PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA September00 2, 2015

PLANNING COMMISSION

Chairman Craig Smith Vice-Chairman Anne Bush Commissioner Paul Senft Commissioner Ron Tholen Commissioner Tim Breunig

CITY STAFF

Community Development Director James J. Miller City Planner Janice Etter Principal Planner Ruth Lorentz Associate Planner Andrew Mellon Assistant Planner Nathan Castillo City Attorney Andy Maiorano

39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, California 92315 INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC The Planning Commission meets regularly on the first and third Wednesdays of the month at 1:15 p.m. in Hofert Hall at the Civic Center located at 39707 Big Bear Boulevard.

Procedure to Address the Planning Commission The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement. Public Forum The public may address the Planning Commission by completing a speaker card and submitting it to the Commission Secretary. The speaker cards are located on the table at the back of the Commission Chambers. During the “Public Forum” your name will be called. Please step to the microphone and give your name and city of residence for the record before proceeding. All remarks shall be addressed to the Commission as a body only. No person other than a member of the Commission and the person having the floor shall enter into any discussion without the permission of the Commission Chairman. Public comment is permitted only on items not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. There is a three minute maximum time limit when addressing a respective board. Discussion/Action Items Speakers shall follow the same requirements as under the Public Forum, however, cards submitted after the Commission begins to discuss an item will be subject to the Presiding Officer seeking consensus from the Commission to consider hearing from the speaker, and if permitted, the speaker will have one minute to provide his or her comments. Public Hearings A speaker card must be completed and speakers must follow the three minute maximum time limit. Project applicants will be given ten minutes to present their item to the Commission and/or address questions brought before the Commission from members of the public. The Presiding Officer may entertain a motion to extend the applicant’s time if needed. Speaker cards submitted after the close of the public hearing are subject to the guidelines as stated above. Any handouts for the respective Commission shall be given to the Commission Secretary for distribution. PLEASE NOTE: Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are available for public inspection at www.citybigbearlake.com and at the public Planning Department counter in the City Hall lobby located at 39707 Big Bear Boulevard during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The City of Big Bear Lake wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. If you need special assistance to participate in a meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to public meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA September 2, 2015

TIME: 1:15 p.m. Next Resolution PC2015-14

PLACE: Hofert Hall City of Big Bear Lake 39707 Big Bear Boulevard Big Bear Lake, California

CALL TO ORDER

FLAG SALUTE

ROLL CALL BREUNIG, BUSH, SENFT, THOLEN, SMITH

INTRODUCTION OF STAFF

AGENDA APPROVAL

PRESENTATIONS / ANNOUNCEMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

PUBLIC FORUM

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

1.1 Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 2015.

2. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may appear and be heard in support or opposition to the proposal at the time of the meeting. If you challenge the action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public meeting described in the notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or before the public meeting.

2.1 General Plan Amendment 2014-084/GPA Jim Miller Zone Change 2014-087/ZC Locations: Area A: 833 Brier Trail; 836 Lark Trail; 39209 & 39217 Big Bear Boulevard APNs: 0306-165-18, 19, 33 and 35

Request to change the General Plan Land Use designation of the properties from Commercial- Visitor (CV) to Single Family Residential (SFR). The Zone Change application proposes to change the Zoning of the properties from Commercial-Visitor (C-3) to Single Family Residential (R-1).

Area B: Vacant Parcel and 440 Catalina Road APNs: 2328-202-08 and 15 Applicant: CityofBigBearLake PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 2 September 2, 2015

Request to change the General Plan Land Use designation of the unimproved property from Single Family Residential (SFR-4) to Open Space (OS) and the accompanying Zone Change proposes to change the Zoning of the property from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Public/Opens Space (P-OS). The property contains 1,981 square feet in area (0.73 acres).

The General Plan Amendment also proposes to change the land use designation of a 45,004 square foot 1.03 acre) portion of 440 Catalina Road from Commercial-Recreation (CR) to Single Family Residential (SFR-4) and the accompanying Zone Change proposes to change the Zoning of this property from Commercial-Recreation (C-4) to Single Family Residential (R-1). This property contains a 1,646 square foot single family residence.

Lastly, the General Plan Amendment proposes to change the land use designation of the remaining approximate two (2) acre portion of APN 2328-202-15 from Commercial- Recreation (CR) to Open Space (OS) and the Zoning of this property from Commercial- Recreation (C-4) to Public/Open Space (P-OS). This remaining portion of the property is unimproved.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 2014- 084/GPA and Zone Change 2014-087/ZC to change the designations of Area A from Commercial-Visitor (CV) to Single Family Residential (SFR). The Zone Change application proposes to change the Zoning of the properties from Commercial-Visitor (C-3) to Single Family Residential (R-1), and Area B for the unimproved parcel from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Public/Opens Space (P-OS) at 440 Catalina Road from Commercial- Recreation (C-4) to Single Family Residential (R-1). Additionally, the remaining approximately 2 acres of the portion of 440 Catalina Road from Commercial-Recreation (C-4) to Public/Open Space (P-OS), based on the findings contained in the Resolution.

3. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

3.1 Ethics Update – Members of Public Agency Governing Boards Participating in Non-Profit and Other Community Organizations

4. SUMMARY COMMENTS

5. ADJOURNMENT The City of Big Bear Lake wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. If you need special assistance to participate in a meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to public meetings.

N:\2-Group\Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Agendas\2015 Agenda\9-2-15\AG 9-2-15.docx ITEM 1.1

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

August 19, 2015

CALL TO ORDER 1:15 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Breunig led the salute.

ROLL CALL Commissioners Breunig, Tholen, Vice-Chairman Bush and Chairman Smith. Commissioner Senft was excused.

STAFF PRESENT James J. Miller, Community Development Director; Ruth Lorentz, Principal Planner.

AGENDA APPROVAL

The agenda was approved by a unanimous voice vote.

PRESENTATIONS / ANNOUNCEMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

Community Development Director James Miller advised the Commission that there will be a Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on August 24, 2015, to hear the updated information on the Big Bear Alpine Zoo and another one on October 26, 2015, to receive updated information on the Rathbun Sustainability Plan. Both of these meetings occur at 5:30 p.m.

PUBLIC FORUM

None

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

1.1 Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 15, 2015.

Commissioner Breunig moved to approve the minutes as printed. Commissioner Senft abstained from the vote due to absence from that meeting. Chairman Smith abstained from the vote on Item 1.2 due to his abstention from the discussion of that item. Commissioner Senft seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Breunig, Smith (without Item 1.2), Tholen NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bush, Senft EXCUSED: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 19, 2015 PAGE 2

2. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

2.1 Conditional Use Permit 2015-106/CUP Planner: Janice Etter Location: 39212 Big Bear Boulevard APN: 0306-164-01 Applicant: Reneh Shahin

The applicant is requesting to modify the existing building into a check-in office for Cabins 4 Less and a convenience market, including the sale of alcohol and frozen yogurt. The check-in office and convenience store will operate 24 hours a day. The property is located in the Commercial-Visitor (C-3) zone.

Janice Etter, City Planner, gave the report and presentation.

Vice-Chairman Bush asked whether the Commission was to review the yard art and outdoor furniture, including number of items. Ms. Etter answered yes. Chair Smith inquired whether this included the bears. Ms. Etter noted that decorative bears are part of the signage on the property.

Commissioner Breunig noted the amount of items on the property and suggested a landscape plan for clarity.

Commissioner Senft raised several questions about type of businesses proposed, including whether kayak rental would be offered. Ms. Etter said that there is a location to the west of this property that does kayak rentals.

Public Hearing opened at 1:38

John Corey, owner of adjacent store, felt that the 24 hour proposal for the convenience store could be a set-up for failure.

Kanny, owner of Big Bear Market said that he thinks that it is a bad idea to have competing businesses so close to each other.

Betsy Moeller – family has owned cabin on Brier Trail for 57 years and didn’t see much change in the area until the Boulder Bay Park was constructed four years ago. Since then, they have seen an increase in traffic congestion.

Reneh Shahin, applicant – Said that the current business (Cabins 4 Less) located to the west of this property, is already a 24-hour business. Mr. Shahin stated that the majority of the sales will be attributed to the renters from there. He is a lot of the “clutter” is due to the construction of the interior of the building and that he is attempting to create an old-fashioned country storefront with uniform wood benches.

Vice-Chairman Bush asked about the small train that is currently displayed. Mr. Shahin said it would remain, but pulled inside of the property line, on the raised area of the landscape portion of the property. They will maintain excess snowfall on the train. Commissioner Senft suggested using a cover with solar panels over the train.

N:\2-Group\Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Minutes\2015\MIN 8-19-15.docx PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 19, 2015 PAGE 3

The Commission had several questions about outdoor display, yard art, and items for sale, including the need to be open 24 hours. Mr. Shahin said that there would be no outdoor display and the yard art would include a small windmill. He stated that, on average, there are one or two renters per night doing late check-ins and that the idea of the convenience market was really for those renters that may have forgotten small toiletries or snacks. Mr. Shahin pointed out that alcohol, which in this case is license Type 20, beer and wine only, cannot be sold after 2 a.m. and the frozen yogurt dispenser will be shut down at 9 p.m. for cleaning. Although he will sell bundled firewood, it will not be displayed or stored outside. Bike and kayak rentals will remain at their current location. Mr. Shahin also said that he understands the desire of the Commission to create some uniformity along the Boulevard and is keeping the old fashioned country look with split-rail fencing, etc.

Public Hearing closed at 2:02 p.m.

Vice-Chairman Bush does not feel that the Commission should be making decisions about yard art or hours of operation. She would like to add to the conditions a restriction on the rental of kayaks and bicycles. Ms. Etter explained that was not part of the application.

Commissioners Breunig and Senft said that they would like to see additional conditions specifying the types of goods to be sold in the convenience store. City Attorney, Andy Maiorano said that, in addition to being difficult to write such conditions, it is almost impossible to enforce.

The Commission had a discussion about the hours of operation. Jim Miller, Community Development Director, reminded the Commission that a denial would restrict the owner from opening the business and he would have to wait a year to come back and re-apply or he would have to appeal to the City Council.

Vice-Chairman Bush moved that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving Conditional Use Permit application 2015-106/CUP based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Resolution, including an additional conditions restricting the rental of kayaks and bikes, and that the applicant will return at a later date with a landscape plan showing all items to be displayed as yard art and a signage plan. Commissioner Tholen seconded the motion.

The Commission continued the discussion about the hours of operation.

Chair Smith re-opened the Public Hearing at 2:24 p.m.

Mr. Shahin that he doesn’t anticipate public traffic to use the store during the nighttime and overnight hours. Since there is someone there to facilitate guests of Cabins 4 Less, they thought that offering some things for sale would be appropriate. He is willing to close the convenience store at 10 p.m. so that only the check-in office would be open 24 hours.

Public Hearing closed 2:53 p.m.

N:\2-Group\Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Minutes\2015\MIN 8-19-15.docx PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 19, 2015 PAGE 4

Vice-Chair Bush withdrew her motion and made a new motion to adopt the attached Resolution finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving Conditional Use Permit application 2015-106/CUP based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Resolution, showing that the convenience store will close at 10 p.m. and including additional conditions restricting the rental of kayaks and bikes, and that the applicant will return at a later date with a landscape plan showing all items to be displayed as yard art and a signage plan. Commissioner Tholen seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Breunig, Bush, Senft, Smith, Tholen NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

2.2 Conditional Use Permit 2015-114/CUP Planner: Andrew Mellon Location: 120 Business Center Drive APN: 2328-021-08 Applicant: Tim Wood Representative: Michael Perry

The applicant is requesting to create a new playground, student drop off and employee parking lot for the adjacent Hope Academy Charter School. The property is located in the Commercial-General (C-2) zone.

Commissioner Senft abstained from the discussion and the vote due to financial interest of his wife with the applicant.

Andrew Mellon, Associate Planner, gave the report and presentation.

The Commission discussed the uses and materials proposed for the area. Mr. Mellon suggested directing some of the questions to the applicant.

Public Hearing opened at 2:53 p.m.

Michael Perry spoke in favor of the project and explained that the current play area has had a problem with balls going over the wall. Mr. Perry said that there will not be a time that students will not be supervised by multiple adults, no students will be allowed outside of the play area to retrieve balls.

Public Hearing closed at 2:58 p.m.

Vice-Chairman Bush moved to adopt the attached Resolution finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving Conditional Use Permit application 2015-114/CUP based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Resolution. Commissioner Breunig seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following vote:

N:\2-Group\Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Minutes\2015\MIN 8-19-15.docx PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 19, 2015 PAGE 5

AYES: Breunig, Bush, Smith, Tholen NOES: None ABSTAIN: Senft ABSENT: None

3. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT – None

4. SUMMARY COMMENTS – None

5. ADJOURNMENT At the hour of 2:59 p.m., Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting.

MINUTES APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2015.

Becky Romine, Commission Secretary

N:\2-Group\Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Minutes\2015\MIN 8-19-15.docx ITEM 2.1

Staff Report

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

PUBLIC HEARING

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Project: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-084/GPA AND ZONE CHANGE 2015-087/ZC

Proposal: City-initiated General Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for the two project areas listed below.

Location: Area A – “Brier Trail, Lark Trail, Big Bear Boulevard” 833 Brier Trail, 836 Lark Trail and 39209 & 39217 Big Bear Boulevard, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0306-165-18, 19, 33 & 35 Area B – “Rathbun Creek parcels and Catalina Road” 440 Catalina Road, Assessor’s Parcel Number 2328-202-15 and an unaddressed parcel Assessor’s Parcel Number 2328-202-08

Applicant: City of Big Bear Lake

Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for Area A and a Negative Declaration for Area B and approve General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC based on the findings contained in the Resolution.

Submitted by,

JAMES J. MILLER Community Development Director

39707 Big Bear Blvd., P.O. Box 10000, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 O - (909) 866-5831, F-(909) 866-7511, email - [email protected] www.citybigbearlake.com

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The City of Big Bear Lake has initiated this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application to change the land use designations of two areas within the city. Descriptions of each project area will be discussed separately in the paragraphs to follow.

Area A – Brier Trail

The first area is Area A – “Brier Trail.” This area consists of four properties, all of which are developed with single family residences, described below:

Address Year Lot and Residence Size Built 833 Brier Trail 1949 4,495 sq. ft. lot 732 sq. ft. residence 836 Lark Trail 1980 6,996 sq. ft. lot 1,670 sq. ft. residence 39209 Big Bear Blvd. 1944 5,558 sq. ft. lot 948 sq. ft. residence 39217 Big Bear Blvd. 1946 5,970 sq. ft. lot 389 sq. ft. residence

Figure 1 – Area A Brier Trail Location and Zoning

The rezoning is requested by the Code Compliance Division in order to allow the residences to make substantial repairs. The properties are currently zoned Commercial-Visitor. Residential uses are not allowed in this district and the existing residential uses are nonconforming. As such, only limited repairs are allowed to be performed. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change propose to change the land use designation from Commercial-Visitor to Single Family Residential so that the residential uses will be conforming with respect to the zoning and repairs can be made to these residences.

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 3

The properties east of the subject site at 39227 to 39267 Big Bear Boulevard are not included in this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. The property at 39227 Big Bear Boulevard contains two residential units. If rezoned to Single Family Residential, the units would still be nonconforming with respect to density. The property owner, Mr. Leland Mote, opposed being included in the rezoning.

The properties at 39243 to 39267 Big Bear Boulevard are vacant and owned by the same entity. These properties are large enough to accommodate commercial development, and therefore, are not being included in the rezoning.

Written or verbal concurrence of the rezoning to single family residential has been received from the owners of 833 Brier Trail, James Chenault; 836 Lark Trail, Mike and Rachel Ybarra; and 39217 Big Bear Boulevard, James Briscoe. The owner of 39209 Big Bear Boulevard, Kirk Carter, did not respond to staff’s written request.

Photographs of the properties are shown below:

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 4

Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road

The second area is Area B – “Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road.” This area involves two properties currently under the ownership of the Big Bear Municipal Water District. One of the properties is unaddressed, landlocked and contains a portion of the Rathbun Creek channel. This property is currently designated Single Family Residential, as shown by the yellow color in Figure 2 below and contains 31,981 square feet (0.73 acres) in area.

The second property involved is 440 Catalina Road. This property is the site of the former Alpine Trout Lake. The property contains 140,910 square feet (3.23 acres) in area and is developed with a 1,646 square foot residence, which was constructed in 1944, and several sheds, outbuildings and pavement. The property is designated Commercial-Recreation indicated by the red color in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Area B Rathbun Creek parcel and 440 Catalina Road

The proposal for these two properties is to change the General Plan and zoning designations to Public-Open Space, except for a 1.03 acre portion of the land containing the improvements (residence, outbuildings and parking); which will be changed to a Single Family Residential designation. In Figure 3 below, the green color designates Public-Open Space and the yellow color designates Single Family Residential.

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 5

Figure 3 - Landlocked Parcel combined with 440 Catalina Road

Occurring simultaneously with this General Plan and Zone Change is Lot Line Adjustment 2015-E02. Lot Line Adjustments are reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department.

This Lot Line Adjustment proposes to realign the property lines between the 0.73 acre landlocked parcel, the remaining 2.2 acres of the 440 Catalina Road parcel and the adjacent 3.95 acre parcel (APN 2328- 291-27, already zoned Open Space, also owned by the Municipal Water District) to form a 6.15 acre open space parcel and a separate 1.03 acre residential property (440 Catalina Road). Ownership of the property at 440 Catalina Road will be retained by the Municipal Water District for future sale to a private party. The Municipal Water District is offering to sell the 6.15 acre property to the City of Big Bear Lake with a subsequent agreement between the City to Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD) for habit restoration. The resulting parcels and land use designations are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Open Space and Residential parcels.

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 6

Photographs of the properties are shown below:

State law1 allows General Plans to be amended, but limits the number of amendments to four times during a calendar year. This is the second amendment proposed for 2015.

ANALYSIS

Staff has prepared an analysis of the current and proposed General Plan and Zoning land use designations, which is contained in the following paragraphs.

Area A – Brier Trail

The existing commercial General Plan and Zoning designations conflict with the four existing single family residences. A single family residential use is prohibited in the Commercial Visitor zone. As such, the existing residences are nonconforming with respect to land use and if the residences are destroyed more than 50% of their value, they cannot be rebuilt. This creates a problem for the owners and lending institutions. Most lending institutions do not issue loans on nonconforming properties. In addition, since the property is commercially zoned a lender may require an owner to obtain a commercial loan, instead of residential loan.

1 California Government Code Section 65358(b)

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 7

The lot sizes of the existing properties are nonconforming with respect to the minimum lot size in the Commercial-Visitor (C-3) zone. As established in the Development Code, the minimum lot size in the Commercial-Visitor zone is 20,000 square feet. The existing properties range in size from 4,495 square feet to 6,996 square feet in area, well below the minimum lot size for the zone. Small lot sizes, such as these, are impractical to improve for commercial uses. The Commercial-Visitor (C-3) zone is intended for the development of visitor services, lodging, dining, recreation, entertainment and retail. The small parcel sizes are an obstacle to using the properties for the intended land uses in the Commercial-Visitor (C-3) zone.

The properties are located in Boulder Bay, so called for the large granite boulders in the area. Each of the properties contains large boulders and a steeply up-sloping topography. The steep and boulder-strewn topography is impractical to develop for commercial purposes.

Single Family residentially-zoned property is located immediately to the south and west of the subject properties. Therefore, the proposed land use designation is similar to and does not conflict with the adjoining land use designation.

Two of the properties take access from Big Bear Boulevard, which is a dedicated State Highway. Big Bear Boulevard is currently improved to only a 40-foot right-of-way. The other two properties take access from substandard and unmaintained roads. The property at 883 Brier Trail takes access from Brier Trail, which is dedicated as public right-of-way. It is substandard in width, at only 20-feet wide, and unimproved. Lark Trail provides access to the property at 836 Lark Trail. This street is only 20 feet wide. It has been paved by the property owners but it is not maintained by the City. The narrow right-of-way widths and the non-maintained condition of these two roads make these properties unsuitable for commercial development. As evidenced by the existing single family residential development that has occurred on the properties, the four properties are appropriate for a Single Family Residential land use designation.

Area B- Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road

Zoning History

Staff has researched the historic zoning of the properties. The County Land Use Plan, dated 1981, shows that both of the properties were zoned Flood Plain (FP) reflecting the Rathbun Creek channel and flood plain which crosses these properties. Later, when the City’s Zoning Map was adopted in 1985, the Flood Plain (FP) zoning was retained.

In 1999, the General Plan Map was revised and the land use designation of the Alpine Trout Lake property at 440 Catalina Road was changed to Commercial-Recreation, reflecting the commercial recreation enterprise that existed on the property. At this time, the small landlocked property was changed to a Single Family Residential designation, although this property and the Alpine Trout Lake property were under the same ownership. It is uncertain why the landlocked property was zoned Single Family Residential, however, this may have been done to be similar

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 8 to the Single Family Residential properties that are located along the 200 to 400 blocks of Catalina Road.

FEMA Flood Zone

Rathbun Creek crosses these properties. Because of this, the properties are identified as being located within the 100-year Flood Hazard area in the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element and on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. The properties are identified on FEMA FIRM panel #06071C8007H as being located in Flood Zone AE. Flood elevations have been determined to be between cross section “K” at 6801 feet above mean sea level (msl) and “R” 6850 feet above msl across the length of the two properties. Because of the existence of the Rathbun Creek flood plain, it is appropriate that the properties have a Public-Open Space land use designation and are retained in public ownership.

The residence at 440 Catalina Road is located between cross section “K” and “L,” at an unlabeled cross section with an established flood elevation of 6806 feet above msl. As shown on the survey performed by Transtech/MAPCO dated 3/3/2011, the elevation at the foundation of the residence is 6807 feet above msl. This elevation is in compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance contained in Municipal Code Chapter 15.64; which requires structures to be a minimum of one (1) foot above the established flood elevation. Therefore, it is acceptable that the residence and the property surrounding the residence have a Single Family Residential designation.

Ownership of the Properties

The Big Bear Municipal Water District’s earliest involvement with the properties occurred in 1983 when the District purchased 3.95 acres of the Rathbun Creek bottom (APN 2328-291-27) immediately south of the Alpine Trout Lake’s property. It was the District’s intent to construct ground water recharge basins on this parcel. The purchase included a recorded agreement that obligated the District to take certain actions when the basins were constructed. However, the basins were never constructed and the District agreed to maintain the level of the Trout Lake by supplying domestic water from the DWP to keep the Trout Lake water level at the dam spillway elevation. This agreement was honored until 2010 when the owner of the Trout Lake closed the business. Soon after, the property went into foreclosure and was sold at auction to an investor. The District subsequently purchased the parcels to be able to rescind the 1982 agreement and eliminate any future obligation.

Since taking ownership of the property, the District has removed trash and debris from the parcel, disconnected electrical services to several out buildings and cleaned the property of all dead and dying trees and vegetation. Most significantly, the District was able to excavate the decades of accumulated, nutrient rich sediment from the pond so that it is no longer a threat to the water quality of Big Bear Lake. The outlet gate has also been removed from the dam so that Rathbun Creek can now flow freely without being impounded by the once operational dam.

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 9

With these mitigations made, the District no longer wishes to own the properties. The residential structure adjacent to Catalina Road (440 Catalina Road) has value and with the commercial designation removed, it can be used as a viable residential property. The District has concurrently submitted Lot Line Adjustment 2015-E02 to reconfigure property lines and to create a 1.03-acre property containing the residential structure, outbuildings and paving in a manner that complies with lot coverage, building setback and flood elevation requirements. The District intends to sell this parcel, which will allow the District to recuperate some of the cost of their original purchase price of the property. The single family residential land use is consistent with the zoning of the properties along Catalina Road to the north and south, and along the Avalon Road neighborhood to the east.

The Municipal Water District also wishes to sell the remaining approximately 2-acre portion of the former Trout Lake property (2328-202-15) together with the smaller property immediately to the north (APN 2328-202-08). Because of the existence of the creek and flood plain, these properties are not suitable for development. These properties are currently zoned Commercial- Visitor and Single Family Residential, respectively. To avoid a conflict with land uses and development rights, it is prudent to remove the commercial and residential designations from these properties and designate the properties for Public/Open Space, identifying them under public ownership and reserved for open space purposes. The Public/Open Space designation is consistent with other properties that contain portions of the Rathbun Creek channel and other significant drainage courses within the City. As stated earlier, the Municipal Water District is offering the property to the City of Big Bear Lake. In addition to preserving the Rathbun Creek channel, it is the intent of the City to enter into an agreement with the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District to manage these properties for habitat restoration and conservation purposes.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

In order to approve a General Plan Amendment, the Commission must determine that the proposed amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the City of Big Bear Lake General Plan and adopted elements.

Area A – Brier Trail

With respect to Area A, the General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Land Use Element and the Single Family Residential (SFR) designation. The small property sizes, challenging topography, substandard street widths, and existing structures are more suitable for residential uses than commercial uses. The General Plan Amendment will resolve a nonconforming land use situation and allow necessary building repairs to occur as required by the Building Code. Processing of this amendment is consistent with ongoing review and revision of the General Plan on an as-needed basis.

In order to approve a Zone Change request, the Commission must find that the request is consistent with the General Plan. The Zone Change application can be determined to be

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 10 consistent with the Land Use Element because the proposed Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning is consistent with the zoning in the neighborhood to the west and south. The property sizes, topography and existing improvements make the properties suitable for single-family residential land uses, as opposed to commercial land uses. The request is reasonable and beneficial at this time to mitigate a nonconforming land use situation. Since the properties are currently being used as residences, no substantial adverse effects on surrounding properties or the community are anticipated as a result of the Zone Change.

Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road

With respect to Area B, the General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Land Use and Environmental Hazard Elements. The property contains the Rathbun Creek channel and flood plain. The land use designation needs to reflect the natural environment, drainage courses, sensitive habitat, natural hazards and compatibility with adjacent uses. Since the Alpine Trout Lake is no longer in operation and the properties are under public ownership, the existing commercial and single-family residential designations are no longer necessary and the Open Space designation is consistent with the physical condition of the property. Since a portion of the property at 440 Catalina has direct access to Catalina Road and is developed with a residential structure, outbuildings and pavement, it is appropriate that this portion of the property be designated for Single Family Residential use. This land use designation is consistent with the other properties along Catalina Road to the north, south and east. Processing of this amendment is consistent with a revision of the General Plan to reflect changing conditions.

In order to approve a Zone Change request, the Commission must find that the request is consistent with the General Plan. As stated above, the Zone Change application can be determined to be consistent with the Land Use and Environmental Hazards Elements to bring the existing land uses and physical conditions into consistency with the zoning designation of the property. The Public-Open Space (P-OS) zoning is consistent with the presence of Rathbun Creek and flood plain across the properties. Other portions of Rathbun Creek have been preserved and retained under the Public-Open Space (P-OS) zoning.

The Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning is consistent with the existing improvements on the 1.03 acre portion of 440 Catalina Road that contains a 1,646 square foot residential structure, outbuildings, and pavement. This zoning is consistent with the zoning of the other properties along Catalina Road to the north and south and the Avalon Road neighborhood to the east. The proposed residential use is not anticipated to cause substantial adverse effects on surrounding properties or the community.

Since a commercial business is no longer in operation at this location, it is beneficial to remove the commercial zoning from this property and to make the land use designations consistent with the neighborhood and the physical conditions of property.

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 11

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are discretionary actions that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Under State law, two tribal notifications are now required. General Plan Amendments are subject to a mandatory Native American Tribal Consultation2 under “SB 18” for a period of 90-days. In addition, “early notification” to tribes is required by “AB 52” Public Resources Code 21073 et. seq. that became effective on July 1, 2015.

Notification under SB 18 was distributed to 15 tribes on June 12, 2015, and will conclude on September 10, 2015. This public hearing is being held during this period to receive tribal comment on the environmental document. The City Council is expected to take action on the General Plan Amendment application on September 28, 2015, and on the Zone Change on October 26, 2015. As of the date of this report, two letters have been received in response to the SB 18 notification; one from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, dated July 15, 2015, and another from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, dated July 23, 2015.

The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians request that an approved Native American monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing associated with the project. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians request that if human remains are encountered during grading and construction excavation, that work cease and the coroner contacted, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development and construction, then a qualified archaeologist shall be hired to assess the find, contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, prepare a Treatment Plan, and consult on the discovery and disposition of the find.

Staff response to these comments is that no construction is proposed under this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. At the time that construction is proposed, especially if excavation is involved, the requirements of the State Health and Safety Code must be observed. Archaeological monitoring and reporting have been imposed on projects where the project occurs in an area with a high probability of finding Native American resources, such as in the Rathbun Creek corridor.

Notification under AB 52 was provided to one tribe, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, who have requested to receive “early notification” for CEQA projects. This notification was provided to them on July 20, 2015. The City received an immediate response on July 20, 2015. This response requested that a cultural resources records search and survey be conducted to identify any existing cultural resources. This records search through the California Historical Resources Information system (CHRIS) was initiated with the South Central Coastal Information Center on July 23, 2015, and concluded on August 26, 2015. The results of this research with respect to Area A are that this area does not appear to have been previously surveyed for the

2 California Government Code Section 65352.3

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 12 presence of cultural resources. Therefore, prior to the approval of any ground-disturbing activities, it is recommended that any future project within the boundaries of Area A be surveyed by a qualified archaeological consultant for the presence of cultural materials. It is also recommended that any historic structures or buildings (45 years and older and in the area of potential effect) be identified, recorded, and evaluated for local, state or national significance prior to the approval of future project plans. Finally, it is also recommended that the Native American Heritage Commission be consulted to identify if any additional traditional cultural properties or other sacred sites are known to be in the area. As noted earlier in this report, no ground disturbing activities are proposed under this project. The recommendations stated above will be placed on these properties through the City’s GIS program.

The results of the records search with respect to Area B are that Area B appears to have been partially surveyed for the presence of cultural resources. No resources have been recorded in the project area. One of the partial surveys was conducted over 40 years ago and the other survey, while more recent, was not for the entire project area. Therefore, prior to the approval of any ground-disturbing activities, it is recommended that any future project within the boundaries of Area B be surveyed by a qualified archaeological consultant for the presence of cultural materials. It is also recommended that any historic structures or buildings be identified, recorded, and evaluated for local, state, or national significance prior to the approval of future project plans. Finally, it is also recommended that the Native American Heritage Commission be consulted to identify if any additional traditional cultural properties or other sacred sites are known to be in the area. Again, no ground disturbing activities are proposed under this project. Future improvements along the Rathbun Creek channel as part of the Rathbun Corridor Sustainability Plan will be subject to a future CEQA review and mitigations. Until that time, the recommendations stated above will be placed on these properties through the City’s GIS program.

An Initial Study has been prepared for each project area for the purpose of determining if the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change could have an adverse impact on the environment. No construction or physical improvements are proposed to either of the project areas under this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.

Area A – Brier Trail

The Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached to this report as Attachment 2. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from a commercial-visitor designation to a single family residential designation for the four properties that are developed, each with a single family residential dwelling unit, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce fish or wildlife species or the habitat, reduce the number or range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, nor eliminate an important example of California history or pre- history, because the project will not result in any habitat modifications. No riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or fish or wildlife corridor has been identified on the project site. No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed by the project. No long-term environmental goals will be affected by the proposal.

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 13

Cumulative impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emission may occur as a result of vehicle trips associated with the usage of the residences, the use of solvents, paints and coatings for cleaning and maintenance of the building, energy associated with natural gas and electricity usage, and waste generation, however, these impacts are small and insignificant. In addition, the City will reduce its community Greenhouse Gas emissions to a level that is 15% below its 2008 emissions level by 2020 and the City will meet and exceed this goal, subject to reduction measures pursuant to AB 32, through a combination of state (~99%) and local (~1%) efforts. The project does not have any substantial direct or indirect effects on humans. The properties were analyzed as developed under the City’s General Plan. The earliest City zoning map adopted in 1981, indicates that all three properties were zoned Commercial General at that time. In 1999, under the General Plan Update, these properties were designated Commercial-Visitor (C-V). In 2003, under the Development Code Update, the zoning of the properties was changed to Commercial-Visitor (C-3). However, these properties have been continuously used for residential uses. The project, which changes the properties back to a residential land use, does not significantly change the allowable land uses within the buildings or cause significant changes to the building size, mass, developed area, or open space areas on the property. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts will be caused by the project. A copy of the Initial Study for Area A is attached.

Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and Catalina Road

The Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached to this report as Attachment 2. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the property identified as 2328-202-08 from Single Family Residential to Open Space, and the remaining two-acre portion of 2328-202-15 from Commercial-Recreation to Open Space does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce fish or wildlife species or the habitat, reduce the number or range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, nor eliminate an important example of California history or pre-history, because the project will not result in any habitat modifications. The project results in the property being protected as Open Space. The property contains a portion of the Rathbun Creek channel. Designating this property as Open Space will protect and preserve the riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or fish or wildlife corridor that may be present on the project site.

No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed by the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change project. The properties are identified as being within the 100-year Flood Boundary in Exhibit EH-3 of the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element. The property is identified on FEMA FIRM panel #06071C8007H as being located in Flood Zone AE. The earliest City zoning map adopted in 1981, indicates that these properties were previously designated as Flood Plain. In 1999, under the General Plan Update, the property identified as 2328-202-08 was designated Single Family Residential. The entirety of the property identified as 2328-202-15 was designated Commercial Recreation, to reflect the use of the property at the time as a private fishing pond and commercial recreation enterprise. In 2003, under the Development Code Update, the zoning of the property at 2328-202-08 was changed to Single Family Residential (R- 1) and the zoning of the property at 2328-202-15 was changed to Commercial-Recreation (C-4).

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 14

The commercial recreation enterprise use has ceased and the City desires to place the properties that contain the Rathbun Creek channel under an Open Space designation.

A portion of this property comprising 1.03 acres contains a approximately 1,600 square foot single family residence and out buildings that were built in the mid 1940’s. This portion of the property is located above the established flood plain and has direct access to Catalina Road. The residence is addressed as 440 Catalina Road. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change proposes to place this property under a Single Family Residential designation, to reflect its existing single family residential use. The project does not significantly change the allowable land uses within the building or cause significant changes to the building size, mass, or developed area. The project does not cause any significant changes to the Rathbun Creek channel or the open space areas on the properties. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts will be caused by the project. A copy of the Initial Study for Area B is attached.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

In addition to the two tribal notifications, notice to surrounding property owners and the general public was prepared in the following ways. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Grizzly newspaper on August 5, 2015. This began a twenty-day public review period of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration and provided over ten days advance notice of today’s public hearing. The twenty-day public review of the environmental document concluded on August 25, 2015. The Notice was mailed to 36 surrounding property owners of Area A – Brier Trail, and 46 surrounding property owners of Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road. This Notice was placed on the City’s website, and posted in three public places on August 5, 2015. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration were made available in paper form at the Big Bear Branch of the public library and at the Planning Department counter at City Hall. It was distributed to city departments, affected agencies, the County of San Bernardino and utilities. No public correspondence has been received as a result of this notification.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on a proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for two areas of town. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Area A – Brier Trail will change the land use designation of four nonconforming single family residences from Commercial Visitor to Single Family Residential, to make these residences conforming with respect to the zoning and to allow substantial improvements to be made to bring the residences into compliance with the building code. The small lot sizes, substandard street widths, boulders and steeply up-sloping topography make these four lots impractical for commercial development.

The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road, will change the land use designations of two properties that contain portions of the Rathbun Creek channel from Single Family Residential and Commercial Recreation to

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 15

Public-Open Space. The Single Family Residential designation is not practical for the unaddressed property (APN 2328-202-08) because this property is landlocked and is entirely contained within the Rathbun Creek floodplain. The Commercial Recreation designation for the property located at 440 Catalina Road is no longer necessary since the Alpine Trout Lakes ceased operation in 2010 and the property was transferred to public ownership. The portion of the property containing the Rathbun Creek channel will be designated Public-Open Space. A 1.03-acre portion of the property immediately adjacent to Catalina Road and containing a 1,646 square foot residence, outbuildings and pavement is appropriate in size and land use to be re- designated Single Family Residential to conform with the other properties along Catalina Road and Avalon Road. No changes or improvements to these properties are proposed under the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications.

An environmental Initial Study has been prepared for each area. These Initial Studies determined that the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the draft Negative Declaration and proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC.

Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution PC2015-xx 2. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Studies for Area A and Area B

N:\2-Group\Planning\CURRENT\GPA\2015\2015-084 ~ City Initiated Areas A & B ~ Brier Tr Lark Tr BBBlvd Catalina Road Rathbun\Staff Report and Agenda Report\Staff Report - GPA ZC Sept 2 2015.docx

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 16

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. PC 2015-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREAS A AND B, AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-084/GPA AND ZONE CHANGE 2015-087/ZC FOR AREA A – BRIER TRAIL AND AREA B – RATHBUN CREEK PARCELS AND 440 CATALINA ROAD.

A. RECITALS

(i) The City of Big Bear Lake has initiated General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC to change the General Plan and Zoning designations of two areas of the City identified as Area A – Brier Trail, and Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road, as described herein (hereinafter referred to as “Applications”). (ii) The Applications apply to Area A and B. Area A consists of four parcels of land located at 833 Brier Trail, 836 Lark Trial, and 39209 & 39217 Big Bear Boulevard, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0306-165-18, 199, 33 & 35. Area B consists of two parcels located in the vicinity of Rathbun Creek and Catalina Road. One of the parcels is unaddressed, landlocked and contains a portion of the Rathbun Creek channel. This property contains 0.73 acres and is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 2328-202-08. The second property is located at 440 Catalina Road, APN 2328-202-15. This property contains 3.23 acres and is the site of the former Alpine Trout Lakes. (iii) With respect to Area A, the Applications, as submitted, request to change the General Plan designation of the properties from Commercial-Visitor (CV) to Single Family Residential (SFR-4) and to change the zoning of the properties from Commercial-Visitor (C-3) to Single Family Residential (R-1). (iv) With respect to Area B, the Applications, as submitted, request to change the General Plan designation of the unaddressed and landlocked property identified as APN 2328-202-08 from Single Family Residential (SFR-4) to Open Space (OS) and the accompanying Zone Change proposes to change the zoning of the property from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Public/Open space (P-OS). The General Plan Amendment also proposes to change the land use designation of the property at 440 Catalina Road (APN 2328-202-15) from Commercial Recreation (CR) to Open Space (OS) on the approximately 2-acre portion of the property that contains the Rathbun Creek channel; and to Single-Family Residential (SFR-4) on a 1.03 acre portion of the property that contains a 1,646 square foot residence, outbuildings and pavement. The Zone Change application proposes to change the

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 17

zoning of these same portions of the property to Public/Open Space (P-OS) and Single Family Residential (R-1) respectively. (v) The properties surrounding Area A are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial-Visitor (C-3) and are developed with a mix of single- and multi- family residences and commercial lodges and businesses. The properties surrounding Area B are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1) on the north side of the Rathbun Creek channel and along Catalina Road and Avalon Road. Properties within the creek channel are zoned Public/Open Space (P-OS). (vi) Each of the properties within Area A are developed with a single family residence. The property at 833 Brier Trail contains 4,495 square feet in area and contains a 732 square foot residence. The property at 836 Lark Trail contains 6,996 square feet in area and is developed with a 1,670 square foot residence. The property at 39209 Big Bear Boulevard contains 5,558 square feet in area and is developed with a 948 square foot residence; and the property at 39217 Big Bear Boulevard contains 5,970 square feet and is developed with a 389 square foot residence. (vii) With respect to the properties within Area B, APN 2328-202-08 is undeveloped and is 0.73 acres in size. The property at 440 Catalina Road (APN 2328-202-15) contains 3.23 acres. An approximately 2.2 acre portion is undeveloped and contains the Rathbun Creek channel and flood plain. Improvements, including a 1,646 square foot residence, outbuildings and pavement occupy the easterly 1.03- acre portion of the property. (viii) Pursuant to Section 65300 of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1 Title 7 of the California Government Code) the City of Big Bear Lake has adopted a General Plan to provide comprehensive, long-range planning guidelines for future growth and development which incorporates the following nine elements: Land Use, Circulation, Environmental Resources, Environmental Hazards, Noise, Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Public Services and Facilities, Community Design, and Housing. Each element of the General Plan provides Goals, Programs, and Policies as required by State Law. The first eight elements of the 1999 General Plan were adopted by the City Council on August 23, 1999, by Resolution No. 99-36. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on June 24, 2013. (ix) Pursuant to Section 65358 of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1, Title 7 of the California Government Code), the City may amend all or part of an adopted General Plan if it is found to be in the public interest. Amendments to the mandatory elements of the Plan may occur up to four times per calendar year. This request is the second for calendar year 2015. (x) Pursuant to Sections 65800 and 65850 of the California Government Code, the City may adopt ordinances to regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, and open space, and other purposes; to regulate the location, height, bulk, number of stories and size of buildings and

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 18

structures, the size and use of lots, yards, courts and other open spaces, the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure, and the intensity of land use; and to establish requirements for off-street parking, in compliance with the California Government Code. The city has adopted such an ordinance, referred to as the Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. 2003- 333, on September 8, 2003, and codified in the Municipal Code as Chapter 17. (xi) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18), General Plan Amendment requests are subject to mandatory Native American Tribal Consultation for a period of 90-days. This notification was distributed to fifteen tribes on June 12, 2015, and will conclude on September 10, 2015. Two letters in response to this notification were received. A letter from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requests monitoring during future ground disturbing activities, including surveys and archaeological testing. A letter from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians requests that if human remains are encountered during grading and construction excavation, that work cease and the coroner contacted, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code 7050.5. (xii) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21073 et. seq. (AB 52) early notification of this CEQA project was given to the one tribe requesting such notification. Notification was provided to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on July 20, 2015. A response was received requesting a cultural resources records search and survey be conducted. This records search was initiated with the South Central Coastal Information Center on July 23, 2015, and concluded on August 26, 2015. The records search recommends that additional archaeological and historic surveys be performed prior to ground disturbing activities within both project areas. (xiii) An environmental Initial Study and a Negative Declaration were prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. These documents were made available for public review for a period of 20 days from August 5, 2015, to August 25, 2015. The Initial Study determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment in either of the project areas and no mitigation measures were necessary. No public comment was received on the Initial Studies and Negative Declaration. (xiv) On September 2, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Big Bear Lake conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Applications at 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, in Hofert Hall of the Civic and Performing Arts Center in Big Bear Lake, California, and concluded the public hearing on that date.

(xv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 19

B. RESOLUTION

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Big Bear Lake, as follows:

1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct.

2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declarations prepared in connection with the project Areas A and B have been reviewed and considered, and reflects the independent judgment of this Planning Commission, and that there is substantial evidence that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not have a significant effect on the environment because no impacts were determined to be significant. Negative Declarations for each project area are proposed for adoption by this Resolution.

3. Based on the evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the September 2, 2015, public hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, the Planning Commission specifically finds as follows with respect to General Plan Amendment application 2015-084/GPA with respect to Area A – Brier Trail:

a. The General Plan Amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the City of Big Bear Lake General Plan and each element thereof, and leaves the General plan a compatible, integrated and internally consistent statement of goals and policies. The proposed amendment conforms to Land Use Element Program L 1.1.1 to update the map as necessary. The Code Compliance Department has identified the need for at least one of these residences to be substantially repaired and has identified this nonconforming land use situation. The General Plan Amendment will bring the existing residential land use into conformance with the land use designation and allow repairs to be done. Changing the land use designation to residential is consistent with Land Use Policy L 1.6 that land uses should be sensitive to the natural environment and developed at an appropriate level with consideration of the topography and environmental conditions of the site. Based on the small parcel sizes, existence of large boulders and steeply upsloping topography, this General Plan Amendment is supported to change the land use designation to residential to eliminate this nonconforming land use situation and allow repairs to occur, which is consistent with Land Use Element Policy L 1.9 to identify deteriorated structures and to correct health and safety concerns.

b. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Element for ongoing review and revision of the plan because, specifically in this case, a nonconforming situation was identified by having single family residences on individual properties in the Commercial-Visitor designation. The properties are not of sufficient size, do not have adequate access, and have topographically-challenging

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 20

conditions such that they are impractical to be developed for commercial purposes. Therefore, this General Plan Amendment is an opportunity to make the land use conditions consistent with the land use designation.

c. Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will not be in conflict with Government Code Section 65358(b) relating to the number of amendments permitted per year because this amendment is the second request for calendar year 2015.

4. Based on the evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the September 2, 2015, public hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, the Planning Commission specifically finds as follows with respect to General Plan Amendment application 2015-084/GPA with respect to Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road:

a. The General Plan Amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the City of Big Bear Lake General Plan and each element thereof, and leaves the General Plan a compatible, integrated and internally consistent statement of goals and policies. The proposed amendment conforms to Land Use Element Policy L 1.4 specifically that the City, in cooperation with the Municipal Water District, are addressing a land use planning issue of regional concern by preserving the Rathbun Creek channel and flood plain, and protecting the water quality of Big Bear Lake. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with Environmental Hazards Flooding & Hydrology Element Goal EH 2 and will place an Open Space designation on the property, thereby restricting development on the property and minimizing damage to property, infrastructure and Big Bear Lake, in addition to protecting public health and safety. A Single Family Residential designation is appropriate for the eastern 1.03 acres of the property that is improved with a 1,646 square foot single family residence, outbuildings and pavement.

b. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Element for ongoing review and revision of the plan because the properties are currently zoned Commercial-Visitor and Single Family Residential. To avoid a conflict with land uses and development rights, it is prudent to remove the commercial and residential designations from these properties and designate the properties as Open Space, identifying them under public ownership and reserved for open space purposes. The Open Space designation is consistent with other properties that contain portions of the Rathbun Creek channel.

c. Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will not be in conflict with Government Code Section 65358(b) relating to the number of amendments permitted per year because this amendment is the second request for calendar year 2015.

5. Based on the evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the September 2, 2015, public hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, the

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 21

Planning Commission specifically finds as follows with respect to Zone Change application 2015-087/ZC with respect to Area A – Brier Trail:

a. The zone change is consistent with the City of Big Bear Lake General Plan because the Land Use Element recognizes the need to reevaluate the land use plan and make amendments as needed. A nonconforming situation exists because the residences are commercially zoned. The requested zone change will cure this nonconforming situation and allow the existing residences to remain and be repaired. This zoning is consistent with properties to the west and south that are of similar lot size and topographic condition.

b. The site of the proposed zone change is suitable for any of the land uses permitted within the proposed zone district. The Single Family Residential (R-1) zone allows only single-family development. The properties are already developed with single- family residences and are being used to their maximum potential.

c. The proposed change in zoning is reasonably beneficial at this time to mitigate a nonconforming land use situation. At the present time under the commercial land use designation, the four residences are nonconforming land uses and may not be rebuilt if destroyed more than 50% of their value, creating a problem for owners and lending institutions. Only limited maintenance may be performed on these structures. The Code Compliance Department has brought this situation to staff’s attention. The requested zone change will make the existing residences conforming under the zoning and alleviate this nonconforming land use situation, after which repairs can be made to bring the structures into compliance with building code regulations.

d. The proposed change in zoning will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding properties or the community in general because the properties are adjacent to Single Family Residentially-zoned land to the west and south. The properties are already developed with single family residential dwelling units. No change in land use is expected. The zone change will allow repairs to be made to alleviate the deteriorated condition and health and safety concerns with the structures.

6. Based on substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the September 2, 2015, public hearing, including public testimony, and written and oral staff reports, the Planning Commission specifically finds as follows with regard to Zone Change application 2015-087/ZC with respect to Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road:

a. The zone change is consistent with the City of Big Bear Lake General Plan because the Land Use Element recognizes the need to reevaluate the land use plan and make amendments as needed. The properties contain the Rathbun Creek channel and flood plain. The zoning should reflect the natural environment, drainage courses, sensitive habitat, natural hazards and compatibility with adjacent uses. Since the Alpine Trout

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 22

Lake is no longer in operation and the properties are in public ownership, the existing commercial and single-family residential zoning are no longer necessary, and the Public/Open Space designation is consistent with the physical condition of the property. Since the eastern portion of the property has direct access to Catalina Road and is developed with a residential structure, outbuildings and pavement, it is appropriate that this portion of the property be designated for Single Family Residential use. This zoning is consistent with the other properties along Catalina Road to the north and south, and Avalon Road to the east.

b. The site of the proposed zone change is suitable for any of the land uses permitted within the proposed zone district. The primary purpose of the Public/Open Space zoning is to reserve land for open space based on the physical condition of the property. Under this zoning, the Rathbun Creek channel and flood plain will be preserved. The 1.03 acre portion of the site is suitable for single family residential land uses. The property is currently developed with a 1,646 square foot residential structure, outbuildings and pavement.

c. The proposed change in zoning is reasonably beneficial at this time. The City has an opportunity to cooperate with the Municipal Water District to obtain two parcels of land that contain the Rathbun Creek channel and flood plain and reserve these properties as Public/Open Space and to manage these properties for habitat restoration, water quality and conservation purposes. The residential structure adjacent to Catalina Road has value, and with the commercial designation removed, it can be used as a viable residential property.

d. The proposed change in zoning will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding properties or the community in general because under public ownership and a Public/Open Space designation, the Rathbun Creek channel and flood plain can be preserved for habitat conservation and flood control purposes to the benefit of the surrounding properties. Zoning of the existing residential structure at 440 Catalina Road for a single family residential use is consistent with the zoning of the properties along Catalina Road to the north and south, and along Avalon Road to the east.

7. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for project Areas A and B and approve General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC for the following General Plan map and Zoning map revisions as shown in Exhibit 1 of this Resolution:

a. Area A – Brier Trail – The General Plan designation of the properties at 833 Brier Trail, 836 Lark Trail and 39209 & 39217 Big Bear Boulevard (APN’s 306-165-18, 19, 33 & 35) shall be changed from Commercial-Visitor (CV) to Single Family Residential (SFR-4) on the General Plan Land Use Map; and the zoning of the

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 23

properties shall be changed from Commercial-Visitor (C-3) to Single Family Residential (R-1-7200) on the Zoning Map.

b. Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and 440 Catalina Road – The General Plan designation of the unaddressed and landlocked property identified as APN 2328- 202-08 shall be changed from Single Family Residential (SFR-4) to Open Space (OS) on the General Plan Land Use Map; and the accompanying zoning shall be changed from Single Family Residential (R-1-7200) to Public/Open Space (P-OS) on the Zoning Map. The General Plan designation of 440 Catalina Road (APN 2328-202-15) shall be changed from Commercial Recreation (CR) to Open Space (OS) on the approximately 2.2-acre portion of the property that contains the Rathbun Creek channel; and to Single-Family Residential (SFR-4) on a 1.03 acre portion of the property that contains a 1,646 square foot residence, outbuildings and pavement. The zoning of these same portions of the property shall be changed to Public/Open Space (P-OS) and Single Family Residential (R-1-7200) respectively on the Zoning Map.

8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day, September, 2015.

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

______Date Craig Smith, Chairman

ATTEST:

______Becky Romine, Planning Commission Secretary

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 24

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE )

I, Becky Romine, Commission Secretary of the City of Big Bear Lake, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the Planning Commission of the said City is five; that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2015-XX as duly passed and adopted by the said Planning Commission and attested by the Commission Secretary of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said City held on the 2nd day of September, 2015 and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

Witness my hand and the official seal of said City this Xth day of September, 2015.

______Becky Romine, Planning Commission Secretary

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 25

Exhibit 1

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-084/GPA AND ZONE CHANGE 2015-087/ZC

AREA A – BRIER TRAIL

From Commercial-Visitor:

To Single Family Residential:

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 26

AREA B – RATHBUN CREEK PARCELS AND 440 CATALINA ROAD

From Single Family Residential and Commercial Recreation:

To Public/Open Space and Single Family Residential:

Staff Report General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC September 2, 2015 Page 27

ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDIES FOR AREA A – BRIER TRAIL AND AREA B – RATHBUN CREEK PARCELS AND 440 CATALINA ROAD

City of Big Bear Lake

DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION

General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

I. Name and a brief description of project: The project is General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and accompanying Zone Change 2015-087. The City has initiated this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to bring the General Plan and Zoning designations of the properties listed below into compliance with the long-time, existing land uses.

II. Location and Setting: The General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087 apply to two project areas: Area A – “Brier Trail, Lark Trail, Big Bear Boulevard” 833 Brier Trail, 836 Lark Trail, 39209 and 39217 Big Bear Boulevard, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0306-165, 18, 19, 33 & 35, Google Map link: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2361371,- 116.9409069,16z?hl=en Area B – “Rathbun Creek parcels and Catalina Road” 440 Catalina Road and unaddressed parcels, APN’s 2328-291-27 and 2328-202-08 & 15, Google Map link: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2435851,-116.8796882,18z?hl=en

Area A – consists of four parcels of land located at 833 Brier Trail, 836 Lark Trail, 39209 and 39217 Big Bear Boulevard, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0306-165-18, 19, 33 & 35. The General Plan Amendment proposes to change the General Plan Land Use designation of the properties from Commercial-Visitor (CV) to Single Family Residential (SFR). The Zone Change application proposes to change the Zoning of the properties from Commercial-Visitor (C-3) to Single Family Residential (R-1).

All of the four properties are developed with single family residences that were built between 1944 and 1957. The individual lots range in size from 4,495 square feet to 6,996 square feet in area. The cumulative area affected by this request is 23,019 square feet (0.52 acres). The current commercial designation makes the residences nonconforming with respect to zoning and would not allow the residences to be rebuilt if destroyed. The small lot sizes, sloping topography and the existence of large boulders make the properties infeasible for commercial development. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are requested to change the land use designations from commercial to residential to allow the existing residences to remain. No physical changes to the buildings or properties are proposed with the General Plan Map Draft Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC Area A “Brier Trail” and Area B “Rathbun Creek” August 3, 2015 Page 2

Amendment and Zone Change. The properties are identified as having a Moderate Sensitivity for Native American Sites in the General Plan Environmental Resources/Cultural Element, Exhibit ER-3 Prehistoric (Native American) Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment. Excerpts from the San Bernardino County Tax Assessor’s page, the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map are shown below:

San Bernardino County Tax Assessor’s Page for APN’s 306-165-18, 19, 33 & 35:

Current General Plan Land Use Map:

Draft Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC Area A “Brier Trail” and Area B “Rathbun Creek” August 3, 2015 Page 3

Current Zoning Map:

Area B - consists of two parcels located in the vicinity of Rathbun Creek and Catalina Road. One of the parcels is unaddressed and contains a portion of the Rathbun Creek channel. This property is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 2328-202-08. The second property is located at 440 Catalina Road, APN 2328-202-15 and is the site of the former “Alpine Trout Lakes” also known as the “Simmons Trout Pond.”

The General Plan Amendment proposes to change the General Plan Land Use designation of the unimproved property at APN 2328-202-08 from Single Family Residential (SFR-4) to Open Space (OS) and the accompanying Zone Change proposes to change the Zoning of the property from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Public/Open Space (P-OS). This property contains 31,981 square feet in area (0.73 acres).

The General Plan Amendment also proposes to change a 42,754 square foot (0.98 acre) portion of 440 Catalina Road (APN 2328-202-15) from Commercial-Recreation (CR) to Single Family Residential (SFR-4) and the accompanying Zone Change proposes to change the Zoning of this property from Commercial-Recreation (C-4) to Single Family Residential (R-1). This property contains a 1,646 square foot single family residence that was built in 1944.

Lastly, the General Plan Amendment proposes to change the land use designation of the remaining approximate two (2) acre portion of APN 2328-202-15 from Commercial-Recreation (CR) to Open Space (OS) and the Zoning of this property from Commercial-Recreation (C-4) to Public/Open Space (P-OS). This remaining portion of the property is unimproved. Concurrent with this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the property lines of the remaining portion of APN 2328-202-15 are being revised with Assessor’s Parcel Number 2328-291-27 through Lot Line Adjustment application 2015-E02. This Lot Line Adjustment application has not been recorded as of the date of this letter. After recordation, new Assessor’s Parcel Numbers will be Draft Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC Area A “Brier Trail” and Area B “Rathbun Creek” August 3, 2015 Page 4 assigned to the properties by the County Tax Assessor’s office. The combined area of the new property is 6.21 acres.

The purpose of this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are to place an Open Space designation on the parcels containing the Rathbun Creek channel, and to place a Single Family Residential designation on a parcel of land containing the existing residential structure at 440 Catalina Road. No improvements are proposed to the properties at this time. It is anticipated that 440 Catalina Road will be sold to a private party for residential purposes and the Open Space parcels will be retained in public ownership for open space and drainage purposes.

San Bernardino County Tax Assessor’s Map:

Current General Plan Land Use Map:

Draft Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC Area A “Brier Trail” and Area B “Rathbun Creek” August 3, 2015 Page 5

Current Zoning Map:

III. Entity or person undertaking project: James J. Miller, Community Development Director, City of Big Bear Lake

IV. Determination:

The City of Big Bear Lake, having reviewed the Initial Studies prepared for each project area, having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public hearing on the project, and having reviewed the recommendation of City staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, based on the following reasons:

Area A: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from a commercial-visitor designation to a single family residential designation for the four properties that are developed each with a single family residential dwelling unit does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce fish or wildlife species or the habitat, reduce the number or range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, nor eliminate an important example of California history or pre-history, because the project will not result in any habitat modifications. No riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or fish or wildlife corridor has been identified on the project site. No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed by the project. No long-term environmental goals will be affected by the proposal.

Cumulative impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emission may occur as a result of vehicle trips associated with the usage of the residences, the use of solvents, paints and coatings for cleaning and maintenance of the building, energy associated with natural gas Draft Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC Area A “Brier Trail” and Area B “Rathbun Creek” August 3, 2015 Page 6

and electricity usage, and waste generation, however, these impacts are small and insignificant. In addition, the City will reduce its community Greenhouse Gas emissions to a level that is 15% below its 2008 emissions level by 2020 and the City the City will meet and exceed this goal, subject to reduction measures pursuant to AB 32, through a combination of state (~99%) and local (~1%) efforts.

The project does not have any substantial direct or indirect effects on humans. The properties were analyzed as developed under the City’s General Plan. The earliest City zoning map adopted in 1981, indicates that all three properties were zoned Commercial General at that time. In 1999, under the General Plan Update, these properties were designated Commercial-Visitor (C-V). In 2003, under the Development Code Update, the zoning of the properties was changed to Commercial-Visitor (C-3). However, these properties have been continuously used for residential uses. The project, to redesignate the properties back to a residential land use, does not significantly change the allowable land uses within the buildings or cause significant changes to the building size, mass, developed area, or open space areas on the property. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts will be caused by the project. A copy of the Initial Study for Area A is attached.

Area B: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the property identified as 2328-202-08 from Single Family Residential to Open Space, and the remaining two-acre portion of 2328-202-15 from Commercial-Recreation to Open Space does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce fish or wildlife species or the habitat, reduce the number or range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, nor eliminate an important example of California history or pre-history, because the project will not result in any habitat modifications. The project results in the property being protected as Open Space. The property contains a portion of the Rathbun Creek channel. Designating this property as Open Space will protect and preserve the riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or fish or wildlife corridor that may be present on the project site.

No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed by the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change project. The properties are identified as being within the 100 year Flood Boundary in Exhibit EH-3 of the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element. The property is identified on FEMA FIRM panel #06071C8007H as being located in Flood Zone AE. The earliest City zoning map adopted in 1981, indicates that these properties were previously designated as Flood Plain. In 1999, under the General Plan Update, the property identified as 2328-202-08 was designated Single Family Residential. The entirety of the property identified as 2328-202-15 was designated Commercial Recreation, to reflect the use of the property at the time as a private fishing pond and commercial recreation enterprise. In 2003, under the Development Code Update, the zoning of the property at 2328-202-08 was changed to Single Family Residential (R-1) and the zoning of the property at 2328-202-15 was changed to Commercial-Recreation (C-4). The commercial recreation enterprise use has ceased and the City desires to place the properties that contain the Rathbun Creek channel under an Open Space designation. Draft Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC Area A “Brier Trail” and Area B “Rathbun Creek” August 3, 2015 Page 7

A portion of this property comprising 0.98 acres contains a approximately 1,600 square foot single family residence and several out buildings that were built in the mid 1940’s. This portion of the property is located above the established flood plain and has direct access to Catalina Road. The residence is addressed as 440 Catalina Road. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change proposes to place this property under a Single Family Residential designation, to reflect its existing single family residential use. The project does not significantly change the allowable land uses within the building or cause significant changes to the building size, mass, or developed area. The project does not cause any significant changes to the Rathbun Creek channel or the open space areas on the properties. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts will be caused by the project. A copy of the Initial Study for Area B is attached.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: None

TRUSTEE AGENCIES: None

Notice Pursuant to Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code:

Public comments on the Initial Study are invited and will be received from August 5, 2015, until August 25, 2015. A copy of the Initial Study may be viewed and/or obtained from the Planning Division office located in City Hall of the City of Big Bear Lake, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Post Office Box 10,000, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315, telephone (909) 866-5831, fax (909) 866- 7511, email [email protected] and viewed on the City’s website at www.citybigbearlake.com. Please refer to the application number listed above in any correspondence.

Staff contact: ______Janice Etter, City Planner

Date filed with Clerk of the Board: August 5, 2015

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/INITIAL STUDY

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. 1. Project Title: Zone Change 2015-087/ZC and General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Big Bear Lake 39707 Big Bear Blvd., Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Janice Etter, City Planner (909) 866-5831

4. Applicant Name and Address: James J. Miller, Community Development Director City of Big Bear Lake 30707 Big Bear Blvd. /PO Box 10,000 Big Bear Lake CA 92315

5. Project Location: Area A 833 Brier Trail, 836 Lark Trail, 39209 and 39217 Big Bear Boulevard, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0306-165-18, -19, -33, and -35

6. General Plan Designation/Zoning: Commercial-Visitor (CV) / Commercial Visitor (C-3)

7. Project Description (describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features that are necessary for its implementation):

The Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications request to change the zoning of the four properties from Commercial-Visitor (C-3) to Single Family Residential (R-1-7200) and to change the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the equivalent designation of Single Family Residential (SFR-4). All of the four properties are developed with single family residences that were built between 1944 and 1949. The individual lots range in size from 4,495 square feet to 6,996 square feet in area. The cumulative area affected by this request is 23,019 square feet (0.52 acres). The current commercial designation makes the residences nonconforming with respect to zoning and would not allow the residences to be rebuilt if destroyed. The small lot sizes, sloping topography, and the existence of large boulders make the properties infeasible for commercial development. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are requested to change the land use designations from commercial to residential to allow the existing residences to remain. No physical changes to the buildings or properties are proposed with the General Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change.

The earliest City zoning map was adopted in 1985. This map indicates that all four properties were zoned Commercial General at that time. In 1999, under the General Plan Update, these properties were redesignated to Commercial-Visitor (C-V). In 2003, under the Development Code Update, the zoning of the properties was changed to Commercial-Visitor (C-3). These Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 2 of 25 properties have been continuously used for residential uses. A summary of the properties and their characteristics is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Year Lot Size Building Size 1985 2003 Proposed Address APN Built (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Zoning Zoning Zoning 833 Brier Trail 306-165-18 1949 4,495 363 C-2 C-3 R-1 836 Lark Trail 306-165-33 1946 6,996 1,048 C-2 C-3 R-1 39209 Big Bear Blvd 306-165-19 1944 5,558 948 C-2 C-3 R-1 39219 Big Bear Blvd 306-165-35 1946 5,970 389 C-2 C-3 R-1

This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts that would be expected as a result of the change in land use designation from Commercial to Residential. The following figures provide an aerial view, photographs, and an excerpt of the City’s zoning map for reference purposes.

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of the project

Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 3 of 25

Figure 2: Photographs of the Subject Properties

Above, left: 833 Brier Trail Above, right: 836 Lark Trail

Above, center: 39209 and 39217 Big Bear Blvd.

Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 4 of 25

Figure 3: Excerpt of the City’s zoning map

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting (describe the project’s surroundings):

Properties to the west, south, and southeast of the subject site are designated as Single Family Residential (SFR-4) on the City’s General Plan Map, zoned Single Family Residential (R-1- 7,200) on the City’s Zoning Map, and are developed with single family residences. Properties to the north of the designated as Commercial Visitor (CV), zoned as Commercial-Visitor (C-3), and developed with a vacant commercial office building and a commercial lodge, known as Cabins 4 Less. Properties directly east of the site are designated as CV, zoned C-3, and contain two multi- family dwelling units.

9. Public agencies whose approval or participation is required (i.e., for permits, financing approval, or participation agreements):

City of Big Bear Lake – approval for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 5 of 25

Agricultural  I. Aesthetics  II.  III. Air Quality Resources  IV. Biological Resources  V. Cultural Resources  VI. Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hydrology/Water  VII.  VIII.  IX. Emissions Hazardous Materials Quality  X. Land Use/Planning  XI. Mineral Resources  XII. Noise

 XIII. Population/Housing  XIV. Public Services  XV. Recreation Utilities/Service Mandatory Findings  XVI. Transportation/Traffic  XVII.  XVIII. Systems of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a  NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or  agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been  adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE  DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Aug. 4, 2015 Signature: Date: Printed Name: Janice Etter, City Planner For: City of Big Bear Lake

Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 6 of 25

C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier Analysis - Analysis of the environmental impacts of the implementation of the City of Big Bear General Plan has been made in the City of Big Bear Lake Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive General Plan, (SCH No. 98021103) July 1999, prepared by Lilburn Corporation, and certified by the City of Big Bear Lake City Council Resolution 99-36 on August 23, 1999. This document was prepared to analyze the potential impacts from full build-out of the City’s General Plan. The subject properties were developed with the existing structures at the time of this evaluation. The adoption and implementation of the General Plan was found not to have a significant effect on the environment with respect to energy and mineral resources, hazardous and toxic materials, open space, parks and recreation facilities, aesthetic and visual impacts, public services and facilities, solid waste, law enforcement and fire protection, and schools. The EIR determined that all impacts will be mitigated to levels of insignificance in the areas of land use, circulation, geotechnical hazards, flooding and hydrology, water resources and water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise. The adoption and implementation of the General Plan was found to have a potential significant cumulative environmental impact in the area air quality, and a statement of overriding consideration was adopted. The primary sources of information used in the preparation of this Initial Study are the General Plan and the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The General Plan and the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are available for review at the City of Big Bear Lake Planning Division. Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 7 of 25

6. Supporting Information Sources – Copies of the following documents are available on the City’s website at www.citybigbearlake.com and at the City of Big Bear Lake Planning Division, located at City Hall, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315. a. Big Bear Lake General Plan, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 99-36, August 23, 1999. b. Big Bear Lake Development Code, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2003-333, September 8, 2003.

ANALYSIS

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within X a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

I. (a-d) – No Impact. Amending the land use designation from Commercial-Visitor (CV) to Single Family Residential (SFR-4) will not in itself cause adverse environmental impacts to aesthetics. The properties are developed with single family residences and no construction is proposed under the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications. Continued use of the buildings for single family residences will not cause adverse environmental impacts to aesthetics. The City has adopted Residential Development Standards in Development Code Chapter 17.25, which contain maximum building height standards, maximum lot coverage, minimum building setbacks, minimum parking spaces, maximum illumination levels and architectural design standards. Any future renovations or new construction on these properties would be subject to the Chapter 17.25. Therefore, the project will not have an impact on aesthetics.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 8 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), X or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to X non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, X to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

II. (a-e) – No Impact. The property is not identified on the current California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) map for San Bernardino County1. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has prepared soil surveys for San Bernardino County, which have been incorporated into the San Bernardino County Important Farmland Map. The subject property is not zoned for agricultural use nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The property does not contain designated forest land or timberland under the Codes referenced above and no loss of designated forest land would occur. Therefore, the project would have No Impact on Agriculture and Forest Resources.

III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X

1 San Bernardino County Important Farmland Map, 2010 Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 9 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people?

(III. a-e) – Less Than Significant. Big Bear Lake is located within the South Coast Air Basin and therefore is included within the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan. The redesignation of the land from Commercial-Visitor to Single Family Residential itself does not cause air quality impacts, however, continued use of the residences would generate long-term pollutant emissions due to vehicle trips and the use of solvents, paints and coatings for cleaning and maintenance of the property, and indirect impacts from off-site power and natural gas generation. A review of emissions data for projects of similar size, land use, and location was performed.2 These long-term emissions did not exceed any of the daily thresholds established by SCAQMD, therefore, it can be reasoned that the project’s long-term emissions would also not exceed any established daily thresholds and air quality impacts would be less than significant.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, X policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) X through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

2 2012, Environmental Impact Report – Morgan Pines Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 18580, 2005-240/TTM, Single Family Residential subdivision, Air Quality Chapter 4.3 Area and Operational Sources, Hogle-Ireland, Inc. Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 10 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established X native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or X other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

IV. (a-f) No Impact. No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed under the project. The project does not result in any habitat modifications. No riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or fish or wildlife corridor has been identified on the project site. Removal of native trees on the project site is subject to the City’s Tree Ordinance (Development Code Chapter 17.12). There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable in the City. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts to biological resources.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside X of formal cemeteries?

V (a-d) – No Impact. The site is identified as having a potential for moderate sensitivity for prehistoric (Native American) resources, according to Exhibit ER-3 of the City’s General Plan. It is also identified as having potential for high sensitivity for historic (non-Native American) resources on Exhibit ER-4. The four parcels come from a Tract established in 1920. Each parcel contains an existing single family dwelling unit constructed between 1944 and 1949. The parcels are substandard sized; at less than 7,200 square feet (each lot ranges between 4,496 and 6,996 square feet). The lots are constrained by steep topography and large natural boulders. The City has provided tribal notification to area tribes in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52. No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed under the project. The change in zoning and designation assures a single family residential land use on each of the four parcels. Therefore, No Impact to Cultural Resources will result. Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 11 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse affects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially X result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to X life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of waste water?

VI. (a-e) No Impact. No construction is proposed under these Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications. However, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act exempts single family wood frame dwellings that are less than three-stories in height and are not a part of a development of four units or more. These structures are single- and two-stories in height and only one unit is allowed in the proposed single family residential zone.

The existing structures will be subject to ground shaking impacts should a major earthquake occur in the future. Potential impacts include injury or loss of life and property damage. Any new construction is subject to the seismic design criteria of the most currently adopted California Building Code (CBC). Adherence to these requirements will reduce the potential that future housing from collapsing during an earthquake, thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements will minimize damage to property within the structure because the structure is not likely to collapse.

The properties are identified as being in the Low Liquifaction area on the Liquifaction Susceptibility Map Exhibit EH-1; and in the Marginally Susceptible area on the Land Slide Susceptibility Map Exhibit EH-2 of the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element. The project is a re-zone to a less intensive land use Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 12 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated zone and the subject properties consist of existing residential structures. Therefore, No Impact to Geology and Soils is anticipated by the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted X for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

VII. (a-b) – Less than Significant. Many of the world's leading scientific experts agree that greenhouse gases (GHGs) generated by human activities affect climate by increasing the "greenhouse effect." The gases concentrate in the Earth's atmosphere and trap heat by blocking some of the long-wave energy the Earth normally radiates back into space. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. These activities are increasing the greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere and could be accelerating global climate change. Long-term environmental consequences in California could potentially include a reduction in water supply from the Sierra Nevada snow pack, which could result in a reduction in imported water, and public health problems due to degraded air quality and more intense summer heat.

In 2006, AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act, was signed into law. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 2000 levels by the year 2010, 1990 levels by the year 2020, and to 80 percent less than 1990 levels by year 2050. These reductions will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has developed a Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan3 of which the City of Big Bear Lake is a Partnership city. The City will reduce its community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to a level that is 15% below its 2008 emissions level by 2020. The City will meet and exceed this goal subject to reduction measures that are technologically feasible and cost-effective per AB 32 through combination of state (~99%) and local (~1%) efforts. The City actually exceeds the goal with only state/county level actions (101% of goal), but has committed to several additional local measures. The Pavley vehicle standards, the state’s low carbon fuel standard, the Renewable Portfolio Standards, and other state measures will significantly reduce GHG emissions in Big Bear Lake’s on-road and solid waste sectors in 2020. An additional reduction of 163 MTCO2 will be achieved primarily through GHG Performance Standard for New Development (PS-1) and Energy Efficiency for Existing Buildings (Energy- 1). Big Bear Lake’s reduction plan has the greatest impacts on GHG emissions in the solid waste, on-road transportation, and off-road equipment sectors. This project consists of four existing single family residences with the possibility of future renovations or rebuilds. Therefore, the project will have a less than

3 San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, March 2014 Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 13 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated significant impact upon Greenhouse Gas emissions.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile X of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public X airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in X the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

VIII. – Less than Significant Impact. (a-d) Hazardous Substances. The project and the intended land uses allowed in the Single Family Residential designation are not anticipated to transport or dispose of significant amounts of hazardous materials. The project site is not identified as a hazardous substances site.

(e-f) Airport/airstrip. Big Bear City Airport, a private airport, is located just east of the City’s eastern boundary. The project area is located on the western end of the City’s limits, approximately 5 miles from the airport property. The project is located outside of the airport land use plan and is not in the vicinity of the airstrip. Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 14 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

(g) Emergency Response Plan. The City of Big Bear Lake is a member of the San Bernardino County Operational Area and Big Bear Valley Mountain Mutual Aid Association (BBVMMA). The mission of BBVMMA Association and its Emergency Operations Center is to coordinate and facilitate resources to minimize the impact of disasters and emergencies on people, property, the environment, and the economy. This is accomplished by detailed valley-wide evacuation planning and dedicated support to all involved emergency responders and their agencies. The City of Big Bear Lake has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan for all types of disasters, including snowstorms, earthquakes, and fires, other natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The plan “is designed to include the City of Big Bear Lake as part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS).” The purpose of SEMS is “to assist emergency management in the response to multi-agency and multi- jurisdictional emergencies and disasters.” As a result, City resources are made available to other local agencies and citizens affected by disaster in the area and will request assistance from other agencies when needed.

The Emergency Operations Plan incorporates policies and procedures to care for full-time residents and visitors in a time of disaster. Depending upon the situation or disaster, citizens and visitors would be instructed on the appropriate action to take. Instructions can be disseminated by a wide array of options. The San Bernardino County Telephone Emergency Notification System (TENS) provides for recorded messages to be sent to all standard telephones in the Valley. KBHR 93.3 FM radio and TV6, in addition to their normal emergency broadcasts, participate in sending out messages in coordination with a Valley-wide siren system. The City of Big Bear Lake has two sirens, one located at the Civic Center (39707 Big Bear Boulevard), the other at Fire Station 283 (42612 Rathbun Drive). The City also has the ability to provide door-to-door notification and to utilize a mobile emergency vehicle with sirens and loudspeakers. Finally, mobile phone service providers participate in an emergency notification system, which sends out locally generated alerts by email, telephone, text messaging, and cell phone for individuals that sign up for the service.

Evacuation Plan. In the event of an emergency evacuation, there are three main escape routes out of the Bear Valley- State Route 18 north to the Lucerne Valley, State Route 18 southwest to Highway 330 and connecting to Highway 210, and State Route 38 south to Redlands.

The Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan4 notes that a confidential Emergency Evacuation Plan is maintained and refined by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. The Emergency Evacuation Plan includes a tiered approach to evacuation within the valley, with separate levels for warning, voluntary, mandatory, and immediate evacuations, as well as shelter-in-place. Upon the warning of an evacuation it is most likely that the day time visitors and a large majority of the second homeowners will exit the valley. At the time of the issuance of a voluntary evacuation the remainder of the second homeowners and most likely half of the full-time residents would exit the valley. At the point a mandatory evacuation is issued only half of the full-time residents will be remaining in the valley and attempting to

4 Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006 Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 15 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated leave, which would consist of a total of 4,095 dwelling units. Based upon an average of two cars per dwelling unit, a total of 16,321 vehicles will be leaving the valley in the event of a mandatory evacuation. Of this, approximately 4,972 vehicles would be exiting the City of Big Bear Lake.

Old Fire Evacuation The “Old Fire” began October 25, 2003 and required the mandatory evacuation of Big Bear Valley. The evacuation had two trigger points- a voluntary evacuation and a mandatory evacuation, which were initialized within less than two hours of one-another. The evacuation of the entire Bear Valley was achieved over approximately 14 hours. The evacuation occurred through the east end of Big Bear Lake, north along State Route 18 to Lucerne Valley and south along State Route 38 to Redlands. The length of time to evacuate the Valley was compounded by the fact that residents from communities west of Bear Valley had evacuated into the valley, and then were forced to evacuate a second time out of the valley. Future improvements for the next emergency evacuation recommended by the Federal Highway Administration include evacuating residents off the mountain rather than up the mountain. The implementation of this improvement will further increase the evacuation time of the Valley as a reduced number of vehicles and residents will be exiting the valley at the same time. Over 70,000 citizens were successfully evacuated during the Old Fire from 29 communities, including Bear Valley, Crestline, Running Springs, and Lake Arrowhead as well as portions of the High Desert and San Bernardino area. The Old Fire of 2003 resulted in the Bear Valley successfully implementing the Emergency Evacuation/Reentry Plan.

(h) Fire Prevention Measures. City’s Municipal Code addresses the high fire hazard potential in the City by incorporating regulations from the California Fire Code. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code provides Section 15.36.020 (Construction Requirements) incorporating fire protection measures in building construction. The City of Big Bear Lake has enacted several ordinances and regulations in order to proactively work to reduce the potential for wildfire. Regulations include weed abatement requirements, property maintenance standards, and a prohibition of wood shake roofing materials. Weed abatement requirements and property maintenance standards reduce the amount of fuel that is located adjacent to structures, reducing the risk to structures and humans from wildfire. In 2008 the Big Bear Lake City Council took additional action to address the threat of a forest fire by adopting City Ordinance 2008-379 for the Native Brush and Shrub Reduction Ordinance. This ordinance requires private property owners to reduce fire fuel dangers posed by native brush and vegetation through minimizing fuel material. In 2014, the Big Bear Lake City Council further took proactive measures to reduce the threat of fires through adoption of Ordinance 2014-432 – Defensible Space and Forest Management, now incorporated into Municipal Code Chapter 17.10.

Based on implementation of all of the measures listed above, the project will have a Less than Significant Impact upon Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 16 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

IX. (a-j) – No Impact. Water Quality Standards. The project will not have a direct impact on water quality standards. No construction, grading or changes to the project site are proposed.

Deplete groundwater supplies. Water has been and will be consumed by residents of the four homes. The water usage of developed properties was analyzed in the City’s General Plan and the Department of Water’s Urban Water Management Plan, and adequate water supply was determined to exist for existing homes and anticipated build-out. All four homes are connected to the domestic water system and are paying water use fees. Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 17 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

Flood Hazard. The property is not identified as being located within the 100-year Flood Hazard area either in the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element or on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The property is identified on FEMA FIRM panel #06071C8005H, as being located in Flood Zone X, determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual change floodplain. The property is located within 850 feet of the shoreline of Big Bear Lake. Therefore, a slight chance of flooding or seiche in an extraordinary event may occur. The project has been determined to have No Impact upon Hydrology and Water Quality.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but to limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan?

X. (a-c) – No Impact. The Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications request to change the zoning of the four properties from Commercial-Visitor (C-3) to Single Family Residential (R-3) and to change the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the equivalent designation of Single Family Residential (SFR-4). All of the four properties are developed with single family residences that were built between 1944 and 1949. The individual lots range in size from 4,495 square feet to 6,996 square feet in area. The individual property characteristics are listed in Table 1 under Section A.7 (Project Description) of this Initial Study. The cumulative area affected by this request is 23,019 square feet (0.52 acres). The current commercial designation makes the residences nonconforming with respect to zoning and would not allow the residences to be rebuilt if destroyed. The small lot sizes, sloping topography, and the existence of large boulders make the properties infeasible for commercial development.

The Commercial Visitor designation and corresponding C-3 zoning has been in place since 1999 and 2003, respectively. The earliest City zoning map was adopted in 1985. This map indicates that all four properties were zoned Commercial General at that time. The commercial zoning may have been intended for the area due to its proximity to Big Bear Boulevard and commercially zoned areas and land uses. However, adjacent properties to the west and south of the project site are designated as SFR-4 with the corresponding R-1- 7,200 zoning, and are also developed with single family residences. The residences in proximity of the project site have also been constructed from 1930 through 1953. Furthermore, the 1985 zoning of the southern and western areas show residential zoning adjacent to the site. Historically, the lots were part of larger parcels recorded as the Northern Estates Subdivision No. 2 in 1920.

These properties have been continuously used for residential uses, so the project will not physically divide Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 18 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated an established community. The project, to designate the properties to a residential land use, does not change the allowable land uses within the residential buildings or cause significant changes to the building size, mass, developed area, or open space areas on the property. There are no habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans adopted in the City of Big Bear Lake, or plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect in this area. Therefore, the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications will have No Impact upon Land Use and Planning.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific X plan or other land use plan?

XI (a-b) – No Impact. Three Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) are identified as in or around Big Bear Lake; MRZ-1, MRZ-2, MRZ-3. An MRZ-1 designation indicates areas that contain no mineral resources. An MRZ-2 designation indicates that data shows that significant resources exist or are likely to exist. An MRZ-3 designation indicates that sufficient data does not exist to determine the significance of mineral resources. The primary areas in and near the City that have mineral resources are the Sugarloaf area east of the City, Van Dusen Canyon north of the city, Gold Mountain, and Smarts Ranch northeast of the city. The City’s General Plan identifies the area in and around Sugarloaf, which is located east of the City of Big Bear Lake boundary, of significant mineral value. The areas located in and around Van Dusen Canyon, Gold Mountain, and Smarts Ranch have undetermined value. These areas are also outside of the City’s boundary. Therefore, no significant mineral resources are identified within the City limits, and the project will have No Impact upon Mineral Resources.

XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise X ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 19 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public X airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels?

XII. (a-f) – No Impact. Residential land uses are not anticipated to generate excessive noise and the residents within the dwelling units are not anticipated to be exposed to excessive noise. No Impact in the area of Noise is anticipated.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

XIII. (a-c) – No Impact. The change in zoning and designation to Single Family Residential will allow the existing residential units to be continuously used as such, rather than requiring a commercial conversion. Adequate infrastructure exists, including water and sewer, to serve the four existing residences, and would not require extension of roads or infrastructure.

The Zone Change and General Plan Amendment will not displace housing or residents and facilitates the continued use, renovation, and rebuilding of the four dwelling units if destroyed. The Single Family Residential designation encourages retention of the existing older residences and allows the residential use to continue and be expanded. Therefore, the project will have No Impact upon Population and Housing.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 20 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? X ii) Police Protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X

XIV. – No Impact. Fire protection and emergency response services for the community are provided by the Big Bear Fire Authority. This service is supplemented by mutual aid agreements with the State and the U.S. Forest Service under special circumstances. The Big Bear Fire Authority provides valley-wide emergency services, equipment, and personnel. Police services within the City are provided by the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department via a contract with the City. Sheriff services to the City are operated out of the Sheriff’s office at 477 Summit Boulevard. Bear Valley Unified School District (BVUSD) provides K-12 educational services to the City of Big Bear Lake. The District currently operates four elementary schools (Baldwin Lane Elementary School, Big Bear Elementary School, Fallsvale Elementary School, and North Shore Elementary School), one middle school (Big Bear Middle School), one high school (Big Bear High School), and one continuation school (Chautauqua High School). The Quimby Act allows the City to adopt a standard of three to five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and to require dedication of land or in-lieu fees to meet the standard. Based upon a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents, approximately 18.77 acres of parkland would be needed for the City. There are approximately 21.25 acres of existing parkland in the City, including Meadow Park, Rotary Pine Knot Park, and Boulder Bay Park. No new building construction is proposed with the project. Therefore, the change in designation from Commercial- Visitor to Single Family Residential has No Impact upon public City services.

XV. RECREATION.

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

XV. (a-b) No Impact. The Zone Change and General Plan Amendment in itself is not anticipated to increase the use of existing parks or generate the need for additional park facilities. Based upon a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents, approximately 18.77 acres of parkland would be needed for the City. There are approximately 21.25 acres of existing parkland in the City, including Meadow Park, Rotary Pine Knot Park, and Boulder Bay Park. The project area is within walking distance, approximately Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 21 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 800 feet, of Boulder Bay Park. The properties contain single family residences and the change in zoning and designation would not trigger more units.

The properties are located on Big Bear Boulevard, Brier Trail, and Lark Trail. This area of Big Bear Boulevard is designated as a Class II (bike only lane) bicycle route of a valley-wide trails plan, known as the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan. Other improvements identified for this area of Big Bear Boulevard is pedestrian sidewalk. However, the designation of these properties for Single Family Residential uses does not trigger these improvements. These bike and pedestrian improvements are considered to be priority projects, and the City’s Engineering and Public Works Departments are actively pursuing Plan-identified trail improvements in all zones of the City. Therefore, No Impact upon Recreation is anticipated from the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and X non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either in increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or X otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

XVI. (a-f) – No Impact. Each of the properties takes access from residential driveways along Big Bear Boulevard, Brier Trail or Lark Trail. Big Bear Boulevard is a primary arterial, also known as State Route Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 22 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 18. Brier and Lark Trails are residential roads. The four existing residential driveways do not conflict with the roadways. In the project area, Big Bear Boulevard/State Route 18 has been analyzed at peak winter season traffic rates and found to have a traffic volume of 10,000. In the project area, it is improved as a 2- lane undivided roadway with a capacity of 11,700 vehicles per day and operates at an “A” level of service.

Standard street width in the City is 40-feet. Brier Trail is an unpaved and unmaintained public road with a substandard street width of 20-feet. It is not a through street and provides access to 20 residential parcels. The project area of Lark Trail is a paved and maintained road with a substandard street width of 20-feet. The nearest public transit stop is at the intersection of Blue Jay Road and Willow Landing, operated by Mountain Transit, and the walking distance from the project site ranges between 300 feet and about 800 feet.

The properties are located on Big Bear Boulevard, Brier Trail, and Lark Trail. This area of Big Bear Boulevard is designated as a Class II (bike only lane) bicycle route of a valley-wide trails plan, known as the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan. Other improvements identified for this area of Big Bear Boulevard is pedestrian sidewalk. However, the designation of these properties for Single Family Residential uses does not trigger these improvements. These bike and pedestrian trails are considered to be priority projects, and the City’s Engineering and Public Works Departments are actively pursuing Plan- identified trail improvements in all zones of the City. Therefore, the new zone and designation will have No Impact on transportation/traffic.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment required of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the Lead Agency shall consider whether X the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910 et. seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 23 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste?

XVI. (a-g) – No Impact. The proposed reclassification from Commercial Visitor to Single Family Residential will not create direct impacts to wastewater facilities. Each residence is currently connected to the sanitary sewer system and is paying sewer fees on their annual property tax bill for sewer and wastewater treatment. The developed property was analyzed in the City’s General Plan and the Department of Water’s Urban Water Management Plan. Any new dwelling unit that is constructed must connect to the sanitary sewer system and pay the appropriate sewer connection and wastewater treatment fees.

The City is part of a 17-city consortium in San Bernardino County which contracts with the County’s sanitary landfills. Within the City, waste collection and recycling is provided under contract by Big Bear Disposal. The City is bound by the regulations of AB 939, to reduce solid waste by 50%. The City currently contracts to operate a CRV (California Redemption Value) Redemption Center, conducts public information events, contracts out for solid waste, and facilitates the operation of a hazardous waste disposal site. Waste collection is paid on the residential property tax bills. Big Bear Disposal operates residential waste pick-up. In lieu of residential pick-up, the City and Big Bear Disposal operate the Clean Bear drop off waste and recycling sites for residential waste, including electronic waste. In 2012, Big Bear Disposal began operations of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), to further divert materials from landfills. At the present time, approximately 26,600 tons of material annually are diverted from the landfills, which is a diversion of approximately 65%, well within the target goal of 50% diversion, and on target to meet the 75% statewide diversion goal. Additionally, the City is host to a household hazardous waste site, located at the Public Works Yard, which accepts materials such as paints and batteries. The residences have been occupied and are generating waste, therefore no new impact is expected. The project is anticipated to have No Impact upon Utilities and Service Systems.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population X to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 24 of 25

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term X environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly?

XVIII (a-d) – Less than Significant Impact.

The General Plan Amendment and zone change from a Commercial-Visitor designation to a Single Family Residential designation for the four developed properties does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce fish or wildlife species or the habitat, reduce the number or range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, nor eliminate an important example of California history or pre-history, because the project will not result in any habitat modifications. No riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or fish or wildlife corridor has been identified on the project site. No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed by the project. No long-term environmental goals will be affected by the proposal.

Cumulative impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emission may occur as a result of vehicle trips associated with the continuous use of the buildings, the use of solvents, paints and coatings for cleaning and maintenance of the buildings, energy associated with natural gas and electricity usage, and waste generation, however, these impacts are small and insignificant. In addition, the City will reduce its community Greenhouse Gas emissions to a level that is 15% below its 2008 emissions level by 2020 and the City the City will meet and exceed this goal, subject to reduction measures pursuant to AB 32, through a combination of state (~99%) and local (~1%) efforts.

The project does not have any substantial direct or indirect effects on humans. The property was analyzed as developed under the City’s General Plan. The properties have been developed and used for residential purposes since the 1940’s. The project, to revert the properties back to a Single Family Residential zoning does not significantly change the allowable land uses of the properties or character of the residential neighborhood. Therefore, the project will have a Less than Significant Impact on the Mandatory Findings of Significance, and no mitigation measures are necessary at this time.

Initial Study Zone Change 2015-087 and General Plan Amendment 2015-084 Page 25 of 25

D. REFERENCES

 City of Big Bear Lake Municipal Code  City of Big Bear Lake 1999 General Plan and EIR  City of Big Bear Lake 2013-2021 Housing Element  2012, Environmental Impact Report – Morgan Pines Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 18580, 2005-240/TTM, Single Family Residential subdivision, Air Quality Chapter 4.3 Area and Operational Sources, Hogle-Ireland, Inc.  San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan – Final Plan, March 2014  Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006  Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Equestrian Plan, 2014  Cal Recycle Annual Report Summary, Big Bear Lake 2011 These documents are available for review at City Hall.

E. LIST OF PREPARERS

Lead Agency: City of Big Bear Lake Janice Etter, City Planner

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/INITIAL STUDY

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Big Bear Lake 39707 Big Bear Blvd., Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Janice Etter, City Planner (909) 866-5831 x 123 4. Applicant Name and Address: James J. Miller, Community Development Director City of Big Bear Lake Post Office Box 10,000 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 5. Project Location: Area B – Rathbun Creek parcels and Catalina Road, 440 Catalina Road (APN 2328-202-15) and unaddressed parcel APN 2328-202-08 6. Existing General Plan Designation/Zoning: 440 Catalina (APN 2328-202-15) – Commercial Recreation/Commercial-Recreation (C-4); APN 2328-202-08 – Single Family Residential (SFR-4)/Single Family Residential (R-1) 7. Project Description (describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features that are necessary for its implementation):

APN 2328-202-08: The General Plan Amendment application requests to change the land use designation of the unaddressed and unimproved parcel at 2328-202-08 from Single Family Residential (SFR-4) to Open Space (OS). The accompanying Zone Change proposes to change the Zoning of the property from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Public/Open Space (P-OS) reflecting the use and condition of the property as part of the Rathbun Creek channel and drainage area. This property contains 31,981 square feet in area (0.73 acres).

440 Catalina Road, APN 2328-202-15: The General Plan Amendment proposes to change the land use designation of a 42,754 square foot (0.98 acre) portion of 440 Catalina Road from Commercial Recreation (CR) to Single Family Residential (SFR-4); and the accompanying Zone Change proposes to change the Zoning of this property from Commercial-Recreation (C-4) to Single Family Residential (R-1). This property contains a 1,646 square foot single family residence that was constructed in 1944 and several uninhabited small outbuildings.

Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Remainder portion of APN 2328-202-15 & 2328-291-27 The General Plan Amendment proposes to change the land use designation of the remaining approximately two (2) acres of APN 2328-202-15 from Commercial-Recreation (CR) to Open Space (OS). The Zoning of this remaining portion of property will be changed from Commercial-Recreation (C-4) to Public/Open Space (P-OS). This portion of APN 2328-202- 15 is unimproved.

Concurrent with these General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications, the property lines of APN 2328-202-15 and APN 2328-291-27 are being adjusted through Lot Line Adjustment 2015-E05. The remaining two (2) acre property (APN 2328-202-15) will be combined with APN 2328-291-27 and create one 6.20 acre property. A summary of the property sizes, uses and zoning is provided in the table below:

APN Address Lot Area Building Area Existing GP & Proposed GP & Zoning Zoning 2328-202-08 No Address 0.73 acres Vacant SFR/R-1 OS/P-OS 2328-202-15 440 Catalina 0.98 acres 1,600 sq. ft. CR/C-4 SFR/R-1 2328-202-15 No address 2.25 acres Vacant CR/C-4 OS/P-OS 2328-202-27 No address 3.95 acres Vacant OS/P-OS OS/P-OS

The purpose of this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is to place an Open Space designation on parcels containing the Rathbun Creek channel and to place a Single Family Residential designation on a parcel of land containing an existing residential structure at 440 Catalina Road. No improvements are proposed to the properties at this time. It is anticipated that 440 Catalina Road will be sold to a private party and the Open Space parcels will be retained in public ownership for open space and drainage purposes.

This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts that would be expected as a result of the change in the land use designations that were described in the above paragraphs. Photographs of the properties and the current zoning of the properties shown below:

Photograph of property

Page 2 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Zoning

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting (describe the project’s surroundings):

The properties on the west side of Rathbun Creek are accessed from Moonridge Road. These properties are zoned Commercial General (C-2), Commercial Visitor (C-3) or Commercial Recreation (C-4) and developed with office and retail uses, hotels and lodges, and an overflow parking lot for the Big Bear Mountain Resorts. The properties on the east side of Rathbun Creek are accessed from Catalina Road. All of these properties are Single Family Residential. Lying between the commercial and residential properties is Rathbun Creek.

Page 3 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

9. Public agencies whose approval or participation is required (i.e., for permits, financing approval, or participation agreements):

City of Big Bear Lake Big Bear Valley Municipal Water District B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Agricultural  I. Aesthetics  II.  III. Air Quality Resources  IV. Biological Resources  V. Cultural Resources  VI. Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hydrology/Water  VII.  VIII.  IX. Emissions Hazardous Materials Quality  X. Land Use/Planning  XI. Mineral Resources  XII. Noise

 XIII. Population/Housing  XIV. Public Services  XV. Recreation Utilities/Service Mandatory Findings  XVI. Transportation/Traffic  XVII.  XVIII. Systems of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

Page 4 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a  NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there  will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been  adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE  DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date: Printed Name: Janice Etter, City Planner For: City of Big Bear Lake

C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or

Page 5 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier Analysis - Analysis of the environmental impacts of the implementation of the City of Big Bear General Plan has been made in the City of Big Bear Lake Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive General Plan, (SCH No. 98021103) July 1999, prepared by Lilburn Corporation, and certified by the City of Big Bear Lake City Council Resolution 99-36 on August 23, 1999. This document was prepared to analyze the potential impacts from full build-out of the City’s General Plan. A portion of one of the subject properties, 440 Catalina Road, was developed with the existing structure at the time of this evaluation. The remaining parcels were, and still are undeveloped portions containing the Rathbun Creek channel.

The adoption and implementation of the General Plan was found not to have a significant effect on the environment with respect to energy and mineral resources, hazardous and toxic materials, open space, parks and recreation facilities, aesthetic and visual impacts, public services and facilities, solid waste, law enforcement and fire protection, and schools. The EIR determined that all impacts will be mitigated to levels of insignificance in the areas of land use, circulation, geotechnical hazards, flooding and hydrology, water resources and water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise. The adoption and implementation of the General Plan was found to have a potential significant cumulative environmental impact in the area air quality, and a statement of overriding consideration was adopted. The primary sources of information used in the preparation of this Initial Study are the General Plan and the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The General Plan and the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are available for review at the City of Big Bear Lake Planning Division.

6. Supporting Information Sources – Copies of the following documents are available on the City’s website at www.citybigbearlake.com and at the City of Big Bear Lake Planning Division, located at City Hall, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315. a. Big Bear Lake General Plan, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 99-36, August 23, 1999.

b. Big Bear Lake Development Code, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2003-333, September 8, 2003.

Page 6 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

ANALYSIS

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within X a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

I. (a-d) – No Impact. Amending the land use designations of the properties to Open Space and Single Family Residential will not in itself cause adverse environmental impacts to aesthetics. The unaddressed parcels – APN’s 2328-202-08 and the remainder portion of 2328-202-15, contain the Rathbun Creek channel. The property at 440 Catalina Road is presently developed with a single family residence. No construction is proposed under the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications. The property at 440 Catalina Road contains 0.98 acres and is developed with a 1,600 square foot residence. This zoning category only allows one residence on the property; however, it is possible that a building addition could be constructed. The City has adopted Residential Development Standards in Development Code Chapter 17.25, which contain maximum building height standards, minimum open space, minimum building setbacks, minimum parking spaces, maximum illumination levels and architectural design standards. Any new construction must comply with all residential development standards.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Page 7 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), X or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to X non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, X to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

II. (a-e) – No Impact. The property is not identified on the current Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) map for San Bernardino County. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has prepared soil surveys for San Bernardino County, which have been incorporated into the San Bernardino County Important Farmland Map. The subject property is not zoned for agricultural use nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The redesignation of these properties would add approximately three acres of land into the Open Space zoning category, removing this equal amount from the commercial and residential categories. Therefore, the project would have no impact on Agriculture and Forest Resources.

III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people?

Page 8 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (III. a-e) – Less Than Significant. Big Bear Lake is located within the South Coast Air Basin and therefore is included within the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan. The redesignation of the land itself does not cause air quality impacts, however, continued use of the residence would generate long-term pollutant emissions due to vehicle trips and the use of solvents, paints and coatings for cleaning and maintenance of the property, and indirect impacts from off-site power and natural gas generation. A review of emissions data for a single family residential project was performed.1 These long-term emissions did not exceed any of the daily thresholds established by SCAQMD, therefore, it can be reasoned that the project’s long-term emissions would also not exceed any established daily thresholds and air quality impacts would be less than significant.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, X policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) X through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established X native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or X other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

1 2012, Environmental Impact Report – Morgan Pines Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 18580, 2005-240/TTM, Single Family Residential subdivision, Air Quality Chapter 4.3 Area and Operational Sources, Hogle-Ireland, Inc.

Page 9 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated IV. (a-f) No Impact. No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed under the project. The project does not result in any habitat modifications. No riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or fish or wildlife corridor has been identified on the project site. Removal of native trees on the project site is subject to the City’s Tree Ordinance. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable in the City. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts to biological resources.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside X of formal cemeteries?

V (a-d) – No Impact. The entire project site is identified as having a High Sensitivity for Native American Sites in the General Plan Environmental Resources/Cultural Element, Exhibit ER-3 Prehistoric (Native American) Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment. The redesignation of land from residential and commercial to open space in itself will not have an impact on cultural resources. No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed under this portion of the project. Another component of the project is the resignation of an 0.98-acre portion of 440 Catalina Road from Commercial-Recreation (C-4) to Single Family Residential (R-1). This redesignation of land, in itself, does not have an impact on cultural resources. However, excavation for any future additions to the residence building may have the possibility of unearthing a historical, archaeological or paleontological resource. As required by State law (Health &Safety Code Section 7050.5) if human remains are encountered during grading and other construction excavation, the work in the immediate vicinity shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted. In addition, as a standard condition of approval of projects, if Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s standards shall be hired to assess the find. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered, for which a Treatment Plan must be prepared, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the appropriate tribe(s); and if requested by the tribe(s) the developer or the archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and disposition of the artifact, including but not limited to avoidance, preservation, return of the artifact(s) to the tribe(s). Therefore, a less than significant impact to Cultural Resources will result.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse affects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Page 10 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially X result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to X life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of waste water?

VI. (a-e) No Impact. No construction is proposed under these Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act exempts single family wood frame dwellings that are less than three-stories in height and are not a part of a development of four units or more. The existing structure is single story.

The existing structure will be subject to ground shaking impacts should a major earthquake occur in the future. Potential impacts include injury or loss of life and property damage. Any new construction is subject to the seismic design criteria of the most currently adopted California Building Code (CBC). Adherence to these requirements will reduce the potential that future housing from collapsing during an earthquake, thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements will minimize damage to property within the structure because the structure is not likely to collapse.

The properties are identified as a Potential Liquefaction area on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map Exhibit EH-1; and in the Least Susceptible area on the Land Slide Susceptibility Map Exhibit EH-2 of the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element. No construction is proposed by this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application. However, there is the potential to construct an addition onto the residence at 440 Catalina Road. At such time, the building plans for the addition will be required to be engineered and a soils analysis prepared if determined necessary by the building official. It is anticipated that there will be no impact to Geology and Soils with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and any future addition to the existing single family residence.

Page 11 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted X for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

VII. (a-b) – Less than Significant. Many of the world's leading scientific experts agree that greenhouse gases (GHGs) generated by human activities affect climate by increasing the "greenhouse effect." The gases concentrate in the Earth's atmosphere and trap heat by blocking some of the long-wave energy the Earth normally radiates back into space. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. These activities are increasing the greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere and could be accelerating global climate change. Long-term environmental consequences in California could potentially include a reduction in water supply from the Sierra Nevada snow pack, which could result in a reduction in imported water, and public health problems due to degraded air quality and more intense summer heat.

In 2006, AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act, was signed into law. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 2000 levels by the year 2010, 1990 levels by the year 2020, and to 80 percent less than 1990 levels by year 2050. These reductions will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has developed a Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (June 2013) of which the City of Big Bear Lake is a Partnership city. The City will reduce its community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to a level that is 15% below its 2008 emissions level by 2020. The City will meet and exceed this goal subject to reduction measures that are technologically feasible and cost-effective per AB 32 through combination of state (~99%) and local (~1%) efforts. The City actually exceeds the goal with only state/county level actions (101% of goal), but has committed to several additional local measures. The Pavley vehicle standards, the state’s low carbon fuel standard, the Renewable Portfolio Standards, and other state measures will significantly reduce GHG emissions in Big Bear Lake’s on-road and solid waste sectors in 2020. An additional reduction of 163 MTCO2 will be achieved primarily through GHG Performance Standard for New Development (PS-1) and Energy Efficiency for Existing Buildings (Energy- 1). Big Bear Lake’s reduction plan has the greatest impacts on GHG emissions in the solid waste, on-road transportation, and off-road equipment sectors. This project consists of changing the General Plan and zoning designations of two properties to open space and single family residential. There is also the possibility of the construction of a building addition onto the existing residence at 440 Catalina Road. Approximately three (3) acres of land will be added to the Open Space category. No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated with this redesignation. Continued use of the one residence would generate long-term pollutant emissions due to vehicle trips and the use of solvents, paints and coatings for

Page 12 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated cleaning and maintenance of the property, and indirect impacts from off-site power and natural gas generation. A review of emissions data for a single family residential project was performed.2 The long- term emissions did not exceed any of the daily thresholds established by SCAQMD, therefore, it can be reasoned that the project’s long-term emissions would also not exceed any established daily thresholds and air quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact upon Greenhouse Gas emissions.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile X of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public X airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in X the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

VIII. (a-h) – Less than Significant Impact. Hazardous Substances. The redesignation of two parcels to Open Space and one parcel containing an

2 2012, Environmental Impact Report – Morgan Pines Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 18580, 2005-240/TTM, Single Family Residential subdivision, Air Quality Chapter 4.3 Area and Operational Sources, Hogle-Ireland, Inc.

Page 13 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated existing single family residence to Single Family Residential does not transport or dispose of significant amounts of hazardous materials. The project site is not identified as a hazardous substances site.

Emergency Response Plan. The City of Big Bear Lake has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan for all types of disasters, including snowstorms, earthquakes, and fires, other natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The plan “is designed to include the City of Big Bear Lake as part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS).” The purpose of SEMS is “to assist emergency management in the response to multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional emergencies and disasters.” The City of Big Bear Lake is a member of the San Bernardino County Operational Area. As a result, City resources are made available to other local agencies and citizens affected by disaster in the area and will request assistance from other agencies when needed.

The Emergency Operations Plan incorporates policies and procedures to care for full-time residents and visitors in a time of disaster. Depending upon the situation or disaster, citizens and visitors would be instructed on the appropriate action to take. Instructions can be disseminated by a wide array of options. The San Bernardino County Telephone Emergency Notification System (TENS) provides for recorded messages to be sent to all standard telephones in the Valley. KBHR 93.3 FM radio and TV6, in addition to their normal emergency broadcasts, have agreed to participate in sending out messages in coordination with a Valley-wide siren system that will soon be coming on-line. In addition, the City of Big Bear Lake has two sirens, one located at the Civic Center (39707 Big Bear Boulevard), the other at Fire Station 283 (42612 Rathbun Drive). The City also has the ability to provide door-to-door notification and to utilize a mobile emergency vehicle with sirens and loudspeakers. Finally, Scan USA, which is a web-based emergency notification system, sends out locally generated messages by email, telephone, text messaging, and cell phone for individuals that sign up for the service (Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan).

Evacuation Plan. In the event of an emergency evacuation, there are three main escape routes out of the Bear Valley- State Route 18 north to the Lucerne Valley, State Route 18 southwest to Highway 330 and connecting to State Route 30, and State Route 38 south to Redlands.

The Big Bear Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan notes that a confidential Emergency Evacuation Plan is maintained and refined by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. The Emergency Evacuation Plan includes a tiered approach to evacuation within the valley, with separate levels for warning, voluntary, mandatory, and immediate evacuations, as well as shelter-in-place. Upon the warning of an evacuation it is most likely that the day time visitors and a large majority of the second homeowners will exit the valley. At the time of the issuance of a voluntary evacuation the remainder of the second homeowners and most likely half of the full-time residents would exit the valley. At the point a mandatory evacuation is issued only half of the full-time residents will be remaining in the valley and attempting to leave, which would consist of a total of 4,095 dwelling units. Based upon an average of two cars per dwelling unit, a total of 16,321 vehicles will be leaving the valley in the event of a mandatory evacuation. Of this, approximately 4,972 vehicles would be exiting the City of Big Bear Lake.

Page 14 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Old Fire Evacuation The “Old Fire” began October 25, 2003 and required the mandatory evacuation of Big Bear Valley. The evacuation had two trigger points- a voluntary evacuation and a mandatory evacuation, which were initialized within less than two hours of one-another. The evacuation of the entire Bear Valley was achieved over approximately 14 hours. The evacuation occurred through the east end of Big Bear Lake, north along State Route 18 to Lucerne Valley and south along State Route 38 to Redlands. The length of time to evacuate the Valley was compounded by the fact that residents from communities west of Bear Valley had evacuated into the valley, and then were forced to evacuate a second time out of the valley. Future improvements for the next emergency evacuation recommended by the Federal Highway Administration include evacuating residents off the mountain rather than up the mountain. The implementation of this improvement will further increase the evacuation time of the Valley as a reduced number of vehicles and residents will be exiting the valley at the same time. Over 70,000 citizens were successfully evacuated during the Old Fire from 29 communities, including Bear Valley, Crestline, Running Springs, and Lake Arrowhead as well as portions of the High Desert and San Bernardino area. The Old Fire of 2003 resulted in the Bear Valley successfully implementing the Emergency Evacuation/Reentry Plan.

Fire Prevention Measures. City’s Municipal Code addresses the high fire hazard potential in the City by incorporating regulations from the California Fire Code. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code provides Section 15.36.020(Construction Requirements) incorporating fire protection measures in building construction. The City of Big Bear Lake has enacted several ordinances and regulations in order to proactively work to reduce the potential for wildfire. Regulations include weed abatement requirements, property maintenance standards, and a prohibition of wood shake roofing materials. Weed abatement requirements and property maintenance standards reduce the amount of fuel that is located adjacent to structures, reducing the risk to structures and humans from wildfire. In 2008 the Big Bear Lake City Council took additional action to address the threat of a forest fire by adopting City Ordinance 2008-379 for the Native Brush and Shrub Reduction Ordinance. This ordinance requires private property owners to reduce fire fuel dangers posed by native brush and vegetation through minimizing fuel material. In 2014, the Big Bear Lake City Council further took proactive measures to reduce the threat of fires through adoption of Ordinance 2014-432 – Defensible Space and Forest Management, now incorporated into Municipal Code Chapter 17.10. Based on implementation of all of the measures listed above, the project will have a Less than Significant Impact upon Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local X groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support

Page 15 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

IX. (a-j) – Less than Significant Impact. Water Quality Standards. The project will not have a direct impact on water quality standards. No construction, grading or changes to the project site are proposed.

Deplete groundwater supplies. Water has been and will be consumed by residents of 440 Catalina Road. The water usage of developed properties was analyzed in the City’s General Plan and the Department of Water’s Urban Water Management Plan, and adequate water supply was determined to exist for existing home. The residence is connected to the domestic water system and is paying water use fees.

Flood Hazard. The properties are identified as being located within the 100-year Flood Hazard area in the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element and on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. The property is identified on FEMA FIRM panel #06071C8007H as being located in Flood Zone AE. Flood elevations have been determined to be between cross section “K” at 6801 feet above msl and “R” 6850 feet above msl across the length of the property. The residence at 440 Catalina Road is located between cross section “K” and “L,” at an unlabeled cross section with an established flood elevation of 6806 feet above msl. As shown on the survey performed by Transtech/MAPCO dated 3/3/2011, the elevation at the foundation of the residence is 6807 feet above msl and is in compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance contained in Municipal Code Chapter 15.64; which requires structures to be a minimum of one (1) foot above the established flood elevation. The project has been determined to have a Less Than

Page 16 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Significant Impact upon Hydrology and Water Quality.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but to limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan?

X. (a-c) – Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications request to change the land use designations of two properties from Single Family Residential and Commercial Recreation to Open Space, and to change the land use designation of one property at 440 Catalina Road from Commercial Recreation to Single Family Residential. Approximately three (3) acres of land will be added to the Open Space land use category and less than one (1) acre of land will be added to the Single Family Residential land use category. No physical improvements are proposed to the properties at this time. The earliest City zoning map adopted in 1985, indicates that all three properties were zoned Flood Plain (FP-2) at that time. In 1999, under the General Plan Update, these three properties were designated Single Family Residential (SFR-4) and Commercial Recreation (CR). In 2003, under the Development Code Update, the zoning of the properties was changed to Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial-Recreation (C-4), possibly to reflect the commercial business of the Alpine Trout Lakes, a recreational private fishing lake that was operating on the property at 440 Catalina Road at the time. The project, to redesignate the properties back to an Open Space designation on the properties containing the Rathbun Creek channel and to Single Family Residential for the residence on 440 Catalina Road, protects the creek channel from development and makes the residence conforming with the General Plan and zoning designation of the property. There are no habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans adopted in the City of Big Bear Lake, therefore the project will not conflict with these plans. However, it is intended that, at some point in the future, the parcels containing the Rathbun Creek channel will be transferred to public ownership and a long-term conservation easement established over the property. Because the project brings the existing land uses and physical constraints of the properties into compliance with the General Plan and Zoning, it is anticipated that the project will have a less than significant impact upon Land Use and Planning.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral X

Page 17 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

XI (a-b) – No Impact. Three Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) are identified as in or around Big Bear Lake; MRZ-1, MRZ-2, MRZ-3. An MRZ-1 designation indicates areas that contain no mineral resources. An MRZ-2 designation indicates that data shows that significant resources exist or are likely to exist. An MRZ-3 designation indicates that sufficient data does not exist to determine the significance of mineral resources. The primary areas in and near the City that have mineral resources are the Sugarloaf area east of the City, Van Dusen Canyon north of the city, Gold Mountain, and Smarts Ranch northeast of the city. The City’s General Plan identifies the area in and around Sugarloaf, which is located east of the City of Big Bear Lake boundary, of significant mineral value. The areas located in and around Van Dusen Canyon, Gold Mountain, and Smarts Ranch have undetermined value. These areas are also outside of the City’s boundary. Therefore, no significant mineral resources are identified within the City limits, and the project will have no impact upon Mineral Resources.

XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise X ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public X airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels?

XII. (a-f) – No Impact. Open Space and Residential land uses are not anticipated to generate excessive noise and the residents within the dwelling unit are not anticipated to be exposed to excessive noise. No Impact in the area of Noise is anticipated.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:

Page 18 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

XIII. (a-c) – No Impact. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to an Open Space designation and a Single Family Residential will not cause any additional dwelling unit to be constructed. At the present time, no dwelling units are permitted in the Open Space designation and only one dwelling unit is allowed on 440 Catalina Road. In addition, no new construction is proposed under these current applications.

The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not displace housing or residents and facilitates the continued use of the existing residence at 440 Catalina Road. The Single Family Residential designation encourages retention of the existing older residence and allows the residential use to continue and be rebuilt if destroyed. The unaddressed parcel at 2328-202-08 is presently zoned Single Family Residential, however, this property has no legal access and development of this property is encumbered by the Rathbun Creek channel that bisects the property. The location and physical constraints of this property make it practical for an Open Space zoning and not suitable for single family residential development. Therefore, the project will have a Less Than Significant Impact upon Population and Housing.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? X ii) Police Protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X

XIV. – Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection and emergency response services for the community are provided by the Big Bear Fire Authority. This service is supplemented by mutual aid agreements with the State and the U.S. Forest Service under special circumstances. The Big Bear Fire

Page 19 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Authority provides valley-wide emergency services, equipment, and personnel, which would include the properties in this project area. Police services within the City; which would include these properties, are provided by the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department via a contract with the City. Sheriff services to the City are operated out of the Sheriff’s office at 477 Summit Boulevard. Bear Valley Unified School District (BVUSD) provides K-12 educational services to the City of Big Bear Lake. The District currently operates four elementary schools (Baldwin Lane Elementary School, Big Bear Elementary School, Fallsvale Elementary School, and North Shore Elementary School), one middle school (Big Bear Middle School), one high school (Big Bear High School), and one continuation school (Chautauqua High School). The Quimby Act allows the City to adopt a standard of three to five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and to require dedication of land or in-lieu fees to meet the standard. Based upon a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents, approximately 18.77 acres of parkland would be needed for the City. There are approximately 21.25 acres of existing parkland in the City, including Meadow Park, Rotary Pine Knot Park, and Boulder Bay Park. The project will add three (3) acres of Open Space into this land use designation. Public parks are a permitted land use in the Open Space zone. No new building construction is proposed with the project. Because services are provided to this property, a Less than Significant impact upon City services is anticipated by the project.

XV. RECREATION.

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

XV. (a-b) No Impact. The General Plan Amendment and Zone change in itself is not anticipated to increase the use of existing parks or generate the need for additional park facilities. Based upon a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents, approximately 18.77 acres of parkland would be needed for the City. There are approximately 21.25 acres of existing parkland in the City, including Meadow Park, Rotary Pine Knot Park, and Boulder Bay Park. Approximately three (3) acres of Open Space will be added with this project. In the future, this Open Space could be developed and used as a public park, thereby adding to the amount of parkland provided within the City. However, at this time, no physical improvements are proposed on the project. Any future improvement of the property for parkland purposes will be subject to an environmental review and land use approval.

The City has adopted a valley-wide master plan of trails called the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan. Rathbun Creek and Catalina Road are designated as Trails on Map 7.1 the City Multi-Use Non-Motorized Network. As shown on Map 7.2 City Bicycle Network, a paved multi-use Class 1 pathway is contemplated along Rathbun Creek and a shared Class III route is proposed along Catalina Road. The

Page 20 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications do not propose any improvements, trails or paths at this time. Any future development will be subject to its own environmental review and land use application process. Therefore, No Impact upon Recreation is anticipated from the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications at this time.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and X non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either in increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or X otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

XVI. (a-f) – No Impact. With the exception of the unaddressed parcel identified as APN 2328-202-08 for which there is no direct street frontage or access, the parcels have legal street access from Catalina Road. Catalina Road is identified as a Collector Street in the General Plan Circulation Element. It is also identified as a Class III (shared) bicycle route in Phase II of the master plan of trails, known as the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan. Rathbun Creek is identified as a paved multi-use Class I pathway in the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan. The Open Space and Single Family Residential land use designations are consistent with the Trail classifications in the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan.

Catalina Road is improved as a 2-lane undivided roadway with a capacity of 11,700 vehicles per day. The

Page 21 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated primary land use designation along Catalina Road is Single Family Residential. The majority of the homes along Catalina Road have driveways oriented such that vehicles back out into the street. This driveway pattern is allowed by Chapter 17.25 of the Development Code and is the existing driveway orientation on the property at 440 Catalina Road. However, this property is sufficiently large enough to provide a U- shaped or turn-around area to facilitate entering the right-of-way in a forward direction. The traffic volume along Catalina Road has not been counted and the Catalina Road/SR 18 intersection has not been analyzed for level of service. However, Big Bear Boulevard between Moonridge Road to Stanfield Cutoff has been analyzed and determined to be within an Acceptable capacity. No changes to Catalina Road are proposed with the project and the existing conditions are proposed to remain. It is anticipated that the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications will have No Impact upon Transportation and Traffic

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment required of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the Lead Agency shall consider whether X the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910 et. seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste?

XVI. (a-g) – No Impact. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications will not create direct impacts to wastewater facilities. The existing residence is currently connected to the sanitary

Page 22 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated sewer system and is paying sewer fees on the annual property tax bill for sewer and wastewater treatment. The developed property was analyzed in the City’s General Plan and the Department of Water’s Urban Water Management Plan.

The City is part of a 17-city consortium in San Bernardino County which contracts with the County’s sanitary landfills. Within the City, waste collection and recycling is provided under contract by Big Bear Disposal. The City is bound by the regulations of AB 939, to reduce solid waste by 50%. The City currently contracts to operate a CRV (California Redemption Value) Redemption Center, conducts public information events, contracts out for solid waste, and facilitates the operation of a hazardous waste disposal site. Waste collection is paid on the residential property tax bills. Big Bear Disposal operates residential waste pick-up. In lieu of residential pick-up, the City and Big Bear Disposal operate the Clean Bear drop off waste and recycling sites for residential waste. In 2012, Big Bear Disposal began operations of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), to further divert materials from landfills. At the present time, approximately 26,600 tons of material annually are diverted from the landfills, which is a diversion of approximately 65%, well within the target goal of 50% diversion, and on target to meet the 75% statewide diversion goal. The residence at 440 Catalina Road has been occupied and has generated waste, therefore no new impact is expected. The project is anticipated to have No Impact upon Utilities and Service Systems.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate X a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term X environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly?

Page 23 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant ISSUES Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVIII (a-d) – Less than Significant Impact.

The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change has three components: (1) the redesignation of one parcel identified as APN 2328-202-08 from Single Family Residential to Open Space; (2) the redesignation of a 0.98 acre portion of the three (3) acre parcel identified as APN 2328-202-15 from Commercial-Visitor to Single Family Residential designation; and (3) the redesignation of the remaining two (2) acres of APN 2328-202-15 from Commercial-Visitor to Open Space. The purpose of this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application is to place a Single Family Residential designation on the portion of 440 Catalina Road that contains an existing approximately 1,600 square foot single family residence; and to place an Open Space designation on properties containing the Rathbun Creek channel. No construction or improvements are proposed with this project. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce fish or wildlife species or the habitat, reduce the number or range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, nor eliminate an important example of California history or pre-history, because the project will not result in any habitat modifications. No grading or site disturbance activities are proposed by the project, therefore no riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or fish or wildlife corridor will be disturbed by this project. No long-term environmental goals will be affected by the proposal.

Cumulative impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emission may occur as a result of vehicle trips associated with the one existing single family residence through the use of solvents, paints and coatings for cleaning and maintenance, energy associated with natural gas and electricity usage, and waste generation, however, these impacts are small and insignificant. In addition, the City will reduce its community Greenhouse Gas emissions to a level that is 15% below its 2008 emissions level by 2020 and the City the City will meet and exceed this goal, subject to reduction measures pursuant to AB 32, through a combination of state (~99%) and local (~1%) efforts.

The project does not have any substantial direct or indirect effects on humans. The properties were analyzed as Single Family Residential and Commercial Visitor land uses under the City’s General Plan. The project, to revert the properties back to an Open Space and Single Family Residential land use designation does not significantly change the allowable land uses of the properties or character of the residential neighborhood. Therefore, the project will have a Less than Significant Impact on the Mandatory Findings of Significance, and no mitigation measures are necessary at this time.

D. REFERENCES

 City of Big Bear Lake 2013-2021 Housing Element  City of Big Bear Lake 1999 General Plan and EIR  City of Big Bear Lake Municipal Code  City Council Resolution 2009-16 Establishing and Increasing Certain Development Impact Fees for Applicants for Development Related Services. City of Big Bear Lake. Adopted May 11, 2009.

Page 24 of 25 Initial Study General Plan Amendment 2015-084/GPA and Zone Change 2015-087/ZC

 2005-240/TTM, Morgan Pines Subdivision, Tract 18580, 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Report and 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report, MIG/Hogle-Ireland, Inc.  Phase I Master Plan of Trails 2008  Phase II Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan, 2014  Cal Recycle Annual Report Summary: Big Bear Lake 2011  San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan – Public Draft, June 2013 These documents are available for review at City Hall.

E. LIST OF PREPARERS

Lead Agency: City of Big Bear Lake Janice Etter, City Planner

Page 25 of 25