REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
AND RECORD OF ACTION
October 8, 2019
FROM
TERRI RAHHAL, Director, Land Use Services
SUBJECT
Title v
Mooncamp Development Project, General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map
End
RECOMMENDATION(S)
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing for the Mooncamp Development Project General Plan Amendment, and Tentative Tract Map on 62.43 acres in the Community of Big Bear (Fawnskin) and:
a. Certify the Environmental Impact Report.
b. Adopt the California Environmental Quality Act Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
c. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
d. Consider a proposed ordinance amending the County General Plan by changing the land use designation from Bear Valley/Rural Living (RL - 40) to Bear Valley/Single Family (RS - 20m) on 62.43 acres.
e. Make alterations, if necessary, to the proposed ordinance.
f. Approve introduction of the proposed ordinance.
g. Read title only of proposed ordinance amending the General Plan as the First Cycle 2019 Land Use Element Amendment; waive reading of the entire text and adopt the ordinance.
h. Adopt Resolution amending the County General Plan as the First Cycle 2019 Land Use Element Amendment;
i. Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16136.
j. Adopt the recommended Findings for approval of the General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map.
k. Direct the Clerk of the Board to file a Notice of Determination.
• Applicant: RCK Properties
• Community: Big Bear/Fawnskin
• Location: North and south of North Shore Drive (Highway 38), approximately 180 feet east of Canyon Road.
(Presenter: Terri Rahhal, Director, 387-4431)
Body
COUNTY AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Promote the Countywide Vision.
Create, Maintain and Grow Jobs and Economic Value in the County.
Ensure Development of a Well-Planned, Balanced, and Sustainable County.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Consideration of this item will not result in the use of additional Discretionary General Funding (Net County Cost). Sufficient appropriation and revenue to complete this action have been included in the Land Use Services Planning Division 2019-20 budget. All costs of processing this application are paid by the applicant.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, RCK Properties Inc., is requesting three actions (collectively “Project”): (1) Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); (2) Approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from Bear Valley/Rural Living (BV/RL - 40) to Bear Valley/Single Family Residential with a 20,000 square-foot minimum lot size (BV/RS - 20m) on 62.43 acres; and (3) Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16136 to create 50 residential lots and eight lettered lots. Approval of the recommended actions will allow the applicant to develop a 50-unit residential subdivision with open space and other amenities.
The Project site is located on the northern shore of Big Bear Lake in the eastern part of the Community of Fawnskin. State Route 38 (North Shore Drive) runs in an east/west direction through the southern portion of the Project site.
In 2004, the Project was originally proposed for 92 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, including 31 lakefront lots south of a proposed realigned North Shore Drive (SR-38). In 2005, a draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review. This proposal received significant public opposition and did not proceed to public hearing. Instead, the Project was redesigned in 2010 to what is currently being proposed, which also resulted in the elimination of all lakefront lots and the alignment of North Shore Drive remaining unaffected.
Project Analysis
The Project site is located within the Bear Valley Community Plan area. From an historical standpoint, as discussed in Section BV 1.2.2 of the 2006 Bear Valley Community Plan, several large parcels of undeveloped private property, including the proposed Project site, were recognized as suitable for future residential development but were lacking the infrastructure and public facilities necessary to serve development. To address this issue, the County assigned residential land use designations to these properties, but with very low density of development allowed. As stated in the 2006 Bear Valley Community Plan, Section BV 1.2.2,
“Appropriate density of future development was intended to be considered at the time that specific development proposals were submitted. Individual projects would address the availability of adequate water supplies, traffic circulation and other infrastructure to support the individual project’s proposed density of development. This concept came to be known as the “Holding Zone” approach. The 2006 Bear Valley Community Plan incorporates this strategy from the 1988 Plan.… Future development proposals will be considered based on a demonstrated ability to provide adequate infrastructure and maintain consistency with the goals and policies of the 2006 Community Plan.”
Consistent with this very low density “Holding Zone” approach, the existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site is BV/RL-40, which allows for one dwelling unit per 40 acres. The Bear Valley Community Plan (Goal BV/CI 5) stresses the permitting of development only when adequate infrastructure, public services, facilities and utilities are available to serve the development. The applicant has successfully secured assurance of domestic water service from the City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power. Sewer service will be provided by County Service Area 53-B. All other utilities and services are available to serve the Project site, which has direct access to North Shore Drive (SR38).
The proposed residential development is consistent and compatible with the existing residential development surrounding the Project site. Through extensive redesign of the Project, the applicant has reduced or avoided the environmental impacts identified with the original Project proposal, with the exception of potential impacts to the Bald Eagle.
California Environmental Quality Act
The environmental analysis of the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been complex and is summarized here chronologically.
As noted, in 2005, the Project as originally proposed (92 residential lots) was processed and a Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and comment. The Project would have resulted in significant adverse and unavoidable environmental impacts in the following areas:
• Aesthetics - Loss of views of the lake and mountains resulting from the development of the proposed lakefront lots;
• Air quality - Short-term construction impacts and long-term impacts;
• Biological Resources - Noise and impacts to perch tree use affecting Bald Eagles;
• Water supply - Groundwater supply and water service availability were inconclusive.
A Final EIR (“2005 Final EIR”) was prepared, but the Project as originally proposed did not proceed to public hearing, due to the significant opposition, and the 2005 Final EIR was not certified.
In 2010, the current version of the Project (reduction from 92 to 50 lots, etc.) was proposed, and the County prepared the 2010 Revised and Recirculated Draft EIR No.1 (“RRDEIR No. 1”). Recirculated sections included Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, Cumulative Impacts and Alternatives. All impacts were found to be less than significant or mitigated to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of impacts to Biological Resources.
In 2011, a minor redesign of the subdivision was proposed in response to new findings and conclusions of the Supplemental Focused Special Status Plant Species Survey. This constituted “significant new information” as defined by Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and required a partial recirculation of the RRDEIR No. 1. The County prepared the 2011 Revised and Recirculated Draft EIR No. 2 (RRDEIR No. 2), focusing on the impacts to Biological Resources, specifically those related to the Ashy-Gray Indian Paintbrush, a rare plant endemic to the Big Bear Valley.
In 2018, the County completed the 2018 Final EIR, comprised of:
(1) The 2005 Final EIR,
(2) The RRDEIR No. 1,
(3) The RRDEIR No. 2,
(4) All comments received,
(5) Responses to comments,
(6) Associated technical appendices, that include focused surveys updating the information describing the biological conditions on the Project site and the potential environmental impacts, and
(7) Errata (See Section 4 of 2018 Final EIR) summarizing changes, additions and minor corrections made to the RRDEIR No. 1 and RRDEIR No. 2.
The Project has addressed all potential environmental impacts identified and requires the inclusion of mitigation measures to reduce the potential Project impacts to a less-than-significant level, with the sole exception of the anticipated unavoidable adverse impacts on the Bald Eagle. A Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding this impact is recommended for adoption.
Public Input
Planning received numerous letters and comments regarding the Project as part of the environmental review under CEQA as well as the land use review process. These comments, and the responses to them, are included in the 2018 Final EIR. In addition, approximately 60 emails and letters were received after the publication of the Notice of Hearing for the Planning Commission hearing, mostly expressing opposition to the Project on various grounds, including impacts to the Bald Eagle, wildfires and public safety, water usage, increase in light intrusion, increase in noise, and water pollution.
Planning Commission
The Project was considered in a public hearing by the Planning Commission on October 4, 2018. At the hearing, eight members of the public expressed their concerns about the Project, and asked that the Project be denied, while one member of the public expressed support for the Project and asked that the Project be approved. By a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project, which included a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors to certify the EIR, approve the GPA and Tentative Tract Map, subject to the Conditions of Approval and to adopt both the CEQA and land use Findings. Commissioners Allard (2nd District) and Smith (3rd District) opposed, expressing concern regarding the Project’s potential impacts on aesthetics, tourism, fire safety, and the Bald Eagle.
The CEQA findings that were presented to the Planning Commission have undergone some minor, non-substantive edits although the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been enhanced. A redlined version of the Statement of Overriding Considerations is included with the attachments.
PROCUREMENT
Not applicable.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This item has been reviewed by County Counsel (Bart Brizzee, Principal County Counsel and Jason Searles, Deputy County Counsel, 387-5455) on September 3, 2019; Finance (Stephenie Shea, Administrative Analyst, 387-4919) on September 23, 2019; County Finance and Administration (Robert Saldana, Deputy Executive Officer, 387-5423) on September 23, 2019.