addition, cumulative impacts (those impacts of the project which,
when added to General Plan build out will cumulatively impact the environment) cannot be
mitigated to less than significant levels in the same categories. As a result, CEQA requires that
the City consider these impacts, and compare them to the benefits associated with
implementation of the project. If the determination is that the project benefits outweigh the
potential significant impacts, Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration must
be adopted. A Draft of the Findings is attached (Attachment F) for the Planning Commission's
consideration.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-0] DA No. 08-02
TPM No. ]8969 IT No. /8696, IT No. /8/40
Hearing Date: //.05.08
Page 5 of]9
PROJECT ANALYSIS
University Hills Specific Plan
The proposed project is anchored by the University Hills Specific Plan. This document, when
and if it is approved, will be the tool used to implement future Tract Maps, Development Permits
and other discretionary and ministerial permits through build-out of the project. The project
totals 404.3 acres of non-contiguous lands, separated by San Bernardino County Flood Control
District property in the center. The major segments of the project will, however, be connected by
its main roadway, which crosses County Flood Control District properties.
The Specific Plan proposes land use designations particular to the site. As shown in Table I, land
use designations vary from the City's designations, and allow a range ofresidential density, from
single family residential lots at a density of 0 to 3.1 units to the acre, to high density multiple
family units at a range of 15.1 to 20 units to the acre. In general, residential uses intensify from
north to south on the site, with the least dense areas occurring to the north, and the most dense to
the south. Planning area 16 proposes up to 60 units of faculty housing for the staff of California
State University, San Bernardino. Additional land use designations have been assigned to the
common areas, and include the parks and clubhouse, as well as open space.
The development standards proposed by the Specific Plan (UHSP) are unique for the project site.
For any development standard or other zoning regulation not specified in the UHSP, the
provisions of the City Development Code shall govern. The UHSP allows for lots of at least
5,000 square feet in the Large Lot Detached category; 2,400 square feet in the Standard Lot
Detached category; and 1,200 square feet in the Mixed Detached/Attached category. Although
these lot sizes are quite small by Development Code standards, the Specific Plan was designed to
cluster development in a smaller area, to allow for greater conservation of open space. In order to
achieve this, the area of disturbance on the project site must be condensed, which requires a
higher density of development. Because of the significant area proposed as natural open space, as
well as parks, recreational facilities and other common areas and amenities proposed within the
project, the differences between the University Hills Specific Plan and the City Development
Code standards can be supported.
The overall average residential density proposed for the University Hills project site is 2.4 units
per gross acre. The following land use tables detail the land use designations, planning areas,
residential dwelling unit types, densities, amenities, public facilities and development potential
of the University Hills Specific Plan.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 IT No. 18696, IT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page 6 of 19
Table 1
Land Use Categories
Land Use Category Description of Category
Residential Uses
Large-Lot Detached (LLD) Accommodates large-lot, single-family detached uses at an
average density of2.6 dwelling units per acre. The residential
density within this land use category ranges between 0 and 3.1
units oer acre.
Standard-Lot Detached Accommodates a range of low density residential uses at an
Residential (SLD) average density of6.7 dwelling units per acre. The residential
density within this land use category ranges between 3.2 and 9
units per acre.
Accommodates medium density detached and attached
Mixed Detached! Attached residential uses at an average density of 11.9 dwelling units per
Residential (MDA) acre. The residential density within this land use category ranges
between 9.1 and 15.0 units per acre in Planning Areas 5 and 13
and between 9.1 and 17.0 in Planning Areas 10, 14, and 20.
Provides for high density, multiple-family residential uses at an
Attached Residential (A) average density of 16.8 dwelling unit per acre. The residential
density within this land use category ranges between 15.1 and 20
units Der acre.
Other Uses
Parks (Public) Accommodates a range of public open space opportunities such
as tot lots, sports courts and fields, picnic areas, joggers' exercise
courses, and recreational facilities.
Clubhouse Accommodates private recreational facilities, such as clubhouse,
pool, barbeque facilities, conference rooms, tennis courts, gym,
tot lots, Dicnic areas, and open SDace.
Open Space Provides undeveloDed ODen SDace for recreational uses.
Utility Accommodates water tanks, electrical substations, water
filtration svstems, and other utilities for Dublic benefit.
Internal Slopes Accommodates trails, community gardens, and landscape.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 IT No. 18696, IT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page 7 of 19
The Specific Plan establishes planning areas, or sub-units of the project, each of which has a
maximum number of units assigned. Although the Specific Plan allows for the transfer of density
from one planning area to the other, it also restricts transfers, so that the maximum number of
units allowed in a planning area, as shown in Tables 2 and 3, cannot be exceeded. Likewise, the
total number of units allowed in the project, 980 homes, cannot be exceeded. Please see page 6-5
and 6-6 of the Draft Specific Plan for density transfer details.
The vast majority of lands within the project site that are proposed for residential development
occur south of the geologic hazard zones. The exception is planning area 15, which is proposed
as a large lot (0-3.1 units per acre) single family subdivision. This area has been subject to
landslides in the past, and may not be suitable for development. Both the Specific Plan and the
SEIR for the project require that further geotechnical investigations be carried out prior to any
development of Planning Area 15. Should the area be unstable, in whole or in part, the Specific
Plan provides for its preservation as open space, and the transfer of the 37 potential units to other
planning areas.
Table 2
University Hills Development Potential
Land Use Acres 1 Density Units 1,2 Pop."> Planning Areas
Developable Area
Large- Lot Detached
Residential (LLD) 14.3 0-3.1 37 124 154
Standard-Lot Detached
Residential (SLD) 10.4 3.2- 9.0 70 235 2,3,4,12
9.1-15.0
(PA5&13)
9.1-17.0
Mixed Detached! Attached (PA 10,14,
Residential (MDA) 30.2 &20) 358 1,199 5,10, 13, 14,20
Attached Residential (A) 30.7 15.1-20.0 515 1,725 6,8,9, II, 16, 18
Parks (public) 8.1 1,17,19,21
Clubhouse 2.2 NA NA NA 7
RoadslIntemal
SlopesfUtilities 73.6 NA NA NA NA
Subtotal 169.5
Undevelopable Area
Open Space 234.8 I I I
Subtotal 234.8 I I I I
Total
Total 404.3 I I 980 3,283 I
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 TT No. 18696, TT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page 8 of 19
Table 3
Development Potential by Planning Area
Units Used to
Density Determine Buildout 1,
Planning Area Land Use Acres I (units per acre) 2
2.1
I Park (oublic) NA NA
2 SLD 2.2 3.2-9.0 13
3 SLD 2.5 3.2-9.0 15
4 SLD 2.7 3.2-9.0 16
5 MDA 7.9 9.1-15.0 95
6 A 4.6 15.1-20.0 80
7 Clubhouse 2.2 NA NA
8 A 4.4 15.1-20.0 75
9 A 3.2 15.1-20.0 64
10 MDA 5.4 9.1-17.0 59
II A 5.9 15.1-20.0 98
12 SLD 3.1 3.2-9.0 26
13 MDA 4.0 9.1-15.0 50
14 MDA 4.6 9.1-17.0 50
153 LLD 14.3 0-3.1 37
16
(Faculty A 4.0 15.1-20 60
Housing)
17 Park (public) 0.5 NA NA
18 A 8.6 15.1-20 138
19 Park (public) 0.5 NA NA
20 MDA 8.3 9.1-17 104
21 Park (oublic) 5.0 NA NA
22 Utility 0.5 NA NA
23 Utility 0.1 NA NA
24 Ooen Soace 234.8 NA NA
Roads/Internal Slooes 73.0 NA NA
In addition to the residential development areas, the acreage of parks, slopes and roads have been
identified and accounted for in the Specific Plan. The maximum developable area within the Plan
is 169.5 acres. The balance, or 234.8 acres, will be dedicated to California State University, San
Bernardino as a "land laboratory." The trails which currently occur in this area will be preserved,
and access to the open space will be available through the California Walnut Grove Park, to be
located at the southeasterly corner of the dedicated open space area.
The Clubhouse is proposed in the center of the site, and will include community rooms,
recreational facilities, and potentially some small scale commercial uses, such as dry cleaners or
barber shops, intended as neighborhood conveniences for the residents.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-0/ DA No. 08-02
TPM No. /8969 IT No. 18696, IT No. /8/40
Hearing Date: 1/.05.08
Page 9 of 19
Internal open space is provided throughout the site as areas of "internal slopes". These areas will
have multiple purposes: they will serve to transition the grade of the site between residential
pads; they will be designed to act as bio-swales as a component of the on-site flood control and
water quality design measures; and they will provide internal trails and open space areas for
residents. Except during periods of heavy rainfall, the areas should be usable and available
throughout the year. Pedestrian access to these areas will be provided through gated connections.
The Specific Plan proposes 10.3 acres of park land, distributed throughout the project. A "Glider
Park" (Planning Area I) is proposed on the western boundary of the project, adjacent to the
Andy Jackson Air Park, This 2. I-acre park is designed with low-lying amenities, to ensure a safe
landing path for those arriving at the Air Park. The Crestline Soaring Society and many
individual hang gliding enthusiasts have expressed concerns regarding the park amenities and the
development of residential uses in proximity to the Air Park. These concerns have been
addressed in the Response to Comments portion of the Final SEIR, under letter G .1.
The Clubhouse (Planning Area 7), is proposed on 2.2 acres in the southern portion of the site, at
the project's entrance via Campus Parkway. As described above, the clubhouse will be both a
recreational facility with pool area, and a community center, with meeting rooms and potentially
small scale commercial development.
The Walnut Grove Linear Park (Planning Area 21) is proposed to connect the project to the open
space to the north. The park will consist of 5.0 acres, and will be furnished with passive park
amenities and interpretive features intended to inform the visitor about the area, and provide a
trail connection into Badger Canyon.
Two half-acre parks are proposed (Planning Areas 17 and 19) for the eastern portion of the
Specific Plan area. These will be neighborhood parks, with pool facilities and picnic areas.
The Specific Plan also includes trails, both within the rights of way and in the open space areas,
to connect the project both internally and externally.
The phasing of parks and trail development is provided for in Section 6 of the Specific Plan. Park
construction is required early in the development process, so that amenities will be available to
residents as they move in.
The Specific Plan includes an extensive Design Guidelines section, which provides direction on
architectural and landscape styles and project design. The Specific Plan does not prescribe an
architectural style, but provides compatible options for future developers to allow flexibility as
the project moves forward.
The Specific Plan also includes an extensive fuel modification plan, which has been extensively
coordinated with the Fire Marshal. This section establishes strict standards for development,
landscaping, and construction. The fuel modification plan is consistent with the requirements of
the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay, and will ensure that development of the project will not be a
hazard during a wildland fire in the future.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. /8969 TT No. /8696, TT No. /8/40
Hearing Date: /1.05.08
Page JO of /9
Access and Roadway Improvements
The primary entrance to the project site will be at Campus Parkway. The second access to the
site will be from Little Mountain Drive, which will serve the eastern side of the project. Within
the site, a loop road is proposed to provide two means of access to each area of the project site.
An east-west collector road will connect the proposed extensions of Campus Parkway and Little
Mountain Drive. The Campus Parkway access will require an easement from the County Flood
Control District. The District has issued a conditional approval, pending final engineering. Both
access roads will require right-of-way over California State University property. An access
agreement is pending, and right-of-way acquisition is a condition of approval of Tentative Parcel
Map No. 18969. All backbone infrastructure, including the access roadways and internal loop
roads, are planned for Phase I of the project, and are tied to the Tentative Parcel Map, as
discussed further below.
Trash Collection
The Public Services Department has expressed concerns regarding the trash collection
requirements within the Specific Plan. The Plan includes standards for collection which allow for
either individual or centralized trash collection (see page 3-18 of the Specific Plan). The Public
Services Department opposes the centralized collection system for several reasons, including
aesthetics, functionality with their mechanized equipment, and others. The Plan does not require
individual collection in any land use category, but does limit centralized collection to the
MixedlDetached/ Attached and Attached land use categories. Centralized collection is limited to
12 housing units per collection area, resulting in 24-bin groups (2 bins per unit). A condition of
approval has been added which requires individual collection for all single family lots (whether
attached or detached), as this is the most practical method for single family homes. In addition, a
condition of approval is included which requires approval of a trash collection plan for all
projects prior to issuance of building permits. This condition will allow each project to address
its trash collection individually, and to the satisfaction of the Public Services Department.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969
The Tentative Parcel Map is proposed as a master map to subdivide the 404.3-acre project site
into 38 parcels which are equivalent to the planning areas or portions of planning areas in the
Specific Plan. The master map also establishes the backbone street system for the project, and
creates "super-pads" which may be further subdivided for single family lots, as proposed in the
two Tract Maps described below. Super pads or Planning Areas may be developed as one lot or
multiple lots for phased development of apartments or townhomes. The Tentative Parcel Map
will also create the open space lot for the "land laboratory" proposed for dedication to the
University. TPM No. 18969 is conditioned to dedicate the open space to the University in
conjunction with recordation of the Parcel Map.
The Specific Plan details the roadways to be built in the first phase of the project, which will be
tied to TPM No, 18969. These include connection to, and improvements on Campus Parkway
and Little Mountain Road; construction of the Primary Local, Community Local I, II and III, and
selected Neighborhood Local streets. No improvements are proposed into Planning Area 15,
north of the Community Local II street, where more analysis is required prior to any disturbance
or development, due to landslide hazards. Establishment of the backbone infrastructure will
allow development of planning areas throughout the project site in almost any order.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPMNo. 18969TTNo. 18696, TTNo.18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page II 0[19
The Public Works Division has prepared proposed conditions of approval (Attachment D) which
establish the requirements for recordation of the Parcel Map. These conditions, and the
mitigation measures contained in the SEIR and MM/RP, will govern the level of improvement
required with each phase of development of the Parcel Map. Specific to the Parcel Map are
installation of traffic signals at Northpark Boulevard/Campus Parkway, and East Campus Circle
(Little Mountain)/project access with issuance of the first building permit. In addition, prior to
the occupancy of any units on the site, improvements detailed in Condition 12.d) will be
required, and include Northpark Boulevard, Campus Parkway, East Campus Circle and
University Parkway.
There are three levels of improvement required of the project: (I ~ those required on opening
day/with the first building permit; (2) those required with the 600' unit in the project; and (3)
those required in a post-build-out condition. These have been detailed in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached as part of Attachment F. Specific traffic
improvements are listed in the MMRP as TRI through TR7. Those improvements required for
opening day will be funded through the DIF, or paid for by the developer, if payments from other
sources are not available, with fee credits being applied for amounts above the developer's share
of the cost of improvements. Those improvements required with the 600th building permit will be
added to the DIF, and the applicant will pay the DIF to fund the project's share of the
improvements. Some of the long term improvements, particularly the interchange projects, are
unfunded, and although the DIF will be paid by the developer for the project's fair share, since
the full improvement costs have not been identified, the mitigation measure cannot be
implemented with certainty. Therefore, impacts to long term cumulative traffic flows have been
identified as an unmitigable impact in the SEIR.
Tentative Tract Map 18696
TTM No. 18696, and TTM No. 18140, described below, are the first two implementing maps
within the project. TTM No. 18696 implements Planning Area 12 of the Specific Plan, and
proposes 26 lots on 3.11 acres along the northeastern portion of the loop road. TTM No. 18696
proposes lot sizes of 4,500 to 6,000 square feet, with street frontages of 45 feet, and lot depths of
110 feet. The lot size, configuration and density all conform to the standards of the Standard Lot
Detached category in the Specific Plan. No house designs have been proposed at this time. These
would be processed under a Development Permit application in the future.
The Public Works Division has prepared conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map
(Attachment D), which are consistent with those proposed for Tentative Parcel Map 18969 in
terms of the required traffic improvements, as these will be required with construction of the first
homes within the project. The backbone street system, and related water, sewer and drainage
improvements must be installed in order for this portion of the Specific Plan to proceed.
Tentative Tract Map 18410
TTM No. 18410 implements planning areas 2, 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan. This map proposes
44 lots on 6.9 acres. The lots will be located in the northwestern portion of the project site, and
will include slope areas to provide open space and storm water control. The lots range in size
from 5,000 to 9,500 square feet, and are designed consistent with the Standard Lot Detached
CPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 IT No. 18696, IT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Pagel2oJI9
category of the Specific Plan. As with Tentative Tract Map 18696, no plans for the dwelling
units have been submitted, and future Development Permits would be required.
The Public Works Division has prepared conditions of approval (Attachment D), which, like the
requirements for the TPM No. 18969 and TTM No. 18696, require street improvements to allow
a safe functioning internal circulation system and external access. These improvements and the
backbone infrastructure described above will be required to allow TTM No. 18410 to proceed.
Development Agreement
The Development Agreement was requested by the applicant to establish the responsibilities of
the City and the applicant in the development of the Specific Plan. The Development Agreement
(Attachment H), focuses primarily on financial issues. As currently written, the Development
Agreement would exempt the applicant from, or reduce certain Development Impact Fees.
However, the SEIR mitigation measures rely on the payment of impact fees to offset potentially
significant impacts associated with roadways and public facilities. If the Development
Agreement were approved as currently written, the mitigation measures in the SEIR could not be
implemented, which would result in unmitigated impacts. As a result, the applicant has agreed to
modifY the Development Agreement prior to City Council review to eliminate the Development
Impact Fee exemptions or reductions.
The Development Agreement also establishes the parameters under which public financing will
be undertaken for the project infrastructure. Given the size of the project and the infrastructure
required, financing will be required for these facilities, and cooperation with the City will be
necessary to raise funds as required.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Mayor and Common
Council concerning the Development Agreement should call for revisions to maintain current
Development Impact Fees to apply to the project.
FINDINGS OF FACT - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the following General Plan
goals and policies:
2.2 Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on surrounding
land uses.
2.2.2 Require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where
potential adverse impacts could occur, including, as appropriate, decorative walls,
landscape setbacks, restricted vehicular access, enclosure of parking structures to
prevent sound transmission, and control of lighting and ambient illumination.
2.2.4 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be designed
and landscaped to reserve natural features and habitat and protect structures from
the threats from natural disasters, such as wildfires and floods.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-0/ DA No. 08-02
TPM No. /8969 IT No. /8696, IT No. /8140
Hearing Date: //.05.08
Page /3 of 19
The proposed project will cluster residential development, provide more open space than
the currently approved Specific Plan, and has integrated a comprehensive fire protection
buffer into the document to assure protection of the residents in the future. The plan also
uses open space to minimize the hazards associated with flooding and earthquake faulting
on the site.
2.6 Control development and the use of land to mlmmlze adverse impacts on
significant natural, historic, cultural, habitat and hillside resources.
2.6.1 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be designed
and sited to maintain the character of the City's significant open spaces and
historic and cultural landmarks.
The proposed Amendment will allow for the preservation of Badger Canyon for
biological and geologic study. In addition, historic resources identified as occurring in the
open space area will not be impacted by development, and can also be studied further.
2. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, and the
projects associated with the Specific Plan will be required to comply with all City
requirements for infrastructure development, including sanitary sewer and domestic
water. Further, the Specific Plan has been designed to protect the future residents from
fire through integration of a fire protection plan; and from geotechnical hazards through
restrictions on development in and near earthquake fault zones.
3. The proposed amendments will maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the
City.
The proposed Amendment is located in an area where open space and residential land
uses are proposed in the General Plan and University District Specific Plan currently. The
proposed Amendment proposes an increase in the amount of open space land, and
proposes residential densities greater than those currently planned in the Paradise Hills
Specific Plan, in order to allow a clustered development plan. The proposed Specific Plan
will impact less land and cluster the residential land uses, rather than impacting natural
resources in Badger Canyon.
4. Being a case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject parcels
are physically suitable (including but not limited to, access, provision of utilities,
compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the
requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development.
The proposed project has integrated designs which will minimize slope impacts, provide
a backbone circulation and utility system, and be visually buffered from the surrounding
areas.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 IT No. 18696, IT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page 14 of 19
FINDINGS OF FACT - SPECIFIC PLAN
1. The proposed plan is consistent with the General Plan.
The Specific Plan is also located within the University District Specific Plan, and is
consistent with that Plan's Vision, in that it will provide physical connectivity between
the Specific Plan area and the University; be a part of the University Town concept by
providing an area where faculty housing will be provided within the Plan; participate in
transit efforts to connect the Plan area to the University and other parts of the City; and
enhance the regional recreational link in the area by extending planned regional trails
through the Specific Plan area. Please see also Finding # I, above.
2. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City.
The Specific Plan includes standards which will protect residents from the San Andreas
Fault, and the potential for ground rupture associated with the Fault, through prohibitions
on development in those areas. The Plan also incorporates bio-swales into open space and
slopes to allow for the filtration of surface water, which will prevent pollution. The
Specific Plan also requires the clubhouse be constructed to meet LEED requirements,
which will lower potential impacts on greenhouse gases. The mitigation measures
included in the ErR will also protect the residents and visitors to the project area from
environmental hazards.
3. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and
the anticipated land use development.
The areas designated for restricted or prohibited development within the Specific Plan are
those where hazards could occur. The balance of the site where development will be
permitted is gently sloping, and outside the City's Hillside Management Overlay,
meaning that the slopes are shallow enough to built upon. The site will be terraced to
allow for flatter development areas. The intensity of development proposed allows for
234.8 acres to be preserved as permanent open space, which will provide a valuable
resource for the project's residents, the University, and the City as a whole.
4. The proposed plan will ensure the development of desirable character which will be
compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood
The site is visually isolated from surrounding neighborhoods, and development of the
project will have only minimal impacts on surrounding views, as demonstrated in the
Specific Plan and SEIR. The character of the development, although more intense than
lands to the south and west, is consistent with the University Park Specific Plan concepts
of an urban village in association with the University, which is adjacent to the property.
5. The proposed plan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local residents may
work and shop in the community in which they live.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-0/ DA No. 08-02
TPM No. /8969 IT No. 18696, IT No. /8/40
Hearing Date: /1.05.08
Page /5 of 19
The Specific Plan will include connections to local transit, and will be within walking
distance of the University. The Plan also includes a planning area reserved for University
faculty housing, which could generate up to 60 units within close proximity. In addition,
the project is convenient to local commercial areas, and with the extension of pathways,
trails and sidewalks as planned in the Specific Plan, will be easily accessible for shopping
and employment.
FINDINGS OF FACT - TENT A TIVE PARCEL MAP
J. The proposed map consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
The proposed parcel map is consistent with the General Plan, the University Hills
Specific Plan and the Development Code. The parcel map is designed with lot boundaries
concomitant with the planning areas in the Specific Plan, and allows for the development
of backbone infrastructure for the project as a whole, thereby encouraging sequential,
fully served development, as encouraged in the General Plan.
2. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed parcel map is designed to match the Specific Plan planning areas, and
allow the further subdivision through tract maps for individual projects. The parcel map
also implements the phasing plan proposed in the Specific Plan, by establishing the
backbone street system for the project.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development.
The areas designated for restricted or prohibited development within the Specific Plan are
those where hazards could occur. The balance of the site where development will be
permitted is gently sloping, and outside the City's Hillside Management Overlay,
meaning that the slopes are shallow enough to built upon. The site will be terraced to
allow for flatter development areas. The intensity of development proposed allows for
234.8 acres to be preserved as permanent open space, which will provide a valuable
resource for the project's residents, the University, and the City as a whole.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The parcel map implements the Specific Plan planning areas, which are designed to
accommodate the higher densities of residential units to allow greater open space
preservation. The open space land is also included in the parcel map, and will be
dedicated to the University as a result of its completion.
5. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 TT No. 18696. TT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 1 I. 05. 08
Page 16 of 19
The design of the parcel map, and the mitigation measures included in the SEIR for the
project, assure that areas of environmental hazards are restricted or prohibited from
development, including slopes and fault areas. The project also includes the preservation
of the biologically sensitive Badger Canyon as open space in perpetuity, which will
provide habitat for common and sensitive species occurring in the area.
6. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
The parcel map is consistent with the Specific Plan, and divides parcels so that it will
protect residents from the San Andreas Fault, and the potential for ground rupture
associated with the Fault. The design of the parcel, as conditioned, will meet City
requirements for sight-lines and street widths for backbone infrastructure, to allow safe
transport through the site.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements do not conflict with any
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
The parcel map has been designed to accommodate trail easements in its northern
portion, into Badger Canyon, where trails exist, and will also extend regional trails
required in the General Plan. The parcel map will also provide a connection to Campus
Parkway through the University, which has been agreed to, in writing, between the
University and the applicant.
FINDINGS OF FACT - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18696
1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
The proposed tract map is consistent with the General Plan, University Hills Specific
Plan, and the Development Code. The proposed tract map will create 26 single family
residential lots which are consistent with the development standards established in the
Specific Plan.
2. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.
The tract map implements planning area 12 of the Specific Plan, which allows for single
family residential units on lots of the size proposed. The tract map is also consistent with
the high quality design goals and policies of the General Plan, insofar as it implements a
master planned community which will have extensive amenities for its residents.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development.
The tract map does not occur in areas designated for restricted or prohibited development
within the Specific Plan. The site is gently sloping, and outside the City's Hillside
Management Overlay. The lots within the tract map will be terraced to allow for flatter
development areas.
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 TT No. /8696, TT No. 18140
Hearing Dale: 11.05.08
Page 17 of 19
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The Tract Map proposes 26 lots on 3.11 acres, consistent with the density of 3.2 to 9.0
units per acre allowed in the Standard Lot Detached (SLD) designation assigned to the
property in the Specific Plan. The proposed tract creates lots at a density of 8.4 units per
acre.
5. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the tract map, and the mitigation measures included in the SEIR for the
project, assure that areas of environmental hazards are restricted or prohibited from
development. The tract map does not occur in any of the restricted development areas in
the Specific Plan, nor does it occur adjacent to any open space area proposed north of the
tract map.
6. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
The tract map is not within a restricted development area, and is not on the San
Andreas Fault. The design of the tract, as conditioned, will meet City
requirements for sight-lines and street widths for surrounding streets, to allow safe
transport through the site.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements do not conflict with any
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
The tract map does not include any easements. Any easements created through the master
parcel map (TPM No. 18969) for the project, will be implemented in the tract map as
necessary .
FINDINGS OF FACT - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18140
I. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
Yes. The proposed tract map is consistent with the General Plan, the University Hills
Specific Plan, and the Development Code. The tract map will implement the development
standards of planning areas 2, 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan, by creating 44 single family
home lots on 6.9 acres.
2. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.
The tract map implements planning areas 2, 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan, which allows
for single family residential units on lots of the size proposed. The tract map is also
consistent with the high quality design goals and policies of the General Plan, insofar as it
CPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 IT No. 18696, IT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page 18 of 19
implements a master planned community which will have extensive amenities for its
residents.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development.
The tract map does not occur in areas designated for restricted or prohibited development
within the Specific Plan. The site is gently sloping, and outside the City's HilIside
Management Overlay. The lots within the tract map will be terraced to alIow for flatter
development areas.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The Tract Map proposes 44 lots on 6.9 acres, consistent with the density of 3.2 to 9.0
units per acre alIowed in the Standard Lot Detached (SLD) designation assigned to the
property in the Specific Plan. The proposed tract creates lots at a density of 6.4 units per
acre.
5. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the tract map, and the mitigation measures included in the SEIR for the
project, assure that areas of environmental hazards are restricted or prohibited from
development. The tract map does not occur in any of the restricted development areas in
the Specific Plan, nor does it occur adjacent to any open space area proposed north of the
tract map.
6. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
The tract map is not within a restricted development area, and is not on the San Andreas
Fault. The design of the tract, as conditioned, wilI meet City requirements for sight-lines
and street widths for surrounding streets, to alIow safe transport through the site.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements do not conflict with any
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
The tract map incorporates eXlstmg easements without interfering with them. Any
easements created through the master parcel map (TPM No. 18969) for the project, will
be implemented in the tract map as necessary.
CONCLUSION
The Findings of Fact support approval of the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative
Parcel Map and two Tentative Tract Maps proposed for the University HilIs project.
RECOMMENDATION
GPA No. 08-03, SP No. 07-01 DA No. 08-02
TPM No. 18969 TT No. 18696, TT No. 18140
Hearing Date: 11.05.08
Page /9 of /9
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common
Council:
I. Certify the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the University Hills Specific
Plan,
2. Adopt the Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan,
4. Approve Specific Plan No. 07-01,
5. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-03, and
6. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map 18696 and Tentative Tract
Map 18140 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval
(Attachment C) and Standard Requirements (Attachment D),
7. Approve the Development Agreement, with modifications which eliminate Development
Impact Fee reduction or elimination.
Respectfully Submitted,
~().i?~
Valerie Ross
Director of Development Services
~/~
ref: Nicole Criste
Terra Nova Planning & Research
Attachment A
B+
C
D
E*+
F+
G+
H
Location Map
Draft University Hills Specific Plan (disk)
Conditions of Approval
Standard Requirements
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan (disk)
Draft Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Draft Development Agreement
* Previously distributed under separate cover.
+Posted for review on the City web site: www.sbcitv.org
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO HEARING DATE: 11/05/08
PLANNING DIVISION
LOCATION MAP
PROJECT: University Hills Specific Plan No. 07-01
~
u
NORTH
CALIFORNIA
STA ff
UNIVERSITY
SAN
BERNARDINO
LITTLE
MOUNTAIN
-"-r- RD
M
,
.~_-.I~
h:~,." .
....... Ji.i.-
~~:t_ _~
NOT rolSC,ALE
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan 07-01 and Tentative Parcel Map 18969
1. This permit/approval authorizes a Specific Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide
approximately 404.3 acres into 38 parcels, as well as roadways and ancillary facilities.
The project site is located north and east of California State University, San Bernardino;
north of Campus Parkway.
2. Within two years of the original approval date, the filing of the final map with the
Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of a
tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed without first
processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the final map or tentative
map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to forwarding them to the City
Clerk. The date the final map shall be deemed filed with the Council is the date on which
the City Clerk receives the map.
Project: Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969
Expiration Date: November 5, 2010
3. For the Tentative Parcel Map, the review authority may, upon application and for good
cause, grant up to three extensions of time not to exceed 12 months each pursuant to
Development Code Section 19.66.170 and the State Map Act. The applicant must file an
application, processing fees, and all required submittal items, 30 days prior to the
expiration date(s). The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all
Development Code provisions in effect at the time of the requested extension.
4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of this
matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency of the City of San
Bernardino (EDA), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commission of either
the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected
officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of either the City or EDA
from any such claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or
entities. Any counsel in such action shall be chosen by the applicant to defend such
claim, action or proceeding and shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Mayor
& Common Council of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the
City for any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as
a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her
obligation under this condition.
The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall
be considered as "attorneys fees" for the purpose of this condition.
SP 07-01, TPM 18969
Hearing Date: November 5, 2008
Page 2
As part of the consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in effect if
this Tentative Parcel Map is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of
applicant.
5, Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the
Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the
Director through a minor modification permit process, Any modification which exceeds
10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the
refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing
review authority if applicable:
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping;
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures;
c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of
finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme;
and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
6, No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or
no change of use of land or structure( s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business
commenced as authorized by this permit until Certificates of Occupancy have been issued
by the Department. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy may be issued by the
Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed
with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate(s), if
necessary. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and
completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended
use by this permit or approval.
7. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property
Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor control;
screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control.
Screening and sign regulations compliance is important considerations to the developer
because they will delay the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy until they are complied
with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter
cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the
building design and include landscaping when on the ground.
8. This project shall be subject to all development standards and requirements of the
University Hills Specific Plan, including fire safety fuel modification requirements,
grading and landscaping standards.
SP 07-01, TPM 18969
Hearing Dale: November 5, 2008
Page 3
9, The property owner(s) and future tenants shall comply with the requirements of other
agencies (e.g. San Bernardino International Airport Authority; Federal Aviation
Administration; U.S. ofFish & Wildlife Service; California State Board of Equalization;
California Dept. of Transportation; California Dept. of Fish & Game; San Bernardino
County Flood Control District; Inland Valley Development Agency; etc.), as applicable.
10. The project is subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures contained in the certified
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#: 2007071155) for the University Hills
Specific Plan. The Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan is hereby incorporated by
reference in the Conditions of Approval.
II * The 234.8 acres of open space land in the northern portion of the map shall be dedieated
ar eafiveyed ta the Uniyersity af Califamia, San Bemardina, restricted as open space in
perpetuity. concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map. and conveyed to an
appropriate conservation organization for maintenance respOnsibility prior to the issuance
of the first building permit.
12* The Specific Plan shall be amended as follows: (A) to clarifY the description of the two
JI,-acre parks in the eastern planning areas to identifY public and private amenities. and
(B) to update the Fire Protection Plan to the Fire Marshal-approved Plan.
13. Trash collection for all single family lots within the project area shall be on an individual
basis.
14. A trash collection plan, showing the specific method of collection and location of trash
collection facilities, whether individual, centralized or via a dumpster, shall be submitted
with each Development Permit and/or Tentative Tract Map application. The plan shall be
approved by the Public Services Department prior to issuance of building permits for that
Development Permit and/or Tract Map.
15. Barbed wire, razor wire, and/or electrified fences are not permitted anywhere on-site.
16. Retaining walls, if any, shall be constructed of slump stone or split-face block. Both sides
of the wall (above ground) shall have the decorative finish,
17. The requirements of these Conditions of Approval may be modified or superceded by the
terms of the Development Agreement, DA 08-02.
18. Subrnittal requirements for permit applications (building, site improvements, etc.) to the
Building/Plan Check Division and the Public Works/Engineering Division shall include
all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with this approval.
19. All Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements shall be completed for each
building/parcel prior to final inspections. All site improvements shall be completed as
necessary to serve each new building/parcel, prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy.
SP 07-01, TPM 18969
Hearing Date: November 5, 2008
Page 4
20, This permit or approval is subject to the standard requirements issued the following City
Departments or Divisions:
a. Development Services Department - Public Works / Engineering Division
b. Fire Department
c. San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
d. Public Services Department
*Modified by Planning Commission 11/5/08
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map 18140
1. This approval is for Tentative Tract Map 18140, a request to subdivide 6.9 acres into 44
single family lots within the University Hills Specific Plan. The site is located north and
east of California State University, San Bernardino.
2. Within two years of the original approval date, the filing of the final map with the
Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of a
tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed without Ilrst
processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the final map or tentative
map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to forwarding them to the City
Clerk. The date the final map shall be deemed filed with the Council is the date on which
the City Clerk receives the map.
Expiration Date: November 5, 2010
3. The review authority may, upon application and for good cause, grant up to three
extensions of time not to exceed 12 months each pursuant to Development Code Section
19.66.170 and the State Map Act. The applicant must file an application, processing fees,
and all required submittal items, no less than 30 days prior to the expiration date. The
review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development
Code provisions in effect at the time of the requested extension.
4. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of
the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold hannless
the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency (EDA), any
departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commissions of either the City or EDA as
well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected officials, officers,
employees, representatives and attorneys of either the City or EDA from any claim,
action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. The applicant
further agrees to reimburse the City and the Economic Development Agency any costs
and attorney's fees which the City or the Economic Development Agency may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not
relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this section.
The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall
be considered as "attorney's fees for the purpose of this condition.
As part of the consideration for issuing this permit or approval, this condition shall
remain in effect if this Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the
applicant.
TT/8/40
Hearing Date: November 5, 2008
Page 2
5. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the planes) approved by the
Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council. Minor modification to the planes) shall be subject to approval by the
Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds
10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the
refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing
review authority if applicable:
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping;
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures;
c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modi fication of
finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved themc;
and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
6. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or
no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business
commenced as authorized by this pemlit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued
by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the
Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed
with the Public Works Division prior to issuance of the Certificate, is necessary. The
deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms,
conditions and performance imposed on the intended use by this permit.
7. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Developmcnt
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20- Property
Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design control; noise control; odor control;
screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and vibration control.
Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer
because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are
complied with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or
meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending
with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground.
8. Barbed wire, razor wire, and/or electrified fences are not permitted anywhere on-site.
9. Retaining walls shall be constructed of slump stone or split face block. Both sides of the
wall (above ground) shall have the decorative finish.
10. Any change in elevation or building pad height of 6" or more along the perimeter of the
tract/parcel map will require approval by the Planning Commission. Any change in
elevation or building pad height of 12" or more on interior lots will require approval by
the Planning Commission. The applicant's/owner's engineer will certify the elevation of
the building pads to the City Engineer, prior to construction of the building foundation.
IT /8/40
Hearing Date: November 5, 2008
Page 3
11. Submittal requirements for permit applications (building, site improvements,
landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/or Public WorkslEngineering shall include
all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with the Development
Review Committee approval.
12. The project is subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures contained in the certified
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#: 2007071155) for the University Hills
Specific Plan. The Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan is hereby incorporated by
reference in the Conditions of Approval.
13. This project shall be subject to all development standards and requirements of the
University Hills Specific Plan, including fire safety fuel modification requirements,
grading and landscaping standards.
14. The requirements of these Conditions of Approval may be modified or superceded by the
terms of Development Agreement, DA 08-02.
15. Development of the lots subdivided under this approval shall require approval of a
Development Permit.
16. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the
following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Development Services Department - Public Works / Engineering Division
b. Fire Department
c. San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map 18696
I. This approval is for Tentative Tract Map 18696, a request to subdivide 3.11 acres into 26
single family lots within the University Hills Specific Plan. The site is located north and
east of California State University, San Bernardino.
2. Within two years of the original approval date, the filing of the final map with the
Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of a
tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed without lirst
processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the final map or tcntative
map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to forwarding them to the City
Clerk. The date the final map shall be deemed filed with the Council is the date on which
the City Clerk receives the map.
Expiration Date: November 5, 2010
3. The review authority may, upon application and for good cause, grant up to thrce
extensions of time not to exceed 12 months each pursuant to Development Code Section
19.66.170 and the State Map Act. The applicant must file an application, processing fees,
and all required submittal items, no less than 30 days prior to the expiration date. The
review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development
Code provisions in effect at the time of the requested extension.
4. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify thc
applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of
the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold hannless
the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency (EDA), any
departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commissions of either the City or EDA as
well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected officials, officers,
employees, representatives and attorneys of either the City or EDA from any claim,
action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. The applicant
further agrees to reimburse the City and the Economic Development Agency any costs
and attorney's fees which the City or the Economic Development Agency may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not
relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this section.
The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his officc shall
be considered as "attorney's fees for the purpose of this condition.
As part of the consideration fa;- issuing this permit or approval, this condition shall
remain in effect if this Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the
applicant.
IT 18696
Hearing Date: November 5. 2008
Page 2
5. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the
Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the
Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds
10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the
refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing
review authority if applicable:
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping;
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures;
c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of
finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme;
and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
6. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or
no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business
commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued
by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the
Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed
with the Public Works Division prior to issuance of the Certificate, is necessary. The
deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms,
conditions and performance imposed on the intended use by this permit.
7. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20- Property
Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design control; noise control; odor control;
screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and vibration control.
Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer
because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are
complied with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or
meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending
with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground.
8. Barbed wire, razor wire, and/or electrified fences are not permitted anywhere on-site.
9. Retaining walls shall be constructed of slump stone or split face block. Both sides of the
wall (above ground) shall have the decorative finish.
10. Any change in elevation or building pad height of 6" or more along the perimeter of the
tract/parcel map will require approval by the Planning Commission. Any change in
elevation or building pad height of 12" or more on interior lots will require approval by
the Planning Commission. The applicant's/owner's engineer will certify the elevation of
the building pads to the City Engineer, prior to construction of the building foundation.
IT 18696
Hearing Date: November 5, 2008
Page 3
11. Submittal requirements for permit applications (building, site improvements,
landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/or Public WorkslEngineering shall include
all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with the Development
Review Committee approval.
12. The project is subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures contained in the certified
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#: 2007071155) for the University Hills
Specific Plan. The Mitigation MonitoringlReporting Plan is hereby incorporated by
reference in the Conditions of Approval.
13. This project shall be subject to all development standards and requirements of the
University Hills Specific Plan, including fire safety fuel modification requirements,
grading and landscaping standards.
14. The requirements ofthese Conditions of Approval may be modified or superceded by the
terms of the Development Agreement, DA 08-02.
15. This project is located in the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District and is subject to all
requirements contained in Chapter 15.10 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code
and Chapter 19.15 of the City's Development Code.
16. Development of the lots subdivided under this approval shall require authorization of a
Development Permit.
17. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the
following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Development Services Department - Public Works / Engineering Division
b. Fire Department
c. San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department - Public Works Division
Standard Requirements
Description: A proposed specific plan for the development of
approximately 404.2 acres of land.
Applicant: Inland Communities Corp.
Location: Bounded by the Andy Jackson Airport to the west, Cal State
University - San Bernardino to the south, Badger Creek to the east and San
Bernardino National Forest to the north.
Case Number: Specific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
1. Drainaqe and Flood Control
a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject
to requirements of the City Engineer, which may be based in part
on the recommendations of the San Bernardino County Department
of Transportation and Flood Control. The developer's Engineer
shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood
control.
b) A permit will be required from the San Bernardino County
Department of Transportation and Flood Control, for any work
required within the Flood Control District's right-of-way.
c) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage
improvements. structures or storm drains needed to mitigate
downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed
and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way
dedicated as necessary.
d) All detention basins shall be designed in accordance with
"Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County."
Retention basins are not acceptable.
e) The development area contains Zone A (floodway) areas on the
Federal Insurance Rate Maps; therefore, a Special Flood Hazard
Area Permit issued by the City Engineer shall be required.
f) Some of the lots in this tract adjoin Badger Canyon drainage
channels which is designed Zone "A" on the FEMA Federal
Project: A proposed specific plan for the development of approximately 404.2 acres of land.
Case No. Specific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 2 of 11
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The developer shall be responsible
for providing elevation certificate prepared in accordance with
FEMA regulations to prove that all parcels are not subject to
flooding in a 1 OO-year storm. These certificates shall be provided in
a form that is suitable for submittal to FEMA in order to obtain a
Letter of Map Revision (LaMA). The purpose of this process is to
assure that purchasers and future owners of these lots will not be
required to purchase flood insurance.
g) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved
public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities
and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
h) A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required for this
project. The applicant is directed to the City's web page at
www.sbcitY.orq- Departments - Development Services - Public
Works for templates to use in the preparation of this plan.
i) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required.
The applicant is directed to the City's web page at www.sbcity.orq
- Departments - Development Services - Public Works for
templates to use in the preparation of this plan.
j) The City Engineer, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve
the WQMP and the SWPPP.
k) A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board for construction disturbing 1 acre or more
of land (including the project area, construction yards, storage
areas, etc.).
I) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an
Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion
due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of
construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be
immediately built upon.
2. GradinQ and LandscapinQ
a) The site/ploUgrading and drainage plan shall be signed by a
Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required.
The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the
City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard
Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Ii
Proiect: A proposed soecific plan for the development of aporoximatelv 404.2 acres ofland.
Case No. Specific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 3 of 11
b) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal
permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the
Development Code shall be obtained from the Department of
Development Services-Planning Division prior to issuance of any
grading or site development permits.
c) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, the
grading shall be supervised in accordance with the City's "Grading
Policies and Procedures".
d) The applicant must post a grading bond prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The amount of the bond is to be determined by the
City Engineer.
e) If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the
import material or the site for the deposition of the export shall be
noted on the grading plan. Permit numbers shall be noted if the
source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino.
f) If more than 1,000 cubic yards of earth is to be hauled on City
Streets then a special hauling permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineer. Additional conditions, such as truck route approval,
traffic controls, bonding, covering of loads, street cleaning, etc. may
be required by the City Engineer.
g) Retaining walls and perimeter walls (if required) shall be part of the
Mass Grading Plan. This work shall be part of the Mass Grading
permit issued by the City Engineer. All masonry walls shall be
constructed of decorative block with architectural features
acceptable to the City Planner.
h) This project is located in the high wind zone. All walls and fences
shall be designed to withstand 100 mph winds. All construction
details shall be included on the appropriate plan. Structural
calculations shall be provided for City review.
i) This project is located in the high fire zone; therefore, all fences
shall be of non-combustible material.
3. Landscape Maintenance District
a) A Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) shall be implemented to
maintain landscaping within the following areas (Note. LMD
formation requires a minimum of 4 months after approval of LMD
landscaping plans.):
i) Fuel Modification Areas
Proiect: A proposed soecific plan for the develooment of approximately 404.2 acres of land.
Case No. Specific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 4 of 11
ii) Open Space Lots
iii) Detention Basins
b) The Landscape Maintenance District shall include all in-
development street lighting and may share a common electric
meter with the landscape irrigation controllers. Existing street
lights, if any will not be included in the District. The cost of
installing the street lighting system shall be bonded as part of the
faithful performance, labor & materials, and warranty bond required
for approval by the City Council and recording of the parcel map.
c) The cost of installation of landscaping and irrigation system in the
landscape maintenance district shall be bonded as part of the
faithful performance, labor & materials, and warranty bond required
for approval by the City Council and recording of the parcel map.
d) All required maintenance districts shall be formed and bonded prior
to Map recording. (Note. Maintenance district formation requires a
minimum of 4 months after approval of plans.)
e) Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the
Landscape Maintenance District.
f) The landscaping and irrigation system shall be installed in the
landscape maintenance district and accepted by the City Engineer
prior to application for occupancy of any house in the subdivision.
g) Prior to sale of each parcel, the Developer shall provide the City's
Real Property Section of the Public Works Division with a signed
copy of the "Notice of Assessment District" disclosure for each
property purchaser.
4. Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the
serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and
cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or
institutional uses).
b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer
facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the
area can serve it.
c) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be
constructed at the Developer's expense.
Proiect: A proposed specific plan for the development of approximately 404.2 acres of land.
Case No. Specific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 5 of1!
d) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the
City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main
extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings.
e) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements
provided as required.
f) A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility
cuts into existing streets.
g) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on
either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance with
Section 19.20.030 (non-subdivisions) or Section 19.30.110
(subdivisions) of the Development Code.
h) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City
Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the
Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code
Section 19.20.030 (non-subdivisions) or Section 19.30.110
(subdivisions).
5. Mappinq
a) A Final/Parcel Map based upon field survey will be required.
b) PM 18969 shall be approved by the City of San Bernardino and
recorded prior to the recordation of any other subdivision map in
the University Hills Specific Plan area.
c) All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer
prior to Map recordation. Little Mountain Road between the college
entrance and "F" Street shall be re-named.
d) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to,
building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks,
geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed with the City
Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592.
6. Improvement Completion
a) Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and landscape
maintenance district landscape and irrigation plans for the entire
project shall be completed, subject to the approval of the City
Engineer, prior to the Map recordation.
Proiect: A proposed specific plan for the development of approximate Iv 404.2 acres ofland.
Case No. Specific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 6 of 11
b) If the construction/installation of required improvements, including
landscaping and irrigation within the landscape maintenance
district, are not completed prior to Map recordation, an
improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by
the developer and the City will be required.
C) Street light energy fee to pay cost of street light energy for a period
of 4 years shall be paid. Exact amount shall be determined and
shall become payable prior to map recordation.
7. Street Improvement and Dedications
a) All public streets and public easements within and adjacent to the
development shall be improved to City standards. Improvements
shall include combination curb and gutter, paving, access ramps,
street lights, sidewalks, and appurtenances, including, but not
limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications, relocation of
public or private facilities which interfere with new construction,
striping, and landscaping and irrigation in the landscape
maintenance district. All improvements shall be accomplished in
accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Design Policies and
Procedures" and City "Standard Drawings," unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required, shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Street
Lighting Policies and Procedures." Street lighting shall be shown
on street improvement plans except where otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
b) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-
way (R.W.) to provide the total right of way distance and the total
curb to curb distance shall be as follows:
Street Name Right of Wav(ft.) Curb Line(ft)
Campus Parkway 80' 68'
Little Mountain Dr. 60' 40'
Remaining streets as shown on Tentative Parcel Map.
c) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200 adjacent to
the site. Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb
and gutter. Construct approach and departure transitions for traffic
safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer.
!.';
Proiect: A proposed specific plan for the development of aoproximatelv 404.2 acres ofland.
Case No. Specific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 7 of 11
d) Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City
Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb).
e) At all curb returns within and adjacent to the project site, construct
accessible curb ramps in accordance with Caltrans Standards to
comply with current ADA accessibility requirements. Dedicate
sufficient right-of-way at the corner to accommodate the ramp.
f) Curb return radii at the intersection of local or lessor designation
shall be 25 feet minimum.
g) Curb returns at the intersection of Campus Parkway & Northpark
Boulevard and Little Mountain Drive & Northpark Boulevard shall be
35 feet.
h) Construct all cul-de-sac's and knuckles in accordance with City
Standard Drawing No. 101.
i) Install Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City
Standard Nos. SL-1 and SL-2.
j) Two independent means of access to the project shall be provided.
Each shall have a minimum paved width of 24 feet and dedicated to
the City of San Bernardino. Additional width may be required for
drainage control and traffic safety.
8. Phasinq
a) Construction of Campus Parkway and Little Mountain Road shall be
completed in the first phase of the project, prior to occupancy of
any building.
b) If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase
shall be designed to provide maximum public safety, convenience
for public service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In order to
meet this requirement, the following will be required prior to the
finalization of any phase:
c) Improvement plans for the total project or sufficient plans beyond
the phase boundary to verify the feasibility of the design shall be
complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d) A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Division, Fire, and Planning Departments, indicating
what improvements will be constructed with the given phase,
subject to the following:
Proiect: A proposed specific plan for the development of approximate Iv 404.2 acres of land.
Case No. Soecific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 8 ofl1
i) Temporary dead-end streets shall be provided with a
minimum 32 foot radius paved turn around.
ii) Half width streets shall be provided with a minimum 28 foot
paved width and they shall be posted with "No Parking"
signs.
iii) Street improvements shall be completed beyond the phase
boundaries, as necessary to provide at least two standard
means of access.
iv) Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, channels, earth
berms and block walls, shall be constructed, as necessary,
to protect the development from off-site storm runoff and
mud flows.
v) A properly designed water system shall be constructed,
which is capable of providing required fire flow and this may
require looping or extending beyond the phase boundaries.
vi) Easements for any of the above and the installation of
necessary utilities shall be completed.
vii) Phase boundaries shall be consistent with lot lines shown on
the approved tentative map.
9. Required Enqineerina Plans
a) A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:
. street improvement plans (may include street lights or street
lighting may be separate plan),
. sewer plans (Private sewers may be shown on on-site
improvement plan; public sewers must be on a separate plan
with profile),
. storm drain plans (Private storm drains may be shown on on-
site improvement plans; public storm drains must be on a
separate plan with profile),
. traffic signal plans,
. striping plan (may be on sheets included in street improvement
plan),
. Mass grading
Proiect: A proposed specific plan for the development of approximate Iv 404.2 acres of land.
Case No. Soecific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 9 of 11
. Parcel Map
. Engineer's Cost estimate for each plan submitted
. landscaping and irrigation plans in the landscape maintenance
district, and
. other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of
plans for the same project will not be allowed.
. All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be
included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to
drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations)
b) All improvement plans submitted for plan check shall be prepared
on the City's standard 24" x 36" sheets. A signature block
satisfactory to the City Engineer or his designee shall be provided.
c) After completion of plan checking, final mylar drawings, stamped
and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
d) Electronic files of all improvement plans/drawings shall be
submitted to the City Engineer. The files shall be compatible with
AutoCAD 2000, and include a .DXF file of the project. Files shall
be on a CD and shall be submitted at the same time the final mylar
drawings are submitted for approval.
e) Copies of the City's design policies and procedures and standard
drawings are available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of
reproduction. They are also available at no charge at the Public
Works Web Site at http://www.sbcity.orq
10. Required Enqineerinq Permits
a) Grading permit.
b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping.
c) Off-site improvement construction permit.
d) Haul Permit, if exporting 1,000 cubic yards or more.
e) Encroachment permit for work within the public right of way.
Ii I'\\!
Proiect: A proposed specific plan for the development of approximately 404.2 acres of land.
Case No. Specific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 10 of 11
11. Applicable Enqineerinq Fees
a) All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on
the Public Works Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100%
of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required
at time of application for plan check. The amount of the fee is
subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more
than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan
checking.
b) The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter
and at http://www.sbcity.orq
12. Traffic Requirements
a) A traffic signal shall be installed at Northpark Boulevard and
Campus Parkway prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
b) A traffic signal shall be installed at East Campus Circle and the site
access roadway prior to issuance of the first building permit unless
a traffic analysis approved by the City Engineer is prepared to
identify the number of occupied units need to generate the volumes
of traffic that will meet the State's Traffic Signal Warrants at the
intersection. If the City Engineer concurs with the findings of such
an analysis, the traffic signal improvements may be deferred until
occupancy of the identified number of units and no additional
permits will be issued until the traffic signal is operational. If the
City Engineer determines that the traffic signal warrants are met at
this location at any time after any occupancy, no further
occupancies shall occur until the traffic signal is installed.
c) All Mitigation Measures identified in the Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) will
be required at the thresholds indicated in the report.
d) Opening Day Mitigation Measures that shall be implemented by the
project prior to any occupancy are listed below.
i) Northpark Blvd (NS)/Campus Parkway (EW) - Install traffic
signal, construct SB Left Turn Lane, construct two WB
Through Lanes.
ii) Project Access (EW)/East Campus Circle (Little Mountain
Dr.) (NS) - Construct 'T Intersection w/"STOP" Controls,
construct SB Left-Turn Lane, construct NB Right-Turn Lane,
construct WB Right-Turn Lane, construct WB Left-Turn
Lane.
:'\'
Proiect: A orooosed specific plan for the develooment of approximately 404.2 acres of land.
Case No. Soecific Plan 07-01 & PM 18969
Page 11 of 11
iii) Northpark Blvd (EW)/University Parkway (NS) - Construct
NB Left-Turn Lane, install EB Right-Turn Overlap Phasing
(Signal Modification), construct two WB Left-Turn Lanes,
construct WB Right-Turn Lane.
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department - Public Works Division
Standard Requirements
Description: A request to subdivide lots two, three, four and five of PM
18969 into 44 low density residential lots.
Applicant: Inland Communities Corp.
Location: University Hills
Case Number: TR 18140
1. Drainaqe and Flood Control
a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject
to requirements of the City Engineer. The developer's Engineer
shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood
control.
b) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage
improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate
downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed
and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way
dedicated as necessary.
c) Any detention basin(s) shall be designed in accordance with
"Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County."
Retention basins are not acceptable.
d) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved
public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities
and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
e) A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for
PM 18969. This project shall adhere to the overall site WQMP
requirements provided in the approved WQMP.
f) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required.
The applicant is directed to the City's web page at www.sbcitV.orq
- Departments - Development Services - Public Works for
templates to use in the preparation of this plan.
Proiect: A request to subdivide lots two, three. four and five of PM 18969 into 44 low density residential
lots.
Case No. TR 18140
Page 2 of9
g) The City Engineer, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve
the SWPPP.
h) A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board for construction disturbing 1 acre or more
of land (including the project area, construction yards, storage
areas, etc.).
i) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an
Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion
due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of
construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be
immediately built upon.
2. GradinQ and LandscapinQ
a) The site/plot/grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a
Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required.
The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the
City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard
Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
b) Pad elevations shown on the rough and/or precise grading plan
shall not vary more than one-foot for interior pads or one-half foot
for exterior pads from the pad elevations shown on the tentative
tract map as approved by the Planning Commission. Exterior pads
are those pads immediately adjacent to existing streets or existing
residential areas.
c) Perimeter walls and landscaping & irrigation in the landscape
maintenance district shall be installed and accepted prior to
acceptance of rough grading.
d) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, the
grading shall be supervised in accordance with the City's "Grading
Policies and Procedures".
e) The applicant must post a grading bond prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The amount of the bond is to be determined by the
City Engineer.
f) If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the
import material or the site for the deposition of the export shall be
noted on the grading plan. Permit numbers shall be noted if the
source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino.
Proiect: A request to subdivide lots two. three. four and five of PM 18969 into 44 low density residential
lots.
Case No. TR 18140
Page 3 of9
g) If more than 1,000 cubic yards of earth is to be hauled on City
Streets then a special hauling permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineer. Additional conditions, such as truck route approval,
traffic controls, bonding, covering of loads, street cleaning, etc. may
be required by the City Engineer.
h) A Precise Grading Plan is required for this project. Where feasible,
this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall
conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal
Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures").
i) One 4' x 11' PCC pad at least 4" thick shall be provided in the rear
or side yard area of each lot for storage of recycling containers.
The pad shall be screened from public view and a 3' wide concrete
walkway shall be provided from the driveway to the pad. All gates
along the access way shall have a minimum clear width of 3'-6".
j) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be
designed and detailed on the Precise Grading Plan. This work
shall be part of the on-site improvement permit issued by the City
Engineer. All masonry walls shall be constructed of decorative
block with architectural features acceptable to the City Planner.
k) This project is located in the high wind zone. All walls and fences
shall be designed to withstand 100 mph winds. All construction
details shall be included on the appropriate plan. Structural
calculations shall be provided for City review.
I) This project is located in the high fire zone; therefore, all fences
shall be of non-combustible material.
m) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5
copies to the Engineering Division for Checking.
n) The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb
(also known as "parkway") along adjoining streets shall be
landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the
property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping shall be
included in the project's on-site landscape plan, unless the parkway
area is included in a landscape maintenance district, in which case,
a separate landscape plan shall be provided.
3. Landscape Maintenance District
a) A Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) was formed for PM
18969. This project is within that district.
Proiect: A reauest to subdivide lots two. three. four and five of PM 18969 into 44 low density residential
lots.
Case No. TR 18140
Page 4 of9
b) Prior to sale of each parcel, the Developer shall provide the City's
Real Property Section of the Public Works Division with a signed
copy of the "Notice of Assessment District" disclosure for each
property purchaser.
4. Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the
serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and
cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or
institutional uses).
b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer
facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the
area can serve it.
c) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the
finished floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest
upstream manhole.
d) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be
constructed at the Developer's expense.
e) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the
City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main
extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings.
f) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements
provided as required.
g) A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility
cuts into existing streets.
h) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City
Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the
Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code
Section 19.20.030 (non-subdivisions) or Section 19.30.110
(subdivisions).
5. Mappinq
a) A Final Map based upon field survey will be required.
b) All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer
prior to Map recordation.
Proiect: A request to subdivide lots two. three. four and five of PM 18969 into 44 low densitv residential
lots.
Case No. TR 18140
Page 5 of9
C) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to,
building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks,
geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed with the City
Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592.
d) This Map is located in an Assessment District. If the assessment
has not been paid off, the subdivider shall submit an apportionment
application to the Real Property section of the Public Works
Division and pay the fee established by ordinance. Application
forms can be obtained from the Real Property Section at (909) 384-
5026.
e) All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from the
following streets:
i) "B" Street
ii) "0" Street
6. Improvement Completion
a) Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and landscape
maintenance district landscape and irrigation plans for the entire
project shall be completed, subject to the approval of the City
Engineer, prior to the Map recordation.
b) If the construction/installation of required improvements, including
landscaping and irrigation within the landscape maintenance
district, are not completed prior to Map recordation, an
improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by
the developer and the City will be required.
c) Street light energy fee to pay cost of street light energy for a period
of 4 years shall be paid. Exact amount shall be determined and
shall become payable prior to map recordation.
7. Street Improvement and Dedications
a) All public streets and public easements within and adjacent to the
development shall be improved to City standards. Improvements
shall include combination curb and gutter, paving, access ramps,
street lights, sidewalks, and appurtenances, including, but not
limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications, relocation of
public or private facilities which interfere with new construction,
striping, and landscaping and irrigation in the landscape
maintenance district. All improvements shall be accomplished in
accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Design Policies and
Procedures" and City "Standard Drawings," unless otherwise
Proiect: A request to subdivide lots two. three. four and five of PM 18969 into 44 low density residential
lots.
Case No. TR 18140
Page 6 0[9
approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required, shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Street
Lighting Policies and Procedures." Street lighting shall be shown
on street improvement plans except where otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
b) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-
way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to
property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation to the
street centerline shall be as follows:
Street Name Riqht of Way(ft.l Curb Line(ftl
"G" Street 25 18
"H" Street 25 18
c) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200 adjacent to
the site. Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb
and gutter. Construct approach and departure transitions for traffic
safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer.
d) Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City
Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb).
e) At all curb returns within and adjacent to the project site, construct
accessible curb ramps in accordance with Caltrans Standards to
comply with current ADA accessibility requirements. Dedicate
sufficient right-of-way at the corner to accommodate the ramp.
f) Construct Driveway Approaches per City Standard No. 203.
Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of the
approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter and
sidewalk.
g) All Curb return radii shall be 25 feet minimum.
h) Construct all cul-de-sac's and knuckles in accordance with City
Standard Drawing NO.1 01.
i) Install Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City
Standard Nos. SL-1 and SL-2.
8. Required Enqineerinq Plans
Proiect: A request to subdivide lots two, three. four and five of PM 18969 into 44 low density residential
lots.
Case No. TR 18140
Page 7 of9
a) A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:
. street improvement plans (may include street lights or street
lighting may be separate plan),
. sewer plans
. storm drain plans
. signing & striping plan (may be on sheets included in street
improvement plan),
. street lighting
. grading (may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan),
. on-site landscaping and irrigation,
. landscaping and irrigation in the landscape maintenance district,
and
. other plans as required, Piecemeal submittal of various types of
plans for the same project will not be allowed.
. tract map
. All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be
included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to
drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations)
b) The rough grading plan may be designed and submitted in
combination with the precise grading plan,
c) All improvement plans submitted for plan check shall be prepared
on the City's standard 24" x 36" sheets. A signature block
satisfactory to the City Engineer or his designee shall be provided.
d) After completion of plan checking, final mylar drawings, stamped
and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
e) Electronic files of all improvement plans/drawings shall be
submitted to the City Engineer. The files shall be compatible with
AutoCAD 2000, and include a DXF file of the project. Files shall
be on a CD and shall be submitted at the same time the final mylar
drawings are submitted for approval.
Proiect: A request to subdivide lots two, three, four and five of PM 18969 into 44 low densitv residential
lots.
Case No. TR 18140
Page 8 of9
f) Copies of the City's design policies and procedures and standard
drawings are available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of
reproduction. They are also available at no charge at the Public
Works Web Site at http://www.sbcity.orq
9. ReQuired EnQineerinQ Permits
a) Grading permit.
b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping.
c) Off-site improvement construction permit.
10. Applicable EnqineerinQ Fees
a) All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on
the Public Works Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100%
of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required
at time of application for plan check. The amount of the fee is
subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more
than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan
checking,
b) The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter
and at http://www.sbcitY.orq
11, Public Works Occupancy ReQuirements for Tract Development.
a) On-site landscaping (private areas) shall be installed and accepted
prior to release of gas utility and prior to final inspection,
b) The streets within any phase of the subdivision shall be base paved
(0.10 foot low) prior to delivery of construction materials to the site.
c) Prior to final inspection of the first home in the tract (or phase), the
final lift of pavement shall be installed.
d) Prior to final inspection and release of the last three homes in the
tract (or phase), the pavement on the streets adjacent to the tract
shall be rehabilitated. The method and extent of rehabilitation shall
be determined at time of final inspection by the City Engineer.
12. Traffic ReQuirements
a) Prior to occupancy of any homes, a traffic signal shall be installed
at the Northpark Boulevard/Campus Parkway intersection.
11
D
Proiect: A request to subdivide lots two. three. four and five of PM 18969 into 44 low densitv residential
lots.
Case No. TR 18140
Page 9 of9
b) Prior to occupancy of any home, a traffic signal shall be installed at
East Campus Circle/site access roadway unless an analysis
approved by the City Engineer identifies the number of units that
can be occupied before traffic signal warrants will be met at the
intersection. If the City Engineer determines that traffic signal
warrants are met at this location at any time after any home is
occupied, no further occupancies shall occur until the traffic signal
is installed.
c) All Mitigation Measures identified in the Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) will
be required at the thresholds indicated in the report.
d) Opening Day Mitigation Measures that shall be implemented by the
project prior to any occupancy are listed below.
i) Northpark Blvd (NS)/Campus Parkway (EW) - Install traffic
signal, construct SB Left Turn Lane, construct two WB
Through Lanes.
ii) Project Access (EW)/East Campus Circle (Little Mountain
Dr.) (NS) - Construct ''T'' Intersection w/"STOP" Controls,
construct SB Left-Turn Lane, construct NB Right-Turn Lane,
construct WB Right-Turn Lane, construct WB Left-Turn
Lane.
iii) Northpark Blvd (EW)/University Parkway (NS) - Construct
NB Left-Turn Lane, install EB Right-Turn Overlap Phasing
(Signal Modification), construct two WB Left-Turn Lanes,
construct WB Right-Turn Lane.
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department - Public Works Division
Standard Requirements
Description: A request to subdivide lots sixteen and seventeen of PM 18969
into 26 low density residential lots.
Applicant: Inland Communities Corp.
Location: University Hills
Case Number: TR 18696
1. Drainaqe and Flood Control
a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject
to requirements of the City Engineer. The developer's Engineer
shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood
control.
b) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage
improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate
downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed
and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way
dedicated as necessary.
c) Any detention basin(s) shall be designed in accordance with
"Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County."
Retention basins are not acceptable.
d) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved
public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities
and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
e) A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for
PM 18969. This project shall adhere to the overall site WQMP
requirements provided in the approved WQMP.
f) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required.
The applicant is directed to the City's web page at www.sbcitv.orq
- Departments - Development Services - Public Works for
templates to use in the preparation of this plan.
Project: A request to subdivide lots sixteen and seventeen of PM 18969 into 2610w density residentiallots..
Case No. TR 18696
Page 2 of?
g) The City Engineer, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve
the SWPPP.
h) A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board for construction disturbing 1 acre or more
of land (including the project area, construction yards, storage
areas, etc.).
i) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an
Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion
due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of
construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be
immediately built upon.
2. GradinQ and LandscapinQ
a) The site/plot/grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a
Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required.
The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the
City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard
Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
b) Pad elevations shown on the rough and/or precise grading plan
shall not vary more than one-foot for interior pads or one-half foot
for exterior pads from the pad elevations shown on the tentative
tract map as approved by the Planning Commission. Exterior pads
are those pads immediately adjacent to existing streets or existing
residential areas.
c) Perimeter walls and landscaping & irrigation in the landscape
maintenance district shall be installed and accepted prior to
acceptance of rough grading.
d) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, the
grading shall be supervised in accordance with the City's "Grading
Policies and Procedures".
e) The applicant must post a grading bond prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The amount of the bond is to be determined by the
City Engineer.
f) If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the
import material or the site for the deposition of the export shall be
noted on the grading plan. Permit numbers shall be noted if the
source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino.
: i
Project: A request to subdivide lots sixteen and seventeen of PM 18969 into 26 low density residential lots..
Case No. TR 18696
Page 3 of7
g) If more than 1,000 cubic yards of earth is to be hauled on City
Streets then a special hauling permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineer. Additional conditions, such as truck route approval,
traffic controls, bonding, covering of loads, street cleaning, etc. may
be required by the City Engineer.
h) A Precise Grading Plan is required for this project. Where feasible,
this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall
conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal
Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures").
i) One 4' x 11' PCC pad at least 4" thick shall be provided in the rear
or side yard area of each lot for storage of recycling containers.
The pad shall be screened from public view and a 3' wide concrete
walkway shall be provided from the driveway to the pad. All gates
along the access way shall have a minimum clear width of 3'_6".
j) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be
designed and detailed on the Precise Grading Plan. This work
shall be part of the on-site improvement permit issued by the City
Engineer. All masonry walls shall be constructed of decorative
block with architectural features acceptable to the City Planner.
k) This project is located in the high wind zone. All walls and fences
shall be designed to withstand 100 mph winds. All construction
details shall be included on the appropriate plan. Structural
calculations shall be provided for City review.
I) This project is located in the high fire zone; therefore, all fences
shall be of non-combustible material.
m) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5
copies to the Engineering Division for Checking.
n) The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb
(also known as "parkway") along adjoining streets shall be
landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the
property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping shall be
included in the project's on-site landscape plan, unless the parkway
area is included in a landscape maintenance district, in which case,
a separate landscape plan shall be provided.
3. Landscape Maintenance District
a) A Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) was formed for PM
18969. This project is within that district.
Project: A request to subdivide lots sixteen and seventeen of PM 18969 into 26 low density residential lots..
Case No. TR 18696
Page 4 of7
b) Prior to sale of each parcel, the Developer shall provide the City's
Real Property Section of the Public Works Division with a signed
copy of the "Notice of Assessment District" disclosure for each
property purchaser.
4. Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the
serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and
cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or
institutional uses).
b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer
facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the
area can serve it.
c) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the
finished floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest
upstream manhole.
d) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements
provided as required.
e) A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility
cuts into existing streets.
f) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City
Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the
Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code
Section 19.20.030 (non-subdivisions) or Section 19.30.110
(subdivisions).
5. MappinQ
a) A Final Map based upon field survey will be required.
b) All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer
prior to Map recordation.
c) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to,
building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks,
geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed with the City
Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592.
d) This Map is located in an Assessment District. If the assessment
has not been paid off, the subdivider shall submit an apportionment
Project: A request to subdivide lots sixteeu and seventeen of PM 18969 into 2610w density residential lots..
Case No. TR 18696
Page 5 on
application to the Real Property section of the Public Works
Division and pay the fee established by ordinance. Application
forms can be obtained from the Real Property Section at (909) 384-
5026.
e) All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from the
following streets:
i) "E" Street
ii) "A" Street
6. Required EnQineerinQ Plans
a) A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:
. street improvement plans (may include street lights or street
lighting may be separate plan),
. sewer plans
. storm drain plans
. signing & striping plan (may be on sheets included in street
improvement plan),
. street lighting
. grading (may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan),
. on-site landscaping and irrigation,
. landscaping and irrigation in the landscape maintenance district,
and
. other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of
plans for the same project will not be allowed.
. tract map
. All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be
included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to
drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations)
b) The rough grading plan may be designed and submitted in
combination with the precise grading plan.
Project: A request to subdivide lots sixteen and seventeen of PM 18969 into 26 low density residential lots..
Case No. TR 18696
Page 6 00
c) All improvement plans submitted for plan check shall be prepared
on the City's standard 24" x 36" sheets. A signature block
satisfactory to the City Engineer or his designee shall be provided.
d) After completion of plan checking, final mylar drawings, stamped
and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
e) Electronic files of all improvement plans/drawings shall be
submitted to the City Engineer. The files shall be compatible with
AutoCAD 2000, and include a .DXF file of the project. Files shall
be on a CD and shall be submitted at the same time the final mylar
drawings are submitted for approval.
f) Copies of the City's design policies and procedures and standard
drawings are available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of
reproduction. They are also available at no charge at the Public
Works Web Site at http://www.sbcitV.orq
7. Required EnQineerinQ Permits
a) Grading permit.
b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping.
c) Off-site improvement construction permit.
8. Applicable EnQineerinQ Fees
a) All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on
the Public Works Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100%
of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required
at time of application for plan check. The amount of the fee is
subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more
than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan
checking.
b) The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter
and at http://www.sbcitV.orq
9. Public Works Occupancy Requirements for Tract Development.
a) On-site landscaping (private areas) shall be installed and accepted
prior to release of gas utility and prior to final inspection.
b) The streets within any phase of the subdivision shall be base paved
(0.10 foot low) prior to delivery of construction materials to the site.
Project: A request to subdivide lots sixteen and seventeen of PM 18969 into 26 low density residential lots..
Case No. TR 18696
Page 7 on
c) Prior to final inspection of the first home in the tract (or phase), the
final lift of pavement shall be installed.
d) Prior to final inspection and release of the last three homes in the
tract (or phase), the pavement on the streets adjacent to the tract
shall be rehabilitated. The method and extent of rehabilitation shall
be determined at time of final inspection by the City Engineer.
10. Traffic Requirements
a) Prior to occupancy of any homes, a traffic signal shall be installed
at the Northpark Boulevard/Campus Parkway intersection.
b) Prior to occupancy of any home, a traffic signal shall be installed at
East Campus Circle/site access roadway unless an analysis
approved by the City Engineer identifies the number of units that
can be occupied before traffic signal warrants will be met at the
intersection. If the City Engineer determines that traffic signal
warrants are met at this location at any time after any home is
occupied, no further occupancies shall occur until the traffic signal
is installed.
c) All Mitigation Measures identified in the Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) will
be required at the thresholds indicated in the report.
d) Opening Day Mitigation Measures that shall be implemented by the
project prior to any occupancy are listed below.
i) Northpark Blvd (NS)/Campus Parkway (EW) - Install traffic
signal, construct SB Left Turn Lane, construct two WB
Through Lanes.
ii) Project Access (EW)/East Campus Circle (Little Mountain
Dr.) (NS) - Construct 'T' Intersection w/"STOP" Controls,
construct SB Left-Turn Lane, construct NB Right-Turn Lane,
construct WB Right-Turn Lane, construct WB Left-Turn
Lane.
iii) Northpark Blvd (EW)/University Parkway (NS) - Construct
NB Left-Turn Lane, install EB Right-Turn Overlap Phasing
(Signal Modification), construct two WB Left-Turn Lanes,
construct WB Right-Turn Lane.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Case:\Sp Of- 01
Date: /a! 1'<01 c)!!3
Reviewed By: ~ I
( JIVIIK tl.<: I~JJU~_..c~c==c___
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
o Provide one additional set of construction plans 10 Building and Safely for Fire Department use at timo of plan check.
o Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (909) 384-5585 for specific detailed requirements.
o The developer shall provide for adequate lire flow. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage, construction features, and exposure
infonnation supplied by the developer and must be available Q!:!m: to placing combustible materials on site.
WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION:
o The tire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by:
o San Bernardino Municipal Water Department-Engineering (909) 384-5391
o East Valley Water District-Englneering (8(9) 888-8966
o Other Water purveyor:
Phone:
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES:
o Public fire hydrants are required along streets at inlervals not 10 exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not to exceed
500 feet for residential areas.
o Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas. Minimum fire
hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for residential areas.
o Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction 'Nith the water pUlveyor. Fire
hydrant materials and installation shall conform to Ihe standards and specifications of the water purveyor.
o Public fire hydrants, tire services. and public water facilities necessary to moot Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and
shall be installed by the waler purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional
information.
ACCESS:
o Provide two separate. dedicated roules of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The ralites shall be paved, all \Wather.
o Provide an access road to each buildIng for fire apparatus. Access roadway shalt have an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unob-
structed INidth.
o Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions Df the exterior wall of all single story buildings.
o Extend roadway to \-\Iithin 50 feet of the e>.18rior wall of all multiple-story buildings.
o Provide ~NO PARKJNG~ signs whenever parking of vehicles would pOSSible reducll tho clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs
are to read ~F1RE LANE-NO PARKING-M.C. Sec. 15.16".
o Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 leet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround.
o The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SITE:
o All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction.
o Priva!e fire hydrants shalt be installed to protect each ~uilding loc~ted more t~an t ~iO feel from the curb tine. N~ fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any
extenar wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, With one 2% lOch and 4 lOch outlet, and approvf;ld by the FIre Department. Areas adjacent to fire
hydrants shall be designated as a "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch 'Nide, rod stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a
manner that it will not be blocked by parked '.'ehides. Lettering to be In white 6" by !/~".
BUilDINGS:
o Address numerals shall be installed on Ihe t:uilding al the front or other approved location in $\ich a manner as 10 be visible from the frontage street. Com-
mercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 !r,ches tall, single tamlly addres.": nUn1(Jals shall be 4 inches lall. The color of the numerals shall con.
trast with the color of the backgruund.
o Identity each gas and electric meter with the number oflhe unit i\ SeN'9S.
o Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to Ih~ bui!ding being cccupi(~d. fhe mini@Jm rali:;,] hr ar;y fir~ extinguisher is 2A 108lC. Minimum distribution of
lire extinguishers must be such that no intO/ior p,"Olrt of the building is over 75leel travt;l; di:;tdr.ce flOm a fire extinguisher.
o Apartment houses with 16 or more uf1its. rolf,'ls (rnulels) "'lith 20 or more units, or apartments or hatJls (motels) three stories or more in height shall be
equipped with automatic fire sprinklels dASlrY1ed t,) NFPA slandaflis.
o All buildings. over 5,000 square feet. stJdH b~ gqu:pped '....'th an autnmcvic fire ;;;pnnker,:ysl.:l.:r J6siUn';ld ~o NFPA standards. This includes existing buildings
vacant over 365 days.
D Submit plans for the fire protect~cn system h the Fire [Jep"lrtm'lnt prier 10 beginning r:olls!ruclion of ~he system. Permit required.
o Tenant improvements in all sprinkleri::l,j bU;i"ings cHe to CB approved by t~e Fire Department prior 10 start of construction. Permit required.
D Provide tire alarm (required thrCJu(;hou!i. ?!<:r~5 rnusl be approved by Ihe Fire Depart;nent prior 10 Mart 01 instailation. Permit required.
o Fire Department connection to spdnkicr sYLle;n/standpipo system. sl"lnll be required at Fire Department approved location.
B Fire Code Pennit required, apply at ~~OIJ ea:it ~~nj slmAl, n09) 384-t)338.
Fire Sprinkler monitoring required. Fl13ns :rtusl bd dppi"oved by the Fire Department prior to the start oj construction. Permit required.
D Occupant Load.
Note: The applicant must request, in w.it:ng, any i.:har:!Jes to Fire Dupartment requirements. J /
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 7JlEL p.)e.<.. /Y'LQ111EI CBILClJll__/2Lf1 N;;f'!iSVl55.---tlAY1f fJJR:;;~
- -n;1'.;7]Afll/~12E:50U/5.lL ~l<...-z.t!~.;:::'LM.Jl1I}'}2G./.fB(,..-rnnvr;, J;AJ.j2J"ra::
()rJ (')-;r.. /d..! ,'loo3. 71/6&6 ABEA11MO}Z.j~ro;;:LI-ftRL!:d:lfi.!...fib .
_ ~L!l~~--&E;'.. m6mo7iiiii-uiJlt-:LJ~~f[liE.Gi/~~zQ.~~~___
---5~LELL...E.L+iI'./ IE/I?, ..
FP8170(03-ll:.1)
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DRC/ERC Case: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 07-01 University Hills Specific Plan (UHSP)
APN NUMBER:
EPN NUMBER:
REVIEW OF PLANS:
OWNER:
DEVELOPER:
TYPE OF PROJECT:
265-041-12,265-051-09,12,13,265-061-16
2007-007
DATE COMPilED: 4/9/2008
COMPILED BY: Brunson, Ted
NUMBER OF UNITS:
LOCATION:
Fontana Corners III
Inland Communities Corporation
A new specific plan proposal for the Paradise Hills Specific Plan, approved in 1993. The UHSP is a proposal for 980
dwelling units, 7 ae. Of parks and ree., and 245 ae. Open space. 404.2 ae. Total, N/E of Cal State S8.
980
Generally northeast of California State University, San Bernardino
WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING:
CONTACT: Litchfield, Matthew
PHONE NUMBER: (909) 384-5107
FAX NUMBER: (909) 384-5532
Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules Regulations afthe Water Department
;;j Size of Main Adjacent the Project NONE - FUTURE 1880 PRESSURE ZONE
Approximate Water Pressure Elevation of Water Storage: Q. Hydrant Flow @ 20psi:
Type, Size, Location and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant
Water Supply Study Required Pressure Regulator Required on Customer Side of the Meter
Offsite Water Facilities Required Water Main Reimbursement Due
Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Network Hydraulic Analysis Required per Uniform Design Standards
Comments: . WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY THE SBMWD, MAY 2007
. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS SUBMITTED BY PBS & J APRIL 24, 2007.
. DEVELOPER INSTALLED AGREEMENT REQUIRED
. SBMWD WILL CONTRIBUTE BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIRED 1720 ZONE RESERVOIR ONLY.
. DEVELOPER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE SITE FOR THE 1720 ZONE RESERVOIR LOCATION.
THIS WILL INCLUDE GRADING, PIPING, AND ALL RELATIVE SITE PREPARATION FOR THE RESERVOIR
CONSTRUCTION.
. DEVELOPER WilL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OTHER WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FROM THE 1580 ZONE TO THE
HIGHEST RESERVOIR TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL
CONTACT: Arrieta, Con PHONE NUMBER: (909) 384-5325
." R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection for Domestic Service
." Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection for Fire and Irrigation
." Backflow Device to be Inspected before Water Service can be Activated
No Backflow Device is required at this time
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION
CONTACT: Thomsen, Neil PHONE NUMBER: (909) 384-5093 FAX NUMBER: (909) 384-5592
Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit
Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at this time
Sewer Capacity Fee must be paid to the Water Department for Q Gallons Per Day: Equivalent Dwelling Units: Q
." Subject to Recalculation of Fee prior to the Issuance of Building Permit
Breakdown Of Estimated Gallons Per Day
FAX NUMBER: (909) 384-5928
COPY TO: Customer; Planning; Engineering
Thursday, April 10, 2008
EPM
Page 1 of 1
,
,)
()
City of San Bernardino Public Services Department
Standard Development Requirements
300 North D Street - 4th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RESIDENTIAL TRACTS & lOTS
Collection Services
1. Residential refuse and recycling services are to be provided by the City of San Bernardino Refuse & Recycling
Division a minimum of once weekly.
2. The City shali provide upon request one set of a blue, green, and black 96 or 64-gallon automated service cart
to each single family unit, OR one set to every 2 units in multi-unit dwellings up to 8 units.
3. Commercial requirements shall apply to all multi-unit dwellings over 8 units, unless otherwise approved.
4. Nonresidential establishments such as small offices, shops, meeting halls, or churches, which generate 2 cubic
yards or less of non-bulky waste per week and are located on the same side of a residential block receiving
automated cart service shall meet residential rather than commercial requirements.
Automated Cart Storage & Access
S. Residential units shall construct a minimum 4 feet by 11 feet concrete pad located out of view of public right- I
of-way for storage of each set of up to 4 automated carts. If visible from the public right-of-way, the storage
area shall be screened by landscaping, or masonry or solid wood fencing. SHOW ON GRADING AND SITE PLANS.
6. The path of travel from the storage pad to street shall be continuously paved without step or curb with 4-foot
minimum gate openings in walls and fencing. The path of travel may include a paved driveway or patio area.
SHOW ON GRADING AND SITE PLANS.
Service Vehicle Access
I 7. Projects shall meet City Engineering vehicle access requirements on all streets within a residential tract. These
requirements shall not limit requirements for Fire vehicle access.
Curbside Service Area
8. A minimum 14-foot linear space on the street along the curb adjacent to the driveway of each residence must
be clear for automated service carts, with a minimum 2-foot setback and 13-foot vertical clearance of all
obstructions such as structures, fences, and raised landscaping.
Gated Access
9. Gated properties that are locked and unmanned on service days anytime between the hours of 5 AM and 5 PM
Monday through Saturday shall provide access code or key to Public Services.
MDjPS 6.27.2003
ATTACHMENT G
Environmental Findings of Fact for the
Environmental Impact Report
University Hills Specific Plan
(State Clearinghouse # 2007071155)
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N. D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
909.384.5080
Contact: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909.884.2255
Contact: Kent Norton, AICP, REA,
Director of Environmental Services
""
.....
Draft October 9, 2008
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Introduction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................2
1.1 - Project Description ...........................................................................................2
1.2 - Backqround and Project History .......................................................................3
1.3 - Statutory and Requlatory Requirements ...........................................................4
1.4 - Summary of Environmental Findinqs .................................................................5
Section 2: Findinq Reqardinq Impacts that are Less Than Siqnificant and. Therefore,
do not Require Mitiqation ............................................................................7
21 - Aesthetics, Liqht. and Glare.............................................................................. 7
2.2 - Aqricultural and Mineral Resources ............................ ............................... ......7
2.3 - Hazards and Hazardous Material.....................
2.4 - Land Use and Planninq .................................
2.5 - Recreation............. ...... ......................... .......... ...................................................8
2.6 - Cumulative Impacts........................... ................. ...............................................8
2 7 - Summary......................... ...... ... ....................................................................... 16
Section 3: Findinq Reqardinq Potentially Siqnificant Effects that have been Mitiqated
to Below a Level of Siqnificance with the Adoption of Mitiqation
Measures .................................................................................................... 17
3.1 - Bioloqical Resources ....................................................................................... 17
3.2 - Cultural Resources..........................................................................................18
33 - Geoloqy and Soils ...........................................................................................20
3.4 - Hydroloqv and Water Quality ...........................................................................22
3.5 - Noise.... .......... ......... ......................... .......... ....... ..............................................25
3.6 - Public Services.................. ...... ... ... .......... ....... .................................................27
3.7 - Utilities................ ............................... .......... ....................................................27
38 - Cumulative Impacts......... ................................................................................ 28
Section 4: Findinq Reqardinq Impacts not Mitiqated to Below a Level of Siqnificance30
4.1 - Air Quality... ...................... ...... ... ... ........................ ........................................... 30
4.2 - Population and Housinq and SCAG Consistency............................................ 32
4.3 - Transportation...................... ...................... ..................................................... 33
4.4 - Cumulative ..................... ... ...... ................ ....... .................................................36
Section 5: Findinq Reqardinq Growth Inducinq, Unavoidable Adverse, and Irreversible
Impacts................................................................. .... ..................................39
5.1 - Growth Inducinq Impacts.................................................................................39
5.2 - Irreversible Impacts. ........................................................................................ 40
Section 6: Findinq Reqardinq Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect.............................42
61 - No PrOject/No Development Alternative...........................................................43
6.2.. No Project - General Plan Development Alternative........................................43
6.3.. Modified Specific Plan Alternative....................................................................44
6.4 _ Educationallnstitution/Technoloqy Park Alternative ........................................45
6.5 .. Alternative Sites.................... ... ... ..' ... ....... ....... ........... .....................................46
Section 7: Statement of Overridinq Considerations ....................................................... 50
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Introduction
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This document contains the findings required under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Public Resources Code, S 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, S 15000 et seq.), specifically CEQA Guidelines S 15091, supporting the
certification of the University Hills Specific Plan (UHSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
approval of the project by the City of San Bernardino (City).
1.1 - Project Description
The University Hills Specific Plan consists of 404.3 total acres, with 169.5 acres or 42 percent of the
site proposed for residential and related uses, including 10.2 acres of parks and recreational uses. The
project proposes a total of980 units with a gross density of2.4 dwelling units per acre (980 units
divided by 404.3 total acres) and a net density of 5.8 units per acre, excluding natural open space (980
units divided by 169.5 acres). A tabular summary of the project components is provided in Table 3-3.
A conceptual land plan for the Proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 3-5 and photographs of the site
are shown in Exhibit 3-6. Residential densities range from 0.0 to 20 dwelling units per acre.
The lowest densities (0-3.1 units per acre) arc located north of the San Andreas Fault and include
single-family detached estate homes. Immediately south of the San Andreas Fault in the West
Village area are standard detached lots (3.2-9 units per acre). Mixed Detached and Attached units
(9.1-15 units per acre and 17 units per acre, respectively) are located in the interior and perimeter of
the site. The highest densities (15.1-20 units per acre) are generally located in the interior portions of
the West Village area around the clubhouse and in the East Village area behind Badger Hill. Four (4)
acres ofthe highest density area (Planning Area 16) will be dedicated to CSUSB for exclusive use as
faculty housing (approx. 60 units).
It is estimated the UHSP project will eventually support a population of 3,283 persons based upon the
maximum buildout of980 units times an average of3.35 persons per unit. This household size is
based on 2000 US census data and the latest City demographic factors.
The UHSP contains 10.3 acres of parks including a .2.2-acre private clubhouse in the West Village
area which can accommodate a pool and tennis courts and other active amenities, two 0.5-acre
recreational faCIlities in the East Village area, a 5-acre "California Walnut Grove Linear Park" along
Badger Creek, and the 2.l-acre Glider Park (Planning Area 1) in the northwest comer of the sIle
which will provide a safe approach zone for the hang gliders landing at the adjacent Andy Jackson
Airpark. The project has an internal pedestrian/walking trails system that connects to a multi-purpose
trail consistent with the planned regional trail for this area. The Project will preserve 234.8 acres (or
58 percent ofthe site) as natural open space that is proposed to be used by the nearby CSUSB as a
"land laboratory" called the "Akkad Preserve." The land laboratory will have minimal improvements
but may include limited trails, signage, fencing, and various teaching stations. A detailed summary of
the proposed land use plan for the UHSP is provided in Table 3-4, Planning Area Land Uses.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Introduction
1.2 - Background and Project History
1.2.1 - Background
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S 15051, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency for the
University Hills Specific Plan, with primary land use authority over the Proposed Project. The City
determined that the project may have significant impacts on the environment; therefore, a Draft
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. The City issued a Notice of
Preparation ofa Subsequent Environmental Impact Report between August 28, 2007 through
September 27,2007, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies,
organizations and individuals pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S 15082. In response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP), the City received written comments which assisted the City in identifying the
issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft ElR. The City also held a scoping meeting at City of
San Bernardino City Hall on September 18, 2007 to inform the public and interested agencies about
the project and to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in
the Draft EIR.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No.
2007091039) to analyze the project's potential adverse environmental impacts. Upon completion or
the Draft ElR dated May 16, 2008, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period from May 16,
to June 30, 2008, by filing a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse for the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research and publishing a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the
Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City's jurisdiction (CEQA Guidelines S
15087).
Copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to state agencies through the State Clearinghouse. The NOA
was sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals and indicated where copies of the Draft
EIR could be obtained, or available for review. The City made copies of the Draft EIR available for
local review at the City of San Bernardino Public Library 510 E. Florida Avenue, San Bernardino,
CA 92543; San Bernardino Unified School District 2350 W. Latham Avc. San Bernardino, CA
92545; City of San Bernardino Planning Dept 445 Florida A venue San Bernardino, CA 92543.
During the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City consulted with and requested comments
from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and other interested parties
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S 15086.
During the public review period, the City received 303 written comments on the Draft ElR. The City
provided written response to comments received from the commenting agencieslindividuals pursuant
to Public Resources Code S 21 092.5. The response to comments includes the comments received on
the Draft EIR, a list of those commenting, and the City's response to the significant environmental
points raised in the review and consultation process. The Final EIR for the project consists of the
Draft EIR (incorporated by reference), the response to comments, mitigation monitoring report
program (MMRP), and changes to the Draft EIR which clarify, supplement, or update the informatIOn
provided in the Draft EIR. None of the changes or supplemental information in the Final EIR
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR Introduction
constitute significant new information as defined by CEQA Guidelines 915508.5. Therefore, CEQA
does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
In summary, the Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, Response to Comments (RTC), corrections and
additions to the Draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP).
1.2.2 - Project History
The project, which was formerly known as The Paradise Hills Specific Plan, was submitted to the
City of San Bernardino in 1991 and approved in 1993. The City of San Bernardino General Plan and
Development Code govern land use and zoning on the project site. Both of these plans identify the
project site as governed by the Paradise Hills Specific Plan. Currently, the proposed University Hills
Specific Plan is not consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use. However, the
project proposes to do a General Plan amendment, making the proposed project site consistent with
the General Plan Land Use. If approved, the University Hills Specific Plan (UHSP) would replace the
Paradise Hills Specific Plan relative to land use on the Proposed Project site. The approved Paradise
Hills Specific Plan proposed 504 residential units on approximately 229 acres (56.7 percent) with 175
acres (43.3 percent) to remain as natural open space. The residential units were divided into areas in
the "foothill" development zone (383 units on 110.6 acres or 3.5 units per acre average density) and
areas in the "hillside" development zone (121 units on 117.9 acres or I unit per acre average denSIty).
The PHSP has a gross density of 1.25 units per acre (504 units on 404 acres) and a net density of2.2
units per acre (504 units on 229 acres - total size minus open space). Due to economic conditions,
the project was never built.
1.3 - Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
These findings are based upon the information in the record of proceedings, including, but not limited
to, the Final EIR, staffreports, project applicant's materials, MMRP, and the testimony presented at
public hearings.
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines precludes the City from approving or carrying out a project
for which a Draft EIR has been certified that identifies any significant environmental effects unless
the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects
accompanied by a brief explanation ofthe rationale for each finding:
I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in the Draft
EIR; or
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency
other than the City, and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and
should be adopted by such other agency; or
3. Specific economic, social, legal, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Introduction
Sections 15092 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines require that if the project will cause significant
lmavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to
approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any sil,'11ificant adverse
project efTects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts.
1.4 - Summary of Environmental Findings
As set forth in more detail below, the City of San Bernardino Planning Department has endeavored in
good faith to set forth the basis for its decision to approve the Proposed Project. All ofthe findings
made by the City of San Bernardino are based upon its consideration of the Final EIR and the
substantial evidence within the record as a whole. Each of these environmental issues is described m
Section 2 (Introduction) and in Section I (Executive Summary) of the Draft EIR.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City of San Bernardino finds are less
than significant and do not require mitigation are as follows:
. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare;
. Agricultural and Mineral Resources;
. Mineral Resources; and
. Recreation.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City of San
Bernardino finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation
measures and/or conditions set forth herein are as follows:
. Biological Resources;
. Cultural Resources;
. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity;
. Global Climate Change;
. Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
. Hydrology and Water Quality;
. Land Use and Planning;
. Noise;
. Public Services;
. Utilities.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City of San
Bernardino finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all
feasible mitigation measures are as follows:
. Air Quality;
. Population and housing and SCAG
Consistency; and
. Transportation and Circulation.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as cumulative, unavoidable adverse, and
irreversible are described in Section 5 of this document.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Introduction
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as growth-inducing, unavoidable adverse, and
irreversible are described in Section 6 of this document.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts
are described in Section 7 of this document.
Public Resources Code ~ 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure
compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. Prior to taking action to approve the project, the
City of San Bernardino Planning Department was presented with, heard, reviewed, and considered all
of the information and data in the admimstrative record, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR
and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final ElR
reflects the independent judgment of the City of San Bernardino Planning Department and is deemed
adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the project and its related actions. No
comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City of San Bernardino Planning Department
or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information
requiring recirculation or additional environmental review of the Draft EIR under CEQA because no
new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any
environmental impacts would occur and no feasible mitigation measures, as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5, were rejected.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
SECTION 2: FINDING REGARDING IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE MITIGATION
The City of San Bernardino Planning Department finds that the following environmental impacts
identified in the Draft EIR are less than significant, and as a result, mitigation is not required under
CEQA.
2.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
From the visual simulations, it appears most views of the site would be obstructed by Badger Hill,
especially from existing residences to the southeast, and by the Kendall Hills, which will block views
from the southwest including the 1-215 Freeway. Limited views of the site, especially the upper
portions adjacent to the San Andreas Fault and Badger Canyon, will occur with distance from the site,
including from residences across Northpark Boulevard to the southwest and from the Cal State
University San Bernardino campus. The Specific Plan landscaping guidelines indicate that
manufactured slopes will be replanted, but some of these slopes may be visible from locations south
and southwest of the site. The upper slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains and Badger Canyon
will remain as permanent open space and views of these areas will not change from present
conditions.
Several policies in the City of San Bernardino General Plan recognize that the project site (as the
PHSP site) will be developed with residential uses. The proposed UHSP land plan increases
development intensity on the alluvial fan areas but clusters or concentrates residences south of the
San Andreas Fault and out of Badger Canyon. On balance, the proposed UHSP land plan appears to
be equivalent or superior to the previously approved PHSP in terms of visual impacts.
The project site is not visible from 1-215 or SR-18, and neither of these are designated scenic routes in
the vicinity of the project site. Development of the Proposed Project would not affect views ofthe
hills from 1-215 because of the intervening Kendall Hills. For these reasons, the Proposed Project
will have a less than significant impact on Aesthetics Light and Glare.
2.2 - Agricultural and Mineral Resources
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prob'Tam (FMMP) maps prepared by the
California Resources Agency, there is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance on the project site or adjacent areas. In addition, the site does not contam
enough prime agricultural soils or other physical characteristics that would yield a significant LESA
Model score. Furthermore, according to the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the project area is
not designated for agricultural use, and there are no active Williamson Act contracts in place for any
portion of the project area or adjacent areas.
According to the California Department of Conservation's Mineral Land Classification report for the
area, the project site occurs within an area that has been classified as MRZ-3. These are areas where
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EJR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
the significance of mineral deposits cannot be evaluated from available data. However, it should be
noted that no mineral production currently occurs on or adjacent to the project area. Soil composition,
depth-to-bedrock, and other factors make the site unattractive for sand and gravel operations. These
types of operations are better suited to valley bottoms and arroyo channels, not the mountain foothills
where the project is located. Other valuable mineral resource constituents are not known to occur in
the project area. For these reasons, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on
Ab'ficulture and Mineral Resources.
2.3 - Recreation
The Proposed Project would increase the City's population and have a corresponding increase in park
usage. However, the Proposed Project would provide 10.3 acres of onsite park facilities and the
equivalent of 6.1 acres of in-lieu fee payments to acquire and develop additional parkland to offset its
contribution to increase park usage.
The City's General Plan shows the Foothills Regional Trail goes through the Proposed Project site.
The University Hills Specific Plan proposes a regional trail along the extension of Campus Parkway
through the site in a northwest-southeast direction to provide connections to the future planned
extension ofthe Foothills Trail to the east and west of the project site.
In addition, the project would provide non-vehicular paths, sidewalks, etc. for project residents to
travel within the project and to the CSUSB campus without using personal vehicles. For these
reasons, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on Recreation.
2.4 - Cumulative Impacts
2.4.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to aesthetics resources includes views of the
southwestern portion ofthe San Bernardino Mountains to the north. Views of the site from
surrounding areas are somewhat limited by the Kendall Hills to the southwest and Badger Hill
immediately south of the site. The slopes with elevations above 2,000 feet are readily visible trom
downtown San Bernardino and other locations in this portion of the San Bernardino Valley where
views are not blocked to the north. Views ofthe site from the 1-215 Freeway are effectively blocked
by the low Kendall Hills (along the north side of Kendall Drive west of University Parkway).
Devclopment of the project as proposed will not require grading above 1,900 feet elevation other than
the one reservoir pad, which means no manufactured slopes will be visible at a distance away trom
this project. Similarly, planned structures are residential in nature and generally one to three stories
in height. Since views of the site are restricted on an area-wide basis, so too would be glare trom
reflections off windows or direct views of night lighting such as streetlights. The project does not
contain any lighted athletic fields so there will be no glare from this potential source. For these
reasons, the project will not have cumulative impacts relative to views or glare.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
This area is essentially vacant at present and bounded by national forest land on the north. Nighttime
lighting levels are very low at present, although there is considerable spillover from night lighting at
the CSUSB to the south. If the Proposed Project is built, it will contribute to an overall increase in
ambient nighttime light levels referred to as "sky glow" by the International Dark Sky Association,
the most prominent group that monitors this urban and suburban development impact
(www.darkskies.org). The development standards ofthe Specific Plan limit the installation of
lighting fixturcs to the degree required for public safety by police and fire personnel. In addition,
lighting levels will be relatively low, in terms of urban development, since the project is all residential
and will have no commercial or institutional facilities that are lighted at night (e.g., shopping center).
Potential impacts would be reduced further by review of proposed lighting plans during subsequent
development review of the project as specific maps or buildings are proposed.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the City and surrounding vacant areas, approved and
additional development would result in additional lighting and surfaces that will create glare. The
General Plan estimates the City will grow by 23,568 units from now until buildout, which will disturb
thousands of acres ofland (Table LU-3, City General Plan 2005), but a relatively small amount of thIs
planned growth will occur in the foothills and areas surrounding the Proposed Project site.
While the Proposed Project will incrementally contribute to an increase in sky glow, this area is
planned for residential development and its contributions to ambient lighting levels is considered to
be not cumulatively considerable.
2.4.2 - Agricultural and Mineral Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to the entire City and this portion of the San
Bernardino Valley.
The project, when combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, would not result in
cumulative impacts. Other projects that would occur under General Plan buildout may affect the
availability of existing or historical agricultural land or areas with identified mineral resources.
Future development would also be required to comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan.
Fulfillment ofthese requirements would ensure that no significant impacts on these specialized land
uses will occur from other projects that would occur under buildout.
2.4.3 - Biological Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to biological resources includes this western
portion of the San Bernardino Mountains, its foothills along the southern slope of the mountains, as
well as the canyons that drain these slopes, down to Cajon Creek and ultimately to the Santa Ana
River southwest of the project area. The project will develop 160 acres of alluvial fan terrace area
covered by chaparral with vegetation of disturbed grassland and native scrub vegetation. Some of
these lands overlap critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
However, neither of these species were found on the project site. Conversely, the project would
preserve 235 acres of land comprising the foothills and canyons of middle and upper Badger Canyon,
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
which is a major drainage in this portion of the foothills. With mitigation, potential impacts to listed
animal species were reduced to less than significant levels. With the preservation of Badger Creek
and its feeder canyons, potential regional impacts from this project on biological resources are not
considered to be cumulatively considerable.
2.4.4 - Cultural Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to cultural resources includes the entire City as
outlined in the San Bernardino General Plan. The project vicinity represents an area with prehistoric
settlement by several Native American groups prior to Spanish and Mexican settlement, and then
American settlement during the mid-nineteenth century. The project site and surrounding areas are
largely vacant at present. The site appears to contain remnants of a small residential "camp" and
homestead but this area will remain in permanent open space so there are no impacts in this regard.
Development of the project site will contribute to the incremental loss of vacant lands that may
contain cultural artifacts or resources. Potentially significant impacts were found for historic,
archaeological, and paleontological resources, and for human remains, due to the possibility of
encountering an unanticipated find during excavation. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
the potentially significant impact to less than significant levels. With implementation of these
mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
2.4.5 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity includes this
portion of San Bernardino County, due to the presence of several branches ofthe San Andreas Fault
that cross the site. The various geotechnical investigations evaluated subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions at the project site. The existing documents contained the results of extensive field
explorations, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and design recommendations for previous
development projects at or near the project site. From these documents, geotechnical conclusions and
preliminary recommendations for planning of the proposed development were developed.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the City and surrounding vacant areas, approved and
additional development would result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of
land use that could potentially impact geology, soils, and seismicity in the area. The General Plan
estimates the City will grow by 23,568 units from now until buildout, which will disturb thousands of
acres ofland (Table LU-3, City General Plan 2005).
Potentially significant project-level impacts were found concerning exposure of persons or structures
to seismic hazards due to the presence of several faults onsite. Potentially significant impacts were
also found concerning substantial erosion or loss of topsoil during site construction. The Proposed
Project would develop 980 residential units in this portion of the City. The General Plan identifies
areas in the City where additional growth will occur that contain various geotechnical constraints,
including faults and soil erosion. However, only a small amount of this growth will occur proximate
to the San Andreas Fault Zone. The City's General Plan, Development Code, development review
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
process, and uniform building code all require detailed geotechnical studies for proposed
development which identify impacts and appropriate mitigation for suspected geotechnical hazards,
similar to the process applied to the USHP project.
Implementation of the UHSP project and future development under the General Plan, consistent with
development guidelines from required geotechnical studies, will help reduce potential earth-related
cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not make a
substantial contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts relative to geology, soils, and
seismicity.
2.4.6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials includes
the University District subarea identified in the San Bemardino General Plan as well as the City as a
whole. Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use
Section of the San Bernardino General Plan. Citywide, approved and additional development will
result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use that could potentially
impact hazards and hazardous materials in the area. Development of the City is expected to increase
housing by 23,568 units from now until buildout, with some of that land being vacant while other
lands have been developed.
Development of the Proposed Project would result in an increased demand for fire protection
services, resulting in the need for additional fire protection facilities and personnel to cover the
Proposed Project. Potentially significant impacts were not found concerning: (1) location on a site
that would create a potential hazard to the public and the environment; (2) exposure of sensitive
receptors to hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or waste; or (3) impeding the implementation
of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The Proposed
Project would develop 980 residential units in an outlying vacant area, but residential development in
general does not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials. Growth of industrial and to a
lesser degree commercial uses in the City would generate more risk and potential impacts relative to
hazardous materials on a cumulative basis. With implementation of best management practices and
by following regulations, the Proposed Project would not make a substantial contribution to a
cumulatively considerable impact relative to hazardous materials.
2.4.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality includes the
University District sub-area, identified in the San Bernardino General Plan as well as the City as a
whole. The project site is currently vacant and does not consume potable water. The Preliminary
Hydrology Report was prepared to present an initial analysis of the Proposed Project's effects on the
local and regional drainage basin and to serve as a background for subsequent reports, such as a
Stormwater Control Plan and a SWPPP, that are required during the development process. These and
other subsequent documents will detail the design recommendations for the control of stormwater for
the project site and be used to meet local and regional regulatory requirements.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Citywide, approved and additional development will result in
additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use, which could potentially impact
hydrology and water quality in the area. The total residential units are expected to increase from
59,146 at present to 82,714 at buildout, representing an increase of 23,568 units.
Potentially significant impacts were not found concerning the creation of additional impervious
surface coverage and alteration of existing drainage patterns, potentially leading to downstream
flooding or substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Potentially significant impacts were found
relating to adverse impacts to water quality during construction, adverse impacts to water quality
from land use activities associated with the Proposed Project, substantial depletion of groundwater
supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge, and creation of runoff water that could
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The Proposed Project would
develop 980 residential units in this University District subarea. When taken into account with all
residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan, the Proposed Project would
result in a si!,'I1ificant cumulative effect. However, the design of the project will incorporate water
retention basins and bio-swales to increase infiltration of water as the new project is built.
The Proposed Project would cause a net increase in potable water demand by almost a million gallons
per day in relation to existing demand on the project site. The City's WSA has indicated that this
demand is accounted for in their long-term water supply planning and would not require the
development of additional supplies. Unfortunately, City staff indicate that reclaimed water is not and
will not be available to the project area at a cost effective rate due to its elevation (i.e., too high), and
there is no infrastructure in place or planned to provide reclaimed water to the project site. Even with
the ongoing uncertainty of imported water for Southern California and the City's General Plan goal of
using recycled water whenever practical, this impact is considered less than significant due to the
design and location of the project relative to water and reclaimed water. Furthermore, with the design
of the project and recommended mitigation measures, the EIR concluded that water-related Impacts
of the Proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project will
not have a cumulatively considerable impact regarding hydrology and water quality.
2.4.8 - Land Use
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to land use includes the University District
subarea and the City as a whole, as identified in the San Bernardino General Plan. The project site
and Its surroundings are vacant. The General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Low
(RL) in the steeper areas and Residential Suburban (RS) III the flatter portions of the site - these
designations would allow from 750 to 966 residential units to be built on the site, depending on how
units were placed or clustered in hillside areas (see Section 4.8, Land Use, and 4.10, Population and
Housing, for more information on potential buildout estimates). In addition, the City approved the
Paradise Hills Specific Plan which would allow 504 units to be built on the site.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the City, approved and additional residential and
commercial development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of
land use. Total residential units will increase trom 59,146 units at present to 82,714 units at buildout.
The University Hills project would increase the intensity of development on the project site by
95 percent compared to the PHSI' (980 vs. 504 units). However, it is estimated that approximately
750 to 966 units could be built on the UHSP project site under the RL and RS designations of the
General Plan, depending on how units were actually clustered in hillside areas. Development under
the UHSP would represent an increase of 1.5 to 31 percent over that allowed under the Genera Plan.
Section 4.10, Population and Housing, of the EIR concluded that the Project would have significant
population and housing impacts because it was not consistent with SCAG growth projections,
however, it does not appear the Project would make significant contributions to cumulative land use
impacts related to growth.
The project will intensify the land use designated by the General Plan by up to 31 percent. When
combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, it is not anticipated that this potential
amount of change would result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts. Other projects that
would occur under General Plan buildout would not physically divide an established community, and
they would be required to demonstrate compatibility with surrounding land uses and comply with the
City of San Bernardino General Plan and Development Code. Fulfillment of these requirements
would ensure that no significant impacts on land use occur trom other projects that would occur under
buildout.
2.4.9 - Noise
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative noise impacts encompasses the ambient noise
environment around the project site as well as roadways that would experience increases in traffic
volumes from project-generated trips. The cumulative noise impact analysis is guided by evaluating
increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity relative to existing conditions. Construction
noise would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels, and mitigation is proposed that
would require implementation of noise control measures during construction activities. 8ecause
construction would be temporary, ambient noise levels would not experience a permanent increase
and, therefore, no cumulatively considerable increase would occur. The Proposed Project would
result in construction and operational vibration. Construction and operational vibration would not
exceed significance thresholds at the nearest land uses (the residences south of Planning Areas 18 and
20 off of North I Street) and, therefore, would not be cumulative considerable. Project residential
units would not be exposed to substantial vibration from vehicular activities due to the nature of the
project (i.e., suburban residential). Therefore, project residents would not be exposed to significant
sources of vibration or noise, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Vehicular trips
generated by the Proposed Project would not cause ambient noise levels along any affected roadway
segments to exceed acceptable noise standards under opening year or buildout conditions. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to increased ambient
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hi//s Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
noise levels on nearby roadways. Onsite noise associated with the Proposed Project would not result
in ambient noise levels increasing to unacceptable levels at any surrounding land uses. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to increased ambient noise
levels at surrounding land uses. Onsite noise associated with the Proposed Project may expose
project residents to unacceptable levels. Mitigation is proposed that would require the installation of
various structural noise attenuation measures to ensure that interior residential noise levels are within
acceptable standards to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to exposure of project residents to
unacceptable noise levels. In summary, the Proposed Project would not result in increases in ambicnt
noise that would be cumulatively considerable.
According to the City of San Bernardino General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2005 Ell~),
noise impacts would be significant after buildout until the San Bernardino Airport Master Plan has
been adopted by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) and corresponding
noise contours have been established the extent of impact to parkland near the airport cannot be
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. The proposed UHSP is approximately
7.5 miles from the San Bernardino International Airport and is therefore outside the five (5) mile
noise contour and will not impacted be impacted.
2.4.10 - Population and Housing
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulativc impacts to population and housing encompasses the
SANBAG area and the entire Southern California region as monitored by SCAG.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by the population growth assumptions included in the City of
San Bernardino General Plan and SANBAG's projections. The City of San Bernardino General Plan
anticipates signitlcant growth in San Bernardino between 2005 and 2030. The California Department
of Finance estimated San Bernardino's population to be 200,280 in 2005. The General Plan projected
a five-year increment for the City's population; the projected 2007 population for the City is 205,010.
According to SCAG the City's population for the year 2010 will be 207,021. The average annual
incrcase in the City's population is 1.5 percent. The average annual increase in the City's 2007
population in combination with a 1.5 percent annual increase would make the total population
214,466 by the year 2010. The Proposed Project is anticipated to open in 2010. SCAG anticipates
that the City's population would be 207,021 persons that year, indicating that actual growth has
occurred at a much lower rate than anticipated. The Proposed Project's residential uses would directly
add an estimated 3,283 residents to the City's population over approximately a 5-year period or
through 2015. The Proposed Project would not create substantial new employment opportunities
because this is a residential project.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
For the purposes of providing a worst-case scenario analysis, it is assumed that all ofthe 3,283 new
residents ofthe project would also be new residents to the City. SANBAG's forecast for population
growth in San Bernardino is the same as that contained in the General Plan. Based on the existing
population (205,010) and accounting for expected population growth between 2010 and 2015 (1.5
percent annually), the City's estimated population in 2010 without the Proposed Project would be
207,021 residents. The addition of the 3,283 new residents associated with the Proposed Project
would bring the population to 210,304, exceeding the City and SCAG's 2010 population projection of
207,021 persons by two (2) percent. With the addition of population growth induced by the Proposed
Project, the City's 2015 population is estimated to be 212,143 persons, which would slightly exceed
the SANBAG's 2015 projection (208,860) by two (2) percent. Although the slight addition of
population trom the proposed project is projected to exceed SANBAG's 2010 projections by two (2)
percent, the Proposed Project would not represent a cumulatively considerable growth-inducing
impact relative to population and housing.
2.4.11 . Public Services and Recreation
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to public services and recreation includes the
entire City of San Bernardino. The City of San Bernardino Parks and Community Services
Department owns and maintains 52 park sites totaling 540 acres. Of these sites, 10 are dedicated
community parks, 19 are neighborhood parks, 3 are special use parks, and 17 are pocket or mini-
parks.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the subareas that constitute the City, approved and
additional residential and commercial development will result in a further intensification of land use
and continue to place demands on public services and recreation resources compared with existing
conditions. Within the City, residential development will increase the housing stock from
59,146 units to 82,714 units (+72 percent), and substantial development will also occur in the Sphere
of Influence area (a total of95,664 units at buildout [Table LU-3, CSB General Plan 2005]).
Among public services and recreation resources, potentially significant impacts were found only for
fire protection and emergency medical services, and trails. Potentially significant impacts were found
regarding fire protection and emergency medical services that were due to the location of the project
relative to existing police and fire facilities. Other projects that would occur under buildout could
include mixed use projects with multistory buildings and both residential and commercial uses
combined. Therefore, when considered with other projects associated with buildout, the Proposed
Project would result in cumulative impacts for fire protection and emergency medical services. Since
impacts for these resources are potentially significant for the Proposed Project separately, there would
be a cumulatively considerable impact regarding fire protection and emergency medical services.
However, the same types of mitigations that would reduce these project specific impacts to less than
significant would be developed for other projects associated with buildout (i.e., dedication of sites for
new police and fire facilities). After mitigation, therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts to
fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. An incremental increase in impacts to
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
local and regional trails was also found associated with increased numbers ofresidents and trail users
in outlying areas. Other projects that would occur during buildout would also increase numbers of
residents and new employees and create additional use of the Foothill Trail and other trails beyond
that anticipated for the Proposed Project. The project is installing the section of trail within its
boundaries, so the Proposed Project is not expected to result in cumulative impacts to trails.
2.4.12 - Utilities
The project, when combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, would not result in
cumulative impacts. However, other projects that would occur under General Plan buildout may
increase the amount of energy consumed by the City. Other projects in the planning area would be
required to provide adequate assessment oflocal and regional energy facilities to conclude the future
project would not significantly increase demands on energy consumption. Furthermore, future
development would be required to comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore,
because increased consumption of energy by the Proposed Project and other developments in the City
have to comply with the City's General Plan, or are already anticipated by local or regional energy
facilities, the cumulative energy impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. A
detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measure can be found in Section 4.14, Utility Systems.
2.5 - Summary
Regional growth may eventually result in a number of cumulatively considerable impacts, including
tramc and air quality. However, the Proposed Project will not make significant contribution to any of
these cumulatively considerable impacts either during construction or from use ofthe planned
improvements.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
SECTION 3: FINDING REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO BELOW A.LEVELOF
SIGNIFICANCE WITH THE ADOPTION OF MITIGATION
MEASURES
The City of San Bernardino Planning Department finds that the following environmental impacts
identified in the Final EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant
level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and
summarized below.
3.1 - Biological Resources
3.1.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact Plummer's mariposa lily,
burrowing owl, nesting birds, and jurisdictional land.
3.1.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-Ja
through BIO-lc, and BIO-3a, the project's impacts to biological resources are found to be less than
signi fican!.
3.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM 610-1a
MM 610-1b
Plummer's Marisposa Lily. During the spring prior to grading, the developer shall
retain a qualified biologist to conduct a focused survey of the proposed development
areas to determine if this species is present onsite. The survey shall be conducted
according to the standard protocol established by CDFG. If the species is present, the
developer shall fund relocation of the plants to a suitable location within the
permanent open space area.
Burrowiug Owl. Within 30 days of grading or any ground disturbance activities on
the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey to determine if
burrowing owls are present onsite. The survey shall be conducted according to the
standard protocol established by CDFG. If burrowing owls are determined to be
present on the site, mitigation shall follow the CDFG guidelines mcluding passIve
relocation. If vegetation removal or ground disturbance begins within 30 days of the
focused survey, no pre-construction survey would be required. If vegetation removal
or ground disturbance activities begin after 30 days of the focused survey, a
subsequent pre-construction survey would be required.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM B10-1c
MM-BIO-3a
Nesting Birds. If trees or large shrubs (over 4 feet in height) will be removed during
the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct
a nesting bird survey no more than 30 days prior to any disturbance to identify any
potential nesting activity. If passerine birds are found to be nesting, or there is
evidence of nesting behavior within 250 feet ofthe impact area, the biologist shall
determine an appropriate buffer that shall be required around the nests. No
vegetation removal or ground disturbance would occur within this buffer. For raptor
species-birds of prey (e.g., hawks and owls)-this buffer would generally be 500
feet. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nests closely until it is detemlincd that
the nests are no longer active, at which time construction activities may commencc
within the buffer area. Construction activity may encroach into the buffer area at the
discretion of the biological monitor.
Jnrisdictional Land. Prior to grading, the developer shall obtain a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from USACE, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification from
the R WQCB (Santa Ana Region), and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from
CDFG if jurisdictional land will be impacted. Offsite mitigation, if necessary, shall
be provided at a minimum I: I ratio depending on location and importance of the
jurisdictional land removed. If the project provides onsite mitigation equal or in
excess of its identified impact (i.e., removal of jurisdictional land), no permits may be
necessary. This determination shall be made by qualified biologists in consultation
with City Planning, USACE, and CDFG staff based on the final land plan and value
assigned to the proposed bio-swales and other drainage improvements onsite.
3.2 - Cultural Resources
3.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact unidentified cultural,
archaeological, paleontological resources.
3.2.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures CUL-l
through CULA, the project's impacts to cultural resources are found to be less than significant.
3.2.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM CUL-1
The developer shall retain a qualified historian to survey the building remnants
between Planning Areas 18 and 20 to determine if they have any historical
significance prior to excavation of the site. Due to their condition, they could not be
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-2
MM CUL-3
preserved or protected in place even if it is determined they had historical
significance. If they are determined to be significant, the developer shall retain a
qualified historian to document the resource characteristics for archival purposes
prior to demolition. The historian will prepare a report and submit it to the
appropriate information center for their records.
The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor grading to the
satisfaction of the staffs of the County Museum and City Development Services
Department. Ifpotentially signifIcant archaeological or historic resources are
encountered during subsurface activities, all construction within a 100-foot radiUS of
the find shall cease until the monitor determines whether the resource requires further
study. The developer shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every
construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate
DPR forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified
archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited
to, glass, ceramics, stone, bone, wood, rock and shell artifacts or features, including
hearths, structural remains, or pre-historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to
be significant under CEQA, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a
research design and archaeological data recovery plan, if necessary. The
archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a full written
report and file it with the appropriate information center, and provide for pemlanent
curation of the recovered resources.
Prior to the start of excavation, a qualified paleontological monitor will be retamed to
conduct an on site monitoring program to ensure protection of previously unknown
paleontological specimens. In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of
the Proposed Project when the paleontological monitor is not present, excavation
within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the discovery is examined
by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standards. The developer shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in
every construction contract to inform contractors ofthis requirement. The
paleontologist shall notify the City of the procedures that must be followed before
construction is allowed to resume at the location ofthe find. If the find is determined
to be significant and the Paleontologist determines that avoidance is not feasible, the
paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval. Upon approval, the plan shall be incorporated into the
project. The Paleontologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare
a full written report and tile it with the appropriate information center, and provide
for permanent curation of any recovered resources.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-4
If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities for the Proposed
Project, all work within 100 feet ofthe find shall stop immediately and the San
Bernardino County Coroner's office shall be notified. If the Coroner determines the
remains are Native American in origin, the NAHC will be notified and, in turn, will
notify the person determined to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD
will provide recommendations for treatment of the remains (CEQA Guidelines
9 15064.5; Health and Safety Code 9 7050.5; Public Resources Code 99 5097.94 and
5097.98).
3.3 - Geology and Soils
3.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Because the project is located in a seismically active region, the impacts in regard to geology and soil
are considered potentially significant. California has stringent permitting and building design
standards designed to minimize the adverse impacts in the event of an earthquake. However, the
Project may be damaged by seiche flows, soil erosion or topsoil loss, unstable geologic units, and
cxpansive soils.
3.3.2 - Finding
With consideration ofthe above information and the implementation of mitigation measure GEO-la,
GEO-I b, GEO-3a, and GEO-3b, the project's impacts to Geology and Soils are found to be less than
significant.
3.3.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM GEO-1 a Prior to the recordation of any map in the area north of the South Branch of the San
Andreas Fault (Planning Area 15), detailed geologic investigations shall be prepared
to determine slope stability, landslide limits, and specific structural and grading
requirements to identify the most appropriate design and construction requirements
for specific building foundations. This study must demonstrate that any residences to
be built in this area will not be subject to landslides, or that risks associated with any
landslide features or conditions can be alleviated or reduced to a level equivalent to
that of other residential planning areas in the project. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction ofthe City Planner in consultation with the City
Geologist or qualified geotechnical personnel retained by the City.
MM GEO-1b Prior to the recordation of any tract map in the area north of the South Branch of the
San Andreas Fault (Planning Area 15), the developer must demonstrate that the
reservoir in Planning Area 22 will have no impact on any homes in Planning Area 15
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-3a
MM GEO-3b
trom a seiche event that could occur from strong seismic ground shaking. The
reservoir must be designed to withstand anticipated seismic shaking, and must be
dyked or otherwise protected so as to protect downstream homes from seiche flow
damage.
Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
geotechnical consultant to test any areas planned for development that are underlain
by existing imported fill soils to determine their in situ compaction and suitability for
excavation and reuse as engineered fill. Soil testing can be avoided if the applicant
elects to remove the fill and place it either in areas where it will not support
buildings, be located in paved or landscaped areas, or be disposed of offsite. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Geologist.
The developer shall implement the grading recommendations identified in the
GeoMat 2007 and the CHJ 2006 reports. Prior to the commencement of building
construction, the applicant shall retain a qualified engineer to design foundations
adequate to support the Proposed Project's structures where necessary, based on the
recommendations of the GeoMat 2007 study. Settlement analysis shall be pcrformed
once the structural design loads and foundation system geometry have been defined
for each building.
3.4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.4.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
The drainage protection and planned improvcments ofthe project do not rely on any USFS facilities
or improvements to protect the site. In addition, a post-disaster recovery plan will be incorporated
into the Specific Plan and the following mitigation measure is being added to address this concern
raised by the City Planning Commission.
3.4.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-I,
the project's impacts to hazards and hazardous material are found to be less than significant.
3.4.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM HAZ-1
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall prepare a Post-Fire/Flood
Recovery Plan for review and approval by the City. As appropriate, this plan shall
incorporate planning guidelines from the Alluvial Fan Task Force (AFTF)
established by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The plan will
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
identify the potential risks to project residents from various natural hazards from
being located in the fire-prone foothills and adjacent to a large natural waterway
(Badger Creek). The plan will outline measures to be implemented after major tires
or floods that will help protect future project residents to the degree practical. When
approved, this plan shall be incorporated into the Specific Plan.
3.5 - Hydrology and Water Quality
3.5.1 . Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation ofthe project has the potential to adversely impact water quality and groundwater.
Mitigation is required to oflset any impacts to waters quality and groundwater.
3.5.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures HYD-la,
HYD-Ib, HYD-2a, HYD-2b, and HYD-5, the project's impacts to water quality and groundwater are
found to be less than significant after mitigation.
3.5.3. Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM HYD-1a
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any portion or phase of the project, the
project applicant shall receive City approval SWPPP and Grading Plan to the City of
San Bernardino that identify specific actions and BMPs to prevent stormwater
pollution from construction sources. These BMPs shall be consistent with the
Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the project by PBS&J
Engineers (see DEIR Appendix G). The plans shall identify a practical sequence for
site restoration, BMP implementation, contingency measures, responsible parties, and
agency contacts. The applicant shall include conditions in construction contracts
requiring the plans to be implemented and shall have the ability to enforce the
requirement through fines and other penalties. The plans shall incorporate control
measures in the following categories:
. Soil stabilization practices;
. Dewatering practices (if necessary);
. Sediment and runoff control practices;
. Monitoring protocols; and
. Waste management and disposal control practices.
Once approved by the City, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible throughout
the duration of the project for installing, constructing, inspecting, and maintaining the
control measures included in the SWPPP and Grading Plan.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM HYD.1b
MM HYD-2a
Each SWPPP shall identify pollutant sources that could affect the quality of
stormwater discharges from the construction site. Control practices shall include
those that effectively treat target pollutants in stormwater discharges anticipated from
project construction sites. To protect receiving water quality, the SWPPP shall
include, but is not limited to, the following elements:
. Temporary erosion control measures (such as fiber rolls, staked straw bales,
detention basins, temporary inlet protection, check dams, geofabric, sandbag
dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) shall be employed
for disturbed areas.
. No disturbed surfaces will be left without erosion control measures in place
during the winter and spring months (September 30 - March 30).
. Sediment shall be retained onsite by a system of sediment basins, traps, or
other appropriate measures. Of critical importance is the protection of existing
catch basins that eventually drain to Cajon Creek.
. The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for
the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate or
reduce discharge of materials to storm drains.
. BMPs performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual
means where applicable (i.e., observation of above-normal sediment release),
or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant
reduction or elimmation, (inadvertent petroleum release) is required to
determine adequacy of the measure.
. Native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the
construction site as soon as possible after disturbance.
Landscaping Management Plan. The developer shall develop and implement a
Landscaping Management Plan (LMP) for landscaped areas with the goal of reducing
potential discharge of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants to
local waterways. All contractors involved in project-related landscaping conducted
during the individual phases of development, as well as maintenance of landscapmg
following project completion, shall complete their work in strict compliance with the
LMP. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that requirements of the LMP
are provided to and instituted by future project land owners and managers following
project completion. The LMP shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architecture
firm with experience in methods to reduce or eliminate the use of landscape
chemicals that could cause adverse effects to the environment. At a minimum, this
LMP shall:
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM HYD-2b
MM HYD-5
1. Require that pesticides and fertilizers not be applied in excessive quantities,
and only applied at times when rain is not expected for at least 2 weeks, in an
effort to minimize leaching and runoff into the storm drainage system.
2. Encourage the use of organic fertilizers and mulching of landscaped areas to
inhibit weed growth and reduce water demands.
3. Utilize native, perennial, drought-tolerant vegetation to minimize irrigation
needs.
4. Specify the maintenance measures to be used (e.g., mowing) and will specify
an application schedule for all fertilizer amendments and pesticide
applications.
5. Identify a list of preferred herbicides and pesticides and instances in which
their use would be appropriate and the associated application rate.
Water Quality Maintenance Reports. The UHSP project shall form a Landscaping
and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) to monitor water quality and provide
regular reports to the City regarding water quality on the project site. A qualified
professional shall be retained through the LLMD to prepare and provide annual
documentation to the City Engineer that the onsite BMPs (i.e., water quality devices,
improvements, and procedures) are functioning as planned to effectively protect
water quality both onsite and on downstream uses/drainages. This ineludes the
function and condition of bios wales, street sweeping, etc. These reports shall be
made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in consultation with the RWQCB if
necessary. If a report indicates water quality objectives are not being met and/or the
RWQCB has expressed concerns in this regard, the LLMD will take appropriate steps
and/or make appropriate improvements to achieve these objectives, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
Prior to approval of any final maps, the developer shall submit drainage plans to the
City Public Works Department for review and approval. The City shall review and
approve all storm drain improvement plans prior to issuance of any encroachment or
building permits that involve t100d control facilities.
3.6 - Land use
3.6.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Planning Area 24, which is the only planning area adjacent to USFS land, is proposed as permanent
open space that will be a "land laboratory" for the California State University San Bernardino
(CSUSB) campus. The Project developer is requested to work with the City and United States
Forestry Service staff to install signage at appropriate locations elearly identifying the USFS
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
boundary adjacent to the Proposed Project site, especially where any fire road or trails enter USFS
property from the University Hills site.
3.6.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measure LU-I, the
project's impacts to hazards and hazardous material are found to be less than significant.
3.6.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identifIed in the Final
EIR:
MM LU-1
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the developer shall coordinate with City,
CSUSB, and USFS staffs to identify necessary access points and appropriate
locations for such signage to clearly identify the USFS boundary along the perimeter
of the University Hills property (i.e., Planning Area 24). Such signage will be placed
at strategic locations, including any road or trail access points, to the satisfaction of
the City in consultation with CSUSB and USFS staffs.
3.7 - Noise
3.7.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact sensitive receptors from short-
term construction activities and temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation is
required to offset any impacts to noise and sensitive receptors.
3.7.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures NOI-l
through NOl-li, the project's impacts to noise are found to be less than significant.
3.7.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM NOI-1a
MM NOI-1b
At the time the grading permit application is submitted, the project applicant shall
submit a Construction Noise Mitigation Plan to the City for review and approval.
The plan shall depict the location of staging areas for construction equipment and
describe how noise would be mitigated for any nearby sensitive receptors..
Stationary noise-generating equipment (such as pumps and generators) will be
located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., homes south of
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1c
MM NOI-1d
MM NOI-1e
MM NOI-1f
MM NOI-1g
MM NOI-1h
MM NOI-1i
P A 16-20) and no closer than 200 feet from any existing home within the Proposed
Project site once occupancy has begun.
Noise-generating equipment will be shielded from nearby noise-sensitive receptors
by noise-attenuating buffers such as structures or haul truck trailers.
On site noise sources located less than 600 feet from noise-sensitive receptors will be
equipped with noise-reducing engine housings.
Portable acoustic barriers able to attenuate at least 6 dB will be placed around noise-
generating equipment in the "East Village" portion of the project site.
Water tanks and equipment storage, staging, and warm-up areas will be located as far
from noise-sensitive receptors as possible, and at least 200 feet from any existing
home within the Proposed Project site once occupancy has begun.
All construction equipment shall utilize noise reduction features (e.g., mumers and
engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the
manufacturer.
No construction equipment shall be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes if it is
within 100 feet of an existing house.
Prior to approval of any subsequent tentative tract maps, the developer shall submit
noise studies as appropriate for any residences within the project to assure that
exterior and interior noise levels meet City noise standards based on actual hnal Door
elevations, actual roadway cross sections and elevations, onsite topography after
grading, etc. Walls or other attenuating improvements shall be installed as needed
based on the results of these studies to assure onsite residences meet the City's noise
regulations.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
3.8 - Public Services
3.8.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact library services. Mitigation is
required to offset any impacts to library services.
3.8.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation PSRAa and PSR-
4b. the project's impacts to library services are found to be less than significant.
3.8.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM PSR.4a
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the developer shall
contact the City Library Director in writing and offer to provide up 2,000 square feet
of building space in the clubhouse (plus parking), for a future satellite library facility.
The developer shall provide the City Planning Department with written confirmation
whether or not the Library Director chooses to locate a library facility on the Specific
Plan property, based on the needs ofthe Department at that time relative to staffing
and facilities.
MM PSR-4b
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the developer shall demonstrate
that the project can be connected via the internet to City library and other information
technology systems. This may involve wireiess or hard-wired connections, depending on the
City's requirements at the time of hookup.
3.9 - Utilities
3.9.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation ofthe project has the potential to adversely impact solid waste capacity. Mitigation
is required to offset any impacts to solid waste capacity.
3.9.2. Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures USAa
and US-4b, the project's impacts to solid wast are found to be less than significant.
3.9.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM US-4a
MM US-4b
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction
Debris Recycling Plan to the City of San Bernardino identifying the procedures by
which construction and demolition would be salvaged and recycled to the maximum
extent feasible. The plan shall include proof that a construction and demolition
debris recycler is under contract to the applicant to perform this work. This Plan
shall achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in construction waste, to the satisfaction
of the City Planner.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall provide the City with
written assurance that all project residents will be provided with information on City
and County waste reduction and disposal activities. This information may be
provided by the devcloper or home owners association (HOA) as appropriate. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction ofthe City Planner.
3.10 - Cumulative Impacts
Potentially Significant Impact
The Proposed Project may have the potential to have cumulative impacts within three (3) miles of the
project site.
Finding
With consideration of the above information, implementation of project specific mitigation measures
was found to reduce impacts from the cumulative projects to less than significant levels. Therefore,
no additional mitigation is needed other than project level mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
3.10.1 - Global Climate Change
Potentially Significant Impact
The Project may have potential impact to contribute to global green house gasses and global climate
change.
Finding
With consideration ofthe above information and the implementation of mitigation measure AlR-9a
and AIR-9b, the project's direct or indirect contribution to greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced
to less than significant levels.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM AIR-9a
MM AIR-9b
Areas and/or facilities to encourage recycling shall be provided and installed in all
MDA and A (attached) residential areas (Planning Areas 5, 6,8-11,13,14,16, '8,
and 20) and in the clubhouse (Planning Area 7) consistent with City requirements.
To increase energy efficiency, the following measures shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino: a) there shall be a minimum 10 percent
reduction in all buildings, combined space heating, cooling, and water heating energy
compared to the current Title 24 Standards; b) the project shall incorporate light roof
colors and cool pavements in the residential driveway areas; c) each appliance (I.e.,
washer/dryers, refrigerators, stoves, etc.) provided by the builder must be Energy Star
qualified if an Energy Star designation is applicable for that appliance; d) low-flow
appliances (i.e., toilets, dishwashers, shower heads, washing machines) shall be
installed and; e) solar powered water heaters and photovoltaic cells (solar panels)
shall be offered to homebuyers as an option.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
SECTION 4: FINDING REGARDING IMPACTS NOT MITIGATED TO BELOW A
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a)(b) requires an Final EIR to identify and focus on the signifIcant
environmental effects of the Proposed Project, including effects that cannot be avoided if the
Proposed Project were implemented.
This section describes signifIcant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a
less than sib'11iflcant level. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing a
project alternative, the EIR implications, and the reason why the project is being proposed,
notwithstanding the Final EIR effect, are described. With implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures, the Project will not create any signitlcant environmental impacts.
4.1 - Air Quality
4.1.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact air quality and existing emissions
of greenhouse gases. In addition the Proposed Project has the potential to adversely impact PMIO and
PM,s levels, and may exceed SCAQMO localized daily thresholds. Other potentially significant
impact can occur over the short-term duration of the Proposed Project (i.e., during construction).
4.1.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and even with the implementation of mitigation
measures AIR-Ia through AIR-Ig, and AIR-3a through AIR-3d, the project's impacts to air quality
criteria pollutants are found to be significant and unavoidable.
4.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
After the implementation ofthe identified mitigation measures, emissions of volatile organic
compounds (YOC), nitrogen oxides (NO,), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO,), and
particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) will continue to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management
Plan's (SCAQMO) regional emission significance thresholds during construction and YOC, NO",
and CO during operations and, thus, are considered significant and unavoidable impacts.
MM AIR-1a
Prior to construction ofthe proposed improvements, the project proponent will
provide a Fugitive Oust Control Plan (FOCP) that will describe the application of
standard best management practices to control dust during construction. Best
management practices will include:
. Application of water on disturbed soils a minimum of two times per day;
. Using track-out prevention devices at construction site access points;
. Stabilizing construction area exit points;
. Limiting onsite construction traffic to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads;
. Limiting onsite construction traffic to 25 miles per hour on paved roads;
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
MM AIR-1b
MM AIR-1c
MM AIR-1d
MM AIR-1e
MM AIR-1f
MM AIR-1g
. Paving or providing a hard surface for onsite roads to reduce fugitive dust;
. Covering dirt haul vehicles; and
. Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical and other measures, as deemed
appropriate to the site, to control fugitive dust.
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to grading.
Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, a Construction Traffic Control
Plan (CTCP) will be reviewed and approved by the City. The CTCP will describe in
detail safe detours around the project construction site and provide temporary tramc
control (i.e., flag person) during construction related truck hauling activities.
During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment shall be
properly maintained at an offsite location, including proper tuning and timing of
engines. Equipment maintenance records and equipment design specification data
sheets shall be kept on-site during construction.
During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised
not to idle construction equipment on the site for more than five minutes.
During construction ofthe proposed improvements, onsite electrical hook ups shall
be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to
eliminate the need for diesel powered electric generators.
Onsite grading equipment will comply with one or more of the following:
. Use of on site grading and construction equipment equipped with oxidized diesel
catalyst and fueled with aqueous diesel fuel during grading and construction
operations with a reduced equipment fleet or hours of operation totaling a
maximum of 17,000 horsepower hours per day;
. Use of on site grading and construction equipment equipped with oxidized diesel
catalyst with a reduced equipment fleet or hours of operation totaling a maximum
of 14,000 horsepower hours per day;
. Use of onsite grading and construction equipment fueled with aqueous diesel fuel
during grading and construction operations with a reduced equipment fleet or
hours of operation totaling a maximum of 13,000 horsepower hours per day; and
. Reduce the grading and construction equipment fleet or hours of operation to a
maximum total of 10,000 horsepower hours per day.
Implementation of the Short-Term Air Quality Mitigation Measures shall be
documented in an Air Quality Mitigation Implementation Plan. This plan will detail
each mitigation measure and include daily logs documenting implementation of each
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
MM AIR-3a
MM AIR-3b
MM AIR-3c
MM AIR-3d
mitigation measure. Daily logs for each piece of construction equipment will include
the hours per day the equipment ran. A master daily log will document the hours of
operation all equipment ran each day. The master daily log will also document
timing and tuning of equipment, the type of fuel used on construction equipment, and
any add-on emissions reduction equipment used such as oxidized diesel catalysts.
The project proponent shall install bicycle racks at the clubhouse, MDA and A
(attached) housing areas (Planning Areas 6, 8-11,13,14,16,18, and 20), and all park
sites to encourage non-vehicular trips within the project.
The project design shall include signs posted in visible places in any truck parking
areas that state, "No Idling."
The project proponent will coordinate with CSUSB to install improvements that will
support future shuttle transit service for project residents, including bus turnouts, bus
shelterslbenches, street lighting, and safe ingress/egress between the designated bus
stop and adjacent uses. The developer will install identified improvements when the
applicable road is constructed. .
Provide onsite information for clubhouse employees regarding local car pools, bus
schedules and shuttle services in the area that service the project site, including maps
showing the routes of transit services and employee carpool destinations.
4.2 - Population and Housing and SCAG Consistency
4.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to induce population growth beyond the SCAG local
and regional forecasts.
4.2.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information, implementation of the Proposed Project will cause the
SCAG Consistency and regional growth to be significant and unavoidable.
4.2.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
Although forecasted population growth in San Bernardino for 2010 is projected to exceed the SCAG
projections, the proposed UHSP project would significantly exacerbate this condition by adding an
additional 476 units (980 - 504) or 12 percent of growth. SCAG population numbers are the basis for
other regional plans (e.g., regional housing allocation strategies), and population growth in excess of
the forecast represents a significant growth inducement impact. No mitigation is available to reduce
this impact to a less than significant level; therefore, b'fOwth inducement beyond the SCAG local and
regional forecasts is a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project is generally consistent with the policies of the City's general Plan,
except for the provision of employment in a housing rich sub-region. The Draft EIR concluded that
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
these inconsistencies mean the project will have a significant impact relative to growth inducement
and minor inconsistencies with regional growth policies and there is no feasible mitigation available
to eliminate this impact.
4.3 - Transportation
4.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to create operations at intersections to degrade to
unacceptable levels without planned improvements in the opening year. In addition, five intersections
are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service by 2030. With mitigation measures TRANS-
I, TRANS-2, and TRANS-8, impacts to intersections will be less than significant. However, impacts
to treeway operations are significant and unavoidable.
4.3.2. Finding
With consideration of the above information, implementation of the Proposed Project will cause
treeway operations to be significant and unavoidable.
4.3.3. Facts in Support of Finding
MM TRANS-1
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the developer shall install or provide
fair share payments to the City to install improvements referred to in Table 5 in the
TIA (KA 2008).). If fair share payments are not paid prior to issuance of the first
building permits, the UHSP will be required to install improvements, and be
reimbursed by the City upon completion. . Improvements include:
. TralTic signal at Northpark Boulevard and Campus Parkway;
. Cross Street Stop at Little Mountain Drive and Project Access;
. Add two (2) left- turn lanes on northbound leg of University Parkway at
Northpark Boulevard;
. Add two (2) left- turn lane on northbound 1-215 Freeway ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the northbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a right-turn lane on the northbound leg of Litde Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a left-turn lane on the southbound leg of Northpark Boulevard at Campus
Parkway;
. Add a through lane to the eastbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a right-turn-overlap to the eastbound leg of University Parkway at
Northpark Boulevard;
. Add a right-turn lane to the eastbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
. Add a left-turn lane to the westbound leg of Northpark boulevard at Campuss
Parkway;
. Add three (3) left-turn lanes to the westbound leg of University Parkway at
Northpark Boulevard;
. Add a left turn lane to the westbound leg of Little Mounntain Drive at ProJcct
Access;
. Add a through lane to the westbound leg of Northpark Boulevard and Campus
Parkway; and
. Add a through lane to the westbound leg of Little Mountain Drive atProject
Access;
. Add a right-turn lane to the westbound leg of University Parkway at Northpark
Boulevard.
To implement this measure, a right- turn lane can be striped or unstriped, but to
function as a right- turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right- turn vehicles to
travel outside the through lanes.
The TIA for this proj ect estimated that the fair share cost for these improvements would be just over
$4.1 million as of when the TIA was prepared (July 2, 2008). Exhibit 4.12-3 illustrates the proposed
improvements that the project will need to implement. With construction of these improvements,
LOS at local intersections will meet the City's General Plan thresholds.
MM TRANS-2 Prior to the issuance of the 600lh building permit, the developer shall install or
provide fair share payments to the City for installation of improvements referred to in
Table 8 in the TIA (KA 2008).). If fair share payments are not paid prior to the
issuance of the 600lh building permit, the UHSP will be required to install
improvements, and be reimbursed by the City upon completion. Improvements
include:
. Cross street stop at Campus Parkway at 1-215 Freeway northbound ramp;
. Cross street stop at Campus Parkway at 1-215 Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane on northbound leg of campus Parkway and Kendall
Drive;
. Add a thorough lane on the northbound leg of campus Parkway and at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane onnorthbound leg of campus Parkway and at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane onnorthbound leg of University Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a right-turn lane on the northbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the southbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the eastbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the eastbound leg of Campus Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a left-turn lane on the eastbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the westbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp.
To implement this measure, a right- turn lane can be striped or unstriped, but to function as a right-
turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right-turn vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
As shown in Table 4.12-6, all intersections would meet the City's General Plan thresholds with
improvements by 2030 after the implementation ofthe improvements outlined in Measure MM--
TRANS-2.
MM TRANS-8 Prior to the commencement of construction, the developer shall provide a
Construction Traffic, Staging, and Parking Management Plan to the City of San
Bernardino for review and approval. All construction contracts shall include a clause
requiring compliance with the Construction Traffic, Staging, and Parking
Management Plan and the developer shall be able to enforce the provisions of the
plan through penalties, up to and including, termination of the contract. The plan
shall include the following provisions:
. Construction truck traffic shall be limited to the following designated routes:
Campus Parkway from the site and west of Northpark Boulevard to Kendall
Drive, and Kendall Drive from Campus Parkway to Palm Avenue.
Construction truck traffic shall be prohibited on all other roadways, unless
compelling circumstances warrant such movements (e.g., a major traffic
accident).
. Signage shall be installed at construction truck ingress and egress points
alerting motorists to such movements.
. Soil, debris, or other loose materials shall be covered with tarps or other
restraining material during haul movements on roadways
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
. On-site and oft~site construction staging and parking locations shall be
identified, as well as any necessary shuttle service needed to transport workers
from off-site locations. For safety reasons, off-site staging or parking shall not
be allowed west of Northpark Boulevard or on the CSUSBCal State
San Bemardino campus.
. A pre-construction conference shall be held advising all construction
contractors of the requirements of the Construction Traffic, Staging, and
Parking Management Plan.
4.4 - Cumulative
4.4.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
The Proposed Project may have the potential to create cumulative impacts within three (3) miles of
the project site. Areas that have a cumulative impact by the Proposed Project that are significant and
unavoidable are listed and defined below.
Air Quality
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to air quality includes the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB), which is identical to the boundaries of the SCAQMD. The SCAB includes the
counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial, and Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino (including
the City of San Bernardino).
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section or
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the project region, and the SCAB, approved and additional
development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification ofland use,
which could potentially lead to impacts to air quality in the area. Within the City of San Bernardino,
the total residential units will increase from 59,146 units at present to 82,714 units at buildout
(+23,568 units or 1.5 percent average annual growth). Construction and operation of these additional
land uses would emit substantial quantities of criteria pollutants that would likely exceed SCAQMO's
daily sib'11ificance thresholds.
Potentially significant impacts were not found for exposure of construction workers or the public to
substantial amounts of toxic air pollutants, creation of carbon monoxide hot spots that would exceed
federal or State concentration standards, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, or generation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people.
Significant, unavoidable impacts were found concerning construction and operational emissions that
exceed SCQMD thresholds, inconsistency with the projections contained in the Air Quality
Management Plan, and emissions representing only an incremental contribution of global greenhouse
gases. The Proposed Project would develop 980 residential units in this vacant outlying area of the
City. This represents 4,2 percent ofthe growth expected in the City from now until buildout.
When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan,
the Proposed Project would result in a significant cumulative effect. Therefore, this effect would bc
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hi11s Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
cumulatively considerable without mitigation applied, since the efTect of this project by itself is a
potentially significant impact. However, according to the City of San Bernardino General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR), air quality would be significant after buildout during long
term and short term construction, and contributing to cumulatively considerable net increase of
criteria pollutants for which the project region is in a state of non-attainment. Therefore, project-level
emissions would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable due to the City's significant and
unavoidable buildout projections for regional air quality.
Mitigation in the form of extensive air pollution control measures is proposed, but it would not reduce
project construction and operation emissions below SCQMD thresholds; however, it would prevent
project greenhouse gas emissions from being cumulatively considerable.
Transportation
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to transportation includes the University
District subarea identified in the San Bernardino General Plan, as well as the City as a whole. The
Traffic Impact Analysis analyzed the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project and looked at traffic
impacts at opening year and at buildout of the project. Project-level traffic impacts are found in
several intersections that would exceed the General Plan threshold of LOS C at peak hour, and, will
therefore have a significant impact. N addition, significant impacts are related to cumulative traffic
and congestion on the 1-215 Freeway in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the University District subarea, approved and additional
development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification ofland use that
could potentially impact transportation in San Bernardino. Furthermore, the Proposed Project will
contribute to cumulatively considerable traffic impacts even with implementation of all feasible
project specific mitigation.
A number of roadway improvements would be implemented in conjunction with the Proposed Project
that would help reduce cumulative traffic impacts. Potentially significant impacts were not found
concerning the creation of inadequate access for emergency services or conflicts with the General
Plan. Potentially significant impacts were found for congestion during peak hours along this portion
of the 1-215 Freeway.
When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan,
the Proposed Project would result in a significant cumulative effect on area traffic. Therefore, thIS
efTect would be cumulatively considerable without mitigation applied, since the effect of this project
by itself is a potentially significant impact. With implementation of project mitigation measures MM
TRANS-l through MM TRANS-8, project impacts will not make substantial contributions to
cumulatively considerable degradation of intersection performance but will contribute to ongoing
Crccway congestion.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hi//s Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
However, according to the City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR), the City
does not cooperate with the regional transportation agencies toward mitigating impacts to regional
transportation facilities. However, poteptial traffic impacts to the treeway mainline segments and
ramps were evaluated and mitigation measures were suggested to reduce impacts. However, the City
stated that improvements to the freeway system are the responsibility of the existing regional
transportation agencies and not the City of San Bernardino. Without the authority to implement the
mitigation measures, the impact to treeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable
requiring a statement of overriding considerations. Therefore, project-level traffic would be
cumulatively significant and unavoidable due to the City's significant and unavoidable buildout
projections.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
SECTION 5: FINDING REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING, UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE, AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS
5.1 - Growth Inducing Impacts
5.1.1 - Description
There are two types of growth-inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To
assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project's characteristics that may encourage and
facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15l26.2[d]).
5.1.2. Finding
Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the development ofa project imposes new burdens on a
community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional
developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical
obstacles to population growth (such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater
treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area).
Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the
development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth or projects
that indirectly induce growth may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area, such
as a new residential community, that requires additional commercial uses to support residents.
The Proposed Project would result in the development of 980 units on 404 acres in an outlying but
somewhat suburbanizing area (e.g., development to the west along Campus Parkway). The
residential units included in the Proposed Project would be expected to result in direct population
growth of 3,283 new residents. The Proposed Project is expected to create only a few new Jobs at the
clubhouse.
Section 4.10 oflhe Draft E1R examined the project's contributions to local as well as regional
housing and population growth and found it to be in excess of that outlined in the City's General Plan
that was used for estimating growth impacts by SCAG. Although by itself the project would only
incrementally increase growth, it would contribute to an overall cumulative increase that may not
have been anticipated in regional planning efforts. Therefore, the project is considered somewhat
b'TOwth inducing. This increase will be offset somewhat by the fact that the project is in an area that is
not planned for additional suburban development, so its actual int1uence on area-WIde growth WIll
likely be limited.
The project site is not currently served by infrastructure although roads and utilities are generally
adjacent or nearby to the site. However, the Proposed Project would require the extension of
roadways and utility systems into areas not presently served; therefore, the Proposed Project could be
considered to be removing a barrier to potential growth through the extension of urban infrastructure.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
The Riverside-Corona Feeder supplies several southern California Counties, including San
Bernardino. The supplier connects to the Santa Ana River watershed and supplies over 400,000 acre-
feet of ground water per year. New wet year water will come from local runoff, including regulated
releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir and the State Water Project. The R-C Feeder is a multiple bcnefit
regional water supply project. The water will be stored in San Bernardino Valley and Chino
groundwater basins. Stored water will be delivered to consumers through a new groundwater
pumping capacity. The new pumping and delivery capacity will enable water to be stored safely by
providing the means to control local water tables.
The water supply assessment proposes the UHSP will connect to reservoirs, similar to the Rlverside-
Corona Feeder. The reservoirs will include a common inlet/outlet pipe with flexible connections,
isolation valves and an altitude valve to prevent overflow. To improve mixing in the tank, each
inlet/outlet pipeline would have two check valves, forcing water to travel a greater distance from inlet
to outlet in a circular motion. The reservoirs would have separate overflow pipes and drain pipes that
would discharge to a concrete gutter. The gutter would convey storm flows, reservoir overt1ows and
dramage along the access road to the downstream development storm drain.
5.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
Because of its size and intensity, as well as its destination potential, the Proposed Project may be a
catalyst for future unrelated projects. This may include new development projects or redevelopment
of existing properties. Note that no such projects have been identified at the time of this writing, and
it would be speculative to identify any potential locations or types of projects.
5.2 - Irreversible Impacts
5.2.1 - Description
Section 15l26.2( c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the extent to which a Proposed
Project will commit nonrenewable resources to uses those future generations will probably be unable
to reverse so that such current consumption may be justified.
5.2.2 - Finding
The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes; they are
defined as "changes in land use that would commit future generations", "irreversible changes from
envIronmental actions", "and consumption of non-renewable resources". The Draft EIR has evaluated
the project's commitment to these irreversible changes in the implementation ofthe project and has
found that the use of such resources is justified by the long-term benefits of the project. However, the
Proposed Project would not be consistent with Air Quality, Population/Housing/SCAG Consistency,
and Freeway Transformational uses.
5.2.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project site WIll be in long-term used as a residential development. In addition, the new uses will
be utilized as a resource for the City over the long-term. In addition, long-term development of the
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
project will be similar to other residential development projects in the City of San Bernardino.
Analyses of all three distinct categories of sib'11ificant irreversible changes are defined as:
Changes in Land Use That Would Commit Future Generations
The project proposes to construct 980 residential units. The Proposed Project will consists of 404.3
total acres, with 169.5 acres or 42 percent of the site proposed for residential and related uses,
including 10.2 acres of parks and recreational uses. The project proposes a gross density of 2.4
dwelling units per acre (980 units divided by 404.3 total acres) and a net density of 5.8 units per acre,
excluding natural open space (980 units divided by 169.5 acres). Residential densities range trom 0.0
to 20 dwelling units per acre. This change in land use is more compatible with the surrounding arca,
therefore, the change in land use would not commit future generations to a significant change in land
use.
Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions
Irreversible changes to the environment could occur if hazardous substances are released associated
with development of the Project. Compliance with the requirements and mitigation measures would
reduce impact to less than significant. No other sources of irreversible changes from environmental
actions are forecast to occur.
Consumption of Non-Renewable Resources
Consumption of non-renewable resources would be the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses,
consumption of energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, and the loss of potential mining
resources.
The Draft EIR determined that development of the project site would not result in a significant impact
on land that is considered suitable for agricultural use. IN addition, the site is not identified as a
mineral resource site and more suitable locations in the surrounding regions are currently being used
as mineral resource sites. Given the proximity to CSUSB, the site would not be a suitable for mining
of mineral resources in the future.
The project will consume non-renewable energy resources during construction and operation such as
petroleum products, construction materials, electricity and natural gas. Construction impacts to non-
renewable would be short-term. Operation of the Project is required to comply with mandatory
requirements of Title 24 in regard to energy efficient building design and is required to utilize energy
conservation measures during operations of the facilities within the project.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
SECTION 6: FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
CEQA requires that a Final EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the
location ofthe project, which: 1) are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any signitlcant
adverse environmental impact associated with the project; and 2) may be feasibly accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental,
social and technological factors involved (CEQA Guidelines 915126.6).
A Final EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most
of the project objectives and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Ii
15126.6; Sierra Club v. County of Napa, 121 Cal. App. 4th 1490 [2004]). In all cases, the
consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason (CEQA Guidelines Ii 15126.6.).
The lead agency is not required to select the environmentally superior alternative identified in the
Final EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the Proposed Project and: 1)
through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a project can be reduced
to a less than significant level; or 2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations
which make the alternative infeasible.
The discussion of alternatives is required to include the "No project" alternative. CEQA further
requires that the City identity an environmentally superior alternative. If the "No project" alternative
is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified
trom among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Ii 15126.6.).
CEQA Guidelines 915126.6 requires a Final EIR to evaluate an alternative site when an alternative
location would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects. The Final EIR considered five (5)
alternatives that may reduce anticipated impacts to less than significant levels, or will improve the
acceptability or successful implementation of the residential improvements. A summary ofProJcct
Alternative Impacts are contained in Table 1.
The objectives for the project as identitled in the Final EIR and considered by the City are the
following:
. Include high-quality, high-density housing in a mixed-use setting to increase the diversity of
housing opportunities in San Bernardino and provide housing options that are not currently
available to local residents;
. Use high-quality architecture and landscaping that will maintain and enhance the aesthetic
character of the City of San Bernardino;
. Provide a "sustainable" community that encompasses construction as well as daily living in
terms of energy and water conservation, wise choice and use of building materials, reduction of
air pollutants, safety, walkability and connectivity to surrounding uses, etc.;
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
. Provide ample amenities including a community clubhouse and extensive trail system to
encourage healthy and enjoyment of open space.
. Maximize roadway safety through the provision of multiple vehicular ingress and egress
opportunities to the Proposed Project internal roadways and parking facilities and
improvements to the surrounding circulation system;
. Create increased new property and sales taxes annually, in perpetuity, for the City of San
Bernardino, and increased annual property taxes for San Bernardino County and various other
local government agencies; and
. Increase property values in the City of San Bernardino and surrounding unincorporated County
areas.
6.1 - No Project/No Development Alternative
6.1.1 - Description
CEQA requires that a "No Project" alternative be evaluated compared to the Proposed Project. The
No Project alternative evaluates existing conditions on the site in the absence of the Proposed Project.
Under this alternative, the project site would remain vacant would not be developed into a residential
community. Assuming the project site remains vacant, all significant impacts will be aVOIded.
However, any benefits of the project related to providing housing opportunities for families as well as
providing infrastructure in an area that is undergoing surrounding residential development would not
be realized.
6.1.2 - Finding
This alternative would eliminate any adverse environmental impacts associated with developing the
project site into a residential community. It would also eliminate the significant impacts associated
with the project (i.e. air quality, population, housing, and SCAG consistency, transportation).
6.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The No Project - No Development Alternative would eliminate the seven significant impacts of the
Proposed Project relative to construction and occupancy of the proposed UHSP. However, it would
result in an indirect impact to future growth of the City. Furthermore, this alternative does not achieve
any of the objectives of the Proposed Project.
6.2 - No Project - General Plan Development Alternative
6.2.1 - Description
Under this alternative, the site would be developed under the approved PHSP as outlined under the
previous EIR certified in 1993, whieh allowed 504 residential units.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
6.2.2. Finding
Under this alternative, there would be similar impacts associated with the Proposed Project, as the
land use designation is the similar for the existing General Plan/Specific Plan as the Proposed ProJect.
Developing the Project area for residential uses could have potential adverse impacts on the adjacent
residential development. It would potentially increase impacts related to Aesthetics, Light, and Glare.
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, and Hydrology and Water Quality.
6.2.3. Facts in Support of Finding
The No Project - General Plan Development Alternative would have incrementally fewer impacts
related to long-term occupancy of the project site since it would allow the development of
approximately half the number of units compared to the Proposed Project (504 vs. 980 or 48.5'1.,)/
However, the UHSP proposes aggressive water and energy conservation measures that would
substantially reduce the differences in these impacts. This alternative would have similar or increased
short-term air quality impacts from grading but reduced construction-related impacts (i.e., fewer
units). Long-term air quality impacts under this alternative would be reduced to less than significant
levels. This alternative may have increased impacts on biological and cultural resources, and the
City's water distribution system if development were to occur as outlined in the previously approved
Paradise Hills Specific Plan. This alternative would also create increased risks to project residents and
residences related to wildand fires and geotechnical constraints. Growth inducement and impacts
related to consistency with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significant levels
under this alternative. This alternative does not meet the objectives of the project to the same degree
as the Proposed Project in that the PHSP does not contain current water or energy conservation
strategies.
6.3. Modified Specific Plan Alternative
6.3.1 - Description
To reduce air quality and growth inducement impacts, this alternative would be phased and have
more "mixed" uses (i.e., 100,000 square feet of commercial and other non-residential) on the site. It
would also have fewer residential lots (approximately 700 units) but with higher densities than those
allowed under the UHSP to be able to cluster units more effectively. This alternative would likely
require many buildings with 3-4 stories rather than 2-3 story buildings under the current UHSP. The
current "clubhouse" area would become more of a community center under this alternative, with taller
buildings and approximately 100,000 square feet of a mixture of commercial and professional of11ce
uses. Each residential planning area would be larger overall than under the UHSP, and each would be
built on pads that could be more isolated in terms of grading. At present, the land plan requires that
the entire development area (approximately 170 acres) be graded at one time to balance earthwork
onsite (i.e., no substantial import of soil onto or export of soil off of the site). Balancing earthwork
within a development area is an important consideration of project design, not only for cost, but to
minimize the import or export of soil from the site, which could significantly increase short-term
traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. The only feasible way to accomplish this balancing with
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
smaller planning areas would be to "pair" two planning areas, one upslope and one downslope, and
use the cut material from the upper area to create a pad for the lower area. This would necessarily
create a more terraced look to the development.
The road system would be similar to that of the proposed UHSP but there would be more open space
between the Planning Areas and the project would be built over a longer period of time to reduce
short-term construction impacts.
6.3.2. Finding
Under this alternative, impacts from residential development woud be either equivalent or reduced;
however, the alternative would not reduce environmental impacts in regard to Air Quality and
Transportation.
6.3.3. Facts in Support of Finding
The Modified Specific Plan Alternative would have incrementally fewer impacts related to long-term
occupancy of the project site since it would allow the development of fewer residential units
compared to the Proposed Project (700 vs. 980 or 40 percent less). However, the addition of
commercial and office uses under this "mixed use" plan would generate a greater amount of traffic
than the Proposed Project, especially during peak periods. The mixed uses would help reduce the
number and length of vehicular trips off of the project site.
This alternative could reduce short-term (daily) air quality impacts from grading and construction to
less than significant levels, however, it would extend those impacts over a longer period of time if
development phasing were increased (i.e., from 5 to 10 years). Long-term air quality impacts under
this alternative would increased by adding non-residential uses, and would still exceed significance
thresholds.
This alternative would have equivalent impacts on biological and cultural resources, and would likely
create similar risks to project residents and residences (and businesses and employees) related to
wildand fires and geotechnical constraints. Growth inducement and impacts related to consistency
with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significant levels under this alternative.
This alternative would meet some of the objectives of the project.
6.4. Educationallnstitution/Technology Park Alternative
6.4.1 . Description
The University DIstrict Specific Plan identifies the general area for technology park uses, which
would be supported and will benefit from research at the University. To reduce air quality and
growth inducement impacts, this alternative would eliminate residential uses and place an educational
institution and related technology uses in this area to support CSUSB. These uses could be in
conjunction with or in support ofthe Cal State San Bernardino campus. The proposed alternative
would house approximately 2.75 million square feet of office space, industrial use, and educational
research for information technologies. Based on discussions with the San Bernardino City Unified
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
School District, this plan does not envision K-12 facilities at this time. The road system would be
similar to that of the proposed UHSP but there might be more open space between various buildings
or uses, and they may be built over a longer period of time to reduce short-term construction impacts.
6.4.2 - Finding
Long-term air quality impacts would not be reduced as the educational institution/technology park
uses would generate more vehicular peak hour traffic. However, additional impacts would be similar
or reduced compared to the Proposed Project.
6.4.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The Educational Institution/Technology Park Alternative would produce very different impacts
compared to those hom the residential uses of the Proposed Project. It would likely generate more
peak hour traffic, but non-peak hour traffic may be substantially less that that of the Proposed Project.
The addition of educational and institutional uses under this plan would likely not reduce short-term
(daily) air quality impacts from grading and construction to less than significant levels due to the need
to grade the entire area for efficient site planning. Long-term air quality impacts under this
alternative would probably be higher than those produced by residential uses, and would still exceed
significance thresholds.
This alternative would have equivalent impacts on biological and cultural resources, and would likely
create similar risks to project employees and students rather than to project residents and residences in
terms of wildand fires and geotechnical constraints. Growth inducement and impacts related to
consistency with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than signifIcant levels under this
alternative. Although the alternative project may meet certain objectives to the same degree as the
Proposed Project, it does not meet all the specific project objectives already outlined in the approved
PHSI'.
6.5 - Alternative Sites
6.5.1 - Description
CEQA requires the evaluation of alternative sites if moving the Proposed Project to another site
would eliminate or avoid one or more significant impacts of the Proposed Project. The impacts to
both short-term and long-term air quality would occur regardless oflocation. The significant impact
to freeway traffic might be reduced by a different location, but the 1-215 Freeway experiences similar
levels of congestion from its intersection with the 1-15 four miles to the north down to its intcrsection
with the 1-10 Freeway six miles to the south
6.5.2 - Finding
It is not likely that an alternative location would eliminate the significant traffic impact of the
Proposed Project. Unless the UHSP project can be built with mixed uses or adjacent to a transit
center (no sites of this size available near the San Bernardino center), the Proposed Project cannot be
made consistent with the growth projections or policies of SCAG.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
6.5.3. Facts in Support of Finding
The alternative location would not eliminate the signifIcant impacts of the Proposed Project. Based
on discussions with City staff and a survey of the surrounding area, there are no other vacant sites of
this size in the northern portion of San Bernardino. This analysis demonstrates that impacts of
development as proposed under the UHSP on an alternative site would be equivalent to those of the
UHSP developed on this location. Therefore, an alternative site is not a feasible or viable option for
this proj ect.
Environmental Findings of Fact Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
University Hills Specific Plan EIR Proposed Project
Table 1: Summary of Project Alternative Impacts
Proposed No Project -No No Project - Modified Educational
Environment General Plan
allssue Project Development Alternative Specific Plan Institution I Tech.
(UHSP) Alternative (PHSP) Alternative Park Alternative
Aesthetics, Less No impact Somewhat Equivalent but Increased but less
Light, and significant increased more non- than significant
Glare residential uses
Air Quality Significant No impact Significant Less than Significant
significant
Construction Significant No impact Less than Significant Significant
Operation despite'!li;(~~use
Biological Less than No impact Significant Less than Less than
Resources ~igllificant sigllW~~llt s)gnificant
Cultural Less than No impact Increased and Less than Less than
Resources Significant potentially significant significant
significant
Geology, Soils, Less than No impact Increased but less Less than Less than
and SeislTl,(city ~_iglliD_~_~ll,t, than sigllificant s_ign.iD~~nt significant
Hazards and Less than No impact Reduced but less Less than Significant
Hazardous Significant than significant significant Increased hazmat
Materials use
Hydrology and Less than No impact Increased less Less than Less than
Water Quality ~Jgllin~allt than significant sigllin~_~T1t sjgllificant
Land Use Less than No impact Less than Increased but less Significant
Significant significant than significant
Noise Less than No impact Reduced and less Mixed but less [ncrcased but less
Significant than significant than significant than significant
Population, Significant No impact Lcss than Less than Less than
I-lousing, and Growth Inducing significant significant significant
SCAG & SCAG policies
<:::()n?is~~ncy
Public Services Less than No impact Reduced but less Reduced but less Mixed but less
and Recreation ~igniD~ant than signin~~ll~ tb<ill?iglliDcant than significant?
Transportation Signiticant No impact Significant Significant Significant
and Circulation Fwy congestion Fwy congestion Local traffic & Local traffic &
F':Yy.~()J1gestion Fwy congestion
Agriculture Less than No impact Less than Less than Less than
Mineral Significant significant significant significant
Resources
Utility Systems Less No impact Reduced Reduced Reduced
Significant
Meets Project Yes No Not to same Not to same No
Objectives? degree degree
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
6.5.4 - Finding
The Final EIR determined that the Proposed Project would produce significant impacts to Air Quality,
Population, Housing and SCAG Consistency, and Transportation. The Final EIR also determined the
project could potentially contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to Air Quality and
Transportation; however, the recommended measures do not reduce impacts under the less than
significant threshold. All five alternatives reduce at least one of the three significant and unavoidable
impacts; however, they create potential land use compatibility contlicts between the alternate uses
and the General Plan. In addition the alternatives would not fully implement the project's objectives
of providing an active residential community with connectivity to the existing residential uses. Since
none of the alternatives are considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, they are
rejected in favor of the Proposed Project.
6.5.5 - Facts in Support of Finding
None of the alternatives achieve the objectives of the project to the same degree as the Proposed
Project. The environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the Proposed Project are
summarized in Table 1.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Statement of Overriding Considerations
SECTION 7: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (a) states that:
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered "acceptable."
Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened the agency shall
state in writing the specific rcasons 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 15091 (a)(3).
As identified above, the City of San Bernardino finds that the project does produce significant and
un-mitigable impacts to Air Quality, Population, Housing and SCAG Consistency, and
Transportation, and, therefore, requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The findings havc
also analyzed a number of alternatives to determine whether they are reasonable and feasible
alternatives to the proposed action and whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant impacts
of the proposed action. The City of San Bernardino finds that the project will provide specdic
economic, social, and other benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of
the project, such that those impacts are considered acceptable. Each of the benefits of the Proposcd
Project cited is hereby determined to be, in itself and independently of the other project benefits, a
basis for overriding all significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in these
findings. These benefits are as follows:
1. The Paradise Hills project land plan proposed extensive grading and development within the
middle and upper reaches of Badger Canyon, however, that project was never built. In addition
to the General Plan designating the project site as a Specific Plan, the Land Use Plan in the City's
Land Use Element designates the lower (southern) portion of the site for Residential Suburban
(RS) uses with a density of 4.5 units per acre (7,200 square foot lots), and the northern portion
(i.e., north of the San Andreas Fault and in the middle and upper reaches of Badger Canyon) for
Residential Low (RL) development at 3.1 units per acre. The University Hills Specific plan
addresses the steep slopes surrounding Badger Creek and designated it as Open Space (OS).
2. The northern portions ofthe site are mitigated with a Hillside Management Overlay as well as a
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay to help to minimize the spread of wildfires, property damage, and
reduce the risk to the public health and safety.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Statement of Overriding Considerations
3. The University Hills Specific Plan replaces the Paradise Hills Specific Plan and includes a new
land use map, zoning districts, development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure
requirements for the development of the site. The following elements of the Specific Plan
promote the land use goals of the General Plan:
. Placing housing in close proximity to CSUSB.
. Accommodating up to 60 faculty units, which will create a direct and long-lasting
relationship with CSUSB.
. Orienting the development and clubhouse toward CSUSB.
. Allowing CSUSB to share conference facilities in the clubhouse.
. Dedicating approximately 235 acres of permanent open space to CSUSB as a "land
laboratory."
. Carefully weaving University Hills into its physical surroundings by clustering
development on the lower slopes and away from physical hazards, preserving significant
drainage ways.
4. The Project allows residents the opportunity to live, work, and play in the immediate area. This
reduces the need to use the automobile, which in turn reduces congestion, improves air quality,
fosters walking, and improves overall health and wellness.
5. University Hills is a significant opportunity for the City to achieve many goals described in its
General Plan, such as providing housing types suitable for a variety oflifestyles and incomes.
University Hills accommodates a range of living opportunities including estate, single-family
detached, small-lot detached, cluster court homes, town homes, and stacked flats. In addition,
University Hills provides four acres that will bc dedicated to CSUSB and can accommodate up to
60 units for exclusive use as faculty housing.
6. University Hills accommodates 980 residences situated in several neighborhoods, which are
separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, and sloped areas and interconnected by a series
oftrails and roadways.
7. Development is focused onto approximately 170 acres, or 42 percent of the total site and is
mainly concentrated south of the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault on the lower portions of
the site where the average slopes are generally below 15 percent. North of the South Branch of
the San Andreas Fault, approximately 235 acres, or 58 percent of the site, remains undeveloped
and is designated as permanent open space. It will be dedicated to CSUSB for use as a laboratory
to study the local biology, habitat, and geology. The compact design limits the development
footprint so that open lands are maximized; natural drainage ways are maintained and
incorporated into the design ofthe project as open space amenities; landscaping and hazards are
avoided or mitigated.
8. The land laboratory contains a variety of native plant species; natural drainages, including Badger
Creek; and the San Andreas Fault system. The proximity of these features to the CSUSB campus
provides unique educational opportunities. It is envisioned that the biology, geology, geography
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Statement of Overriding Considerations
and environmental studies, and science education departments would be the primary users of the
land laboratory, but it could be used by other disciplines.
9. University Hills is designed and programmed to create a long-term and synergistic relationship
with CSUSB. In particular, University Hills directly responds to input from the University
through the provision ofland for faculty housing, the 235-acre land laboratory, pathways, bike
lanes, and the California Walnut Grove Linear Park.
10. University Hills is designed to minimize the impacts of light intrusion and spillover. CSUSB is
contemplating building an observatory on Badger Hill immediately adjacent to University Hills.
To help preserve a dark nighttime sky, this Specific Plan includes strict controls on the type and
design of lighting.
11. University Hills is also located within the University District Specific Plan, which was approved
November 1,2005. The University District Specific Plan acts as the umbrella document for a
6,375-acre area, of which University Hills is a part. The intent of the University District Specific
Plan is to "lay a foundation for the intq,'fation of the University into the surrounding community."
The University District Specific Plan focuses on creating:
. Pedestrian-oriented developments
. A seamless connection between the community and University
. Integrated curriculum with CSUSB
. A "university town"
. Enhanced link to regional recreation
. An efficient vehicular and pedestrian system
. A range of housing types to accommodate a wide range of population, including University
faculty and staff.
. Quality housing
The University District Specific Plan assumed the Paradise Hills Specific Plan in its land use plan
and was amended to reflect the land plan for University Hills in conjunction with this project.
ATTACHMENT H
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of San Bernardino
Attn: City Manager
300 North "D" Street, 6th Floor
San Bernardino, California 92418
(SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONE Y)
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 07-01
(UNIVERSITY HILLS)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
,2008
Inland.UI 1513. DevAgLv2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa2e
RECITALS...................................................................................................................... ... I
l'IQkccLl)ccy,!QP1ECIlL&:llllirem en ts. .......................................................................... 3
a. Standard of l)cvclopment. ................................................................................ 3
I), Rules and Reglllations,...................................................................................... 3
c. Fees and Fcc Credits. ........................................................................................4
d. Hili Iding Permits. ............................................................. .......... ..... ........ ... ... .... 6
e. PI"(),cs~.~~C Appl icatiol]s:.,Fi 'l'LLA..CLioJL ........ ........ ................. ........ ............... 6
[ Till1i ng.() LP,\!el opment. ...................... ........ ........ ............... ..... ..... .................... 7
g: [\/1 ul1icipal Services........... ....................... ................ .......... .......... ........ .............. 7
h. 1'.llb.Li<::.Iv.1fl]c<::j!]g. .. ..... ........................... ........ ........ ..... ..... ..... ............... ............ 8
SLll.lllsgLl'oj e,L'1QProva Is. ......................................................................................... 8
a. 'I,lTl1..9 C Ajmrovals. ................................ ........... ............... ..... ..... ....................... 8
!2, Consistency of Land Use Designations. ........................................................... 8
~. T c:;:rlTI of /\L!TCClnenl.. ... ... ....................... ...... ... ... ........ ... ..... ..... ..... ....... .......... ...... ...... ... 9
a. 1\ ormaIIiCLnl.,.................................................................................................... 9
h. Proiect Completion. .......................................................................................... 9
4. Hindinl! [Clect oL\gLeCl1}CnL.....................................................................................9
a. Covena!lt. .................. ............................. ........ ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ... ..... ... ... ... .... 9
b .f\Jg.f>.mperty.JmcresL......................................................................................... 9
5. AS'illinment. ... ........ ........................................................... ..... ....... .......... .................. 10
;!.:
Rigln.<2.LAsc-;igllmCl1L ............................ .......................... ............ .................... 10
f\J()tice Requirement. ....................................................................................... 10
[Iket 01' Default. ............................................................................................ 10
b.
e.
("
.....................................................................................................................10
a.
Form 01' Notice. ............................................................................................... 10
Chang~ oCf\ddncss. ......................................................................................... 11
\2.,
."',n.liC1.c9Jn,nt of A greement. ....................................................................................... 11
a. E\lrInal AmendmenL ....................................................................................... 11
b. Clarillcatioll. ................................................................................................... 11
8. Il1tffi)fetation and EnCorcement 01' Agreement., ........................................................ II
a. Conmlctc Agrecment. ..................................................................................... 11
b. Se.verabilit v. ..... ....................... ...... ...... ........ ........ ..... ..... .................... .............. 12
<;, Contlict\Vilh Statc or Federal Laws. ............................................................. 12
d. Applicable Law. .............................................................................................. 12
e. PrcvailiJlg Party.'............................................................................................... 12
In land. U HSB_ Dev Agr. v2
11
[ Ilcfunsc QJ.:/\(',~i'JIlcnL ........... ... ... ......... ........ ........ ..... ....... ..... ....... ... ...... ........ 12
&- Authoritv of Signatories. ................................................................................. 12
lL I ndcmni Ilcatjon. .... ... ... ... ....................... ... ........ ............... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ... ... ... 12
l. IN ai vcr and De\i!y,~, ...................... ... ...... ... ........ .......... ..... ..... ..... ....... ... ......... ... 13
.L Third Pan v Actions,............... ... ... ... ... ........... ........ ..... ..... ..... ....... ... ................. 13
k. Force Ma ieure. ... .................... ...... ... ... ........... ........ ..... ..... ............ ................. ... 13
I). [jtJe.~t on Propertv,....................................................................................................13
'lc Estoppel Certi Ilcate. ........................................................................................ 13
b. gg[>?!.l.~>?QnQtsJ:rl)m../~gr~~111Clll- . ... ... ... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ... ... .... 13
I n. l)erir)<licl~~.Yi~.'-..v_()LConlPJii!I.K~.\\ljtIlW<.;t:lTl.s:rlL..... ........ ....... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ........ 13
a. !\lJt}IJ'lU{evig.'-..v~............................................................................................... 13
b. Contents Qf Report. ......................................................................................... 14
C. jy! ai vcr. ............................................................................................................ 14
I~ Viol ations. ................................................................................................................. 14
a. Violation bv Property Owner.......................................................................... 14
120 \i'iCll<ition bv 01v.............................................................................................15
c. Legal Enforccment. ......................................................................................... 15
J 2. RelationshiJ) of Parties. ............................................................................................. 16
J 3, Exhibi1s~ .................................................................................................................... 16
14. !1ci()j1tiQIlOf A!!reement. ........................................................................................... 16
15. Reconlin!! of Agreement. .......................................................................................... 16
Exhibits
Exhibit "A" - Legal Description of Property
Exhibit "B" - Public Facilities Financing Plan
Exhibit "C" - Table of Processing Fees
Exhibit "D" - Table ofImpact Fees
InlamLUIISB.DevAgr.v2
JlJ
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this _
day of , 2008, by and between (i) the CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a
municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the
"City"), and (ii) FONTANA CORNERS 111, L.P., a California limited partnership (the
"Property Owner"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the
California Government Code. The City and the Property Owner may be referred to herein
individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."
RECIT ALS
A. The Property Owner is the Owner of a large property, consisting of approximately
four hundred four (404) acres, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto (the "Property"). The Property is located in the northerly portion of the City,
in close proximity to the campus of California State University, San Bernardino
("CSU").
B. The Property previously was the subject of Resolution No. 93-45, adopted by the
City on February 22, 1993, approving General Plan Amendmcnt No. 91-07 and
Specific Plan 90-03 and related conditions of approval, and authorizing execution of
Development Agreement No. 91-03 with the Property Owner (collectively, the
"Prior Approvals").
C. Pursuant to the Prior Approvals and the plan of development contained therein,
commonly known as ParadiSE Hills, the Property Owner prepared a filed a proposed
map for subdivision of the Property. Subsequently, at the request of the elected
leadership of the City, the Property Owner withdrew that proposal, and agreed to
design an entirely different development concept for the Property.
D. The Property Owner now proposes to develop the Property as a residential
community to be known as University Hills (the "Project"). The City and the
Property Owner mutually recognize that this represents a unique opportunity to
work cooperatively in formulating and carrying out a comprehensive developmcnt
plan that will have a beneficial impact on the area in which this property is located,
as well as on the City as a whole. To that end, the Parties have cooperated in
designing a development plan which advances their mutual goals, and now wish to
commit their best efforts and resources in pursuit of this opportunity.
E. This Agreement will enable the City, as well as CSU and other entities, to realize
significant benefits, in the form of facilities, programs and revenues. In patiicular,
these include preservation of more than half of the Property as pennanent open
space under the control of CSU and reservation of a portion of the Project for CSU
faculty housing. Furthermore, development of the Project is expected to contribute
significantly toward generation of benefits and enhancement of the quality of life for
1
Inlanu. UHS8.DevAgr,v2
both current and future residents of the City. Consequently, entering into this
Agreement is acknowledged to be to the mutual benefit of the Parties.
F. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the
Legislature of the State of Cali fomi a adopted Section 65864 et seq. of the California
Government Code, which authorizes the City to enter into a development agreement
with any person or entity having a legal or equitable interest in real property,
providing for the development of such property and establishing certain reciprocal
rights and obligations related to such development.
G. To implement the above-described state laws, the City adopted Chapter 19.40 of the
San Bernardino Municipal Code, establishing procedures and requirements for
considering and approving development agreements.
H. The Property Owner has a legal interest in the real property situated in the City
which is the subject of this Agreement, and therefore satisfies the statutory
requirements to enter into this Agreement.
I. In conjunction with the Prior Approvals, City Council Resolution No. 93-45
certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR"), adopted findings and a
statement of overriding considerations, and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program
as contemplated by the ErR. The City Council certified that the ErR was legally
adequate, and that it satisfied the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA;" California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) and
applicable ordinances and regulations of the City.
J. The Property Owner has made or intends to make application to the City for
additional discretionary land use approvals, including, but not limited to, a new
specific plan (the "Specific Plan"), a new General Plan amendment (the "GP A"), a
zone change (the "Zone Change"), one or more subdivision maps (the "Map" or the
"Maps") and formation of one or more financing districts.
K. In connection with this Agreement, the City Council reviewed the previously
approved EIR and related documents, prepared a Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (the "SEIR"), and certified that the SEIR is legally adequate, and that
it satisfies the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable
ordinances and regulations of the City, including but not limited to provision of
sufficient mitigation for any significant enviromnental impacts.
L. The Specific Plan, the GP A, the SEIR and any other discretionary land use
approvals relating to the Project are incorporated herein by this reference, and
collectively comprise the "Project Approvals." Any and all Maps and other future
discretionary land use approvals relating to the Project shall become part of the
Project Approvals upon receiving approval from the City. The Property Owner
desires to develop the Property in accordance with the Projcct Approvals and this
Inland _ U HSB. Dcv Agr. v2
2
Agreement. The Project consists of development of the Property as contemplated
by the Project Approvals and this Agreement, subject to any refinements agreed
upon by the Parties.
M. The Planning Commission, on conducted hearings and
adopted findings relating to this Agreement, as required by Municipal Code Section
, and recommended that the City Council approve this Agreement.
N. The City Council, on , by Resolution No. made
all findings and determinations relating to this Agreement which are required by
Municipal Code Section , and approved this Agreement by its adoption
of Ordinance No. In doing so, the City Council determined that this
Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and will implement the Project
Approvals.
O. The City Council finds that execution ofthis Agreement and the performance of and
compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein by the Parties: (i) is in the
best interests of the City; (ii) will promote the public convenience, general welfare
and good land use practices in the City; (iii) will promote preservation and
enhancement of land values in the City; (iv) will encourage the development of the
Project by providing a reasonable level of certainty to the Property Owner; and (v)
will provide for orderly growth and development in a manner consistent with thc
General Plan and other plans and regulations of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals, all of which are expressly
incorporated into this Agreement, and the mutual promises and obligations of the Parties set
forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Proiect Development Requirements.
a. Standard of Development. The Project shall be developed in
accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. During the term of this
Agreement, the permitted uses within the Project, the density and intensity of use,
maximum height and size of buildings, other zoning standards, the requirements for
reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the mitigation requirements and all
other terms and conditions of development of the Project shall be those set forth in the
Project Approvals.
b. Rules and Regulations. Pursuant to Government Code Section
65866, and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the regulations, rules and
official policies of the City governing (i) permitted uses within the Project, (ii) density and
intensity of use, (iii) design, improvement and construction standards and specifications,
and (iv) all other tenns and conditions of development of the Project shall be those
regulations, rules and official policies which are in effect on the effective date of the
ordinance approving this Agreement, as modified and/or supplemented by the Specific Plan
(the "Applicable Regulations"). Other ordinances, regulations and official policies of thc
City which are adopted thereafter may be applicable to the Project, to the extent that they
are not in conflict with the Applicable Regulations.
Inland_UIISB.DevAgr.v2
3
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Parties recognize that planning
and design considerations are constantly evolving and being modernized, and that
development of the Project may from time to time require updating of City regulations and
standards in order to achieve the most desirable outcomes for the City from the Project.
Accordingly, the City agrees that it shall diligently and in good faith review and process to
final action any proposals made by the Property Owner for such updating of City
regulations and standards.
c. Fees and Fee Credits. The Parties recognize that fees which may be
imposed by the City upon the Project fall within two categories: (i) fees for processing
applications for City actions or approvals ("Processing Fees"); and (ii) fees or other
monetary exactions which are established or contemplated under City ordinances or
resolutions in effect as of the effective date of the ordinance approving this Agreement and
which are intended to defray the costs of public facilities or other amenities related to
development projects (e.g., schools, parks, streets and traffic controls) ("Impact Fees").
i. Processing Fees. The City may charge Processing Fees
against the Project based upon the lesser of (A) the fees applicable at the time of the
Property Owner's application for any future City action or approval, or (B) the fees
applicable as of the date of approval ofthis Agreement by the City, in either case subject to
the limitations in Paragraph l.c.iii below. The Property Owner shall receive a credit against
the Processing Fees for any payments made or expenses incurred by the Property Owner for
city staff or other persons engaged or assigned by the City pursuant to Subsection l.e
below. A list of the categories and amounts of Processing Fees in effect as of the date of
approval ofthis Agreement by the City is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
ii. Impact Fees. The City may charge Impact Fees against the
Project based upon the lesser of (A) the fees ordinarily applicable at the time that payment
is due or (B) the fees applicable as of the date of approval ofthis Agreement by the City, in
either case subject to the limitations in Paragraph l.c.iii below. The Property Owner may
defer payment of Impact Fees related to any structure until the time of close of escrow in
the first sale of such structure to a member of the public. A list of the categories and
amounts of Impact Fees in effect as of the date of approval of this Agreement by the City is
attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
lll. Fee Categories. The City shall not impose upon the Project
any categories of fees or other monetary exactions which are not included within (A) the
Processing Fees as those categories exist as if the date of this Agreement, and (B) thc
Impact Fees as those categories existed as of the date of adoption of the Prior Approvals,
unless required by state or federal law or regulations.
IV. Mitigation of Impacts. The Parties anticipate that, in addition
to paying various fees to the City, the Property Owner will develop various public
improvements as components of the Project, or in satisfaction of conditions of approval of
the Project. To the extent that the Property Owner develops improvements which mitigate
thc impacts of the Project upon public facilities or infrastructure and for which the City
imposes Impact Fees, or the Property Owner secures such development in a manner
reasonably acceptable to the City, the Property Owner shall be entitled to credits against
Inland. UI-ISB.DevAgr.v2
4
any such Impact Fees in an amount equivalent to the total cost of development of such
facilities or infrastructure as of the date that any such facility or other item of infrastructure
is conveyed to and accepted by the City, including but not limited to the costs of design,
preparation and processing of plans, land acquisition, financing and construction. As to any
category of such public facilities or infrastructure in which the Property Owner develops or
secures the development of all such improvements required to serve the Project, the
Property Owner shall be entirely exempt from that category of Impact Fees. In particular,
in recognition of the significant pennanent open space, improved parkland and public trails
provided for in the Specific Plan, the Property Owner shall be exempt from payment of
park and recreation fees.
v. Oversizing and Reimbursements. Furthermore, to the extent
that the Property Owner constructs public improvements which benefit other development
projects or properties, in addition to the Project, the City shall require the owners or
developers of such other projects or properties to enter into reimbursement agreements with
the Property Owner for their pro rata shares of the costs of such improvements, which
reimbursements shall be due and payable by each such other owner or developer at the
earlier of the recording of the first subdivision map for the benefited property or the
issuance of the first building permit for the benefited property. Alternatively, the City shall
reimburse the Property Owner for such pro rata share out of fees collected from such other
benefited projects or properties.
Similarly, to the extent that the Property Owner constructs
public improvements which generally benefit the surrounding community or the City as a
whole, such as certain infrastructure improvements called for in the City's General Plan,
but the benefits of which do not clearly accrue to particular other development projects or
properties, the Property Owner shall receive credits against Impact Fees in the amount of
the portion of the value of such improvements to the general community or the City, over
and above their value to the Project, as determined by the City in its reasonable discretion
in consultation with the Property Owner. For example, extension of Campus Parkway from
its current easterly tenninus is an improvement called for in the City's General Plan,
primarily for the benefit of CSU, so that the cost of construction of that improvement, if
performed by the Property Owner, would be reimbursed through credits toward any Impact
Fees due from the Property Owner. The traffic signals and othcr improvements to bc
constructed at both the intersection of Northpark Boulevard and Campus Parkway and the
intersection of Little Mountain Road and East Campus Circle have been approved by the
City to be funded and constructed through the City's Capital Improvement Program; in the
event that the City has not commenced construction of each of those improvements by the
beginning of the year 2011, the Property Owner may perform such construction, in which
case the Property Owner shall be reimbursed through credits toward any Impact Fees due
from the Property Owner.
vi. Maintenance Responsibilities. It is intended that private
infrastructure improvements within the Project will be owned, operated and maintained by
a homeowners association. However, certain infrastructure facilities which are expected to
be constructed by the Property Owner will be conveyed to public agencies, which then wi II
be responsible for their operation and maintenance. In particular, the sewer lift station to be
located at or near the southwesterly comer of the Project site, as shown in the Specific Plan,
Inland. U HSll. Dev Agr. v2
5
will be conveyed to the City Department of Public Works, and thereafter will be operated
and maintained by that agency. The regional trail traversing the Project, as shown in the
Specific Plan, will be conveyed to and maintained by the City Department of Parks,
Recreation and Community Services. Trails constructed within the open space area to bc
conveyed to CSU, as shown in the Specific Plan, will be subject to an easement for public
access and use, and will be maintained by the City Department of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services. Trails constructed within the balance of the Project, as shown in the
Specific Plan, will be conveyed to a homeowners association and will be maintained by a
landscape maintenance district formed and operated by the City, which district includes this
Project. Other trails constructed by the Property Owner across adjacent land owned by the
San Bernardino County Flood Control District and/or land owned by CSU, will be
maintained either by the owners of the underlying property or by such landscape
maintenance district.
d. Building Permits. The Property Owner shall have the right to obtain
building permits necessary for construction of the maximum number of dwelling units and
other structures permitted by the Project Approvals, consistent with the other requirements
and conditions in this Section I.
e. Processing of Applications; Final Action. The Parties recognize that
there are additional approvals required by the Property Owner from the City in connection
with carrying out the Project pursuant to the Project Approvals, including but not limited to
one or more Maps. During the term of this Agreement, the Property Owner shall have a
legally recognized vested right to obtain such additional approvals and to carry out the
Project in accordance therewith.
i. The City recognizes the importance to the Project of
achieving and maintaining the timely and efficient processing of Project-related
applications and related documents. Accordingly, the City shall diligently and in good faith
process any such applications and take final action thereon as quickly as reasonably
possible. In no event shall such processing exceed the time periods set forth in any
applicable state laws and local ordinances or regulations. In the event that the City fails to
comply with such requirements, the City shall be liable to the Property Owner for any
damage or loss suffered by the Property Owner as a consequence. The foregoing
requirements are subject to the Property Owner's applications for such additional approvals
being in proper form for submittal and processing, including all required documents,
information and fees, based on the City's generally applicable standards in effect at the time
of submittal.
ii. The Project shall be exempt from any moratorium or other
restriction on the acceptance, processing or approval of development-related applications
and/or of issuance of development-related permits, except as otherwise required by state or
federal law. The timing of acceptance, processing and approval of such applications and
the issuance of such permits shall not be affected by any limitation imposed after the date of
approval of this Agreement upon the number of lots or permits which may be approved by
the City, including limitations pertaining to particular time periods. Any conditions or
requirements imposed by the City in connection with any such approvals or pennits shall
not exceed those typically imposed by the City in connection with similar approvals for
other development projects in the City.
In land .lJHSB. Dev Agr_ v2
6
111. The City, with the concurrence of the Property Owner, may
engage consultants or assign city staff for the purpose of coordinating, facilitating,
expediting and/or reviewing subsequent applications by the Property Owner to the City for
additional approvals and permits related to the Project. The Property Owner shall bear thc
costs of compensation of such specially assigned consultants and staff and any other City
expenses associated with such persons, except as otherwise provided herein. The
consultants and staff assigned to the Project shall at all times be person having a level of
training and experience commensurate with the size and complexity of the Project and the
diversity of further approvals and permits required for the Project.
f. Timing of Development. The Parties acknowledge that development
of the Project will be affected by numerous factors outside the control of the Property
Owner, e.g., general economic conditions, interest rates and market demand. Accordingly,
the Parties further acknowledge and agree that the Property Owner may develop the Project
in such order and at such rate and times as are appropriate within the Property Owner's
business judgment, subject to compliance by the Property Owner with conditions and
requirements imposed by the City and not in conflict with this Agreement. Furthermore,
the Property Owner shall have the unrestricted right to refrain from proceeding with
development of part or all of the Project, upon a determination by the Property Owner, in
the Property Owner's discretion, that any conditions have made the Project infeasible.
g. Public Services. Following satisfaction by the Property Owner of the
requirements to obtain the necessary permits to carry out each phase of the Project, in
accordance with the Project Approvals, the City shall provide to the Project all municipal
services required to carry out the Project (including but not limited to services and/or
facilities toward which the Property Owner has paid Impact Fees) which are provided by
the City to other property Owners either citywide or in the vicinity of the Project, at a cost
no higher on a pro rated basis than is charged to such other property Owners, provided that
the Property Owner complies with all requirements of the Project Approvals pertaining to
construction and/or financing of improvements related to such services, and further
provided that there are no physical impediments which make it impossible for the City to
provide any particular service to the Project. Such services shall include, without
limitation, maintenance of the sewer lift station described in Paragraph l.c.vi above.
The City recognizes the importance to the Project of extending public
transit services to the Project site. Accordingly, the City has commenced negotiations with
the Omnitrans transit agency to extend shuttle bus service, with the intention of serving the
community center and at least one other location within the Project. The City shall use its
best good faith efforts to secure such service.
h. Proiect Access. The City acknowledges that development of the
Project in accordance with the Project Approvals will require use of certain existing public
rights of way, including but not limited to the street known as Little Mountain Road (which
was established as a public right of way by that certain Agreement and Grant of Easement
recorded June 21, 1965, in Book 6415, Page 395, in the Official Records of San Bernardino
County) and the easterly extension of the street known as Campus Parkway, as well as the
securing of additional public rights of way. The City shall take no action which would
result in diminishing public access to the Property as shown in the Specific Plan. Further,
the City shall cooperate with the Property Owner in securing all additional public access
Inland. UHSB.DevAgr.v2
7
shown in the Specific Plan from CSU, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District
and any other public or private Owners of property through which such access must pass,
Such cooperation by the City shall include, if necessary, exercise of the City's power of
eminent domain, in accordance with applicable state law and local ordinances,
i, Public Financing, The City shall cooperate with the Property Owner
in making available means of public financing for some or all of the public facilities and/or
services required to be constructed or provided in connection with the Project and Impact
Fees required to be paid in connection with the Project, pursuant to the Project Approvals,
Upon the request of the Owner, the City shall initiate proceedings for the establishment of
one or more community facilities districts, landscape maintenance districts or other similar
financing mechanisms, or, alternatively, regarding participation in one or more such
financing mechanisms established by another public agency, The City's obligations in this
regard shall be subject to and consistent with the City's ordinances and policies, if any,
regarding use of public financing, as well as any applicable provisions of state law, and
shall be consistent with the Public Facilities Financing Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B",
The Property Owner agrees to cast its votes in favor of, and/or to refrain from protesting the
formation of, any such district which the Property Owner has requested the City to initiate,
In establishing or participating in any special financing district other
than a community facilities district, the City shall, to the greatest extent feasible, include in
such district all property which will receive any identifiable benefit from the facilities
and/or services to be provided or financed thereby, To the extent that it is infeasible to
include any such benefited property in a district, the City shall take all reasonable steps to
ensure that the Owner or developer of such property is required to enter into a
reimbursement agreement with the Property Owner, whereby the Property Owner will
recover from such other Owner or developer (in the form of direct payment, bond procecds,
fees or otherwise) a pro rata share of the cost of the facilities and/or services financed by
the district.
The Property Owner acknowledges that proviSIOn of public
financing, as well as other forms of financial assistance which the City may provide to the
Project, may cause the Project or portions thereof to become subject to wage payment and
contract bidding requirements under state law which are not otherwise applicable to private
development projects, and that the City makes no representations as to the likelihood of
such requirements becoming applicable to the Project.
2, Status of Proiect Approvals,
a, Term of Approvals, The Project Approvals shall remain valid and in
effect for the entire term of this Agreement, and the City shall take no action to rescind,
revise or otherwise modify the Project Approvals, except at the request of or with the
consent of the Property Owner.
b, Consistencv of Land Use Designations, The Parties recognize the
importance of maintaining the planning and design integrity of the Project and of ensuring
that there is compatibility between those features of the Project and the surrounding
community to the greatest extent feasible, Accordingly, the City shall not modify any land
use designation within or outside the Project boundaries in such a way as to preclude or
Inland. UHSB.DcvAgr.v2
8
interfere with all or any part of the Project. Additionally, the Parties shall jointly examine
the establishment of design criteria applicable to arterial street corridors in the vicinity of
the Project.
3. Term of Agreement.
a. Initial Term Extensions. The term of this Agreement shall
commence on the effective date of the ordinance approving this Agreement, and shall
extend for an initial period of twenty (20) years thereafter ("Expiration Date"). Provided
that the last annual review performed by the City prior to the Expiration Date, pursuant to
Section 10 below, has determined that the Property Owner is in good-faith compliance with
the terms of this Agreement, then the Expiration Date shall automatically be extended for
an additional period of five (5) years ("First Extension"). Provided that the last annual
review performed by the City prior to the expiration of the First Extension, pursuant to
Section 10 below, has determined that the Property Owner is in good-faith compliance with
the terms of this Agreement, then the Expiration Date shall automatically be extended for a
further additional period of five (5) years ("Second Extension"). The First Extension shall
automatically take effect if the City fails to conduct any al1llual review pursuant to Section
10 prior to the Expiration Date, and the Second Amendment shall automatically take effect
if the City fai Is to conduct any annual review prior to expiration of the First Extension.
b. Proiect Completion. If not already terminated by reason of any other
provision hereof, this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon: (i) total build-out of
the Project pursuant to the Project Approvals and any amendments thereto; (ii) the issuance
of all occupancy permits for improvements on the Property; and (iii) acceptance by the City
of all dedications of public rights-of-way and public improvements. Similarly, where all
such conditions have been satisfied with respect to any phase of the Project, consisting of
one or more Planning Areas designated in the Specific Plan, then this Agreement shall
automatically terminate as to that phase. As used herein, "total build-out" shall mean the
completion of all construction in the Project, or in any phase of the Project, of all buildings,
structures, infrastructure, improvements, landscaping and associated amenities
contemplated or permitted by the Specific Plan, all other infrastructure required by the
Project, and performance by the Property Owner and the City of all of their respective
obligations hereunder.
4. Binding Effect of Agreement.
a. Covenant. This Agreement shall bind, and inure to the benefit of, the
respective Parties and their successors in interest, including their heirs, representatives,
assigns, partners and investors, and all other persons and entities acquiring any rights or
interests in the Property or any portion thereof, whether by operation of law or in any other
manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as
equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land.
b. No Property Interest. Nothing herein shall be construed as a
dedication or transfer of any right or interest in, or as creating a lien with respect to, title to
the Property.
lnland.UIISB.DevAgr.v2
9
5. Assignment.
a. Right of Assignment. The Property Owner may assign its rights and
obligations hereunder to any other person or entity ("Assignee"), at any time during the
term of this Agreement, provided that: (i) such assignment shall occur in connection with
sale, hypothecation or other transfer of a legal or equitable interest in the Property or a
portion thereof, including any foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust or a deed in lieu of
foreclosure, or in connection with formation of a new entity which is the assignee and in
which the Property Owner is a partner, member or other form of co-owner, and (ii) the
assignee demonstrates, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager, the ability to
perform or secure any public improvement obligations required by the City in connection
with the Project phase or other interest being transferred, as identified in the conditions of
approval of the applicable Map or elsewhere in the Project Approvals. The City shall give
the Property Owner written notice of its satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the proposed
assignee within five (5) business days of receipt by the City of the information submitted
pursuant to this paragraph. The City shall treat all such information as confidential and
proprietary, to be made available solely to City officials and staff required to review it in
order to carry out the purposes of this paragraph.
b. Notice Requirement. The Property Owner shall give the City notice
of any such assignment, and the Assignee shall provide the City with notice acknowledging
its acceptance of its obligations hereunder as a successor in interest to the Property Owner.
Upon such assignment, the acceptance thereof by the Assignee and provision of the
required notices to the City by both the Property Owner and the Assignee, the Property
Owner shall be relieved of its rights and obligations hereunder to the extent that such rights
and obligations have been specifically transferred to and accepted by the Assignee.
c. Effect of Default. Any default by the Property Owner existing at the
time of assignment of any of its rights and obligations hereunder shall remain the obligation
of the Property Owner, unless the Assignee expressly accepts such obligation and the City
expressly approves the assignment of such obligation. Any default by the Assignee
occurring after the time of assignment of any rights and obligations of the Property Owner
to the Assignee shall be solely the responsibility of that Assignee, and shall not be deemed
to be a default by either the Property Owner or any other Assignee.
6. Notices.
a. Form of Notice. All notices between the City and either the Property
Owner or any Assignee, given pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, shall be in
writing and shall be given by personal delivery, facsimile or mail. Notice by personal
delivery or facsimile shall be deemed effective upon the delivery of such notice to the Party
for whom it is intended at the address set forth below (or, in the case of an Assignee, at the
address specified by such Assignee in a written notice to the City). Notice by mail shall be
deemed effective two (2) business days after depositing such notice, addressed as set forth
below, properly sealed, postage prepaid, registered or certified, return receipt requested,
with the United Stated Postal Service, regardless of when the notice is actually received.
The addresses to be used for purposes of notice shall be:
To City: City of San Bernardino
In land. UHSH. Dev Agr.v2
10
Attn: Development Services Director
300 "D" Street, 3,d Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Facsimile: (909) 384-5080
With a copy to: City Attorney
City of San Bernardino
300 "D" Street, 6th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Facsimile: (909) 384-5238
To Property Owner: Inland Communities Corp.
Attn: Jim Ahmad, President
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1205
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Facsimile: (310) 277-2788
With a copy to: Cary Lowe
Attorney at Law
3517 Garrison Street
San Diego, CA 92106
Facsimile: (619) 501-4194
b. Change of Address. Any Party (and any Assignee) may change the
address to which notices are to be sent (and/or the person to whose attention notices are to
be directed) at any time by giving written notice of such change in the manner provided
above.
7. Amendment of Agreement.
a. Formal Amendment. This Agreement, including the term hereof,
may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties, in accordance with the
provisions of Government Code Section 65868.
b. Clarification. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Parties
acknowledge that implementation of this Agreement will require close cooperation between
them, and that, in the course of such implementation, it may be necessary to supplement
this Agreement to address details of the Parties' performance and to otherwise effectuate
the purposes of this Agreement and the intent of the Parties with respect thereto. If and
when, from time to time, the Parties find it necessary or appropriate to clarify the
application of implementation of this Agreement without amending any of its material
terms, the Parties may do so by means of an implementing agreement which, after
execution, shall be attached hereto as an addendum and become a part hereof. Any such
implementing agreement shall be executed by the City Manager on behalf of the City.
8. Interpretation and Enforcement of Agreement.
a. Complete Agreement. This Agreement represents the complete
understanding between the Parties, and supersedes all prior agreements, discussions and
negotiations relating to the subject matter hereof. No amendment, modification or
Inland. U HSB_ Dcv Age v2
11
cancellation of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the Parties,
other than pursuant to Section 11 below.
b. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be
invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and
shall remain in full force and effect, unless such invalidation renders any remaining
provisions impossible or impractical to enforce.
c. Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that any state or
federal laws or regulations, enacted after the effective date of this Agreement, prevent or
preclude compliance by either Party with any provisions hereof, such provisions shall be
modificd or suspended to the extent necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or
regulations.
d. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California and any applicable laws of
the United States of America.
e. Prevailing Party. In the event of any action or proceeding brought by
either Party against the other to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing
Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fces,
incurred in connection therewith.
f. Defense of Agreement. In the event of any action or proceeding
brought by a third party, whether a private or governmental person or entity, challenging
the validity of this Agreement or any provisions hereof, the City shall actively defend
against any such action or proceeding, including taking all reasonable measures to protect
the enforceability of the Agreement. The Parties shall cooperate in defending against any
such challenge, provided that the Property Owner shall pay all actual, reasonable legal
expenses associated with such defense. The City shall consult regularly with the Property
Owner regarding such defense and shall notify the Property Owner of any significant
developments relating to the action or proceeding. During the entire course of any such
challenge, including any review up to a court of final jurisdiction, this Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
g. Authority of Signatories. All the Parties represent and warrant that
the persons signing this Agreement on their behalves have full authority to bind the
respective Parties, and that each and every term of this Agreement is fully enforceable in all
respects at the time this Agreement is executed and shall remain fully enforceable at all
times during which the Agreement is in effect and, where indicated, beyond the term of this
Agreement. Such enforceability shall pertain to both the substantive provisions of this
Agreement and any remedies available for violation of the Agreement by either Party,
including but not limited to awards of damages.
h. Indemnification. The Property Owner agrees to and shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, employees, agents and contractors,
against any and all claims, damages, awards, actions or causes of action and expenses
(including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation) to which the City and
its officers, employees, agents and contractors may be subjected by reason of the City's
approval of this Agreement, or any work done or omission made by the Property Owner
Inland. UHSB,DcvAgr,v2
12
and its agents, officers or employees, in connection with, arising out of or resulting from the
approval or performance of this Agreement.
i. Waiver and Delavs. Failure by either Party to insist upon the strict
performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or failure by
either Party to exercise its rights upon a default by the other Party, shall not constitute a
waiver of any right to demand strict performance by such other Party in the future.
j. Third Partv Actions. Nonperformance by either Party shall not be
excused because of a failure of a third person, except as specifically provided herein.
k. Force Maieure. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in default for
failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement if caused by
floods, earthquakes, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes or other
labor difficulties, government agencies and their regulations, or other causes beyond the
reasonable control of the Party claiming the force majeure. If any such event shall occur,
the term of this Agreement and the time for performance by the Property Owner of any of
its obligations hereunder shall be extended by the period of time that such events prevent it
from proceeding with development of the Project.
9. Effect on Propertv.
a. Estoppel Certificate. Any Party may, at any time and from time to
time, deliver written notice to another Party requesting certification in writing that, to the
knowledge of the certifying Party: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a
binding obligation of the Parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended, or, if so
amended, identifying the amendments; and (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the
performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or, if in default, describing the nature
and extent of any such default. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and
return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof. The City
Manager of the City shall have the authority to execute any such certificate requested by the
Property Owner. The City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by
transferees and mortgagees.
b. Release of Lots from Agreement. Promptly upon the written request
of the Property Owner, the City shall execute a document, in a recordable form, releasing
any lot for which a final Map has been recorded and which has been sold or leased, from
the effects of this Agreement, and deliver such document to the Property Owner.
10. Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement.
a. Annual Review. This Agreement shall be subject to annual review,
pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1. Within thirty (30) days
following each anniversary of the date of recording of this Agreement, the Property Owner
shall submit to the Development Services Director of the City written documentation
demonstrating good-faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement (" Annual Report"),
to the extent that the Property Owner has taken or is required to take any action pursuant to
this Agreement. Failure by the Property Owner to submit the Annual Report in a timely
manner shall not itself constitute a breach of this Agreement, unless the City has first given
Inland_UHSl3. DcvAgr.v2
13
the Property Owner a minimum of thirty (30) days notice thereof and the Property Owner
fails to submit the Annual Report within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice.
b. Contents of Report. The Annual Report and any supporting
documents shall describe (i) any permits or other approvals which have been issued or for
which application has been made and (ii) any development or construction activity which
has commenced or has been completed since the date hereof or since the preceding annual
review. The City shall review all the information contained in such report in determining
the Property Owner's good faith compliance with this Agreement.
c. Waiver. The City does not waive any claim of defect in perfon11ancc
by the Property Owner if, at the time of an annual review, the City does not propose
immediately to exercise its remedies hereunder. However, in the event that the City,
following receipt of the Annual Report for any year, fails to review the information
contained therein and/or to determine the Property Owner's good faith compliance with this
Agreement, the Property Owner shall be deemed to be in good faith compliance with regard
to the period covered by that Annual Report.
11. Violations.
a. Violation by Property Owner.
i. The Property Owner shall be deemed in violation of the terms
of this Agreement if a finding and determination is made by the City, upon the basis of
substantial evidence, that the Property Owner has not complied in good faith with one or
more of the material terms or conditions of this Agreement. A default on the part of an
Assignee pursuant to Section 5 above shall not under any circumstances constitute a
violation of this Agreement by the Property Owner.
ii. If the City believes the Property Owner to be in violation of
this Agreement, the City shall give the Property Owner thirty (30) days written notice
specifying the nature of the alleged violation and, when appropriate, the manner in which
the violation may be satisfactorily cured. Failure or delay in giving notice of a violation
shall not constitute a waiver of such violation.
111. The Property Owner may appeal the allegation of violation by
filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk, within the thirty (30) day cure period described
in the preceding paragraph. The Property Owner's appeal shall be placed on the agenda of
the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council, which shall be an open meeting
but not a public hearing. If the City Council finds that a violation has occurred and is
continuing, the Property Owner shall be given another sixty (60) days within which to cure
such violation; provided that such time period shall be extended automatically so long as
the Property Owner is engaged in making good faith efforts to cure the violation. At the
next City Council meeting following expiration of the sixty (60) day period allowed for
curing the violation, or any extension thereof, the City Council shall set forth by motion or
resolution its determination as to (i) the continuation of the violation and (ii) any action to
be taken, which action may include amendment or termination of this Agreement. Any
action to terminate shall be in the f0n11 of a resolution and shall be supported by written
findings.
In land. UHSB. Dcv Agr.v2
14
iv. After proper notice and expiration of the cure period without
appeal, cure or commencement of substantial effort toward a cure by the Property Owner,
the City may take unilateral action to terminate or amend this Agreement.
b. Violation bv Citv.
i. The City shall be deemed in violation of the terms of this
Agreement upon failure of the City to carry out any of its obligations hereunder.
ii. If the Property Owner believes the City to be in violation of
this Agreement, the Property Owner promptly shall notify the City, through its Planning
Official, to that effect, setting forth the grounds upon which a violation is claimed, facts in
support of such grounds, and the means through which such violation may be cured. The
City shall have thirty (30) days following the date of receipt of the notice within which to
take action to deny the claim, cure the violation or undertake substantial action toward the
cure.
Ill. If the action of the City is unsatisfactory to the Property
Owner, the Property Owner may make an appeal to the City Council, provided that, within
ten (10) days following the date ofreceipt of the notice of denial of the claim, or within ten
(10) days following the date of expiration of the cure period described in the preceding
paragraph, whichever occurs first, the Property Owner files with the City Clerk a notice of
appeal to the City Council. The City Council thereafter shall consider this matter on the
agenda of its next regularly scheduled meeting, which shall be an open meeting but not a
public hearing, at which the Property Owner may present information regarding the alleged
violation. Based upon the information presented by the Property Owner, the City Council
shall make a determination as to whether the City is in violation of this Agreement, as
alleged by the Property Owner.
c. Legal Enforcement. Subject to the prior exhaustion of all
administrative remedies set forth above (except to the extent that such acts would be futile),
in addition to any other rights or remedies, either Party may institute legal action (i) to cure,
correct or remedy any violation, (ii) to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, (iii) to
enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, (iv) to recover damages for any default
or (v) to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purposes of this Agreemcnt. In
addition to any other remedies available herein, (i) either Party may have liability under this
Agreement for contractual damages, (ii) each Party shall be entitled to specific performance
by the other Party of its obligations under this Agreement and (iii) each Party shall be
subject to liability for violation of a statutory or constitutional right of the other Party which
exists independent of this Agreement. Any such legal action shall be brought in the
Superior Court of San Bernardino County, State of California, or in an appropriate federal
court.
In land. U I ISH. Dev Agr. v2
15
12. Relationship of Parties. In performing its obligations hereunder, the
Property Owner is acting under this Agreement as an independent contractor and not as an
agent or employee of the City. Further, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as
creating between the Property Owner and the City a partnership or joint venture for any
purpose.
13. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in, and attached to, this Agreement are
incorporated herein by such reference.
14.
ordinance.
Adoption of Agreement. Adoption ofthis Agreement by the City shall be by
IS. Recording of Agreement. Within ten (10) days following the adoption by
the City of the ordinance approving this Agreement, or any subsequent amendment hereof,
the City Clerk shall file a fully executed copy hereof with the County Recorder of San
Bernardino County, State of California.
[BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]
Inland. UHSB .Dev Agr. v 2
16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement, to be effective as of
the date set forth in the first paragraph hereof.
"PROPERTY OWNER"
"CITY"
FONTANA CORNERS III, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
a municipal corporation
By: ARADI, LTD.,
a Nevada corporation,
its General Partner
By: By:
Patrick J. Morris, Mayor
General Partner
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM.
Henry Empeno,
Senior Deputy City Attorney
ATTEST:
Rachel Clark, City Clerk
Inland.UIISB.DevAgr.v2
17
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
PARCEL 1 (Assessor's Parcel No. 265-041-12):
THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 5, LYING WITHIN THE LINE OF THE
MUSCUPIABE RANCHO AND OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 8, BOTH OF TOWNSHIP
1 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
BEING A PORTION OF SAID MUSCUPIABE RANCHO DEFINED BY EXTENDING U.S.
GOVERNMENT SECTIONAL LINES ACROSS SAID RANCHO, LYING WESTERLY OF
THE WEST LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO C. F. MARTIN BY DEED RECORDED
FEBRUARY 14, 1922, IN BOOK 740, PAGE 199 OF DEEDS AND NORTHERLY OF THE
NORTH LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 4 OF THE DEED TO SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, RECORDED APRIL 23,1940, IN
BOOK 1415, PAGE 37, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 2 (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 265-051-12 and 265-051-13):
THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 4, LYING WITHIN THE LINE OF
MUSCUPIABE RANCHO AND THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 9, BOTH OF TOWNSHIP I
NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A
PORTION OF SAID MUSCUPIABE RANCHO DEFINED BY EXTENDING U.S.
GOVERNMENT SECTIONAL LINES ACROSS SAID RANCHO, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. I ON LINE 27-28 RANCHO MUSCUPIABE ACCORDING
TO THE PERRIN SURVEY, SAID CORNER BEING NORTH 890 03' WEST, 516.90 FEET
FROM MUSCUPIABE RANCHO, CORNER M-28;
THENCE SOUTH 890 03' EAST, 516.90 FEET TO SAID CORNER M-28;
THENCE SOUTHERLY 173.17 FEET ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID RANCHO TO
MUSCUPIABE RANCHO CORNER M-29;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 785.30 FEET ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
RANCHO TO A POINT WHICH IS DISTANT NORTH 620 41' WEST, 195.51 FEET FROM
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL NO.4 OF THE
DEED TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, RECORDED
APRIL 23,1940, IN BOOK 1415, PAGE 37, OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, THE FOLLOWING COURSES
AND DISTANCES;
SOUTH 02011' EAST, 526.41 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 250 30' WEST, 581.59 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 380 31' WEST, 1966.20 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 01024' 30" EAST, 674.55 FEET;
Inland.l JHSB. Dev Agr. v2
18
THENCE NORTH 390 05' WEST, 85.12 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN, SAID
POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO C. F.
MARTIN, RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1922, IN BOOK 740, PAGE 199 OF DEEDS;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 410 09' EAST, 50
FEET;
THENCE NORTH 100 58' WEST, 127.05 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 41008' EAST, 241.56 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 220 36' EAST, 626.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THE LAND CONVEYED TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1956, IN BOOK 4046, PAGE 396,
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 3 (Assessor's Parcel No. 265-061-16):
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 9, LYING WITHIN THE LINE OF THE MUSCUPIABE
RANCHO, IN TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN,
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION
OF SAID MUSCUPIABE RANCHO DEFINED BY EXTENDED U.S. GOVERNMENT
SECTIONAL LINES ACROSS SAID RANCHO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A CORNER M-28, ON LINE 27-28 RANCHO MUSCUPIABE
ACCORDING TO THE PERRIN SURVEY;
THENCE SOUTHERLY 1786.17 FEET ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID RANCHO TO
MUSCUPIABE RANCHO CORNER M-29;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 980.81 FEET ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
RANCHO TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ON LAST SAID NORTHEAST LINE, SOUTH 620 41' EAST, TO
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED MAY 14, 1957, IN BOOK
4229, PAGE 497, OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND IN THE DEED LAST
MENTIONED, SOUTH 600 03' 27" WEST, 563.37 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 740 05' 48" WEST, 1143.34 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE
OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 4 IN DEED TO SAID FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT, RECORDED APRIL 1,1940, IN BOOK 1415, PAGE 37, OFFICIAL RECORDS,
SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 030 50' EAST, 816.73 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF
SAID NORTHEASTERLY RANCHO LINE;
THENCE ON LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 03050' WEST 816.73 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 4 (Assessor's Parcel No. 265-051-09):
In land. U HSB_ Dev ^gr.v2
19
THAT PORTION OF SECTIONS 4, 5, 8 AND 9, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST,
SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS THE LINES OF THE
GOVERNMENT SURVEY MAY BE EXTENDED ACROSS THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNER NO.1 ON LINE 27-28 RANCHO MUSCUPIABE, ACCORDING
TO THE PERRIN SURVEY, AT NORTH 890 03' WEST, 516.9 FEET FROM CORNER NO.
28;
THENCE SOUTH 220 36' WEST, 626.13 FEET TO CORNER NO.2;
THENCE SOUTH 51008' WEST, 241.56 FEET TO CORNER NO.3;
THENCE SOUTH 100 58' EAST, 127.05 FEET TO CORNER NO.4;
THENCE SOUTH 41009' WEST, 283.26 FEET TO CORNER NO.5;
THENCE SOUTH 160 19' WEST, 735.98 FEET TO CORNER NO.6;
THENCE WEST 374.00 FEET TO CORNER NO.7;
THENCE NORTH 1823.2 FEET TO CORNER NO.8 ON LINE 27-38 MUSCUPIABE
RANCHO;
THENCE SOUTH 890 03' EAST, 1142.6 FEET ALONG LINE 27-28 MUSCUPIABE
RANCHO TO CORNER NO.1, THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. F. MARTIN
BY DEED DATED DECEMBER 8,1921 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 22,1922, IN BOOK
740, PAGE 199, OF DEEDS;
THENCE NORTH 890 53' EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID MARTIN LAND,
374.0 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID MARTIN LAND;
THENCE NORTH 160 12' EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID MARTIN LAND,
291.68 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 670 12' WEST, 345.0 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 520 03' WEST, 174.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID
MARTIN LAND;
THENCE SOUTH 00 01' EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 40.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL 5 (Assessor's Parcel No. 265-021-13):
In land. UHSB. Dcv Age v2
20
GOVERNMENT LOT 16 AND THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 14 AND 15,
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND
MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
TOWNSHIP PLAT THEREOF, APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL ON JUNE 24,
1898, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT MONUMENT NO. 27 OF THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO, SAID
MONUMENT BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT
14;
THENCE NORTH 58014' 40" EAST, 1035.33 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 820 11' 40" EAST, 720.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 08' EAST, 456 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 15;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOTS 15
AND 16, 1938 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
GOVERNMENT LOT 16;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 15, 1093
FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT
16, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE SAID MUSCUPIABE RANCHO LINE;
I n land. U HSB. Dev Agr.v2
21
THENCE NORTH 890 WEST ALONG THE COUNTY LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT
LOTS 16, 15 AND 14, AND ALONG THE MUSCUPIABE RANCHO LINE, 2684 FEET,
MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 890 EAST 883.9 FEET
FROM SAID MONUMENT NO. 27 OF RANCHO MUSCUPIABE;
THENCE NORTH 0021' WEST, 560.34 FETE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 6 (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 265-011-07 and 265-011-08):
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL
DATED JUNE 24,1898.
PARCEL 7 (Assessor's Parcel No. 265-011-06):
GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL
DATED JUNE 24,1898.
1
Inland. UHSB. Dev Agr. v2
EXHIBIT "B"
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
This Public Facilities Financing Plan ("Financing Plan") outlines the basic terms and
conditions pursuant to which the City and the Property Owner will cooperate to establish a
Community Facilities District ("CFD") pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities
Act of 1982, as amended, for the acquisition and/or construction of public improvements and
payment of fees applicable to the Project. The principal goals of the Financing Plan are to:
(i) establish reasonable certainty as to how the CFD shall be implemented; and (ii) provide
for the issuance of CFD bonds in series in order to minimize carrying costs.
Formation. Promptly upon written request by the Property Owner, the City shall IDltlate
proceedings to form the CFD. All costs and expenses advanced by the Property Owner to thc
City associated with the formation and bond issuance of the CFD shall be reimbursed out of
the first available CFD bond proceeds to the Property Owner. The City agrees to use its best
efforts to complete the CFD formation proceedings and record the special tax lien within one
hundred (100) days following the Property Owner's request to commence proceedings.
Boundarv. The CFD boundary shall encompass solely the Project. If requested by the
Property Owner, the CFD may contain multiple improvement areas.
Authorized Facilities. The CFD shall be authorized to finance all on-site and off-site public
improvements ("Facilities" or "Facility"), Impact Fees, and other Property Owner cash
contributions for public improvements required by the Project's conditions of approval or
this Agreement ("Contributions"). Costs of the Facilities to be constructed by the Property
Owner that are eligible to be financed in the CFD are as follows:
. The actual costs for the construction of a Facility, including labor, materials and
equipment costs;
The costs incurred 111 designing and preparing the plans and specifications for a
Facility;
Fees paid for obtaining permits, licenses or other governmental approvals for a
Facility;
Costs of construction management and supervision;
Professional costs associated with the Facility, such as engineering, inspection,
construction staking, materials and testing and similar professional services; and
. Costs directly related to the construction of a Facility, such as costs of payment,
performance and/or maintenance bonds and insurance costs.
I
Inland_ UHSB.D<:vAgLv2
Discrete components of the Facilities conslstmg of usable segments and various cost
categories relating to such segments may be funded by the CFD. Examples of cost categories
consisting of discrete components are as follows:
Streets
. Planning, design, engineering and permitting;
Grading;
. Paving;
. Sidewalks; and
. Final lift, asphalt cap and other final completion items and remaining soft
costs.
Wet Utilities (Sewer, Water, Reclaimed Water, Storm Drain)
. Planning, design, engineer and permitting;
. Grading and trenching;
. Installation of channels, pipes, basins, rip rap and other structures; and
. Final completion items and remaining soft costs.
Park and Trails
. Planning, design, engineering and permitting;
. Grading;
. Installation of irrigation, landscaping, parking facilities, play and recreation
equipment, bathrooms and other structures; and
. Final completion itcms and remaining soft costs.
Facilities and Contributions may be financed as payment requests are submitted, based on
actual cost without prioritization. Facilities and Contributions may be authorized to be
financed with the CFD bond proceeds and special taxes derived from more than one
improvement area. If the Property Owner or its designee serves as constmction manager on
Facilities and/or Contributions, such entity shall be paid a management fee of 5% of the
contract prices of all contracts managed by such entity.
Other Agencies. The City agrees to assume responsibility for the ownership, operation and
maintenance of the completed public improvements acquired or constructed with CFD bond
proceeds, provided that such improvements are reflective of the type of improvements which
are typically owned, operated and maintained by the City. Furthermore, the City agrees to
cooperate and pursue a joint community facilities agreement with the San Bernardino City
Unified School District ("School District") to finance school facilities, if applicable.
Alternatively, if the School District is the lead agency in the formation of a CFD for the
Project, the City agrees to cooperate in securing a joint community facilities agreement with
the School District so that City-related public improvements can be acquired or constructed
by such CFD.
Inland.l JHSH.DevAgr,v2
2
Financing Criteria. The City will assist in issuing CFD bonds in one or more series to
acquire or construct the Facilities and fund the Contributions, subject to the following
parameters: (i) a precondition to the issuance of bonds shall be that the value of the property
subject to CFD special taxes required to repay the bonds is at least three (3) times the amount
of the bonds; (ii) the bond term shall be thirty (30) years; (iii) up to eighteen months of
capitalized interest shall be included, at the Property Owner's request; (iv) total effective
annual tax rates, including CFD special taxes, shall not exceed 2% of the estimated sales
prices of lots and homes subject to the special tax at the time ofCFD formation or resolution
of consideration; (v) CFD special taxes may be determined based on residential house size
categories, with larger homes having larger special tax amounts than smaller homes to
account for the general public improvement benefits; (vi) special taxes shall be levied on
developed property up to the assigned special tax rate prior to the levy on undeveloped
property; and (vii) full or partial prepayment of the special taxes shall be permitted.
Modifications. The provisions of this Financing Plan may be modified with the consent of
both the Property Owner and City in order to address Project revisions, bond underwriting
criteria or other factors consistent with the development plan and with the objectives of the
City and the Property Owner regarding the Project, the Facilities and Contributions.
[n land. U HSB. Dev Agr. v2
3
EXHIBIT "C"
TABLE OF PROCESSING FEES
EXHIBIT "C"
UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
PROCESSING FEES
16-Jul-08
ITEM
No. FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PAID
1 Snecific Plan I Environmental Impact Report $ 11,500.00
2 General Plan Amendment $ 1,503.50
3 Traffic Study Review Fee $ 640.00
4 Geolonv Report Review Fee $ 1,500.00
5 Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969 Filina Fee $ 6,878.09
6 Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 Filina Fee $ 9,286.09
7 Tentative Tract Map No. 18140 $ 10,456.09
8 Future TTM's Processina Fees TBD
9 Future CUP's Processinq Fees TBD
10 Improvement Plans Plan Check Fees TBD
11 Future Plot Plan Processina Fees TBD
12 Future CUP's TBD
TOTAL PROCESSING FEES TBD
Inland. UIISH.DevAgr.v2
EXHIBIT "D"
TABLE OF IMP ACT FEES
EXHIBIT "0"
UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
920 UNITS (PLUS 60 UNITS FOR FACULTY HOUSING)
16-Jul-08
APPLICABLE FEES PER 2008
PER CURRENT CITY FEE ORDINANCE SCHEDULE (920 UNITS)
TOTAL
465 455 FEES
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION SFR/SFDR TH/CONDO SFR/SFDR TH/CONDO
1 Drainao-e Fee $3.523.96 $1.454.74 $1,638,641.40 5661,906.70 $2,300,54:-\.10
2 Sewer CaDacitv Fee $3,500.00 $3.500.00 $1,627.500.00 $1,592.500.00 $3.220,000.00
Sewer Connection roce (Assume 3
3 Bedrooms oer unit) $1.556.72 $1.167.54 $723.874.80 $531,230.70 51.255.105.50
4 Sc\vcr lnsnectioll Fl:cS 526.19 526.]9 $12.178.35 $11,916.45 $24.()94.XO
5 v...'aler Acuuisition Fee $4,170.00 52,085.00 $1.939,05000 $(}48,675.00 52,887.725.1J1)
6 Water Administration Fec 575.00 $75.00 $34,875.00 $34.125.00 SW.OOO.OO
Parkland and Open Space Fee (2008
7 Fees) 57,524.00 $5,955.00 53,498,66000 S2,709,525.00 S6,?OX,185 00
8 School Fee $13,948.00 $13,948.00 56.485,82000 56,346,340.00 S12,8i2,lW.()(J
TOTAL PER UNIT FEE $34,323.87 $28,211.47 $15,961,064,55 $12,836,673.85 $28,797,738.40
I
[n land. U HSB. Dev Age v2
C(Q)[P)f
1
2
3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
4 CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
5 REPORT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT
6 SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING THE UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
7 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18969, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 18696 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140.
RESOLUTION NO.
8
9
10
SECTION I. RECITALS
(a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
11 Bernardino ("City") adopted the General Plan for the City, and the University District
12 Specific Plan, by Resolution No. 2005-362 on November 1,2005; and
13
(b)
WHEREAS, Inland Communities Corp. made application for the
14 University Hills Specific Plan and associated Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative
15
Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140; and
16
17
18 for the project by Michael Brandman Associates; and
(c)
WHEREAS, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was completed
(d)
WHEREAS, the University District Specific Plan includes the area
19
20 proposed for development under the University Hills Specific Plan; and
21
22
23
24
(e)
WHEREAS, on April 17,2008, the Environmental Review
Committee determined that the University Hills Specific Plan could have significant
effects on the environment, and thus warranted preparation of a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
25
26 Act (CEQA); and
27 (f) WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation, indicating the intent of the City to
28 prepare a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was made known to the
I
/ !-/7-()$
=If 3~
2
Reporting Plan, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
(P)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public testimony,
adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, adopt the University Hills Specific
Plan, and approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and
Tentative Tract Map No. 18140; and
3
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Initial Study;
Notice of Preparation;
Responses to the Notice of Preparation;
7.
Draft Subsequent EIR;
Notice of Completion;
List of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the
Draft Subsequent EIR;
Comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR during and after the
public review period;
Responses to comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR.
5
E. Although the Final SEIR identifies certain significant adverse
environmental effects that would result if the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative
Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No.
6
Considerations.
I.
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
hereby find:
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The proposed Amendment will allow for the preservation of Badger Canyon for
9
10 biological and geologic study. In addition, historic resources identified as occurring in
11 the open space area will not be impacted by development, and can also be studied
12 further.
13 B. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest,
14 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed General Plan
15 Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, and the projects associated with the
16 Specific Plan will be required to comply with all City requirements for infrastructure
17 development, including sanitary sewer and domestic water. Further, the Specific Plan
18 has been designed to protect the future residents from fire through integration of a fire
19 protection plan; and from geotechnical hazards through restrictions on development in
20 and near earthquake fault zones.
21 C. The proposed amendments will maintain the appropriate balance of land
22 uses within the City. The proposed Amendment is located in an area where open space
23 and residential land uses are proposed in the General Plan and University District
24 Specific Plan currently. General Plan Amendment No. 08-03 proposes an increase in the
25 amount of open space land, and proposes residential densities greater than those
26 currently planned in the Paradise Hills Specific Plan, in order to allow a clustered
27 development plan. The proposed Specific Plan will impact less land and cluster the
28 residential land uses, rather than impacting natural resources in Badger Canyon. Land
uses open space to rmrurmze the hazards associated with flooding and earthquake
faulting on the site.
2.6 Control development and the use of land to minimize adverse impacts on
significant natural, historic, cultural, habitat and hillside resources.
2.6.1 Hillside development and development adjacent to natural areas shall be
designed and sited to maintain the character of the City's significant open
spaces and historic and cultural landmarks.
8
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
hereby find:
A. The proposed plan is consistent with the General Plan and the University
District Specific Plan. The University Hills Specific Plan is located within the University
District Specific Plan area, and is consistent with that Plan's Vision, in that it will
provide physical connectivity between the Specific Plan area and the University; be a
part of the University Town concept by providing an area where faculty housing will be
provided within the Plan; participate in transit efforts to connect the Plan area to the
University and other parts of the City; and enhance the regional recreational link in the
area by extending planned regional trails through the University Hills Specific Plan area.
B. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The Specific Plan includes standards which
will protect residents from the San Andreas Fault, and the potential for ground rupture
associated with the Fault, through prohibitions on development in those areas. The Plan
also incorporates bio-swales into open space and slopes to allow for the filtration of
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
could occur. The balance of the site where development will be pennitted is gently
9
10 sloping, and outside the City's Hillside Management Overlay, meaning that the slopes
11 are shallow enough to build upon. The site will be terraced to allow for flatter
12 development areas. The intensity of development proposed allows for 234.8 acres to be
13 preserved as permanent open space, which will provide a valuable resource for the
14 project's residents, the University, and the City as a whole.
15 D. The proposed plan will ensure the development of a desirable character
16 which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding
17 neighborhood. The site is visually isolated from surrounding neighborhoods, and
18 development of the project will have only minimal impacts on surrounding views, as
19 demonstrated in the Specific Plan and SEIR. The character of the development, although
20 more intense than lands to the south and west, is consistent with the University District
21 Specific Plan concepts of an urban village in association with the University, which is
22 adjacent to the property.
23 E. The proposed plan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local
24 residents may work and shop in the community in which they live. The Specific Plan
25 will include connections to local transit, and will be within walking distance of the
26 California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB) campus. The Plan also includes a
27 planning area reserved for University faculty housing, which could generate up to 60
28 units within close proximity to CSUSB. In addition, the project is convenient to local
surface water, which will prevent pollution. The Specific Plan also reqUires the
clubhouse be constructed to meet LEED requirements, which will reduce potential
impacts on greenhouse gases. The mitigation measures included in the EIR will also
protect the residents and visitors to the project area from environmental hazards.
C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use
designation(s) and the anticipated land use development. The areas designated for
restricted or prohibited development within the Specific Plan are those where hazards
10
commercial areas, and with the extension of pathways, trails and sidewalks as planned in
the Specific Plan, will be easily accessible for shopping and employment.
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
11
1
2
3
designed to accommodate higher densities of residential units in areas suitable for
4
5 development, to allow greater open space preservation. The open space land is also
6 included in the parcel map, and will be restricted as open space in perpetuity upon
7 recordation of the parcel map.
8 E. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial
9 environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
10
habitat. The design of the parcel map, and the mitigation measures included in the SEIR
11
for the project, assure that areas of environmental hazards are restricted or prohibited
12
13 from development, including slopes and fault areas. The project also includes the
14 preservation of the biologically sensitive Badger Canyon as open space in perpetuity,
15 which will provide habitat for common and sensitive species occurring in the area.
16 F. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health
17
problems. The parcel map is consistent with the Specific Plan, and divides parcels so
18
that it will protect residents from the San Andreas Fault, and the potential for ground
19
rupture associated with the Fault. The design of the parcel, as conditioned, will meet
20
21 City requirements for sight-lines and street widths for backbone infrastructure, to allow
22 safe transport through the site.
23 G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements do not
24 conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
25
property within the proposed subdivision. The tentative parcel map has been designed to
26
accommodate trail easements in its northern portion, into Badger Canyon, where trails
27
28 exist, and will also extend regional trails required in the General Plan. The tentative
D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The tentative parcel map implements the Specific Plan planning areas, which are
12
SECTION VI. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18696 FINDINGS
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development. The
tract map does not occur in areas designated for restricted or prohibited development
within the Specific Plan. The site is gently sloping, and outside the City's Hillside
Management Overlay District. The lots within the tentative tract map will be terraced to
allow for f1atter development areas.
D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The Tract Map proposes 26 lots on 3.11 acres, consistent with the density of 3.2 to 9.0
units per acre allowed in the Standard Lot Detached (SLD) designation assigned to the
13
acre.
Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor and Common Council
hereby find:
14
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development. The
tentative tract map does not occur in areas designated for restricted or prohibited
units per acre.
E. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat. The design of the tract map, and the mitigation measures included in the SEIR
for the project, assure that areas of environmental hazards are restricted or prohibited
from development. The tentative tract map does not occur in any of the restricted
15
1 development areas in the Specific Plan, nor does it occur adjacent to any open space area
2
proposed north of the tract map.
3
F. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health
4
problems. The tentative tract map is not within a restricted development area, and is not
5
6 on the San Andreas Fault. The design of the tentative tract, as conditioned, will meet
7 City requirements for sight-lines and street widths for surrounding streets, to allow safe
8 transport through the site.
9 G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements do not
10 conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
11
property within the proposed subdivision. The tentative tract map incorporates existing
12
13 easements without interfering with them. Any easements created through the master
14 parcel map (TPM No. 18969) for the project, will be implemented in the tentative tract
15 map as necessary.
16 SECTION VIII. CERTIFICATION OF THE SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
17 IMPACT REPORT
18
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
19
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that the Final Subsequent
20
21 Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2007071155) is adequate and complete in that it
22 addresses the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment No. 08-03, the
23 University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No.
24 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140, and fully complies with the requirements of
25 the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's
26
Environmental Review Procedures. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
27
28
16
1 is hereby certified; the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are
2 hereby adopted; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is hereby adopted.
3
SECTION IX. ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
4
5 UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
6 Based upon the above-referenced findings, General Plan Amendment No. 08-03
7 and the University Hills Specific Plan No. 07-01 (attached and incorporated herein as
8 Exhibits D and E, respectively) are hereby adopted.
9 SECTION X. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18969. TENTATIVE
10
TRACT MAP NO. 18696 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140
11
Based upon the above-referenced findings, Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative
12
13 Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140 (attached and incorporated
14 herein as Exhibits F, G, and H, respectively) are hereby approved.
15 SECTION XI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 certifying the Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Facts, Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, General Plan
Amendment No. 08-03, the University Hills Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map No.
18969, Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140. A copy of
the Notice of Determination will be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
17
1 SECTION XII. EFFECTIVE DATE
2
3
4 Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan,
5 the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 08-03 and the University Hills Specific
6 Plan and the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No.
7 18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140 shall be effective immediately upon adoption
The certification of the Final SElR, the adoption of the Facts, Findings and
8 of this Resolution.
9 III
10
III
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
2 FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
3 REPORT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PLAN, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT
4 SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING THE UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
5 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 18969, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 18696 AND TENT A TlVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140.
6
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
7
meeting thereof, held
on the
day of
, 2008, by the following vote to wit:
10 Council Members:
11 ESTRADA
12 BAXTER
13 BRINKER
14
DERRY
15
KELLEY
16
17 JOHNSON
18 MC CAMMACK
19
20
Ayes
Nays
Abstain
Absent
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
21
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of November, 2008.
22
23
24
25
Approv
PATRICK J. MORRIS, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
26
27
28
By: .) C>L ".,~""",^,-
/ J es F. Penman
ity Attorney
1
19
Exhibits to the Resolution of the city of San Bernardino adopting the Facts,
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, adopting the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, amending the General Plan and the
University District Specific Plan, adopting the University Hills Specific Plan
and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map No.
18696 and Tentative Tract Map No. 18140:
Exhibit A 1 - 4 (Bound Document)
1. Initial Study
2. Notice of Preparation (NOP)
3. Responses to NOP
4. Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report
Exhibit A 5: Notice of Completion
Exhibit A 6 - 8 (Bound Document)
6. List of persons, organizations and
public agencies commenting on the
Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (DSEIR)
7. Comments received on the DSEIR
during and after the public comment
period
8. Responses to comments on the DSEIR
Exhibit B: Environmental Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Bound with Exhibit A 6 - 8)
Exhibit D: General Plan Amendment No. 08-03
Exhibit E: University Hills Specific Plan (Bound Document)
Exhibit F: Tentative Parcel Map No. 18969 (Large Format Map)
Exhibit G: Tentative Tract Map No. 18696 (Large Format Map)
Exhibit H: Tentative Tract Map No. 18140 (Large Format Map)
EXHIBIT A 1- 4
(Bound Document)
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
University Hills Specific Plan
City of San Bernardino, California
SCH #2007071155
EXHIBIT A
1. Initial Study
2. Notice of Preparation (NOP)
3. Responses to NOP
4. Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report
..;~/
~--.~;._--
""""9"'~;~'/
,'''''/:'' .
- y
\ ~/
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
621 Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Contact: Kent Norton, Project Director
"'.
....
'I ':'-"1.1 :jr.md~,.", \- "e'.l'"
Draft EIR
August 1, 2008
EXHIBIT A 5
'"
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department
Notice of Completion and Availability of Draft Subsequent EIR
To:
Responsible and Interested Agencies, Speciallnterest Groups, Local Residents, and Other
Interested Persons
From:
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department
300 North 0 Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Contact: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
CLERK OFTHE BOARD
AUG . 1 7008
COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
The City of San Bernardino is the Lead Agency and has released for public review a Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project. The Draft Subsequent EIR is supported by the
previously certified EIR for the Paradise Hills Specific Plan.
Subject:
University Hills Specific Plan Draft Subsequent EIR
Project Title:
University Hills Specific Plan
Project Location: The Proposed Project is located in the northern portion of the City of San Bernardino
in San Bernardino County, California. It is located just north of the California State
University San Bernardino (CSUSB) campus on 404 acres of vacant land in the
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Access to the project area is proposed
via Campus Parkway off Northpark Boulevard to the west and from Little Mountain
Road off Northpark Boulevard to the east.
Project Description: The UHSP consists of404.3 total acres, with 169.5 acres or 42 percent of the site
proposed for residential and related uses, including 10.2 acres of parks and recreational uses. The project
proposes a total of980 units with a gross density of2.4 dwelling units per acre (980 units divided by 404.3
acres) and a net density of5.8 units per acre, excluding natural open space (980 units divided by 169.5 acres).
Residential densities range from 0.0 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The lowest densities (0-3. I units per acre)
are located north of the San Andreas Fault and include single-family detached estate homes. Immediately
south of the San Andreas Fault in the West Village area are standard detached lots (3.2-9 units per acre).
Mixed Detached and Attached units (9.1-15 units per acre and 17 units per acre, respectively) are located in
the interior and perimeter of the site. The highest densities (15.1-20 units per acre) are generally located in
the interior portions of the West Village area around the clubhouse and in the East Village area behind Badger
Hill. Four (4) acres of the highest density area (Planning Area 16) will be dedicated to CSUSB for exclusive
use as faculty housing (approx. 60 units). Three subdivisions are currently proposed: Tentative Parcel Map
No. 18969, Tentative Tract Map 18696 and Tentative Tract Map 18140.
Significant Environmental Effects: The Draft Subsequent EIR identifies significant unavoidable
adverse impacts on air quality, population/housing growth inducement/SCAG consistency, and
transportation.
Public Review Period: The Draft Subsequent EIR is available for public review beginning August I, 2008
and ending September 15,2008, during which time the public and interested parties are invited to comment
on the Draft Subsequent ElR for the proposed project. Public comments may be sent during this time period
to the following name and address:
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department
300 North 0 Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Contact: John Oquendo, Assistant Planner or
u nj\~ t;L\!llb i I b '(I, ~ h~_i L::_~~) rg
See Counter Planning Staff
to View Documents
o
~
m
"
-
r-
m
o
Qo
""C
o
(f)
-i
m
o
The Draft Subsequent ElR is Available for Public Review at the following locations:
.
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department, 300 N. "D" Street. 3" Floor, San Bernardino,
CA 92418.
Feldheym Central Library, 555 W. 6th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410
City of San Bernardino web site, \:.~~.b~~,QIg
.
.
Public Meetings: The City of San Bernardino Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council
will consider the University Hills Specific Plan and the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
at noticed public hearings. Agendas for the public meetings of the City of San Bernardino are routinely posted
on the City's web page.
Presence of the Site on Lists Enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: The proposed
project site is not included on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
.
~
I
.
.
.
.
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
EXHIBIT A 6 - 8 and EXHIBIT C
(Bound Document)
Final Environmental Impact Repon
University Hills Specific Plan City of San Bernardino
8CH #20070n155
October 22, 2008
EXHIBIT A
6. List of persons, organizations and
public agencies commenting on the
Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (DSEIR)
7. Comments received on the DSEIR during
and after the public comment period
8. Responses to comments on the DSEIR
EXHIBIT C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
IIj;NYc.";{II'q
-;, .le""
.. .. .... >c,. ,'...
;':::::~~:~:;:_-_i,l...'.
.1..-..1...... .'" ..............1
" , ~' ',';.., : :-"-',':2
" ..
"- - "
-'.. '0;_-:".
'- - - .
. .~ -".
;':,;' ~'.
~Iichael Brandman Associates
()21 E. Carnegie Dnve, Suire IOU
SaD Bernardino. CA 92408
EXHIBIT B
Environmental Findings of Fact for the
Environmental Impact Report
University Hills Specific Plan
(State Clearinghouse # 2007071155)
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N. D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
909.384.5080
Contact: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909.884.2255
Contact: Kent Norton, AICP, REA,
Director of Environmental Services
'~II.
1;.11II-.
Draft October 9, 2008
Environmentsl Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plen E1R
Introduction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2
1.1 - Project Description ............................................................................................2
1.2 - Background and Project History ........................................................................ 3
1.3 - Statutory and Regulatory Requirements............................................................4
1.4 - Summary of Environmental Findings.................................................................5
Section 2: Finding Regarding Impacts that are less Than Significant and, Therefore,
do not Require Mitigation ............................................................................ 7
2.1 - Aesthetics, Light. and Glare............................................................................... 7
2.2 - Agricultural and Mineral Resources...................................................................7
2.3 - Recreation.. ........... ... .............. ............... ............ .............. ..... ...... ......... .............. 8
2.4 - Cumulative Impacts....... ...... ... .......... ........ .... ......... ..... ....... ....... .......... ....... ........ 8
2.5 - Summary...... ......... ..... .............. ...... .................. ........ ...... ..... ............. .......... ..... 16
Section 3: Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects that have been Mitigated
to Below a level of Significance with the Adoption of Mitigation
Measures ....................................................................................................17
3.1 - Biological Resources....................................................................................... 17
3.2 - Cultural Resources..........................................................................................18
3.3 - Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................20
3.4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................21
3.5 - Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................... 22
3.6 - land use .........................................................................................................24
3.7 - Noise............................................................................................................... 25
3.8 - Public Services........ ..... ........... ........ ............................ ........ ............................ 27
3.9 - Utilities............................................................................................................. 27
3.10 - Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 28
Section 4: Finding Regarding Impacts not Mitigated to Below a level of Significance30
4.1 - Air Quality........................................................................................................ 30
4.2 - Population and Housing and SCAG Consistency ............................................32
4.3 - Transportation ................................................................................................. 33
4.4 - Cumulative ..................... ........... ........... ................. ........ ........................... ....... 36
Section 5: Finding Regarding Growth Inducing, Unavoidable Adverse, and Irreversible
Impacts ....................................................................................................... 39
5.1 - Growth Inducing Impacts.................................................................................39
5.2 - Irreversible Impacts.. ..... ...... .................. .................... ...... ............. ....... ............ 40
Section 6: Finding Regarding Alternatives to the Proposed Project.............................42
6.1 - No Project/No Development Alternative...........................................................43
6.2 - No Project - General Plan Development Alternative........................................ 44
6.3 - Modified SpeCific Plan Alternative.................................................................... 44
6.4 - EducationallnstitutionfTechnology Park Alternative ........................................46
6.5 - Alternative Sites ..............................................................................................46
Section 7: Statement of Overriding Considerations.......................................................SO
Env'ronmen,., Findings of Fact
Unlvarslty Hills Spac/ffc Plan E1R
Introduction
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This document contains the findings required under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Public Resources Code, 9 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code
of Regulations, Title 14,915000 et seq.), specifically CEQA Guidelines 915091, supporting the
certification of the University Hills Specific Plan (UHSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
approval ofthe project by the City of San Bernardino (City).
1.1 - Project Description
The University Hills Specific Plan consists of 404.3 total acres, with 169.5 acres or 42 percent of the
site proposed for residential and related uses, including 10.2 acres of parks and recreational uses. The
project proposes a total of 980 units with a gross density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre (980 units
divided by 404.3 total acres) and a net density of 5.8 units per acre, excluding natural open space (980
units divided by 169.5 acres). A tabular summary of the project components is provided in Table 3-3.
A conceptual land plan for the Proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 3-5 and photographs of the site
are shown in Exhibit 3-6. Residential densities range from 0.0 to 20 dwelling units per acre.
The lowest densities (0-3.1 units per acre) are located north of the San Andreas Fault and include
single-family detached estate homes. Immediately south of the San Andreas Fault in the West
Village area are standard detached lots (3.2-9 units per acre). Mixed Detached and Attached units
(9.1-15 units per acre and 17 units per acre, respectively) are located in the interior and perimeter of
the site. The highest densities (15.1-20 units per acre) are generally located in the interior portions of
the West Village area around the clubhouse and in the East Village area behind Badger Hill. Four (4)
acres of the highest density area (Planning Area 16) will be dedicated to CSUSB for exclusive use as
faculty housing (approx. 60 units).
It is estimated the UHSP project will eventually support a population of 3,283 persons based upon the
maximum buildout of980 units times an average 00.35 persons per unit. This household size is
based on 2000 US census data and the latest City demographic factors.
The UHSP contains 10.3 acres of parks including a .2.2-acre private clubhouse in the West Village
area which can accommodate a pool and tennis courts and other active amenities, two O.5-acre
recreational facilities in the East Village area, a 5-acre "California Walnut Grove Linear Park" along
Badger Creek, and the 2. I-acre Glider Park (Planning Area I) in the northwest corner of the site
which will provide a safe approach zone for the hang gliders landing at the adjacent Andy Jackson
Airpark. The project has an internal pedestrian/walking trails system that connects to a multi-purpose
trail consistent with the planned regional trail for this area. The Project will preserve 234.8 acres (or
58 percent of the site) as natural open space that is proposed to be used by the nearby CSUSB as a
"land laboratory" called the "Akkad Preserve." The land laboratory will have minimal improvements
but may include limited trails, signage, fencing, and various teaching stations. A detailed summary of
the proposed land use plan for the UHSP is provided in Table 3-4, Planning Area Land Uses.
Envlronmentsl Findings of F.ct
UnivenJity Hills Specific Plan E1R
Introduction
1.2. Background and Project History
1.2.1 . Background
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S 15051, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency for the
University Hills Specific Plan, with primary land use authority over the Proposed Project. The City
determined that the project may have significant impacts on the environment; therefore, a Draft
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. The City issued a Notice of
Preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report between August 28, 2007 through
September 27,2007, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies,
organizations and individuals pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S 15082. In response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP), the City received written comments which assisted the City in identifying the
issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. The City also held a scoping meeting at City of
San Bernardino City Hall on September 18, 2007 to inform the public and interested agencies about
the project and to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in
the Draft EIR.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No.
2007091039) to analyze the project's potential adverse environmental impacts. Upon completion of
the Draft EIR dated May 16, 2008, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period from May 16,
to June 30, 2008, by filing a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse for the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research and publishing a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the
Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City's jurisdiction (CEQA Guidelines S
15087).
Copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to state agencies through the State Clearinghouse. The NOA
was sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals and indicated where copies of the Draft
EIR could be obtained, or available for review. The City made copies of the Draft EIR available for
local review at the City of San Bernardino Public Library 510 E. Florida Avenue, San Bernardino,
CA 92543; San Bernardino Unified School District 2350 W. Latham Ave. San Bernardino, CA
92545; City of San Bernardino Planning Dept 445 Florida Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92543.
During the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City consulted with and requested comments
from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and other interested parties
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S 15086.
During the public review period, the City received 303 written comments on the Draft EIR. The City
provided written response to comments received from the commenting agencies/individuals pursuant
to Public Resources Code S 21092.5. The response to comments includes the comments received on
the Draft EIR, a list of those commenting, and the City's response to the significant environmental
points raised in the review and consultation process. The Final EIR for the project consists of the
Draft EIR (incorporated by reference), the response to comments, mitigation monitoring report
program (MMRP), and changes to the Draft EIR which clarify, supplement, or update the information
provided in the Draft EIR. None of the changes or supplemental information in the Final EIR
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan E1R Inltoducllon
constitute significant new information as defined by CEQA Guidelines 9 15508.5. Therefore, CEQA
does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
In summary, the Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, Response to Comments (RTC), corrections and
additions to the Draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP).
1.2.2 - Project History
The project, which was formerly known as The Paradise Hills Specific Plan, was submitted to the
City of San Bernardino in 1991 and approved in 1993. The City of San Bernardino General Plan and
Development Code govern land use and zoning on the project site. Both of these plans identifY the
project site as governed by the Paradise Hills Specific Plan. Currently, the proposed University Hills
Specific Plan is not consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use. However, the
project proposes to do a General Plan amendment, making the proposed project site consistent with
the General Plan Land Use. If approved, the University Hills Specific Plan (UHSP) would replace the
Paradise Hills Specific Plan relative to land use on the Proposed Project site. The approved Paradise
Hills Specific Plan proposed 504 residential units on approximately 229 acres (56.7 percent) with 175
acres (43.3 percent) to remain as natural open space. The residential units were divided into areas in
the "foothill" development zone (383 units on 110.6 acres or 3.5 units per acre average density) and
areas in the "hillside" development zone (12 I units on 117.9 acres or I unit per acre average density).
The PHSP has a gross density of 1.25 units per acre (504 units on 404 acres) and a net density of 2.2
units per acre (504 units on 229 acres - total size minus open space). Due to economic conditions,
the project was never built.
1.3 - Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
These findings are based upon the information in the record of proceedings, including, but not limited
to, the Final ErR, staff reports, project applicant's materials, MMRP, and the testimony presented at
public hearings.
Section 1509 I of the CEQA Guidelines precludes the City from approving or carrying out a project
for which a Draft EIR has been certified that identifies any significant environmental effects unless
the City makes one or more of the following written fmding(s) for each of those significant effects
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in the Draft
EIR; or
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency
other than the City, and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and
should be adopted by such other agency; or
3. Specific economic, social, legal, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Phm ElR
Introduction
Sections 15092 and 15093 ofthe CEQA Guidelines require that ifthe project will cause significant
unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to
approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse
project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts.
1.4 - Summary of Environmental Findings
As set forth in more detail below, the City of San Bernardino Planning Department has endeavored in
good faith to set forth the basis for its decision to approve the Proposed Project. All of the findings
made by the City of San Bernardino are based upon its consideration of the Final EIR and the
substantial evidence within the record as a whole. Each of these environmental issues is described in
Section 2 (Introduction) and in Section I (Executive Summary) of the Draft EIR.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City of San Bernardino finds are less
than significant and do not require mitigation are as follows:
. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare;
. Agricultural and Mineral Resources;
. Mineral Resources; and
. Recreation.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City of San
Bernardino fmds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation
measures and/or conditions set forth herein are as follows:
. Biological Resources;
. Cultural Resources;
. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity;
. Global Climate Change;
. Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
. Hydrology and Water Quality;
. Land Use and Planning;
. Noise;
. Public Services;
. Utilities.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City of San
Bernardino fmds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all
feasible mitigation measures are as follows:
. Air Quality;
. Population and housing and SCAG
Consistency; and
. Transportation and Circulation.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as cumulative, unavoidable adverse, and
irreversible are described in Section 5 of this document.
Environmental Findings of Fllct
University Hills Specific Plan E1R
Introduction
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as growth-inducing, unavoidable adverse, and
irreversible are described in Section 6 of this document.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts
are described in Section 7 of this document.
Public Resources Code ~ 2] 08 1.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure
compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. Prior to taking action to approve the project, the
City of San Bernardino was presented with, heard, reviewed, and considered all of the information
and data in the administrative record, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR and all oral and
written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City of San Bernardino and is deemed adequate for purposes of making
decisions on the merits of the project and its related actions. No comments made in the public
hearings conducted by the City of San Bernardino Planning Department or any additional information
submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring recirculation or
additional environmental review of the Draft EIR under CEQA because no new significant
environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental
impacts would occur and no feasible mitigation measures, as defmed in CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5, were rejected.
Envlronmentsl Findings of Fact
University Hills $peeltlc Plan E1R
Finding Regard/ng Impacts lIrat are Lass lIran Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
SECTION 2: FINDING REGARDING IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE MITIGATION
The City of San Bernardino Planning Department fmds that the following environmental impacts
identified in the Draft EIR are less than significant, and as a result, mitigation is not required under
CEQA.
2.1 . Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
From the visual simulations, it appears most views of the site would be obstructed by Badger Hill,
especially from existing residences to the southeast, and by the Kendall Hills, which will block views
from the southwest including the 1-215 Freeway. Limited views of the site, especially the upper
portions adjacent to the San Andreas Fault and Badger Canyon, will occur with distance from the site,
including from residences across Northpark Boulevard to the southwest and from the Cal State
University San Bernardino campus. The Specific Plan landscaping guidelines indicate that
manufactured slopes will be replanted, but some of these slopes may be visible from locations south
and southwest of the site. The upper slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains and Badger Canyon
will remain as permanent open space and views of these areas will not change from present
conditions.
Several policies in the City of San Bernardino General Plan recognize that the project site (as the
PHSP site) will be developed with residential uses. The proposed UHSP land plan increases
development intensity on the alluvial fan areas but clusters or concentrates residences south of the
San Andreas Fault and out of Badger Canyon. On balance, the proposed UHSP land plan appears to
be equivalent or superior to the previously approved PHSP in terms of visual impacts.
The project site is not visible from 1-215 or SR-18, and neither of these are designated scenic routes in
the vicinity of the project site. Development of the Proposed Project would not affect views ofthe
hills from 1-215 because of the intervening Kendall Hills. For these reasons, the Proposed Project
will have a less than significant impact on Aesthetics Light and Glare.
2.2. Agricultural and Mineral Resources
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maps prepared by the
California Resources Agency, there is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance on the project site or adjacent areas. In addition, the site does not contain
enough prime agricultural soils or other physical characteristics that would yield a significant LESA
Model score. Furthermore, according to the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the project area is
not designated for agricultural use, and there are no active Williamson Act contracts in place for any
portion of the project area or adjacent areas.
According to the California Department of Conservation's Mineral Land Classification report for the
area, the project site occurs within an area that has been classified as MRZ-3. These are areas where
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarrllng Impacts that 1111! Lass than Significant
and. Tharafora, do not Requira Mitigation
the significance of mineral deposits cannot be evaluated from available data. However, it should be
noted that no mineral production currently occurs on or adjacent to the project area. Soil composition,
depth-to-bedrock, and other factors make the site unattractive for sand and gravel operations. These
types of operations are better suited to valley bottoms and arroyo channels, not the mountain foothills
where the project is located. Other valuable mineral resource constituents are not known to occur in
the project area. For these reasons, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on
Agriculture and Mineral Resources.
2.3 - Recreation
The Proposed Project would increase the City's population and have a corresponding increase in park
usage. However, the Proposed Project would provide 10.3 acres of onsite park facilities and the
equivalent of 6.1 acres of in-lieu fee payments to acquire and develop additional parkland to offset its
contribution to increase park usage.
The City's General Plan shows the Foothills Regional Trail goes through the Proposed Project site.
The University Hills Specific Plan proposes a regional trail along the extension of Campus Parkway
through the site in a northwest-southeast direction to provide connections to the future planned
extension of the Foothills Trail to the east and west of the project site.
In addition, the project would provide non-vehicular paths, sidewalks, etc. for project residents to
travel within the project and to the CSUSB campus without using personal vehicles. For these
reasons, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on Recreation.
2.4 - Cumulative Impacts
2.4.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to aesthetics resources includes views of the
southwestern portion ofthe San Bernardino Mountains to the north. Views of the site from
surrounding areas are somewhat limited by the Kendall Hills to the southwest and Badger Hill
immediately south of the site. The slopes with elevations above 2,000 feet are readily visible from
downtown San Bernardino and other locations in this portion of the San Bernardino Valley where
views are not blocked to the north. Views of the site from the 1-215 Freeway are effectively blocked
by the low Kendall Hills (along the north side of Kendall Drive west of University Parkway).
Development of the project as proposed will not require grading above 1,900 feet elevation other than
the one reservoir pad, which means no manufactured slopes will be visible at a distance away from
this project. Similarly, planned structures are residential in nature and generally one to three stories
in height. Since views of the site are restricted on an area-wide basis, so too would be glare from
reflections off windows or direct views of night lighting such as streetlights. The project does not
contain any lighted athletic fields so there will be no glare from this potential source. For these
reasons, the project will not have cumulative impacts relative to views or glare.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan E1R
Finding Regarding Impacts tlrat are Less tlran Significant
and, TIIerefore, do not Require MItigation
This area is essentially vacant at present and bounded by national forest land on the north. Nighttime
lighting levels are very low at present, although there is considerable spillover from night lighting at
the CSUSB to the south. If the Proposed Project is built, it will contribute to an overall increase in
ambient nighttime light levels referred to as "sky glow" by the International Dark Sky Association,
the most prominent group that monitors this urban and suburban development impact
(www .darkskies.org ). The development standards of the Specific Plan limit the installation of
lighting fixtures to the degree required for public safety by police and fire personnel. In addition,
lighting levels will be relatively low, in terms of urban development, since the project is all residential
and will have no commercial or institutional facilities that are lighted at night (e.g., shopping center).
Potential impacts would be reduced further by review of proposed lighting plans during subsequent
development review of the project as specific maps or buildings are proposed.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the City and surrounding vacant areas, approved and
additional development would result in additional lighting and surfaces that will create glare. The
General Plan estimates the City will grow by 23,568 units from now until buildout, which will disturb
thousands of acres ofland (Table LU-3, City General Plan 2005), but a relatively small amount of this
planned growth will occur in the foothills and areas surrounding the Proposed Project site.
While the Proposed Project will incrementally contribute to an increase in sky glow, this area is
planned for residential development and its contributions to ambient lighting levels is considered to
be not cumulatively considerable.
2.4.2 - Agricultural and Mineral Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to the entire City and this portion of the San
Bernardino Valley.
The project, when combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, would not result in
cumulative impacts. Other projects that would occur under General Plan buildout may affect the
availability of existing or historical agricultural land or areas with identified mineral resources.
Future development would also be required to comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan.
Fulfillment of these requirements would ensure that no significant impacts on these specialized land
uses will occur from other projects that would occur under buildout.
2.4.3 - Biological Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to biological resources includes this western
portion of the San Bernardino Mountains, its foothills along the southern slope of the mountains, as
well as the canyons that drain these slopes, down to Cajon Creek and ultimately to the Santa Ana
River southwest of the project area. The project will develop 160 acres of alluvial fan terrace area
covered by chaparral with vegetation of disturbed grassland and native scrub vegetation. Some of
these lands overlap critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
However, neither of these species were found on the project site. Conversely, the project would
preserve 235 acres of land comprising the foothills and canyons of middle and upper Badger Canyon,
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan E1R
Rndlnll Reganllnlllmpacls that are Less than Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
which is a major drainage in this portion of the foothills. With mitigation, potential impacts to listed
animal species were reduced to less than significant levels. With the preservation of Badger Creek
and its feeder canyons, potential regional impacts from this project on biological resources are not
considered to be cumulatively considerable.
2.4.4 - Cultural Resources
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to cultural resources includes the entire City as
outlined in the San Bernardino General Plan. The project vicinity represents an area with prehistoric
settlement by several Native American groups prior to Spanish and Mexican settlement, and then
American settlement during the mid-nineteenth century. The project site and surrounding areas are
largely vacant at present. The site appears to contain remnants of a small residential "camp" and
homestead but this area will remain in permanent open space so there are no impacts in this regard.
Development of the project site will contribute to the incremental loss of vacant lands that may
contain cultural artifacts or resources. Potentially significant impacts were found for historic,
archaeological, and paleontological resources, and for human remains, due to the possibility of
encountering an unanticipated find during excavation. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
the potentially significant impact to less than significant levels. With implementation of these
mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
2.4.5 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity includes this
portion of San Bernardino County, due to the presence of several branches of the San Andreas Fault
that cross the site. The various geotechnical investigations evaluated subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions at the project site. The existing documents contained the results of extensive field
explorations, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and design recommendations for previous
development projects at or near the project site. From these documents, geotechnical conclusions and
preliminary recommendations for planning ofthe proposed development were developed.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the City and surrounding vacant areas, approved and
additional development would result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of
land use that could potentially impact geology, soils, and seismicity in the area. The General Plan
estimates the City will grow by 23,568 units from now until buildout, which will disturb thousands of
acres ofland (Table LU-3, City General Plan 2005).
Potentially significant project-level impacts were found concerning exposure of persons or structures
to seismic hazards due to the presence of several faults onsite. Potentially significant impacts were
also found concerning substantial erosion or loss of topsoil during site construction. The Proposed
Project would develop 980 residential units in this portion of the City. The General Plan identifies
areas in the City where additional growth will occur that contain various geotechnical constraints,
including faults and soil erosion. However, only a small amount of this growth will occur proximate
to the San Andreas Fault Zone. The City's General Plan, Development Code, development review
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan ElR
Finding Reganting Impacts tIIat are Lea tIIan Significant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
process, and uniform building code all require detailed geotechnical studies for proposed
development which identifY impacts and appropriate mitigation for suspected geotechnical hazards,
similar to the process applied to the USHP project.
Implementation of the UHSP project and future development under the General Plan, consistent with
development guidelines from required geotechnical studies, will help reduce potential earth-related
cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not make a
substantial contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts relative to geology, soils, and
seismicity.
2.4.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials includes
the University District subarea identified in the San Bernardino General Plan as well as the City as a
whole. Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use
Section of the San Bernardino General Plan. Citywide, approved and additional development will
result in additional excavation activities and further intensification ofland use that could potentially
impact hazards and hazardous materials in the area. Development of the City is expected to increase
housing by 23,568 units from now until buildout, with some ofthat land being vacant while other
lands have been developed.
Development of the Proposed Project would result in an increased demand for fire protection
services, resulting in the need for additional fire protection facilities and personnel to cover the
Proposed Project. Potentially significant impacts were not found concerning: (I) location on a site
that would create a potential hazard to the public and the environment; (2) exposure of sensitive
receptors to hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or waste; or (3) impeding the implementation
of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The Proposed
Project would develop 980 residential units in an outlying vacant area, but residential development in
general does not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials. Growth of industrial and to a
lesser degree commercial uses in the City would generate more risk and potential impacts relative to
hazardous materials on a cumulative basis. With implementation of best management practices and
by following regulations, the Proposed Project would not make a substantial contribution to a
cumulatively considerable impact relative to hazardous materials.
2.4.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality includes the
University District sub-area, identified in the San Bernardino General Plan as well as the City as a
whole. The project site is currently vacant and does not consume potable water. The Preliminary
Hydrology Report was prepared to present an initial analysis of the Proposed Project's effects on the
local and regional drainage basin and to serve as a background for subsequent reports, such as a
Stormwater Control Plan and a SWPPP, that are required during the development process. These and
other subsequent documents will detail the design recommendations for the control of stormwater for
the project site and be used to meet local and regional regulatory requirements.
Envlronmentsl Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plen E1R
Finding Regerdlng Impects the'e", Lesa then S/gnlficent
end. Therero",. do not Requl'" ""t/get/on
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Citywide, approved and additional development will result in
additional excavation activities and further intensification ofland use, which could potentially impact
hydrology and water quality in the area. The total residential units are expected to increase from
59,146 at present to 82,714 at buildout, representing an increase of 23,568 units.
Potentially significant impacts were not found concerning the creation of additional impervious
surface coverage and alteration of existing drainage patterns, potentially leading to downstream
flooding or substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site. Potentially significant impacts were found
relating to adverse impacts to water quality during construction, adverse impacts to water quality
from land use activities associated with the Proposed Project, substantial depletion of groundwater
supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge, and creation of runoff water that could
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The Proposed Project would
develop 980 residential units in this University District subarea. When taken into account with all
residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan, the Proposed Project would
result in a significant cumulative effect. However, the design of the project will incorporate water
retention basins and bio-swales to increase infiltration of water as the new project is built.
The Proposed Project would cause a net increase in potable water demand by almost a million gallons
per day in relation to existing demand on the project site. The City's WSA has indicated that this
demand is accounted for in their long-term water supply planning and would not require the
development of additional supplies. Unfortunately, City staff indicate that reclaimed water is not and
will not be available to the project area at a cost effective rate due to its elevation (i.e., too high), and
there is no infrastructure in place or planned to provide reclaimed water to the project site. Even with
the ongoing uncertainty of imported water for Southern California and the City's General Plan goal of
using recycled water whenever practical, this impact is considered less than significant due to the
design and location ofthe project relative to water and reclaimed water. Furthermore, with the design
of the project and recommended mitigation measures, the EIR concluded that water-related impacts
ofthe Proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project will
not have a cumulatively considerable impact regarding hydrology and water quality.
2.4.8 - Land Use
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to land use includes the University District
subarea and the City as a whole, as identified in the San Bernardino General Plan. The project site
and its surroundings are vacant. The General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Low
(RL) in the steeper areas and Residential Suburban (RS) in the flatter portions of the site - these
designations would allow from 750 to 966 residential units to be built on the site, depending on how
units were placed or clustered in hillside areas (see Section 4.8, Land Use, and 4.10, Population and
Housing, for more information on potential buildout estimates). In addition, the City approved the
Paradise Hills Specific Plan which would allow 504 units to be built on the site.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Spec/I/c Plan EIR
Finding R_rc/Ing Impacts tIIa'lII'8 Less than Significant
and. Th.....rore. do not Require "'/ligation
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the City, approved and additional residential and
commercial development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of
land use. Total residential units will increase from 59,146 units at present to 82,714 units at buildout.
The University Hills project would increase the intensity of development on the project site by
95 percent compared to the PHSP (980 vs. 504 units). However, it is estimated that approximately
750 to 966 units could be built on the UHSP project site under the RL and RS designations of the
General Plan, depending on how units were actually clustered in hillside areas. Development under
the UHSP would represent an increase of 1.5 to 31 percent over that allowed under the Genera Plan.
Section 4.10, Population and Housing, of the EIR concluded that the Project would have significant
population and housing impacts because it was not consistent with SCAG growth projections,
however, it does not appear the Project would make significant contributions to cumulative land use
impacts related to growth.
The project will intensifY the land use designated by the General Plan by up to 31 percent. When
combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, it is not anticipated that this potential
amount of change would result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts. Other projects that
would occur under General Plan buildout would not physically divide an established community, and
they would be required to demonstrate compatibility with surrounding land uses and comply with the
City of San Bernardino General Plan and Development Code. Fulfillment of these requirements
would ensure that no significant impacts on land use occur from other projects that would occur under
buildout.
2.4.9 - Noise
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative noise impacts encompasses the ambient noise
environment around the project site as well as roadways that would experience increases in traffic
volumes from project-generated trips. The cumulative noise impact analysis is guided by evaluating
increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity relative to existing conditions. Construction
noise would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels, and mitigation is proposed that
would require implementation of noise control measures during construction activities. Because
construction would be temporary, ambient noise levels would not experience a permanent increase
and, therefore, no cumulatively considerable increase would occur. The Proposed Project would
result in construction and operational vibration. Construction and operational vibration would not
exceed significance thresholds at the nearest land uses (the residences south of Planning Areas 18 and
20 off of North I Street) and, therefore, would not be cumulative considerable. Project residential
units would not be exposed to substantial vibration from vehicular activities due to the nature of the
project (Le., suburban residential). Therefore, project residents would not be exposed to significant
sources of vibration or noise, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Vehicular trips
generated by the Proposed Project would not cause ambient noise levels along any affected roadway
segments to exceed acceptable noise standards under opening year or buildout conditions. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to increased ambient
Environmeny' Findings of Fact
University Hills Sp<K:lllc Plen E1R
Finding R.~rr/lng Impacts Met ere Less Men Slgnlllcont
end, Therefore, do not Require Mltlgetlon
noise levels on nearby roadways. Onsite noise associated with the Proposed Project would not result
in ambient noise levels increasing to unacceptable levels at any surrounding land uses. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to increased ambient noise
levels at surrounding land uses. Onsite noise associated with the Proposed Project may expose
project residents to unacceptable levels. Mitigation is proposed that would require the installation of
various structural noise attenuation measures to ensure that interior residential noise levels are within
acceptable standards to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact related to exposure of project residents to
unacceptable noise levels. In summary, the Proposed Project would not result in increases in ambient
noise that would be cumulatively considerable.
According to the City of San Bernardino General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR),
noise impacts would be significant after buildout until the San Bernardino Airport Master Plan has
been adopted by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBlAA) 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. The proposed UHSP is approximately
7.5 miles from the San Bernardino International Airport and is therefore outside the five (5) mile
noise contour and will not impacted be impacted.
2.4.10 - Population and Housing
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to population and housing encompasses the
SANBAG area and the entire Southern California region as monitored by SCAG.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by the population growth assumptions included in the City of
San Bernardino General Plan and SANBAG's projections. The City of San Bernardino General Plan
anticipates significant growth in San Bernardino between 2005 and 2030. The California Department
of Finance estimated San Bernardino's population to be 200,280 in 2005. The General Plan projected
a five-year increment for the City's population; the projected 2007 population for the City is 205,010.
According to SCAG the City's population for the year 2010 will be 207,021. The average annual
increase in the City's population is 1.5 percent. The average annual increasein the City's 2007
population in combination with a 1.5 percent annual increase would make the total population
214,466 by the year 20 I O. The Proposed Project is anticipated to open in 20 I O. SCAG anticipates
that the City's population would be 207,021 persons that year, indicating that actual growth has
occurred at a much lower rate than anticipated. The Proposed Project's residential uses would directly
add an estimated 3,283 residents to the City's population over approximately a 5-year period or
through 2015. The Proposed Project would not create substantial new employment opportunities
because this is a residential project.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hilla Specific Plan E/R
Finding Regatdlnglm".cts lIrat al'8 Lass lIran Significant
and, T118I'8fbra, c/o not Raqull'8 Mltigal/on
For the purposes of providing a worst-case scenario analysis, it is assumed that all of the 3,283 new
residents of the project would also be new residents to the City. SANBAG's forecast for population
growth in San Bernardino is the same as that contained in the General Plan. Based on the existing
population (205,010) and accounting for expected population growth between 2010 and 2015 (1.5
percent annually), the City's estimated population in 2010 without the Proposed Project would be
207,021 residents. The addition of the 3,283 new residents associated with the Proposed Project
would bring the population to 210,304, exceeding the City and SCAG's 2010 population projection of
207,021 persons by two (2) percent. With the addition of population growth induced by the Proposed
Project, the City's 2015 population is estimated to be 212,143 persons, which would slightly exceed
the SANBAG's 2015 projection (208,860) by two (2) percent. Although the slight addition of
population from the proposed project is projected to exceed SANBAG's 2010 projections by two (2)
percent, the Proposed Project would not represent a cumulatively considerable growth-inducing
impact relative to population and housing.
2.4.11 - Public Services and Recreation
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to public services and recreation includes the
entire City of San Bernardino. The City of San Bernardino Parks and Community Services
Department owns and maintains 52 park sites totaling 540 acres. Of these sites, 10 are dedicated
community parks, 19 are neighborhood parks, 3 are special use parks, and 17 are pocket or mini-
parks.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the subareas that constitute the City, approved and
additional residential and commercial development will result in a further intensification of land use
and continue to place demands on public services and recreation resources compared with existing
conditions. Within the City, residential development will increase the housing stock from
59,146 units to 82,714 units (+72 percent), and substantial development will also occur in the Sphere
of Influence area (a total of95,664 units at buildout [Table LU-3, CSB General Plan 2005]).
Among public services and recreation resources, potentially significant impacts were found only for
fire protection and emergency medical services, and trails. Potentially significant impacts were found
regarding fire protection and emergency medical services that were due to the location of the project
relative to existing police and fire facilities. Other projects that would occur under buildout could
include mixed use projects with multistory buildings and both residential and commercial uses
combined. Therefore, when considered with other projects associated with buildout, the Proposed
Project would result in cumulative impacts for fire protection and emergency medical services. Since
impacts for these resources are potentially significant for the Proposed Project separately, there would
be a cumulatively considerable impact regarding fire protection and emergency medical services.
However, the same types of mitigations that would reduce these project specific impacts to less than
significant would be developed for other projects associated with buildout (Le., dedication of sites for
new police and fire facilities). After mitigation, therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts to
fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. An incremental increase in impacts to
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Spec;"e Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Impacts that are Less than S;gnll/cant
and, Therefore, do not Require Mitigation
local and regional trails was also found associated with increased numbers of residents and trail users
in outlying areas. Other projects that would occur during buildout would also increase numbers of
residents and new employees and create additional use of the Foothill Trail and other trails beyond
that anticipated for the Proposed Project. The project is installing the section of trail within its
boundaries, so the Proposed Project is not expected to result in cumulative impacts to trails.
2.4.12 - Utilities
The project, when combined with other projects anticipated in the General Plan, would not result in
cumulative impacts. However, other projects that would occur under General Plan buildout may
increase the amount of energy consumed by the City. Other projects in the planning area would be
required to provide adequate assessment of local and regional energy facilities to conclude the future
project would not significantly increase demands on energy consumption. Furthermore, future
development would be required to comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore,
because increased consumption of energy by the Proposed Project and other developments in the City
have to comply with the City's General Plan, or are already anticipated by local or regional energy
facilities, the cumulative energy impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. A
detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measure can be found in Section 4.14, Ulility Systems.
2.5 - Summary
Regional growth may eventually result in a number of cumulatively considerable impacts, including
traffic and air quality. However, the Proposed Project will not make significant contribution to any of
these cumulatively considerable impacts either during construction or from use of the planned
improvements.
Envlronm8lltal Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
tlrat hava _ Mlllgalad 10 Balow a Laval of Significance
with tire Adoption of Mitigation Measures
SECTION 3: FINDING REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE WITH THE ADOPTION OF MITIGATION
MEASURES
The City of San Bernardino Planning Department fmds that the following enviromnental impacts
identified in the Final EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant
level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and
summarized below.
3.1 - Biological Resources
3.1.1 - Potentially Significantlmpact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact Plummer's mariposa lily,
burrowing owl, nesting birds, and jurisdictional land.
3.1.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-Ia
through BIO-Ic, and BIO-3a, the project's impacts to biological resources are found to be less than
significant.
3.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific enviromnentaI effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM B10-18
MM B10-1b
Plummer's Marisposa Lily. During the spring prior to grading, the developer shall
retain a qualified biologist to conduct a focused survey of the proposed development
areas to determine ifthis species is present onsite. The survey shall be conducted
according to the standard protocol established by CDFG. If the species is present, the
developer shall fund relocation of the plants to a suitable location within the
permanent open space area.
Burrowing Owl. Within 30 days of grading or any ground disturbance activities on
the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey to determine if
burrowing owls are present onsite. The survey shall be conducted according to the
standard protocol established by CDFG. If burrowing owls are determined to be
present on the site, mitigation shall follow the CDFG guidelines including passive
relocation. If vegetation removal or ground disturbance begins within 30 days of the
focused survey, no pre-construction survey would be required. If vegetation removal
or ground disturbance activities begin after 30 days of the focused survey, a
subsequent pre-construction survey would be required.
Environmental Flndlllf1s of FIICt
University Hills Specific Plan ElR
Finding Regarding Potentially Significant Effects
that hava been MItIIJllIfK/ to Below a Level of Significance
with tha Adoption of Mitigation M..sures
MM 810-1c
MM-BIO-3a
Nesting Birds. If trees or large shrubs (over 4 feet in heigbt) will be removed during
the nesting season (February I througb August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct
a nesting bird survey no more than 30 days prior to any disturbance to identify any
potential nesting activity. If passerine birds are found to be nesting, or there is
evidence of nesting behavior within 250 feet of the impact area, the biologist shall
determine an appropriate buffer that shall be required around the nests. No
vegetation removal or ground disturbance would occur within this buffer. For raptor
species-birds of prey (e.g., hawks and owls }--this buffer would generally be 500
feet. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nests closely until it is determined that
the nests are no longer active, at which time construction activities may commence
within the buffer area. Construction activity may encroach into the buffer area at the
discretion of the biological monitor.
Jurisdictional Land. Prior to grading, the developer shall obtain a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from USACE, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification from
the RWQCB (Santa Ana Region), and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from
CDFG if jurisdictional land will be impacted. Offsite mitigation, if necessary, shall
be provided at a minimum I: I ratio depending on location and importance of the
jurisdictional land removed. If the project provides onsite mitigation equal or in
excess of its identified impact (i.e., removal of jurisdictional land), no permits may be
necessary. This determination shall be made by qualified biologists in consultation
with City Planning, USACE, and CDFG staff based on the final land plan and value
assigned to the proposed bio-swales and other drainage improvements onsite.
3.2 - Cultural Resources
3.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact unidentified cultural,
archaeological, paleontological resources.
3.2.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures CUL-I
througb CUL-4, the project's impacts to cultural resources are found to be less than significant.
3.2.3. Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM CUL-1
The developer shall retain a qualified historian to survey the building remnants
between Planning Areas 18 and 20 to determine if they have any historical
significance prior to excavation ofthe site. Due to their condition, they could not be
environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan ElR
F1ncJ/ng ROfI"nJIng PolenlJ."y Significant Effects
that have been lI/ligaNd to Below. Level of Slgnlffcance
with the Adoption of IIltJgelJon lleesUf8S
MM CUL-2
MM CUL-3
preserved or protected in place even if it is determined they had historical
significance. Ifthey are determined to be significant, the developer shall retain a
qualified historian to document the resource characteristics for archival purposes
prior to demolition. The historian will prepare a report and submit it to the
appropriate information center for their records.
The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor grading to the
satisfaction of the staffs of the County Museum and City Development Services
Department. If potentially significant archaeological or historic resources are
encountered during subsurface activities, all construction within a 100-foot radius of
the find shall cease until the monitor determines whether the resource requires further
study. The developer shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every
construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate
DPR forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified
archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited
to, glass, ceramics, stone, bone, wood, rock and shell artifacts or features, including
hearths, structural remains, or pre-historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to
be significant under CEQA, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a
research design and archaeological data recovery plan, if necessary. The
archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a full written
report and file it with the appropriate information center, and provide for permanent
curation of the recovered resources.
Prior to the start of excavation, a qualified paleontological monitor will be retained to
conduct an onsite monitoring program to ensure protection of previously unknown
paleontological specimens. In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of
the Proposed Project when the paleontological monitor is not present, excavation
within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the discovery is examined
by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standards. The developer shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in
every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The
paleontologist shall notifY the City ofthe procedures that must be followed before
construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the find is determined
to be significant and the Paleontologist determines that avoidance is not feasible, the
paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval. Upon approval, the plan shall be incorporated into the
project. The Paleontologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare
a full written report and file it with the appropriate information center, and provide
for permanent curation of any recovered resources.
EnvilOnmentsl Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan E1R
Finding Regarding Polenl/atty SllIn//lcant Etrects
that have been MItigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adopl/on of MIl/gal/on Measures
MM CUL-4
If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities for the Proposed
Project, all work within 100 feet of the find shall stop immediately and the San
Bernardino County Coroner's office shall be notified. If the Coroner determines the
remains are Native American in origin, the NAHC will be notified and, in turn, will
notifY the person determined to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD
will provide recommendations for treatment of the remains (CEQA Guidelines
S ] 5064.5; Health and Safety Code S 7050.5; Public Resources Code SS 5097.94 and
5097.98).
3.3 - Geology and Soils
3.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Because the project is located in a seismically active region, the impacts in regard to geology and soil
are considered potentially significant. California has stringent permitting and building design
standards designed to minimize the adverse impacts in the event of an earthquake. However, the
Project may be damaged by seiche flows, soil erosion or topsoil loss, unstable geologic units, and
expansive soils.
3.3.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measure GEO-I a,
GEO-I b, GEO-3a, and GEO-3b, the project's impacts to Geology and Soils are found to be less than
significant.
3.3.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM GEO-1a Prior to the recordation of any map in the area north of the South Branch of the San
Andreas Fault (Planning Area 15), detailed geologic investigations shall be prepared
to determine slope stability, landslide limits, and specific structural and grading
requirements to identifY the most appropriate design and construction requirements
for specific building foundations. This study must demonstrate that any residences to
be built in this area will not be subject to landslides, or that risks associated with any
landslide features or conditions can be alleviated or reduced to a level equivalent to
that of other residential planning areas in the project. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner in consultation with the City
Geologist or qualified geotechnical personnel retained by the City.
MM GEO-1 b Prior to the recordation of any tract map in the area north of the South Branch of the
San Andreas Fault (Planning Area 15), the developer must demonstrate that the
reservoir in Planning Area 22 will have no impact on any homes in Planning Area 15
Envlronmentsl Findings of Filet
University Hills Specific Plan EJR
Finding R_rdtng Potenllally Significant Effects
that have been M/IIgated 10 Below a Level of Significance
with the Adopllon of Mltlgetion MUSU185
MM GEO-3a
MM GEO-3b
from a seiche event that could occur from strong seismic ground shaking. The
reservoir must be designed to withstand anticipated seismic shaking, and must be
dyked or otherwise protected so as to protect downstream homes from seiche flow
damage.
Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
geotechnical consultant to test any areas planned for development that are underlain
by existing imported fill soils to determine their in situ compaction and suitability for
excavation and reuse as engineered fill. Soil testing can be avoided if the applicant
elects to remove the fill and place it either in areas where it will not support
buildings, be located in paved or landscaped areas, or be disposed of offsite. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Geologist.
The developer shall implement the grading recommendations identified in the
GeoMat 2007 and the cm 2006 reports. Prior to the commencement of building
construction, the applicant shall retain a qualified engineer to design foundations
adequate to support the Proposed Project's structures where necessary, based on the
recommendations of the GeoMat 2007 study. Settlement analysis shall be performed
once the structural design loads and foundation system geometry have been defined
for each building.
3.4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.4.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
The drainage protection and planned improvements of the project do not rely on any USFS facilities
or improvements to protect the site. In addition, a post-disaster recovery plan will be incorporated
into the Specific Plan and the following mitigation measure is being added to address this concern
raised by the City Planning Commission.
3.4.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-l,
the project's impacts to hazards and hazardous material are found to be less than significant.
3.4.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM HAZ-1
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall prepare a Post-Fire/Flood
Recovery Plan for review and approval by the City. As appropriate, this plan shall
incorporate planning guidelines from the Alluvial Fan Task Force (AFTF)
established by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The plan will
Envlronmentsl Findings of Fllct
Unlv8ISity Hills Specific Plan E1R
Finding Ragardlng PONnl/ally Significant etrects
/lrat have _ ,,/ligated to Below a Level of Significance
wl/lr /Ire Adapl/on of "II/gal/on ....sures
identify the potential risks to project residents from various natural hazards from
being located in the fire-prone foothills and adjacent to a large natural waterway
(Badger Creek). The plan will outline measures to be implemented after major fires
or floods that will help protect future project residents to the degree practical. When
approved, this plan shall be incorporated into the Specific Plan.
3.5 - Hydrology and Water Quality
3.5.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact water quality and groundwater.
Mitigation is required to offset any impacts to waters quality and groundwater.
3.5.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures HYD-I a,
HYD-I b, HYD-2a, HYD-2b, and HYD-5, the project's impacts to water quality and groundwater are
found to be less than significant after mitigation.
3.5.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM HYD-1a
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any portion or phase of the project, the
project applicant shall receive City approval SWPPP and Grading Plan to the City of
San Bernardino that identifY specific actions and BMPs to prevent stormwater
pollution from construction sources. These BMPs shall be consistent with the
Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the project by PBS&J
Engineers (see DEIR Appendix G). The plans shall identifY a practical sequence for
site restoration, BMP implementation, contingency measures, responsible parties, and
agency contacts. The applicant shall include conditions in construction contracts
requiring the plans to be implemented and shall have the ability to enforce the
requirement through filles and other penalties. The plans shall incorporate control
measures in the following categories:
. Soil stabilization practices;
. Dewatering practices (if necessary);
. Sediment and runoff control practices;
. Monitoring protocols; and
. Waste management and disposal control practices.
Once approved by the City, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible throughout
the duration of the project for installing, constructing, inspecting, and maintaining the
control measures included in the SWPPP and Grading Plan.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan ElR
Finding Regarding Potentjally Slgnlllcent Effects
thllt have been Alltjgeted to 8e1_ a Level of Slgnlllcance
with the Adoptjon of Allt/getjon AleesurtS
MM HYD-1b
MM HYD-2a
Each SWPPP shall identifY pollutant sources that could affect the quality of
stonnwater discharges from the construction site. Control practices shall include
those that effectively treat target pollutants in stonnwater discharges anticipated from
project construction sites. To protect receiving water quality, the SWPPP shall
include, but is not limited to, the following elements:
. Temporary erosion control measures (such as fiber rolls, staked straw bales,
detention basins, temporary inlet protection, check dams, geofabric, sandbag
dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) shall be employed
for disturbed areas.
. No disturbed surfaces will be left without erosion control measures in place
during the winter and spring months (September 30 - March 30).
. Sediment shall be retained onsite by a system of sediment basins, traps, or
other appropriate measures. Of critical importance is the protection of existing
catch basins that eventually drain to Cajon Creek.
. The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for
the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate or
reduce discharge of materials to stonn drains.
. BMPs perfonnance and effectiveness shall be detennined either by visual
means where applicable (i.e., observation ofabove-nonnal sediment release),
or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant
reduction or elimination, (inadvertent petroleum release) is required to
detennine adequacy of the measure.
. Native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the
construction site as soon as possible after disturbance.
Landscaping Management Plan. The developer shall develop and implement a
Landscaping Management Plan (LMP) for landscaped areas with the goal of reducing
potential discharge of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants to
local waterways. All contractors involved in project-related landscaping conducted
during the individual phases of development, as well as maintenance of landscaping
following project completion, shall complete their work in strict compliance with the
LMP. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that requirements of the LMP
are provided to and instituted by future project land owners and managers following
project completion. The LMP shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architecture
fmn with experience in methods to reduce or eliminate the use of landscape
chemicals that could cause adverse effects to the environment. At a minimum, this
LMP shall:
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Spf>Clfic Plen EIR
Finding RegenJIng Potentially Significant Effects
th., have been Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mlllgallon Measures
MM HYD-2b
MM HYD-5
I. Require that pesticides and fertilizers not be applied in excessive quantities,
and only applied at times when rain is not expected for at least 2 weeks, in an
effort to minimize leaching and runoff into the storm drainage system.
2. Encourage the use of organic fertilizers and mulching of landscaped areas to
inhibit weed growth and reduce water demands.
3. Utilize native, perennial, drought-tolerant vegetation to minimize irrigation
needs.
4. SpecifY the maintenance measures to be used (e.g., mowing) and will specifY
an application schedule for all fertilizer amendments and pesticide
applications.
5. IdentifY a list of preferred herbicides and pesticides and instances in which
their use would be appropriate and the associated application rate.
Water Quality Maintenance Reports. The UHSP project shall form a Landscaping
and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) to monitor water quality and provide
regular reports to the City regarding water quality on the project site. A qualified
professional shall be retained through the LLMD to prepare and provide annual
documentation to the City Engineer that the onsite BMPs (Le., water quality devices,
improvements, and procedures) are functioning as planned to effectively protect
water quality both onsite and on downstream uses/drainages. This includes the
function and condition of bioswales, street sweeping, etc. These reports shall be
made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in consultation with the R WQCB if
necessary. If a report indicates water quality objectives are not being met and/or the
R WQCB has expressed concerns in this regard, the LLMD will take appropriate steps
and/or make appropriate improvements to achieve these objectives, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
Prior to approval of any final maps, the developer shall submit drainage plans to the
City Public Works Department for review and approval. The City shall review and
approve all storm drain improvement plans prior to issuance of any encroachment or
building permits that involve flood control facilities.
3.6 - Land use
3.6.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Planning Area 24, which is the only planning area adjacent to USFS land, is proposed as permanent
open space that will be a "land laboratory" for the California State University San Bernardino
(CSUSB) campus. The Project developer is requested to work with the City and United States
Forestry Service staff to install signage at appropriate locations clearly identifYing the USFS
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Find/nil Regard/nil Potent/ally Significant Elrects
thlll have been MItigated 10 Below a Lavel of Sillniflcance
with the Adopt/on of MItigation Measures
boundary adjacent to the Proposed Project site, especially where any fire road or trails enter USFS
property ITom the University Hills site.
3.6.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measure LU-I, the
project's impacts to hazards and hazardous material are found to be less than significant.
3.6.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MMLU-1
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the developer shall coordinate with City,
CSUSB, and USFS staffs to identifY necessary access points and appropriate
locations for such signage to clearly identifY the USFS boundary along the perimeter
of the University Hills property (i.e., Planning Area 24). Such signage will be placed
at strategic locations, including any road or trail access points, to the satisfaction of
the City in consultation with CSUSB and USFS staffs.
3.7 - Noise
3.7.1 - Potentially Significantlmpact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact sensitive receptors from short-
term construction activities and temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation is
required to offset any impacts to noise and sensitive receptors.
3.7.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures NOI- I
through NOI-I i, the project's impacts to noise are found to be less than significant.
3.7.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM NOI-1a
MM NOI-1b
At the time the grading permit application is submitted, the project applicant shall
submit a Construction Noise Mitigation Plan to the City for review and approval.
The plan shall depict the location of staging areas for construction equipment and
describe how noise would be mitigated for any nearby sensitive receptors..
Stationary noise-generating equipment (such as pumps and generators) will be
located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors (Le., homes south of
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan ElR
Finding Regarding Potanllally Significant Effects
that have been Mlllgated to Below a Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1c
MM NOI-1d
MM NOI-1e
MM NOI-1f
MM NOI-1g
MM NOI-1h
MMNOI-1i
PA 16-20) and no closer than 200 feet from any existing home within the Proposed
Project site once occupancy has begun.
Noise-generating equipment will be shielded from nearby noise-sensitive receptors
by noise-attenuating buffers such as structures or haul truck trailers.
Onsite noise sources located less than 600 feet from noise-sensitive receptors will be
equipped with noise-reducing engine housings.
Portable acoustic barriers able to attenuate at least 6 dB will be placed around noise-
generating equipment in the "East Village" portion of the project site.
Water tanks and equipment storage, staging, and warm-up areas will be located as far
from noise-sensitive receptors as possible, and at least 200 feet from any existing
home within the Proposed Project site once occupancy has begun.
All construction equipment shall utilize noise reduction features (e.g., mufflers and
engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the
manufacturer.
No construction equipment shall be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes if it is
within 100 feet of an existing house.
Prior to approval of any subsequent tentative tract maps, the developer shall submit
noise studies as appropriate for any residences within the project to assure that
exterior and interior noise levels meet City noise standards based on actual fmal floor
elevations, actual roadway cross sections and elevations, onsite topography after
grading, etc. Walls or other attenuating improvements shall be installed as needed
based on the results of these studies to assure onsite residences meet the City's noise
regulations.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan E1R
Finding R_rding Potentially Significant Effects
that have _ lIitigated to Below a Level of Significance
witfl the Adoption of /IIIitigation Measuf8S
3.8 - Public Services
3.8.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact libraJ)' services. Mitigation is
required to offset any impacts to library services.
3.8.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation PSR-4a and PSR-
4b, the project's impacts to library services are found to be less than significant.
3.8.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
ElK
MM PSR-4a
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the developer shall
contact the City LibraJ)' Director in writing and offer to provide up 2,000 square feet
of building space in the clubhouse (plus parking), for a future satellite libraJ)' facility.
The developer shall provide the City Planning Department with written confirmation
whether or not the Library Director chooses to locate a library facility on the Specific
Plan property, based on the needs of the Department at that time relative to staffmg
and facilities.
MM PSR-4b
Prior to issuance of the first building permtt for the project, the developer shall demonstrate
that the project can be connected via the internet to City library and other information
technology systems. This may involve wireless or hard-wired connections, depending on the
City's requirements at the time of hookup.
3.9 - Utilities
3.9.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact solid waste capacity. Mitigation
is required to offset any impacts to solid waste capacity.
3.9.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measures US-4a
and US-4b, the project's impacts to solid wast are found to be less than significant.
3.9.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
Environmental Findings of Fact
University HillS Specific Plen EJR
Finding R_rrtlng Polenlle/ty Significant EfI'ecIs
that have been Mitigated to Below. Level of SignfIcance
with the Adopllon of MII/gellon MeesuntS
MM US-4e
MM US-4b
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction
Debris Recycling Plan to the City of San Bernardino identifYing the procedures by
which construction and demolition would be salvaged and recycled to the maximum
extent feasible. The plan shall include proof that a construction and demolition
debris recycler is under contract to the applicant to perform this work. This Plan
shall achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in construction waste, to the satisfaction
of the City Planner.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall provide the City with
written assurance that all project residents will be provided with information on City
and County waste reduction and disposal activities. This information may be
provided by the developer or home owners association (HOA) as appropriate. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction ofthe City Planner.
3.10 - Cumulative Impacts
Potentially Significant Impact
The Proposed Project may have the potential to have cumulative impacts within three (3) miles of the
project site.
Finding
With consideration of the above information, implementation of project specific mitigation measures
was found to reduce impacts from the cumulative projects to less than significant levels. Therefore,
no additional mitigation is needed other than project level mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
3.10.1 - Global Climate Change
Potentially Significant Impact
The Project may have potential impact to contribute to global green house gasses and global climate
change.
Finding
With consideration of the above information and the implementation of mitigation measure AlR-9a
and AIR-9b, the project's direct or indirect contribution to greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced
to less than significant levels.
EnvlronmentBl Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plen ElR
Finding Regertllng Potentielly Slgnificent Effects
the! have been Mitigated to Be/owe Level of Significance
with the Adoption of Mitigation Meesures
Facts in Support of Finding
The project-specific environmental effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened to less than
significant levels by implementation of the following mitigation measures, as identified in the Final
EIR:
MM AIR-9a
MM AIR-9b
Areas and/or facilities to encourage recycling shall be provided and installed in all
MDA and A (attached) residential areas (Planning Areas 5, 6, 8-11,13, 14, 16, '8,
and 20) and in the clubhouse (Planning Area 7) consistent with City requirements.
To increase energy efficiency, the following measures shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino: a) there shall be a minimum 10 percent
reduction in all buildings, combined space heating, cooling, and water heating energy
compared to the current Title 24 Standards; b) the project shall incorporate light roof
colors and cool pavements in the residential driveway areas; c) each appliance (i,e"
washer/dryers, refrigerators, stoves, etc.) provided by the builder must be Energy Star
qualified if an Energy Star designation is applicable for that appliance; d) low-flow
appliances (i,e., toilets, dishwashers, shower heads, washing machines) shall be
installed and; e) solar powered water heaters and photovoltaic cells (solar panels)
shall be offered to home buyers as an option,
Environmental Findings of Fact
UnlvfHSlly Hills Specific Plsn ElR
Finding Regarding Impacts not
MIl/gated 10 BsIowa La"'" of Slgnlflcanca
SECTION 4: FINDING REGARDING IMPACTS NOT MITIGATED TO BELOW A
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Section IS I 26.2(a)(b) requires an Final EIR to identify and focus on the significant
environmental effects of the Proposed Project, including effects that cannot be avoided if the
Proposed Project were implemented.
This section describes significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a
less than significant level. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing a
project alternative, the EIR implications, and the reason why the project is being proposed,
notwithstanding the Final EIR effect, are described. With implementation ofthe proposed mitigation
measures, the Project will not create any significant environmental impacts.
4.1 - Air Quality
4.1.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely impact air quality and existing emissions
of greenhouse gases. In addition the Proposed Project has the potential to adversely impact PMIO and
PM,s levels, and may exceed SCAQMD localized daily thresholds. Other potentially significant
impact can occur over the short-term duration of the Proposed Project (i.e., during construction).
4.1.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information and even with the implementation of mitigation
measures AIR-I a through AIR-lg, and AIR-3a through AIR-3d, the project's impacts to air quality
criteria pollutants are found to he significant and unavoidable.
4.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
After the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NO,), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO,), and
particulate matter 2.5 (pM2.5) will continue to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management
Plan's (SCAQMD) regional emission significance thresholds during construction and VOC, NO",
and CO during operations and, thus, are considered significant and unavoidable impacts.
MM AIR-1a
Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, the project proponent will
provide a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) that will describe the application of
standard best management practices to control dust during construction. Best
management practices will include:
. Application of water on disturbed soils a minimum of two times per day;
. Using track-out prevention devices at construction site access points;
. Stabilizing construction area exit points;
. Limiting onsite construction traffic to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads;
. Limiting onsite construction traffic to 25 miles per hour on paved roads;
EnvlronmentJIl Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plen E1R
Finding Regerdlng Impects not
Mltigeted to Be/owe Level of Slgnlflcence
MM AIR.ib
MM AIR.ic
MM AIR-id
MM AIR.ie
MM AIR-if
MM AIR-ig
. Paving or providing a hard surface for onsite roads to reduce fugitive dust;
. Covering dirt haul vehicles; and
. Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical and other measures, as deemed
appropriate to the site, to control fugitive dust.
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to grading.
Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, a Construction Traffic Control
Plan (CTCP) will be reviewed and approved by the City. The CTCP will describe in
detail safe detours around the project construction site and provide temporal)' traffic
control (i.e., flag person) during construction related truck hauling activities.
During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment shall be
properly maintained at an offsite location, including proper tuning and timing of
engines. Equipment maintenance records and equipment design specification data
sheets shall be kept on-site during construction.
During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised
not to idle construction equipment on the site for more than five minutes.
During construction of the proposed improvements, onsite electrical hook ups shall
be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to
eliminate the need for diesel powered electric generators.
Onsite grading equipment will comply with one or more of the following:
. Use of onsite grading and construction equipment equipped with oxidized diesel
catalyst and fueled with aqueous diesel fuel during grading and construction
operations with a reduced equipment fleet or hours of operation totaling a
maximum of 17,000 horsepower hours per day;
. Use of onsite grading and construction equipment equipped with oxidized diesel
catalyst with a reduced equipment fleet or hours of operation totaling a maximum
of 14,000 horsepower hours per day;
. Use of onsite grading and construction equipment fueled with aqueous diesel fuel
during grading and construction operations with a reduced equipment fleet or
hours of operation totaling a maximum of 13,000 horsepower hours per day; and
. Reduce the grading and construction equipment fleet or hours of operation to a
maximum total of 10,000 horsepower hours per day.
Implementation of the Short-Tenn Air Quality Mitigation Measures shall be
documented in an Air Quality Mitigation Implementation Plan. This plan will detail
each mitigation measure and include daily logs documenting implementation of each
Environmenm' Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
MM AIR-3a
MM AIR-3b
MM AIR-3c
MM AIR-3d
Finding Regarding Impects not
Mitigated 10 Below a Level of Significance
mlltgation measure. Daily logs for each piece of construction equipment will include
the hours per day the equipment ran. A master daily log will document the hours of
operation all equipment ran each day. The master daily log will also document
timing and tuning of equipment, the type of fuel used on construction equipment, and
any add-on emissions reduction equipment used such as oxidized diesel catalysts.
The project proponent shall install bicycle racks at the clubhouse, MDA and A
(attached) housing areas (Planning Areas 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 20), and all park
sites to encourage non-vehicular trips within the project.
The project design shall include signs posted in visible places in any truck parking
areas that state, "No Idling."
The project proponent will coordinate with CSUSB to install improvements that will
support future shuttle transit service for project residents, including bus turnouts, bus
shelterslbenches, street lighting, and safe ingress/egress between the designated bus
stop and adjacent uses. The developer will install identified improvements when the
applicable road is constructed. .
Provide onsite information for clubhouse employees regarding local car pools, bus
schedules and shuttle services in the area that service the project site, including maps
showing the routes of transit services and employee carpool destinations.
4.2 - Population and Housing and SCAG Consistency
4.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation ofthe project has the potential to induce population growth beyond the SCAG local
and regional forecasts.
4.2.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information, implementation of the Proposed Project will cause the
SCAG Consistency and regional growth to be significant and unavoidable.
4.2.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
Although forecasted population growth in San Bernardino for 20 I 0 is projected to exceed the SCAG
projections, the proposed UHSP project would significantly exacerbate this condition by adding an
additional 476 units (980 - 504) or 12 percent of growth. SCAG population numbers are the basis for
other regional plans (e.g., regional housing allocation strategies), and population growth in excess of
the forecast represents a significant growth inducement impact. No mitigation is available to reduce
this impact to a less than significant level; therefore, growth inducement beyond the SCAG local and
regional forecasts is a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project is generally consistent with the policies of the City's general Plan,
except for the provision of employment in a housing rich sub-region. The Draft EIR concluded that
Environmental Findings of Fact
Unlve<slty Hills Speclfl. Plan EIR
Finding Ragardlng Impllcts not
Mltigatad to Below a Leval of Significance
these inconsistencies mean the project will have a significant impact relative to growth inducement
and minor inconsistencies with regional growth policies and there is no feasible mitigation available
to eliminate this impact.
4.3 - Transportation
4.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the project has the potential to create operations at intersections to degrade to
unacceptable levels without planned improvements in the opening year. In addition, five intersections
are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service by 2030. With mitigation measures TRANS-
I, TRANS-2, and TRANS-8, impacts to intersections will be less than significant. However, impacts
to freeway operations are significant and unavoidable.
4.3.2 - Finding
With consideration of the above information, implementation of the Proposed Project will cause
freeway operations to be significant and unavoidable.
4.3.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
MM TRANS-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the developer shall install or provide
fair share payments to the City to install improvements referred to in Table 5 in the
TIA (KA 2008).). Iffair share payments are not paid prior to issuance of the first
building permits, the UHSP will be required to install improvements, and be
reimbursed by the City upon completion. . Improvements include:
. Traffic signal at Northpark Boulevard and Campus Parkway;
. Cross Street Stop at Little Mountain Drive and Project Access;
. Add two (2) left- turn lanes on northbound leg of University Parkway at
Northpark Boulevard;
. Add two (2) left- turn lane on northbound [-215 Freeway ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the northbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a right-turn lane on the northbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a left-turn lane on the southbound leg of North park Boulevard at Campus
Parkway;
. Add a through lane to the eastbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
· Add a right-turn-overlap to the eastbound leg of University Parkway at
Northpark Boulevard;
. Add a right-turn lane to the eastbound leg of Little Mountain Drive at Project
Access;
Envlronmentsl Findings of Filet
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Rndlng Regan/ing ImtMcts not
Ntltlf/lllOd to BeI_ a Level of Significance
. Add a left-turn lane to the westbound leg of North park boulevard at Campuss
Parkway;
. Add three (3) left-turn lanes to the westbound leg of University Parkway at
Northpark Boulevard;
. Add a left turn lane to the westbound leg of Little Mounntain Drive at Project
Access;
. Add a through lane to the westbound leg of North park Boulevard and Campus
Parkway; and
. Add a through lane to the westbound leg of Little Mountain Drive atProject
Access;
. Add a right-turn lane to the westbound leg of University Parkway at Northpark
Boulevard.
To implement this measure, a right- turn lane can be striped or unstriped, but to
function as a right- turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right- turn vehicles to
travel outside the through lanes.
The TIA for this project estimated that the fair share cost for these improvements would be just over
$4.1 million as of when the TIA was prepared (July 2,2008). Exhibit 4.12-3 illustrates the proposed
improvements that the project will need to implement. With construction of these improvements,
LOS at local intersections will meet the City's General Plan thresholds.
MM TRANS-2 Prior to the issuance of the 600'" building permit, the developer shall install or
provide fair share payments to the City for installation of improvements referred to in
Table 8 in the TIA (KA 2008).). Iffair share payments are not paid prior to the
issuance of the 600'" building permit, the UHSP will be required to install
improvements, and be reimbursed by the City upon completion. Improvements
include:
. Cross street stop at Campus Parkway at 1-215 Freeway northbound ramp;
. Cross street stop at Campus Parkway at 1-215 Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane on northbound leg of campus Parkway and Kendall
Drive;
. Add a thorough lane on the northbound leg of campus Parkway and at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane onnorthbound leg of campus Parkway and at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane onnorthbound leg of University Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a right-turn lane on the northbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Spectffc Plan EIR
Finding R_niinglmpac/s not
Mitigated to Below a Level of Slgnlllcance
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a thorough lane on the southbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway southbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the southbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the eastbound leg of University Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a left-turn lane on the eastbound leg of Campus Parkway at Kendall
Drive;
. Add a left-turn lane on the eastbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp;
. Add a right-turn lane on the westbound leg of Campus Parkway at 1-215
Freeway northbound ramp.
To implement this measure, a right- turn lane can be striped or unstriped, but to function as a right-
turn lane, there must be sufficient width for right-turn vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
As shown in Table 4.12-6, all intersections would meet the City's General Plan thresholds with
improvements by 2030 after the implementation of the improvements outlined in Measure MM--
TRANS-2.
MM TRANS-8 Prior to the commencement of construction, the developer shall provide a
Construction Traffic, Staging, and Parking Management Plan to the City of San
Bernardino for review and approval. All construction contracts shall include a clause
requiring compliance with the Construction Traffic, Staging, and Parking
Management Plan and the developer shall be able to enforce the provisions of the
plan through penalties, up to and including, termination of the contract. The plan
shall include the following provisions;
. Construction truck traffic shall be limited to the following designated routes;
Campus Parkway from the site and west of North park Boulevard to Kendall
Drive, and Kendall Drive from Campus Parkway to Palm Avenue.
Construction truck traffic shall be prohibited on all other roadways, unless
compelling circumstances warrant such movements (e.g., a major traffic
accident).
. Signage shall be installed at construction truck ingress and egress points
alerting motorists to such movements.
. Soil, debris, or other loose materials shall be covered with tarps or other
restraining material during haul movements on roadways
Envlronmenml Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Flnd/ng R_rdlnglmpacfS not
Mitigated to Balow a Laval of Significance
. On-site and off-site construction staging and parking locations shall be
identified, as well as any necessary shuttle service needed to transport workers
from off-site locations. For safety reasons, off-site staging or parking shall not
be allowed west of North park Boulevard or on the CSUSBCal State
San Bernardino campus.
. A pre-construction conference shall be held advising all construction
contractors of the requirements of the Construction Traffic, Staging, and
Parking Management Plan.
4.4 - Cumulative
4.4.1 - Potentially Significant Impact
The Proposed Project may have the potential to create cumulative impacts within three (3) miles of
the project site. Areas that have a cumulative impact by the Proposed Project that are significant and
unavoidable are listed and defmed below.
Air Quality
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to air quality includes the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB), which is identical to the boundaries of the SCAQMD. The SCAB includes the
counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial, and Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino (including
the City of San Bernardino).
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the project region, and the SCAB, approved and additional
development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of land use,
which could potentially lead to impacts to air quality in the area. Within the City of San Bernardino,
the total residential units will increase from 59,146 units at present to 82,7]4 units at buildout
(+23,568 units or 1.5 percent average annual growth). Construction and operation ofthese additional
land uses would emit substantial quantities of criteria pollutants that would likely exceed SCAQMD's
daily significance thresholds.
Potentially significant impacts were not found for exposure of construction workers or the public to
substantial amounts of toxic air pollutants, creation of carbon monoxide hot spots that would exceed
federal or State concentration standards, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, or generation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people.
Significant, unavoidable impacts were found concerning construction and operational emissions that
exceed SCQMD thresholds, inconsistency with the projections contained in the Air Quality
Management Plan, and emissions representing only an incremental contribution of global greenhouse
gases. The Proposed Project would develop 980 residential units in this vacant outlying area of the
City. This represents 4.2 percent ofthe growth expected in the City from now until buildout.
When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan,
the Proposed Project would result in a significant cumulative effect. Therefore, this effect would be
EnvlronmentB/ Flndlnp of Fact
University Hills Specfflc Plan EIR
Rndlng Regarrllng Impacts not
Mitigated to s./owa Lavel of SIgnificance
cumulatively considerable without mitigation applied, since the effect of this project by itself is a
potentially significant impact. However, according to the City of San Bernardino General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR), air quality would be significant after buildout during long
term and short term construction, and contributing to cumulatively considerable net increase of
criteria pollutants for which the project region is in a state of non-attainment. Therefore, project-level
emissions would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable due to the City's significant and
unavoidable buildout projections for regional air quality.
Mitigation in the form of extensive air pollution control measures is proposed, but it would not reduce
project construction and operation emissions below SCQMD thresholds; however, it would prevent
project greenhouse gas emissions from being cumulatively considerable.
Transportation
The analysis area for evaluation of cumulative impacts to transportation includes the University
District subarea identified in the San Bernardino General Plan, as well as the City as a whole. The
Traffic Impact Analysis analyzed the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project and looked at traffic
impacts at opening year and at buildout of the project. Project-level traffic impacts are found in
several intersections that would exceed the General Plan threshold of LOS C at peak hour, and, will
therefore have a significant impact. N addition, significant impacts are related to cumulative traffic
and congestion on the 1-215 Freeway in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
Cumulative impact analysis is guided by buildout assumptions identified in the Land Use Section of
the San Bernardino General Plan. Within the University District subarea, approved and additional
development will result in additional excavation activities and further intensification of/and use that
could potentially impact transportation in San Bernardino. Furthermore, the Proposed Project will
contribute to cumulatively considerable traffic impacts even with implementation of all feasible
project specific mitigation.
A number of roadway improvements would be implemented in conjunction with the Proposed Project
that would help reduce cumulative traffic impacts. Potentially significant impacts were not found
concerning the creation of inadequate access for emergency services or conflicts with the General
Plan. Potentially significant impacts were found for congestion during peak hours along this portion
of the 1-215 Freeway.
When taken into account with all residential and commercial buildout anticipated in the General Plan,
the Proposed Project would result in a significant cumulative effect on area traffic. Therefore, this
effect would be cumulatively considerable without mitigation applied, since the effect of this project
by itself is a potentially significant impact. With implementation of project mitigation measures MM
TRANS-I through MM TRANS-8, project impacts will not make substantial contributions to
cumulatively considerable degradation of intersection performance but will contribute to ongoing
freeway congestion.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Rnding RegsrrJing Impacts not
Mitigeted to Below. uvel of Significance
However, according to the City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR), the City
does not cooperate with the regional transportation agencies toward mitigating impacts to regional
transportation facilities. However, potential traffic impacts to the freeway mainline segments and
ramps were evaluated and mitigation measures were suggested to reduce impacts. However, the City
stated that improvements to the freeway system are the responsibility of the existing regional
transportation agencies and not the City of San Bernardino. Without the authority to implement the
mitigation measures, the impact to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable
requiring a statement of overriding considerations. Therefore, project-level traffic would be
cumulatively significant and unavoidable due to the City's significant and unavoidable buildout
projections.
Environmental Findings of Fact
UnlvetSlty Hills Specllle Pllln EIR
Finding R_nlinl1 AItem_lIves to Ill_
Propo$<<l ProJfH;t
SECTION 5: FINDING REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING, UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE, AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS
5.1 . Growth Inducing Impacts
5.1.1 - Description
There are two types of growth-inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To
assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project's characteristics that may encourage and
facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated
(CEQA Guidelines Section l5126.2[d]).
5.1.2 - Finding
Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a
community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional
developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical
obstacles to population growth (such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater
treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area).
Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the
development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth or projects
that indirectly induce growth may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area, such
as a new residential community, that requires additional commercial uses to support residents.
The Proposed Project would result in the development of980 units on 404 acres in an outlying but
somewhat suburbanizing area (e.g., development to the west along Campus Parkway). The
residential units included in the Proposed Project would be expected to result in direct population
growth of 3,283 new residents. The Proposed Project is expected to create only a few new jobs at the
clubhouse.
Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR examined the project's contributions to local as well as regional
housing and population growth and found it to be in excess of that outlined in the City's General Plan
that was used for estimating growth impacts by SCAG. Although by itselfthe project would only
incrementally increase growth, it would contribute to an overall cumulative increase that may not
have been anticipated in regional planning efforts. Therefore, the project is considered somewhat
growth inducing. This increase will be offSet somewhat by the fact that the project is in an area that is
not planned for additional suburban development, so its actual influence on area-wide growth will
likely be limited.
The project site is not currently served by infrastructure although roads and utilities are generally
adjacent or nearby to the site. However, the Proposed Project would require the extension of
roadways and utility systems into areas not presently served; therefore, the Proposed Project could be
considered to be removing a barrier to potential growth through the extension of urban infrastructure.
Environmental Findings of Fact
Unlv.rslty Hili. Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarr/lng Altematlves to 111.
Propos<<} Project
The Riverside-Corona Feeder supplies several southern California Counties, including San
Bernardino. The supplier connects to the Santa Ana River watershed and supplies over 400,000 acre-
feet of ground water per year. New wet year water will come from local runoff, including regulated
releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir and the State Water Project. The R-C Feeder is a multiple benefit
regional water supply project. The water will be stored in San Bernardino Valley and Chino
groundwater basins. Stored water will be delivered to consumers through a new groundwater
pumping capacity. The new pumping and delivery capacity will enable water to be stored safely by
providing the means to control local water tables.
The water supply assessment proposes the UHSP will connect to reservoirs, similar to the Riverside-
Corona Feeder. The reservoirs will include a common inlet/outlet pipe with flexible connections,
isolation valves and an altitude valve to prevent overflow. To improve mixing in the tank, each
inlet/outlet pipeline would have two check valves, forcing water to travel a greater distance from inlet
to outlet in a circular motion. The reservoirs would have separate overflow pipes and drain pipes that
would discharge to a concrete gutter. The gutter would convey storm flows, reservoir overflows and
drainage along the access road to the downstream development storm drain.
5.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
Because of its size and intensity, as well as its destination potential, the Proposed Project may be a
catalyst for future unrelated projects. This may include new development projects or redevelopment
of existing properties. Note that no such projects have been identified at the time of this writing, and
it would be speculative to identify any potential locations or types of projects.
5.2 - Irreversible Impacts
5.2.1 - Description
Section 15126.2( c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the extent to which a Proposed
Project will commit nonrenewable resources to uses those future generations will probably be unable
to reverse so that such current consumption may be justified.
5.2.2 - Finding
The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes; they are
defmed as "changes in land use that would commit future generations", "irreversible changes from
environmental actions", "and consumption of non-renewable resources". The Draft EIR has evaluated
the project's commitment to these irreversible changes in the implementation of the project and has
found that the use of such resources is justified by the long-term benefits of the project. However, the
Proposed Project would not be consistent with Air Quality, PopulationIHousinglSCAG Consistency,
and F reeway Transformational uses.
5.2.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The project site will be in long-term used as a residential development. In addition, the new uses will
be utilized as a resource for the City over the long-term. In addition, long-term development of the
Envlronmenllll Findings of Fact
Unlv8l'SItv Hills SpltClflc Plan EJR
Finding R_rdlng Altemallves to lire
Propos<<I Project
project will be similar to other residential development projects in the City of San Bernardino.
Analyses of all three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes are defmed as:
Changes in Land Use That Would Commit Future Generations
The project proposes to construct 980 residential units. The Proposed Project will consists of 404.3
total acres, with 169.5 acres or 42 percent of the site proposed for residential and related uses,
including 10.2 acres of parks and recreational uses. The project proposes a gross density of2.4
dwelling units per acre (980 units divided by 404.3 total acres) and a net density of 5.8 units per acre,
excluding natural open space (980 units divided by 169.5 acres). Residential densities range from 0.0
to 20 dwelling units per acre. This change in land use is more compatible with the surrounding area,
therefore, the change in land use would not commit future generations to a significant change in land
use.
Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions
Irreversible changes to the environment could occur if hazardous substances are released associated
with development of the Project. Compliance with the requirements and mitigation measures would
reduce impact to less than significant. No other sources of irreversible changes from environmental
actions are forecast to occur.
Consumption of Non-Renewable Resources
Consumption of non-renewable resources would be the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses,
consumption of energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, and the loss of potential mining
resources.
The Draft EIR determined that development of the project site would not result in a significant impact
on land that is considered suitable for agricultural Use. IN addition, the site is not identified as a
mineral resource site and more suitable locations in the surrounding regions are currently being used
as mineral resource sites. Given the proximity to CSUSB, the site would not be a suitable for mining
of mineral resources in the future.
The project will consume non-renewable energy resources during construction and operation such as
petroleum products, construction materials, electricity and natural gas. Construction impacts to non-
renewable would be short-term. Operation of the Project is required to comply with mandatory
requirements of Title 24 in regard to energy efficient building design and is required to utilize energy
conservation measures during operations ofthe facilities within the project.
environmental FIndings of Feet
University Hilla Specllle Phm E1R
Finding Regarding Altematlvea /0 the
F'ropoud Project
SECTION 6: FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
CEQA requires that a Final EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the
location of the project, which: I) are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant
adverse environmental impact associated with the project; and 2) may be feasibly accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental,
social and technological factors involved (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126.6).
A Final EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most
of the project objectives and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines ~
15126.6; Sierra Club v. County of Napa, 121 CaI. App. 4th 1490 [2004]). In all cases, the
consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126.6.).
The lead agency is not required to select the environmentally superior alternative identified in the
Final EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the Proposed Project and: I)
through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a project can be reduced
to a less than significant level; or 2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations
which make the alternative infeasible.
The discussion of alternatives is required to include the "No project" alternative. CEQA further
requires that the City identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the "No project" alternative
is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified
from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15126.6.).
CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126.6 requires a Final EIR to evaluate an alternative site when an alternative
location would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects. The Final EIR considered five (5)
alternatives that may reduce anticipated impacts to less than significant levels, or will improve the
acceptability or successful implementation of the residential improvements. A summary of Project
Alternative Impacts are contained in Table I.
The objectives for the project as identified in the Final EIR and considered by the City are the
following:
. Include high-quality, high-density housing in a mixed-use setting to increase the diversity of
housing opportunities in San Bernardino and provide housing options that are not currently
available to local residents;
. Use high-quality architecture and landscaping that will maintain and enhance the aesthetic
character of the City of San Bernardino;
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hilla Specific Plan E1R
Rndlnfl R_ffIIng A1I8mal1_ 10 tha
Proposed Project
. Provide a "sustainable" community that encompasses construction as well as daily living in
terms of energy and water conservation, wise choice and use of building materials, reduction of
air pollutants, safety, walkability and connectivity to surrounding uses, etc.;
. Provide ample amenities including a community clubhouse and extensive trail system to
encourage healthy and enjoyment of open space.
. Maximize roadway safety through the provision of multiple vehicular ingress and egress
opportunities to the Proposed Project internal roadways and parking facilities and
improvements to the surrounding circulation system;
. Create increased new property and sales taxes annually, in perpetuity, for the City of San
Bernardino, and increased annual property taxes for San Bernardino County and various other
local government agencies; and
. Increase property values in the City of San Bernardino and surrounding unincorporated County
areas.
6.1 - No Project/No Development Alternative
6.1.1 - Description
CEQA requires that a "No Project" alternative be evaluated compared to the Proposed Project. The
No Project alternative evaluates existing conditions on the site in the absence of the Proposed Project.
Under this alternative, the project site would remain vacant would not be developed into a residential
community. Assuming the project site remains vacant, all significant impacts will be avoided.
However, any benefits of the project related to providing housing opportunities for families as well as
providing infrastructure in an area that is undergoing surrounding residential development would not
be realized.
6.1.2 - Finding
This alternative would eliminate any adverse environmental impacts associated with developing the
project site into a residential community. It would also eliminate the significant impacts associated
with the project (Le. air quality, population, housing, and SCAG consistency, transportation).
6.1.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The No Project - No Development Alternative would eliminate the seven significant impacts of the
Proposed Project relative to construction and occupancy of the proposed UHSP. However, it would
result in an indirect impact to future growth of the City. Furthermore, this alternative does not achieve
any of the objectives of the Proposed Project.
Environmental Find/np of Fact
University Hills SpecIfic Plan E1R
Finding Regarding Alternatives to the
Proposed Project
6.2 - No Project - General Plan Development Alternative
6.2.1 - Description
Under this alternative, the site would be developed under the approved PHSP as outlined under the
previous EIR certified in 1993, which allowed 504 residential units.
6.2.2 - Finding
Under this alternative, there would be similar impacts associated with the Proposed Project, as the
land use designation is the similar for the existing General Plan/Specific Plan as the Proposed Project.
Developing the Project area for residential uses could have potential adverse impacts on the adjacent
residential development. It would potentially increase impacts related to Aesthetics, Light, and Glare,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, and Hydrology and Water Quality.
6.2.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The No Project - General Plan Development Alternative would have incrementally fewer impacts
related to long-term occupancy of the project site since it would allow the development of
approximately half the number of units compared to the Proposed Project (504 vs. 980 or 48.5%)/
However, the UHSP proposes aggressive water and energy conservation measures that would
substantially reduce the differences in these impacts. This alternative would have similar or increased
short-term air quality impacts from grading but reduced construction-related impacts (i.e., fewer
units). Long-term air quality impacts under this alternative would be reduced to less than significant
levels. This alternative may have increased impacts on biological and cultural resources, and the
City's water distribution system if development were to occur as outlined in the previously approved
Paradise Hills Specific Plan. This alternative would also create increased risks to project residents and
residences related to wildand fires and geotechnical constraints. Growth inducement and impacts
related to consistency with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significant levels
under this alternative. This alternative does not meet the objectives of the project to the same degree
as the Proposed Project in that the PHSP does not contain current water or energy conservation
strategies.
6.3 - Modified Specific Plan Alternative
6.3.1 - Description
To reduce air quality and growth inducement impacts, this alternative would be phased and have
more "mixed" uses (i.e., 100,000 square feet of commercial and other non-residential) on the site. It
would also have fewer residential lots (approximately 700 units) but with higher densities than those
allowed under the UHSP to be able to cluster units more effectively. This alternative would likely
require many buildings with 3-4 stories rather than 2-3 story buildings under the current UHSP. The
current "clubhouse" area would become more of a community center under this alternative, with taller
buildings and approximately] 00,000 square feet of a mixture of commercial and professional office
uses. Each residential planning area would be larger overall than under the UHSP, and each would be
EnvlfOnmentlJl Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan EIR
Finding Regarding Alternallves to the
Propoaed Project
built on pads that could be more isolated in terms of grading. At present, the land plan requires that
the entire development area (approximately 170 acres) be graded at one time to balance earthwork
onsite (Le., no substantial import of soil onto or export of soil off of the site). Balancing earthwork
within a development area is an important consideration of project design, not only for cost, but to
minimize the import or export of soil from the site, which could significantly increase short-term
traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. The only feasible way to accomplish this balancing with
smaller planning areas would be to "pair" two planning areas, one upslope and one downslope, and
use the cut material from the upper area to create a pad for the lower area. This would necessarily
create a more terraced look to the development.
The road system would be similar to that of the proposed UHSP but there would be more open space
between the Planning Areas and the project would be built over a longer period of time to reduce
short-term construction impacts.
6.3.2 - Finding
Under this alternative, impacts from residential development woud be either equivalent or reduced;
however, the alternative would not reduce environmental impacts in regard to Air Quality and
Transportation.
6.3.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The Modified Specific Plan Alternative would have incrementally fewer impacts related to long-term
occupancy of the project site since it would allow the development of fewer residential units
compared to the Proposed Project (700 vs. 980 or 40 percent less). However, the addition of
commercial and office uses under this "mixed use" plan would generate a greater amount of traffic
than the Proposed Project, especially during peak periods. The mixed uses would help reduce the
number and length of vehicular trips off of the project site.
This alternative could reduce short-term (daily) air quality impacts from grading and construction to
less than significant levels, however, it would extend those impacts over a longer period of time if
development phasing were increased (Le., from 5 to 10 years). Long-term air quality impacts under
this alternative would increased by adding non-residential uses, and would still exceed significance
thresholds.
This alternative would have equivalent impacts on biological and cultural resources, and would likely
create similar risks to project residents and residences (and businesses and employees) related to
wildand fires and geotechnical constraints. Growth inducement and impacts related to consistency
with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significant levels under this alternative.
This alternative would meet some of the objectives of the project.
Environmental FindIngs of Fact
University Hills Speclllc Plan E1R
FInding Regarding Alternetlves to the
Proposed Project
6.4 - Educationallnstitutionrrechnology Park Alternative
6.4.1 - Description
The University District Specific Plan identifies the general area for technology park uses, which
would be supported and will benefit from research at the University. To reduce air quality and
growth inducement impacts, this alternative would eliminate residential uses and place an educational
institution and related technology uses in this area to support CSUSB. These uses could be in
conjunction with or in support of the Cal State San Bernardino campus. The proposed alternative
would house approximately 2.75 million square feet of office space, industrial use, and educational
research for information technologies. Based on discussions with the San Bernardino City Unified
School District, this plan does not envision K-12 facilities at this time. The road system would be
similar to that of the proposed UHSP but there might be more open space between various buildings
or uses, and they may be built over a longer period of time to reduce short-term construction impacts.
6.4.2 - Finding
Long-term air quality impacts would not be reduced as the educational institution/technology park
uses would generate more vehicular peak hour traffic. However, additional impacts would be similar
or reduced compared to the Proposed Project.
6.4.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The Educational InstitutionlTechnology Park Alternative would produce very different impacts
compared to those from the residential uses of the Proposed Project. It would likely generate more
peak hour traffic, but non-peak hour traffic may be substantially less that that of the Proposed Project.
The addition of educational and institutional uses under this plan would likely not reduce short-term
(daily) air quality impacts from grading and construction to less than significant levels due to the need
to grade the entire area for efficient site planning. Long-term air quality impacts under this
alternative would probably be higher than those produced by residential uses, and would still exceed
significance thresholds.
This alternative would have equivalent impacts on biological and cultural resources, and would likely
create similar risks to project employees and students rather than to project residents and residences in
terms of wildand fires and geotechnical constraints. Growth inducement and impacts related to
consistency with SCAG growth policies would be reduced to less than significant levels under this
alternative. Although the alternative project may meet certain objectives to the same degree as the
Proposed Project, it does not meet all the specific project objectives already outlined in the approved
PHSP.
6.5 - Alternative Sites
6.5.1 - Description
CEQA requires the evaluation of alternative sites if moving the Proposed Project to another site
would eliminate or avoid one or more significant impacts of the Proposed Project. The impacts to
both short-term and long-term air quality would occur regardless of location. The significant impact
Environmental Findinfl!S of Fact
University Hills SpecJflc Plan EIR
Finding R"f1IIrrJlng Alternatives to lire
Proposed Project
to freeway traffic might be reduced by a different location, but the 1-2 J 5 Freeway experiences similar
levels of congestion from its intersection with the 1-15 four miles to the north down to its intersection
with the 1-10 Freeway six miles to the south
6.5.2 - Finding
It is not likely that an alternative location would eliminate the significant traffic impact of the
Proposed Project. Unless the UHSP project can be built with mixed uses or adjacent to a transit
center (no sites of this size available near the San Bernardino center), the Proposed Project cannot be
made consistent with the growth projections or policies of SCAG.
6.5.3 - Facts in Support of Finding
The alternative location would not eliminate the significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Based
on discussions with City staff and a survey of the surrounding area, there are no other vacant sites of
this size in the northern portion of San Bernardino. This analysis demonstrates that impacts of
development as proposed under the UHSP on an alternative site would be equivalent to those of the
UHSP developed on this location. Therefore, an alternative site is not a feasible or viable option for
this project.
Environmenml Rndlngs of Fact
Unlverslfy Hills Specltlc ""n E1R
Finding Regarding AIfem._ 10 "'e
Proposed Project
Table 1: Summary of Project Alternative Impacts
Environment
allssue
Proposed
Project
(UHSP)
Aesthetics,
Ligh~ and
Glare
Air Quality
_1________.
Less than
significant
~n.______._
Significant
Construction
q~_f!!!~.!!____ "_
Biological
Resources
Cultural
Resources
Significant
Less than
SignIficant
. C ie,. than
Sigoificant
Noise
Agriculture' and - --Less-than - --.-
MineraI Significant
Resources
UtiiItY SYStem-; --.-iess "dtan
.__ .______~___~_~ __~!~fic~~_
Meets Project Yes
ObJ~~lY~~? _
, No Project -No ~- ~::'~f~a~'--;odlfled--
I Development! Alternative Specific Plan
, Alternative i Alternative
, I _..___.{~H_~
--.+-- N~-i~p;;t---~ --~- Somewhat
increased
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
------.- --- --- -----
No impact
No impact
~. No-impact-
.----.-.-------
No impact
No impact
---'-NO .
- ---t--~--------
Equivalent but
more non~
residential uses
- ---~._---------------- - -.----....------.--
Less than
significant
Less than Significant
si8!!ifican!__ _ _ .__~~E!~l!!~~~~~~
Significant Less than
__ ___ _ _ _..~i~!~~8!1_t__
Increased and Less than
potentially significant
si~i.!!~t._...___.~----_~-
Increased but less Less than
.!h~_~~.i.~~~ __ ___~ ~iB!!ificanL____
Reduced but less Less than
than significant significant
Significant
I
, Educational I
, Institution! Tech. I
. Park Alternative JI
---.---~._~---
Increased but less
than sigoificant
Significant
Significant
Less than
_ . ~~~ji!~8!!!__
Less than
significant
i --LesS-than
____ signifi~!
Significant
Increased hamtat !
___.____"_..- . ~~.._________._.__ J
Increased but Jess Less than I Less than
"uthansignific3IlLn_.si~canr. ____ signilicant
Less than Increased but less Significant
_ ___~i~_~fi~~_ _ _ !__~~_siS!!ific~t__ ' I
Reduced and less ! Mixed but less ~. fncreBSed but iess~
than significant 'tIIan....signifiC3IlL. ~.th.an~ignIficant
Less than Less than Less than - - i
significant significant significant
Reduced but less
_~_ ~han~ignifl~l!!!.t..__
Significant
Fwy congestion
Reduced butles.
e ~~~!!Iifi~!___
Significant
Local traffic &
_ J:_~_~_Q!lg~sJj~!!
Less than
significant
Geology: SoTls, ~'L~ssth~--
~~_~~S!!lJ~l!Y___.j_ ~i~!f~~!__
Hazards and Less than
Hazardous Significant
Materials
Hydrology and U ---Cess than - --- '-Noirnpact-
Wat~r_Quality__ _~ignifi_canl.
Land Use Less than
: __~~8!ific8l)!___
Less than
__,sIgnificant
Population, Significant
Housing, and Growth Inducing
SCAG & SCAG policies
__~_o~s!~~_~__ ___ ______________ ____ __________
Public Services 'Less than No impact
_!l!.l~B....ecreat!,?!!_,--J!ignific3!!.t_ .__
Transportation Significant
and Circulation Fwy congestion
Less than
significant
Reduced
Reduced
'-Not-to saine
_ _4<<:gr~c__
Not to same
A~~~~...
--~.._- -. <
Mixed but less
. __tl1an~ifi<:aIIt? _
Significant
Local traffic &
:_~~_ ~Qn&.~.~o!!
Less than
~ignificant
Reduced
No
Envlronmentlll Rndlngs of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan ElR
Finding Regarding A/tem.llves 10 the
Propo/Ied Project
6.5.4 - Finding
The Final EIR determined that the Proposed Project would produce significant impacts to Air Quality,
Population, Housing and SCAG Consistency, and Transportation. The Final EIR also determined the
project could potentially contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to Air Quality and
Transportation; however, the recommended measures do not reduce impacts under the less than
significant threshold. All five alternatives reduce at least one of the three significant and unavoidable
impacts; however, they create potential land use compatibility conflicts between the alternate uses
and the General Plan. In addition the alternatives would not fully implement the project's objectives
of providing an active residential community with connectivity to the existing residential uses. Since
none of the alternatives are considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, they are
rejected in favor of the Proposed Project.
6.5.5 - Facts in Support of Finding
None ofthe alternatives achieve the objectives of the project to the same degree as the Proposed
Project. The environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the Proposed Project are
summarized in Table I.
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specific Plan E1R
Statement of OVerriding Considerations
SECTION 7: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (a) states that:
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered "acceptable."
Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened the agency shall
state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other
information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a
finding under Section 15091(aX2) or 15091 (aX3).
As identified above, the City of San Bernardino fmds that the project does produce significant and
un-mitigable impacts to Air Quality, Population, Housing and SCAG Consistency, and
Transportation, and, therefore, requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The findings have
also analyzed a number of alternatives to determine whether they are reasonable and feasible
alternatives to the proposed action and whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant impacts
of the proposed action. The City of San Bernardino finds that the project will provide specific
economic, social, and other benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of
the project, such that those impacts are considered acceptable. Each of the benefits of the Proposed
Project cited is hereby determined to be, in itself and independently of the other project benefits, a
basis for overriding all significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in these
fmdings. These benefits are as follows:
I. The Paradise Hills project land plan proposed extensive grading and development within the
middle and upper reaches of Badger Canyon, however, that project was never built. In addition
to the General Plan designating the project site as a Specific Plan, the Land Use Plan in the City's
Land Use Element designates the lower (southern) portion of the site for Residential Suburban
(RS) uses with a density of 4.5 units per acre (7,200 square foot lots), and the northern portion
(i.e., north ofthe San Andreas Fault and in the middle and upper reaches of Badger Canyon) for
Residential Low (RL) development at 3.1 units per acre. The University Hills Specific plan
addresses the steep slopes surrounding Badger Creek and designated it as Open Space (OS).
2. The northern portions of the site are mitigated with a Hillside Management Overlay as well as a
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay to help to minimize the spread of wildfrres, property damage, and
reduce the risk to the public health and safety.
Environmental Rndlngs of Fact
University Hili. Specific Plan EIR
Statement of Oven1dlng Consideration.
3. The University Hills Specific Plan replaces the Paradise Hills Specific Plan and includes a new
land use map, zoning districts, development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure
requirements for the development of the site. The following elements of the Specific Plan
promote the land use goals of the General Plan:
. Placing housing in close proximity to CSUSB.
. Accommodating up to 60 faculty units, which will create a direct and long-lasting
relationship with CSUSB.
. Orienting the development and clubhouse toward CSUSB.
. Allowing CSUSB to share conference facilities in the clubhouse.
. Dedicating approximately 235 acres of permanent open space to CSUSB as a "land
laboratory."
. Carefully weaving University Hills into its physical surroundings by clustering
development on the lower slopes and away from physical hazards, preserving significant
drainage ways.
4. The Project allows residents the opportunity to live, work, and play in the immediate area. This
reduces the need to use the automobile, which in turn reduces congestion, improves air quality,
fosters walking, and improves overall health and wellness.
5. University Hills is a significant opportunity for the City to achieve many goals described in its
General Plan, such as providing housing types suitable for a variety of lifestyles and incomes.
University Hills accommodates a range ofliving opportunities including estate, single-family
detached, small-lot detached, cluster court homes, townhomes, and stacked flats. In addition,
University Hills provides four acres that will be dedicated to CSUSB and can accommodate up to
60 units for exclusive use as faculty housing.
6. University Hills accommodates 980 residences situated in several neighborhoods, which are
separated by open space corridors, drainage ways, and sloped areas and interconnected by a series
of trails and roadways.
7. Development is focused onto approximately 170 acres, or 42 percent of the total site and is
mainly concentrated south of the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault on the lower portions of
the site where the average slopes are generally below 15 percent. North of the South Branch of
the San Andreas Fault, approximately 235 acres, or 58 percent of the site, remains undeveloped
and is designated as permanent open space. It will be dedicated to CSUSB for use as a laboratory
to study the local biology, habitat, and geology. The compact design limits the development
footprint so that open lands are maximized; natural drainage ways are maintained and
Environmental Findings of Fact
University Hills Specltlc Plan EIR
SflItamenl of Ov_dlng Conslderallons
incorporated into the design of the project as open space amenities; landscaping and hazards are
avoided or mitigated.
8. The land laboratory contains a variety of native plant species; natural drainages, including Badger
Creek; and the San Andreas Fault system. The proximity of these features to the CSUSB campus
provides unique educational opportunities. It is envisioned that the biology, geology, geography
and environmental studies, and science education departments would be the primary users of the
land laboratory, but it could be used by other disciplines.
9. University Hills is designed and programmed to create a long-term and synergistic relationship
with CSUSB. In particular, University Hills directly responds to input from the University
through the provision of land for faculty housing, the 235-acre land laboratory, pathways, bike
lanes, and the California Walnut Grove Linear Park.
10. University Hills is designed to minimize the impacts oflight intrusion and spillover. CSUSB is
contemplating building an observatory on Badger Hill immediately adjacent to University Hills.
To help preserve a dark nighttime sky, this Specific Plan includes strict controls on the type and
design oflighting.
II. University Hills is also located within the University District Specific Plan, which was approved
November 1,2005. The University District Specific Plan acts as the umbrella document for a
6,375-acre area, of which University Hills is a part. The intent of the University District Specific
Plan is to "lay a foundation for the integration of the University into the surrounding community."
The University District Specific Plan focuses on creating:
. Pedestrian-oriented developments
. A seamless connection between the community and University
. Integrated curriculum with CSUSB
. A "university town"
. Enhanced link to regional recreation
. An efficient vehicular and pedestrian system
. A range of housing types to accommodate a wide range of population, including University
faculty and staff.
. Quality housing
The University District Specific Plan assumed the Paradise Hills Specific Plan in its land use plan
and was amended to reflect the land plan for University Hills in conjunction with this project.
EXHIBIT D
General Plan Amendment 08-03 consists of the following changes:
I. Amendment of the Land Use Map to change the land use designations within the
project area to:
Large Lot Detached (LLD)
Standard Lot Detached (SLD)
Mixed Detached/Attached Residential (MDA)
Attached Residential (A)
Parks (P)
Clubhouse
Internal Slopes
Open Space
Consistent with Figure 2-9 of the University Hills Specific Plan.
2. Amendment of the University District Specific Plan to change the following:
Figure 7 Land Use Plan
Figure 8 Vehicular Circulation Plan
Figure 9 Trails Plan
Figure 10 Open Space Plan
Change Consistent
With University Hills
Specific Plan Figure
Figure 2-9
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-11
Figure 2-6 (Open Space)
University District SP Figure
EXHIBIT F
(Large-Format Map)
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP.
1807 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH (370) 277-7551
CONTACT- MOHAMAD YOUNES
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPER~SION OF:
a~f\~
A8llAS FAIII
R.c.c. No. 84754
'1 111'1$
DATE
REG. EXP. 06/30/'09
J
PREPARED B~
~ 10370 Hemet sf Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92503
.. Phone' (951) 558-1455
. Engmeermg Fax: (951) 358-1434
. Planning
. Surveying
. Construction Services
MASTER PARCEL MAP NO. 18969
SlBDIVISION NO.
PAGE 1 OF 5
OW/IER
FONTANA CORNERS III
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
1807 A VENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 7205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH: (310) 277-7551
CONTACT: JIM AHMAD
RE~SION
OESCRIP17ON
NO. DA TE
BY
~
EXHIBIT G
(Large-Format Map)
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP.
7807 AVENUE OF THE STARS. SUITE 7205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH. (370) 277-7551
CONTACT' MOHAMAD YOUNES
PREPARED UNOOf 1H~ SUPO/lfSlON OF:
UJh-"k/
ABBAS F"AWAZ
R.c.c. No. 64765,
q In /01
DATE
ReG. DIP. O6/JO/09
PREPARED B~
~Jl 70370 Hemel sl Suile 200
T ~ Riverside, CA 92503
.. Phcne. (951) 358-1433
II . Engmeermg Fax,' (951) 358-1434
. Planning
. Surveying
. Cons Irue lion Services
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18696
SlBDIVlSION NO.
PAGE 1 OF 1
OWfER
FONTANA CORNERS III
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
7807 A VENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 7205
LOS ANGELES, C4 90067
PH. (370) 277-7557
CONTACT JIM AHMAD
RElfSlON
OCSCRlpnON
NO. DA TE
BY
6
EXHIBIT H
(Large-Format Map)
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT
INLAND COMMUNITIES CORP.
7807 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 7205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH (310) 277-7551
CONTACT: MOHAMAD YOUNES
PREPARro UNDER THE SUPeRVISION OF:
U~~~.
ABBAS FAIlI
R.C.C. No. 64765,
PREPARED Bl'l
. Engineering
. Planning
. Surveying
. Construction Services
qln/of
DAlE"
ReG. DIP, 06/30/09
70370 Hemet sf 5uite 200
Riverside, CA 92503
Phone_' (951) 358-1433
Fax. (951) 358-1434
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18140
SUBDIVISION NO.
PAGE 1 OF 1
NO,
OWNER
FONTANA CORNERS III
A LIMITED CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP
7801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 7205
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PH. (370) 277-7551
CONTACT JIM AHMAD
RCYISlON
DESCRIPTION
DAlE"
BY
b.
1
2
CCOlPV
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING
3 CHAPTER 19.10 (SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS) OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY
4 HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN.
5
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
6 DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
7 SECTION 1. Chapter 19.10, Section 19.1 0.030 is amended to add subsection (7), as
8 follows:
15
16
17 thereof, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9
10
11
12
13
14
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28
7.
Specific Plan No. 07-01. Universitv Hills Specific Plan
This Specific Plan district is intended to provide for land use districts and development
standards which are compatible with the development goals of the University Hills Specific
Plan. It provides a range of residential land use districts which will create a cohesive
residential master planned community. The Plan establishes land use districts, permitted
uses, development standards and design guidelines which will provide compatibility
between different types of development and land uses, and is incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Ordinance, or any part
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction on its
face or as applied, such holding shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any of the
remaining provisions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or any application thereof to any
person or circumstance or of said provision as applied to any other person or circumstance. It is
hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the City that this Ordinance would have been
adopted had such unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective provision not been included herein.
1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER
2 19.]0 (SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS) OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL
CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY HILLS SPECIFIC
3 PLAN
4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and
5 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
6
meeting thereof, held
, 2008, by the following vote to wit:
on the day of
7
Council Members: AYES NAYS
8
9 ESTRADA
10 BAXTER
11 BRINKER
12 DERRY
13 KELLEY
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
14
15
16
17
18
19 2008.
20
21
22
23
JOHNSON
MC CAMMACK
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this _day of
PATRICKJ. MORRIS, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form:
24 JAMES F. PENMAN
25 City ttorney
26 By: l 1- .
27
28 III
!)
" .
J t....l v----<--.
2