The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About49-Development Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Dept: James G. FIUlk, Director Development Services ORlGiNAl Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 04-03, Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04- 27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 - DHL Air Cargo Facility at the southeast comer of3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue. Date: September 13, 2004 MCC Date: October 4,2004 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None Recommended Motion: That the hearing be closed and said resolution be adopted. Jr Contact person: Valerie Ross. City Planner Phone: 5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report. Resolution Ward(s): 1-- FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: ~.J!~L{~ 324 Agenda Item No. t..j ? #'19 lOll/joy CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 04-03, Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 - DHL Air Cargo Facility Owner: Inland Valley Development Agency San Bernardino International Airport Authority Don Rogers 294 S. Leland Norton Way, Suite 1 San Bernardino, CA 92408 909.382.4100 Aoolicant: Hillwood Ned Sciortino 275 S. Memorial Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 909.382.0033 BACKGROUND: Hillwood is requesting amendments to the General Plan and San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan, approval of a Development Permit, and a Lot Line Adjustment related to the proposed DHL Air Cargo Facility. The project site is located at the southeast comer of3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue. The project is within both the San Bernardino International Trade Center and the San Bernardino International Airport (Exhibit 1). The components include the following: General Plan Amendment No. 04-03/Soecific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 - to change the land use designation from SBnC Specific Plan to Tourist Commercial to Industrial, to delete reference to Tourist Commercial from the Specific Plan, and to delete Leland Norton Way from the Circulation Element. Develooment Permit II No. 04-27 - to construct a 368,550 square foot air cargo facility on approximately 34.9 acres. Lot Line Adiustment No. 04-13 - to adjust existing lot lines to accommodate the project. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for additional discussion and Findings of Fact supporting approval (Exhibit 2). The Planning Commission considered these applications at their meeting of September 8, 2004. The Planning Commission had various questions related to traffic and noise. The Planning Commission asked staff to determine whether the screenwall as proposed along 3rd Street west of Leland Norton Way could be extended on the east side of Leland Norton Way. They felt it would help reduce noise impacts and screen the view. San Bernardino International Airport staff has since advised us that fencing/walls are regulated by the Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) and that it was very unlikely that the FAA would approve a concrete screenwall. A concrete screenwall would have to be engineered to be able to withstand jet blasts. DHL Air Cargo Facility MCC Meeting of 10.04.04 Page 2 of5 As an alternative, staff recommends the use of FAA-approved fencing to meet airport security needs. However, staff also recommends replacement of the existing blast wall and the addition oflandscaping along 3rd Street, east of Leland Norton Way. Two conditions have been added to address this. The Planning Commission's traffic concerns were primarily related to the routes that the trucks would take to and from the facility. As discussed in the Initial Study, DHL proposes to use 3rd Street to Palm Avenue to 5th Street to Highway 30. The Planning Commission asked if the project could be conditioned to only use specified routes. Staff stated that it would be difficult to enforce and that the City of Highland asked that the City of San Bernardino not condition or require that the trucks use the above route only. In addition, the majority of the trucks will be running during non-peak hours and staff is not concerned if trucks use Tippecanoe Avenue, for example, in the early morning hours when there is virtually no traffic on that street. Plus, "locking-in" a truck travel route could be shortsighted as circulation improvements continue to occur and general travel modes shift. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Enciso, Morris, Sauerbrun, and Thrasher voted in favor of the motion and Commissioner Heasley was absent. Shortly before the Planning Commission meeting, staffreceived a call from Ernie Wong, City Engineer for the City of Highland. Mr. Wong said that he was preparing a letter and hoped to have it to staffbefore the start of the meeting. His letter was not received before the meeting. However, staff told the Planning Commission that the City of Highland had additional traffic-related concerns. That letter is included as Exhibit 3. Staff's responses are as follows: Mr. Wong is correct that the CEQA guidelines do not specifY that the total amount of traffic generated by the reuse of former Norton Air Force Base is the only factor that should be considered in determining the baseline physical conditions for the analysis of traffic impacts. However, with adoption of the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan in 1999, the Mayor and Common Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR analyzed impacts of over 1 1 million square feet at buildout. Ofthat 11 + million square feet, a little over 7 million square feet was for industrial uses. The proposed proj ect will bring the total square footage of industrial uses approved within the SBITC Specific Plan area to approximately 3.7 million square feet, or slightly more than half of the amount analyzed in the FEIR. The City of San Bernardino also certified a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in conjunction with adoption of the SBITC Specific Plan. The TIA was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the County Congestion Management Program. In the TIA for the Specific Plan, the trip generation for all of the industrial-designated areas was calculated using rates for "light industrial" uses. As stated in Appendix C of the CMP, the fair-share calculation in a TIA "does not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions to mitigations." The City of San Bernardino, through Resolution 2003-72, has determined that for the first 46,520 trips generated by reuse offormer Norton Air Force Base, the DHL Air Cargo Facility MCC Meeting of 10.04.04 Page3 of 5 required mitigation shall be a payment of $25 per daily vehicle trip into the IVDA Special Fund. The proposed project will pay this fee established by the City of San Bernardino. Staff believes that this proposed project and its related traffic impacts are within the scope of the SBITC Specific Plan FEIR and TIA as addressed in the Initial Study. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None; Hillwood paid the applicable processing and enviromnental fees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution that: · Acknowledges that the Mayor and Common Council independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised judgement in reviewing the Initial Study in making its determination. · Adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. · Approves General Plan Amendment No. 04-03, Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 based on the Findings of Fact in the Planning Commission staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. DHL Air Cargo Facility MCC Meeting of 10.04.04 Page 4 of5 Exhibits: I 2 Location Map Planning Commission Staff Report (distributed under separate cover) ATTACHMENTS: A Location Map B Existing Land Use Districts Map C Existing Circulation Element D Development Permit (Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, and Conceptual Landscaping) E Lot Line Adjustment F Initial Study G Environmental Comments and Responses H Mitigation Monitoring Plan I Letter from Transtech J Responses from LSA Associates K Letter from Ernie Wong, City ofHigWand L Responses from LSA Associates M Letter from Larry Mainez, City of Highland N Letter from Southern California Edison o Conditions of Approval P Standard Requirements Letter from Ernie Wong, City of Highland Revised Conditions of Approval Resolution 3 4 5 DHL Air Cargo Facility MCC Meeting of 10.04.04 Page 5 of5 EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION LOCATION MAP LAND USE DISTRICTS PROJECT: GPA 04-03, SPA 04-02, DPII 04-27, LLA 04-13 HEARING DATE: 1014104 u NORTH 1 i I '00 ~I' !~ ~U I, v ';.\LM .' ~ELD ~ " ~ z c lil ... ... 1= z _.~ '-...- '. '..... UN ST: i " , ~I- : : ST,..:> liST~ " I:ru. c I~ I~ I I !FLEIIINGsri ; .......--.-... " ST 7TltST ~ E lint ST w , r'-'.~ E 5TH ST E 3RD ST PERIMETER RD ----...., -' J SAN BERNARDINO j INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT @ / .., \\",~~;;,>-->' .---' I .,',.>-" ,-,;/ d' ..>--- . ./ )()I ST 1100 ~ EMIlLST l! E SANTA ~, ~I ~I "'; "', T ;;1 Ii WI ~700 1"00 PAUl MEADOWS DR '<" \-, , " " 1 'lor. ~ , ~ // t.V ./' ~'$-- .~ /~ ;/ /~/e-; /;.~f:!Y :> /' ~/. Ie ../. I i~; iz r- ~ , Iii I !WPAUlmOAY :;;1 91 ~i c, '"' W SAN BERNARDINO AY I '> ,'C i; ,~ 'w '::I l! '" ill' III ~~~n ~ u, z ~\tfOPEST I! g ~ 92408 --- -....-r 1 1 I> I~ I> Ig It: , 19(1(,! , ,.,'-- ///.// ~ " ~-- ...)1!- :!i \\IVE!!!\'" Co) ,'I,r --.....____,../~ l!i ~ 'z 0.. ~!EWALl.ACUJ i= I wi en /E SAN BERNARDIN '16QO iji ,%'1'-"-'(, 1-1 _00 / /t{ it 27215 Base Une Highland, CA 92348 (909) 884-8881 FAX (909) 862-3180 www.cLhighland.ca.us Chy Council ...yor Ross B. Jones ...yor Pro-rem LArry McCallon Penny Ulburn Jody Scott John P. Timmer Chy ...n.ger Sam J. Racadio iJ~ EXHIBIT 3 City of HIG September 8, 2004 Ms. Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/ City Planner City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Subject: DHL Air Cargo Facility Dear Ms. Ross: Thank you for your courtesy in providing the City of Highland, on Friday, September 3,2004, a copy of the staff report and attachments relative to the DHL Air Cargo Facility which will be considered by City of San Bernardino Planning Commission on Wednesday, September 8, 2004. One of the attachments is an email message from Steven Greene, LSA Associates, to you in response to my comments on the project Initial Study and Traffic Assessment. Mr. Greene indicated that, based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15229, the "existing conditions" to be analyzed in reuse of a military base are the conditions that prevailed at the time of base closure, and because activities in the base used to generate 46,520 daily vehicle trips, there i~W definition~?o traffic impact resulted from reuse,ofthe base untIl the tnp generatIon of the actIvItIes at the base returns to thIS level. Smce the approved development projects in the base and the DHL facUity will generate a total of 13,282 daily vehicle trips, which is far less than the original number of 46,520, Mr. Greene concluded that there is no nexus to require any development project within the base to analyze and mitigate any project traffic impact. We do not agree with this reasonmg, Section 15229 of the CEQA Guidelines state" ...the determination of whether the reuse plan may have a significant effect on the environment may, at the discretion of the lead agency, be based upon the physical conditions which were present at the time that the federal decision for the closure or realignment of the base or reservation became final. These conditions shall be referred to as the baseline physical conditions. Impacts which do not exceed the baseline physical conditions shall not be considered tY1/ /0/04- significant.. .." It should be noted that the CEQA Guidelines do not specifY that the total amount of traffic generated before and after redevelopment of the base is the only factor that should be considered in determining the baseline physical conditions relative to traffic. The former Norton Air Force Base is being redeveloped into industrial/commercial uses that are quite different from its original use as a military base. Warehouse and distribution center projects such as Mattei, Pep Boys and DHL etc. generate traffic that has different characteristics when compared to that generated in a military base. There will be a much higher number of trucks. Because of the length and weight of heavy vehicles, truck traffic presents a different kind of impact on the roadway geometry and pavement structural section. These different types of developments, along with new roadway improvements/extensions constructed within and near the base, have also resulted in a change of traffic circulation and distribution pattern. All these factors could cause a certain street location, which did not receive much traffic from the base when it was in active use, to experience traffic congestion during the peak hours after redevelopment of the base. Therefore, it is our opinion that there is a nexus to require projects located within the base to analyze and mitigate their traffic impact to the adjacent roadway system. In addition, all development projects located in San Bernardino County are subject to provisions of San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The CMP requires that all projects that generate more than 250 two-way peak hour trips to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). In 1995, a TIA was prepared to support the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan proposed by IVDA. The TIA revealed that eleven (II) intersections and a number of roadway segments within City of Highland city limits will require physical improvements at or prior to the build out of the International Trade Center. The TIA also calculated the estimated project fair share of costs for these improvements. The CMP states" A jurisdiction in which the CMP system is impacted by another jurisdiction's land use decision should be compensated for any mitigations required within the impactedjuris~ion at the time ofproject approval. If this is not the case, and a deficiency plan is later required to address the impacted portion of the CMP system, the TIA will be used as a basis to apportion the responsibility to mitigate the deficiency within the impacted jurisdiction." It is our opinion that new developments located within the base are not exempted from having to comply with the CMP, and are responsible for their project fair share of mitigation cost. We believe that our opinion is consistent with that ofSANBAG, the County's Congestion Management Agency. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed DHL project. Please let me know ifthere are any questions regarding this letter. I can be reached at (909) 864- 8732, ext. 212. Sincerely, )g,tMl J;'1 Ernest Wong Public Works Director/ City Engineer ~ EXHIBIT 4 REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-03 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 04-27 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 04-13 DHL Air Cargo Facility 1. This approval is for the development of a 368,550 square foot air cargo facility on approximately 34.9 acres ofland. The facility will operate on a 24-hour basis. 2. This approval does not include the future expansion area. It will require separate submittals, and environmental review, at the time the expansion is anticipated. 3. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. However, approval of this application does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities included in the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. Expiration Date: Two years from Mayor and Common Council Approval 4. The review authority may grant a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required submittal items, 30 days prior to the expiration date. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 5. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency (EDA), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commissions of either the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of either the City or EDA from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City and the Economic Development Agency any costs and attorney's fees which the City or the Economic Development Agency may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this section. GPANo.04-03 SPA No. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 2 of5 The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as "attorney's fees for the purpose of this condition. As part of the consideration for issuing this permit or approval, this condition shall rernain in effect if this Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the applicant. General 6. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable. 7. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no change of use ofland or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Public Works Division prior to issuance of the Certificate, is necessary. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance imposed on the intended use by this permit. 8. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions ofthe Municipal Code (including the Development Code) in effect at the time of approval. 9. Ifthe color of the building or other exterior finish materials are to be modified, the revised color scheme and/or finish materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 10. Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of structure, or ground shall be screened as required by the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and City of San Bernardino Development Code. 11. If a water tank is proposed in the future, the applicant shall submit specifications, including the proposed materials and color of the water tankfor review and approval of the Planning Division. Landscape screening shall be reflected on the landscape plans. GPA No. 04-03 SPA No. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 3 of5 12. Permanently affixed ladders leading to roofs shall be fully enclosed with sheet metal or a similar, durable material. The finish shall be consistent with, and compatible with, the overall architectural theme ofthe building. 13. The following standards for lighting and address markings are applicable: a) The address number ofthe building shall be located and displayed so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than six (6) inches in height and be of a color contrasting to the background. In addition, any business that affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. b) Roof top address numbers shall be provided. They shall be a minimum of three (3) feet high and two (2) feet in width and of contrasting color to the background. Numbers shall be placed parallel to the street address as ssigned. 14. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient with the ability to lower or reduce usage when the store is closed. Signage may be required to be turned off when the business is closed. 15. Submittal requirements for permit applications (building, site improvements, landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/or Public WorkslEngineering shall include all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with the Development Review Committee approval. Walls and Fencing 16. Barbed wire, razor wire, and/or concertina wire are not permitted anywhere on-site. 17. The screen wall shall be constructed along Del Rosa Avenue, 3rd Street, and the southerly property line as shown on the August 2004 site plan. 18. Black vinyl coated chain link fencing may be installed or remain on 3rd Street, easterly of the Leland Norton Way access and the other locations shown on the August 2004 site plan. 19. Chain link fencing with a black vinyl covering may be used on the interior along the west side of the site. 20. The applicant shall replace the existing blast wall along 3rd Street with a new 6-foot high wall with a decorative fascia. The blast wall shall be designed and installed in compliance with FAA requirements. * GPA No. 04-03 SPA No. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 4 of5 Silmage 21. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Prior to establishing any signs, the applicant shall submit an application, and receive approval for a sign permit from the Planning Division. All signage on the site shall be consistent with the provisions of the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and the City of San Bernardino Development Code. 22. No painted window signs, roof signs, permanent sale or come-on signs will be permitted at this site. 23. Signslbanners may not be placed on or over the roof or within landscaped areas. Banners and other signs for special events (i.e., grand opening) will require a Temporary Sign Permit to be approved by the Planning Division prior to installationlbanging. Signs and banners may not encroach into the public right-of- way. Landscaoing 24. The applicant shall post a bond in an amount equivalent to the cost oflandscaping including landscape installation and one year of maintenance service. The purpose of the bond is to ensure that all landscaping survives the planting process and last for a period of at least one-year. The bond will be released no sooner than one-year after issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy and only after such time as the survival of the landscaping has been verified by City staff. 25. The applicant will comply with the recommendations contained within the "Tree Condition Report", prepared by Dave Matias, July 8, 2004, as specified by the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. Landscape plans shall reflect those trees to be relocated and contain details regarding those trees to be replaced, including the replacement ratio. Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the permit. 26. All landscaping shall be consistent with Section 19.28 (Landscape Standards) from the City's Development Code. Where an existing tree is judged healthy and yet cannot be feasibly relocated, it may be subject to replacement with three 36-inch box specimen trees of a type and quality to be approved by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department. The replacement trees are in addition to the trees required in Chapters 19.24, Off-Street Parking Standards, and 19.28, Landscaping Standards, of the Development Code. 27. Landscape plan shall include one 24" box tree for every four parking spaces (employee and customer), consistent with the requirements of Section GPA No. 04-03 SPA No. 04-02 OP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 5 of5 19.24.060(6)(B) and Chapter 19.28. ofthe Development Code and the San Bemardino International Trace Center Specific Plan. 28. The applicant shall install landscaping along 3rd Street, east of Leland Norton Way. The landscaping shall be compatible with FAA requirements. * Other 29. The project is subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures contained in the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and the Initial Study prepared for this project. 30. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: . Development Services Department - Public Works Division . Development Services Department - Building Plan Check Division . Water Department . Fire Department * New Conditions of Approval OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK RAclIF.L G. CLARK, C.M.C. - CITY CLERK 300 North "D" Street. San Bernardino' CA 92418-0001 909.384.5002. Fax: 909.384.5158 www.cLsan-bernardino.ca.us '" October 6,2004 Mr. Ned Sciortino Hillwood Development 275 S. Memorial Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Dear Mr. Sciortino: At the Mayor and Common Council meeting held on October 4, 2004, the following action was taken relative to General Plan Amendment No. 04-03 and Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02- to change the land use designation from SBITC Specific Plan Tourist Commercial to Industrial and to delete Leland Norton Way from the Circulation Element; Development Permit II No. 04-27 - to construct a 368,550 square foot air cargo facility on 34.9 acres; and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 - to adjust existing parcel lines to accommodate the proposed project located at the southeast corner of 3<<1 Street and Del Rosa A venue: That the hearing be closed; that said resolution be adopted (Resolution No. 2004-324); and that the Revised Conditions of Approval dated October 4,2004, be adopted. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ~h.~ Rachel G. Clark, CMC City Clerk RGC:lls cc: Development Services Don Rogers, Inland Valley Development Agency, San Bernardino International Airport Authority, 294 S. Leland Norton Way, Suite I, San Bernardino, CA 92408 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTED SHARED VALUES: Integrity' Accountability' Respect for Human Dignity' Honesty f CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Development Services Department - Planning Division Interoffice Memorandum TO: Mayor and Common Council Valerie C. Ros~uty Director/City Planner FROM: SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 49 - DHL Air Cargo Facility DATE: October 4, 2004 COPIES: James Penman, City Attorney; Rachel Clark, City Clerk; Fred Wilson, City Administrator; James Funk, Director, Development Services Department Based on discussions with the City of Highland, San Bernardino International Airport Authority, and Inland Valley Development Agency, Ross Jones, Mayor of the City of Highland, will be submitting a letter to you requesting two suggested conditions. Attached is a copy of that letter. Staff proposes to modify the recommended motion, as follows: That the hearing be closed, said resolution be adopted, and the Revised Conditions of Approval (dated October 4, 2004) be adopted, as per the attached. /;J~70 1 ov._.Y~ ~ re Ilw',da Item _ ~6~ City Clerk/COC Seey City of San Bernardino Entered into Record It C"""ciIlCmvDevCml Mtg: <I OCT-04-04 MON 05:52 PM P. 01/02 2721 S Base UnCI HlQhlal\d. CA 92348 (909) 08+8061 FAX 19091 862-3180 www.ei.hIGlhl..nd.ee..u~ Clry Council UaYGf noss B. Jono::. M .yor Pr~ "RIm Lorry McCallon Penny Lilburn Jody Scott John P. 'Timmr.r city MQnllgor Sam 0./, R"r.o.dlo FAX NO. 3357928 City of HIG ~U87 & October 4, 2004 Mayor/Membcr$ of the Common Council City of San Remardillo 300 Norlh "D" Street S,ln Bcrnardino, C^ 9241 g Re; nIlL Air CarJ;:o Facility (General Plan ^mendmem No. 04.03, Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-013) & Initial Study Mayor Valles and Ilonorable Members of the Common Council: Thu Cily ofIlighlolld is enthusiastic 'lbout the prospects ofbrillging the OJ-IT, Air Cargo Fllcility to thc San Bcrnnnlino Intemational Airport. 111e Facility will bring jobs and a ~lmllg economic inccntive to the ^lrport and the community. Wc have lookel.! forwurd to this opportunity with some anticipation, and have great hopcs that the nUL Facility will bc a trcmcndou~ a~set to the region. and will SCTve our communities produclively, and positively, in the future. Reprosentative~ ofthe cilies oflIh:hland and San Bernardino and the IVnA/SBIAA, have met to disCllSS issues ofmutu'l! benefit on n number ofoceasions. TIm discussiolls were both mct1ningflll mld productive. Areas of discussion included trank. circul"tion. noise, and land use as well as mitigation for impacts on regional ~o,.viccs and facilities. Fnrther, we me mindrul that the flights into the San Dernal'dino Airport will be from the west Ilnd departures will be wcsterly as well due to instnlnlentnl, geography und runway de~igl1 issues. However, we recognize that such arrival and departing !lighls me subject to FAA &ppl'Oval and hop" to continue djscus~ing these matlors and othel'~ in the futnre.. It is our understanding, two conditions lire to be considered and added to the approval of the project and associated mitil.!illions measures as follows: Within two years fro11\ the dat" ofpl'oject approval, the upplicnnt, in conjunction with TVOA. sJlall establish fundi.ng sources dcdicated to provide rO:lc\wny nnel trafllc impt"llVements for the circulation network adjacent to tho Airport including 3r~ Street, S,n Street, net Rosa Drive, Sterling Avenue, Victoriu Avenue. Alabama Streei ami the SR30 ramps_ Funding sources may inc1lldc rederal, 51:>te Bnd/or local government entity legislative nppropl'illtion~ nndlor developer fees nnd contributions. Implementation of R...iv.d 0.t-04-2004 05;51pm F,om-3S5T8Z8 To-CITY OF SAN BERNARDI P... 001 OCT-04-04 MON 05;53 PM FAX NO, 3357928 p, 02/02 J Lell"r To Mec City or Si\Il Flemilrdino Dr-n. ^ir C:1rgo fncility October 4. 2004 p.go 2 nJndwuy 11J1tltraffie improvements shull begin within II reasonable timc:frmnc after funding is sccured. Pruposed improvements generally include ro,ld wideninB, pavement rehahilitation, exclusive nu'n 1anos, signal modifieutions, slrec:tlighl~ !lnd drainage systems, 2. Every effort shall be made by the San Bernardino Inte1'l1ational Airport Authority to require east bound aircraft landing and west bound airc11l1'1 ltlkcolis, subject to FAA approval. Ilased 011 our previous meetings and conunents by the City of Highland, iftbe abovementioned conditions lInd mitigation measures arc incorporated into the project approval, the City will withdraw its previous coneenlS. The City ol'Highland looks forwllro to a long-standing working relation with the City of San Renmrdino and the IVD1\ISl3IAA in all future development projects wishing to locuto atth" Airport. -- Pc: Highland City Council Sam Racndio. City Manager RJ :sr/rch R...iv.d 0.t-D4-2004 05,51pm F rom-335TSZI To-C ITY OF SAN BERNARD I P... OOZ t EXHIBIT 4 REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL October 4, 2004 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-03 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 04-27 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 04-13 DHL Air Cargo Facility 1. This approval is for the development of a 368,550 square foot air cargo facility on approximately 34.9 acres of land. The facility will operate on a 24-hour basis. 2. This approval does not include the future expansion area. It will require separate submittals, and environmental review, at the time the expansion is anticipated. 3. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. However, approval ofthis application does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities included in the Conditions of Approval and Stan!lllrd Requirements. Expiration Date: Two years from Mayor and Common Council Approval 4. The review authority may grant a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required submittal items, 30 days prior to the expiration date. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 5. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency (EDA), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commissions of either the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of either the City or EDA from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City and the Economic Development Agency any costs and attorney's fees which the City or the Economic Development Agency may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this section. . GP A No. 04-03 SPANo. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 20f5 The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as "attorney's fees for the purpose of this condition. Aspart of the consideration for issuing this permit or approval, this condition shall remain in effect if this Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the applicant. General 6. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable. 7. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no change of use ofland or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Public Works Division prior to issuance of the Certificate, is necessary. The deposit or security shall 'guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance imposed on the intended use by this permit. 8. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code (including the Development Code) in effect at the time of approval. 9. If the color of the building or other exterior finish materials are to be modified, the revised color scheme and/or finish materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 10. Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of structure, or ground shall be screened as required by the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and City of San Bernardino Development Code. II. If a water tank is proposed in the future, the applicant shall submit specifications, including the proposed materials and color of the water tank for review and approval of the Planning Division. Landscape screening shall be reflected on the landscape plans. GPA No. 04-03 SPANo. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 3 of5 12. Permanently affixed ladders leading to roofs shall be fully enclosed with sheet metal or a similar, durable material. The finish shall be consistent with, and compatible with, the overall architectural theme of the building. 13. The following standards for lighting and address markings are applicable: a) The address number of the building shall be located and displayed so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than six (6) inches in height and be of a color contrasting to the background. In addition, any business that affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. b) Roof top address numbers shall be provided. They shall be a minimum of three (3) feet high and two (2) feet in width and of contrasting color to the background. Numbers shall be placed parallel to the street address as ssigned. 14. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient with the ability to lower or reduce usage when the store is closed. Signage may be required to be turned off when the business is closed. 15. Submittal requirements for permit applications (building, site improvements, landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/or Public WorkslEngineering shall include all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with the Development Review Committee approval. Walls and Fencing 16. Barbed wire, razor wire, and/or concertina wire are not permitted anywhere on-site. 17. The screen wall shall be constructed along Del Rosa Avenue, 3rd Street, and the southerly property line as shown on the August 2004 site plan. 18. Black vinyl coated chain link fencing may be installed or remain on 3rd Street, easterly ofthe Leland Norton Way access and the other locations shown on the August 2004 site plan. 19. Chain link fencing with a black vinyl covering may be used on the interior along the west side of the site. 20. The applicant shall replace the existing blast wall along 3rd Street with a new 6-foot high wall with a decorative fascia. The new blast wall shall be designed and installed in compliance with FAA requirements and shall be placed in the same location as the existing blast wall. * GPA No. 04-03 SPA No. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 4 of5 Shmage 21. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Prior to establishing any signs, the applicant shall submit an application, and receive approval for a sign permit from the Planning Division. All signage on the site shall be consistent with the provisions of the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and the City of San Bernardino Development Code. 22. No painted window signs, roof signs, permanent sale or come-on signs will be permitted at this site. 23. Signslbanners may not be placed on or over the roof or within landscaped areas. Banners and other signs for special events (i.e., grand opening) will require a Temporary Sign Permit to be approved by the Planning Division prior to installationlhanging. Signs and banners may not encroach into the public right-of- way. Landscaping 24. The applicant shall post a bond in an amount equivalent to the cost oflandscaping including landscape installation and one year of maintenance service. The purpose of the bond is to ensure that all landscaping survives the planting process and last for a period of at least one-year. The bond wilfbe released no sooner than one-year after issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy and only after such time as the survival of the landscaping has been verified by City staff. 25. The applicant will comply with the recommendations contained within the "Tree Condition Report ", prepared by Dave Matias, July 8, 2004, as specified by the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. Landscape plans shall reflect those trees to be relocated and contain details regarding those trees to be replaced, including the replacement ratio. Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance ofthe permit. 26. All landscaping shall be consistent with Section 19.28 (Landscape Standards) from the City's Development Code. Where an existing tree is judged healthy and yet cannot be feasibly relocated, it may be subject to replacement with three 36-inch box specimen trees of a type and quality to be approved by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department. The replacement trees are in addition to the trees required in Chapters 19.24, Off-Street Parking Standards, and 19.28, Landscaping Standards, of the Development Code. 27. Landscape plan shall include one 24" box tree for every four parking spaces (employee and customer), consistent with the requirements of Section GPA No. 04-03 SPA No. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 5 of5 19.24.060(6)(B) and Chapter 19.28. ofthe Development Code and the San Bernardino International Trace Center Specific Plan. 28. The applicant shall install landscaping along 3rd Street, east of Leland Norton Way. The landscaping shall be compatible with FAA requirements. * Other 29. The project is subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures contained in the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and the Initial Study prepared for this project. 30. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: . Development Services Department - Public Works Division · Development Services Department - Building Plan Check Division . Water Department . Fire Department 31. Within two years from the date of project approval, the applicant, in conjunction with the Inland Valley Development Agency, shall establish funding sources dedicated to provide roadway and traffic improvements for the circulation network adjacent to the Airport including 3rd Street, 5th Street, Del_Rosa Drive, Sterling Avenue, Victoria A venue, Alabama Street and the SR30 ramps. Funding sources may include federal, state and/or local government entity legislative appropriations and/or developer fees and contributions. Implementation of roadway and traffic improvements shall begin within a reasonable time frame after funding is secured. Proposed improvements generally include road widening, pavement rehabilitation, exclusive turn lanes, signal modifications, streetlights and drainage systems. * 32. The applicant shall work with the San Bernardino International Airport Authority to make every effort to require east bound aircraft landing and west bound aircraft takeoffs, subject to FAA approval. * * New Conditions of Approval 27215 Base Une Highland, CA 92346 (909) 864-6861 FAX (909) 862-3180 www.ci.highland.ca.us City Council Mayor Ross B. Jones Mayor Pro-Tem Larry McCallon Penny Lilburn Jody Sccll John P. Timmer City Manager Sam J. Racadio City of HIG ~~& October 4, 2004 MayorlMembers of the Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: DHL Air Cargo Facility (General Plan Amendment No. 04-03, Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-013) & Initial Study Mayor Valles and Honorable Members of the Common Council: The City of Highland is enthusiastic about the prospects of bringing the DHL Air Cargo Facility to the San Bernardino International Airport. The Facility will bring jobs and a strong economic incentive to the Airport and the community. We have looked forward to this opportunity with some anticipation, and have great hopes that the DHL Facility will be a tremendous asset to the region, and will serve our communities productively, and positively, in the future, Representatives of the cities of Highland and San Bernardino and the IVDAlSBIAA, have met to discuss issues of mutual benefit on a number of occasions. The discussions were both meaningful and productive. Areas of discussion included traffic, circulation, noise, and land use as well as mitigation for impacts on regional services and facilities. Further, we are mindful that the flights into the San Bernardino Airport will be from the west and departures will be westerly as well due to instrumental, geography and runway design issues. However, we recognize that such arrival and departing flights are subject to FAA approval and hope to continue discussing these matters and others in the future. It is our understanding, two conditions are to be considered and added to the approval of the project and associated mitigations measures as follows: I. Within two years from the date of project approval, the applicant, in conjunction with IVDA, shall establish funding sources dedicated to provide roadway and traffic improvements for the circulation network adjacent to the Airport including 3rd Street, 5th Street, Del Rosa Drive, Sterling Avenue, Victoria Avenue, Alabama Street and the SR30 ramps. Funding sources may include federal, state and/or local government entity legislative appropriations and/or developer fees and contributions. Implementation of Letter To MCC City of San Bernardino DHL Air Cargo Facility October 4, 2004 page 2 roadway and traffic improvements shall begin within a reasonable timeframe after funding is secured. Proposed improvements generally include road widening, pavement rehabilitation, exclusive turn lanes, signal modifications, streetlights and drainage systems. 2. Every effort shall be made by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority to require east bound aircraft landing and west bound aircraft takeoffs, subject to FAA approval. Based on our previous meetings and comments by the City of Highland, if the abovementioned conditions and mitigation measures are incorporated into the project approval, the City will withdraw its previous concerns. The City of Highland looks forward to a long-standing working relation with the City of San Bernardino and the IVDAlSBIAA in all future development projects wishing to locate at the Airport. Ross Jones, May City of Highlan Pc: Highland City Council Sam Racadio, City Manager RJ :sr/rch EntP.rt!d into Record It I 0/1{ /0 4 I. ',ilr.mvOevCms Mtg: - (J~ '" ~ ~~ 1-. ~l~'-- 18 Item _ _ ~ tt ,~h~ City Clerk/COC Secy City of San Bernardino " 27215 Base Una Highland. CA 92346 (909) 864-6861 FAX (909) 882-3180 www.ci.highland.ca.us City Council Mayor Ross B. Jones Mayor Pro-Tem Larry McCallon Penny Ulburn Jody Scott John P. Timmer City Managar Sam J. Racadio Entered into Record at Council/CmyOevCms Mtg: ----".------~~ loJ~/oL{_:_ by re Agenda Item 1-1' October 4, 2004 City Clerk/CD City of San Bernardino Mayor/Members of the Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: DHL Air Cargo Facility (General Plan Amendment No. 04-03, Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-013) & Initial Study Mayor Valles and Honorable Members of the Common Council: The City of Highland is enthusiastic about the prospects of bringing the DHL Air Cargo Facility (the "Facility") to the San Bernardino International Airport ( the "Airport"). The Facility will bring jobs and a strong economic incentive to the Airport and the community. We have looked forward to this opportunity with some anticipation, and have great hopes that the DHL Facility will be a tremendous asset to the region, and will serve our communities productively, and positively, in the future. It is with a great deal of reluctance that we find it necessary to reiterate our comments and concerns regarding the DHL Air Cargo Facility project, on behalf of the City of Highland, and the community we represent. We do this solely because we feel our concerns have not been adequately addressed, and need to be recognized before this project is approved. We believe that addressing potential environmental impacts of the project will improve the conditions under which it will be developed, and will also make the Facility a better neighbor and member of the community in the future. With that in mind, we are requesting that the Common Council continue its proposed action approving the Facility, and related actions, and that City staff be directed to review and respond to the comments and concerns which have been raised by the City of HigWand, in accordance with the requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and CEQA Guidelines), as set forth more fully below, and in the attached correspondence, before any final action is taken. As indicated in the Staff Report, the environmental evaluation of the Facility is based on the 1996 Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR"), for the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan"). The FEIR was certified as a Program ErR pursuant to CEQA, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse because of its regional impacts (SCH No. 95082052). Under CEQA, a Program EIR is general in nature, allowing for "tiered" environmental Letter To MCC City of San Bernardino DHL Air Cargo Facility October 4, 2004 page 2 documents to be prepared as phases or increments of the entire plan proposed for development, when the details of potential impacts they may have become known. In this case, an Initial Study was prepared in July 2004 for the DHL Air Cargo Facility project/applications. This project review constituted a second-tier document, related to the Program FEIR. As such, under CEQA, the environmental review of the Facility and related land use decisions must effectively evaluate the project details, and any aspects of the project which were not previously identified in the FEIR. We believe there are a number of aspects of the Facility project and related land use approvals that were not identified in the FEIR, and which require further consideration at this time. We also believe that consideration of these matters will greatly improve the project and will make it a better neighbor and a community asset. While we believe that the correspondences which are attached hereto and incorporated herein expresses the primary concerns of the City of Highland, we would like to emphasize the following: 1. Traffic analysis in the FEIR anticipates that the primary access to the Airport would be via Tippecanoe Avenue. It is now anticipated that traffic related to the Facility will access the 30 Freeway using 3'd Street, Palm Avenue, and 5th Street, which is partially in the City of Highland. The Initial Study (the "IS") and Mitigated Negative Declaration (the "MND") for the DHL Facility project and related actions are based on the 3rd Street to Palm Avenue to 5th Street route. Although the Staff Report indicates that the City of San Bernardino will receive a traffic mitigation fee related to the DHL project, this change in traffic patterns has not been, and must be analyzed to determine the potential impacts on land uses along the now-identified arterial travel-ways in the City of Highland. Any identified mitigation measures on City roadway network and freeway ramps must be adopted to lessen the environmental impacts of the added truck traffic where those impacts will be felt in Highland. 2. The IS states the Facility will generate 2,057 vehicle trips per day, which is considerably less than was permitted under the Specific Plan (14,529 vehicle trips per day). However, the FEIR is based on the assumption that the majority of the projected traffic will occur during the day; only 15 percent of the total trips were projected to occur during the night time/early morning hours. There is no analysis of the difference in the potential impacts based on hours of operation. The primarily night-time operation of the Facility, and concentration of truck traffic during those hours and along a different route, will have considerably different impacts, which have not been addressed. Reliance on the FEIR in the second-tier document does not provide an appropriate evaluation of traffic and circulation, noise, or light and glare impacts which are likely to result from the 24-hour operation of the Facility. The IS and MND fail to evaluate the traffic and circulation impacts of the project, and do not adequately mitigate serious Letter To MCC City of San Bernardino DHL Air Cargo Facility October 4, 2004 page 3 impacts that will certainly occur in Highland, including degradation of roads, noise, dust, and air pollution. 3. The FEIR studied six (6) locations which monitored noise. All of the noise monitoring locations were west of the proposed Facility, mainly along Tippecanoe Avenue. With the re-orientation of traffic related to the Facility, additional monitoring locations should have been added along 3'd Street, 5th Street and Palm Avenue. The conclusions of the IS and MND, and related mitigation measures, do not adequately address or mitigate impacts which will be experienced in Highland as a result of the re-routing of traffic from Tippecanoe. 4. The FEIR analyzed noise related to projected Tourism/Commercial land uses. The DHL Air Cargo Facility is a substantially different land use than was evaluated in the FEIR for the Specific Plan. The conclusions of the IS and the MND, and the related proposed mitigation measures do not address impacts in the City of Highland which will result from the re-directed traffic and flight patterns which have not been fully described. 5. The proposed DHL Facility is a night/early morning operation. The environmental differences between the uses evaluated and approved in the Specific Plan and FEIR are significant in terms of noise, traffic, circulation and light and glare. These impacts affect the City of HighIand, its residents, and its business community. The IS and the MND and related proposed mitigation measures do not adequately evaluate or address these impacts. 6. The Airport anticipates 37,000 flights per year or 101 flights per day at full development. The proposed DHL Facility will generate 20 flights per day (10 in- bound and 10 out-bound) between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.. However, the IS and the MND did not anticipate or evaluate the impacts of the hours of operation or certain flight patterns on the community, in terms of noise (including vibration) and light and glare. 7. The Specific Plan identifies the planning area proposed to be changed from Tourism/Commercial to Industrial as a 29.2 acre site, while the IS states the site to be 34.9 acres. Potential impacts of this change are not evaluated in the IS. 8. The Specific Plan Table 3.6A states the building area of Planing Area 2 (IS area 6) is 635,976 square feet. The proposed DHL Facility is 368,550 square feet in floor area. The Facility floor area was analyzed in the IS and MND, with a comment stating that the Floor Area Ratio would permit an additional 254,000 square feet of floor area, with a total maximum building area of approximately 623,000 square feet. However, only the impacts of the 368,550 square foot floor Letter To MCC City of San Bernardino DHL Air Cargo Facility October 4, 2004 page 4 area are evaluated. The IS and MND should analyze the environmental impacts of the maximum floor area permitted not just the first phase of the project. 9. The IS and MND utilize two figures for daily trips - 2,057 and 3,819, without explanation. The number of projected daily trips needs to be reconciled and evaluated. 10. The Program FIER adopted by the City in 1996 was sent to the State Clearinghouse for comment. The IS and second-tier MND for the Facility should also have been sent to the State Clearinghouse. If this was done, the City requests the opportunity to review the comments received and the State Clearinghouse response. II. Traffic generated by an industrial distribution center such as the proposed Facility has different characteristics as compared to that generated by a military base. There will be a much higher number of trucks that will impose a different kind of impact on the roadway geometry and pavement structural section. The change of roadway circulation system around the base in the last 10 years and the change oftraffic distribution pattern associated with the proposed Facility will also create new impact to certain roadway segments and intersections that did not experience such impact when the base was in active use. Since the impact of the proposed Facility will likely exceed the baseline physical conditions that existed at the time the federal decision for the closure of the base became final, the impact therefore could be considered significant pursuant to Section 15229 of the CEQA Guidelines, and should be analyzed and mitigated. In addition, the 1995 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the San Bernardino International Trade Center and certified by the City of San Bernardino contains a calculation that quantifies the fair share of traffic mitigation cost assigned to development projects located within the Specific Plan. Pursuant to the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan, "a jurisdiction. . . impacted by another jurisdiction's land use decision should be compensated for any mitigations..." and "the Traffic Impact Analysis will be used as a basis to apportion the responsibility to mitigate the deficiency within the impacted jurisdiction." It is our opinion that the proposed project should be required to comply with the Congestion Management Plan and to mitigate its traffic impact to the affected roadway system. We firmly believe that the DHL Air Cargo Facility is a good project, and that it will benefit the economic condition of the Airport and the community, and we support the project whole-heartedly, in principle. However, we also believe that the project should be fully described and reviewed, and that potential significant environmental Letter To MCC City of San Bernardino DHL Air Cargo Facility October 4, 2004 page 5 impacts related to changes in traffic patterns, proposed or anticipated air traffic patterns, hours of operation, noise, light and glare, and air quality, will result from the proposed project, and must be identified and mitigated prior to its approval. For the reasons set forth above, with the unanimous support of the City Council of the City of Highland, I am requesting that you continue this matter to provide an opportunity for our respective members and staffs to further discuss the Facility impacts and proposed mitigation measures. While we have no desire to unnecessarily delay the project, we also believe it is critical that Highland's interests be adequately protected. It is imperative that your review of this project fully analyze the proposed project and its potential impacts. Thank for your attention to the concerns of the City of Highland. RL Jones, May:r City of Highland Attachments 27215 Base Une Highland, CA 92346 (909) 864-6881 FAX (909) 882-3180 www.ci.highland.ca.us City Council Mayor Ross B. Jones Mayor Pro-lem Lorry McCollon Penny Ulburn Jody Scctt John P. Timmer City Manager Sam J. Racadio City of HIG Q..., Ii Ine. 1987 " I September 8, 2004 Ms. Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/ City Planner City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Subject: DHL Air Cargo Facility Dear Ms. Ross: Thank you for your courtesy in providing the City of Highland, on Friday, September 3,2004, a copy of the staff report and attachments relative to the DHL Air Cargo Facility which will be considered by City of San Bernardino Planning Commission on Wednesday, September 8, 2004. One of the attachments is an email message from Steven Greene, LSA Associates, to you in response to my comments on the project Initial Study and Traffic Assessment. Mr. Greene indicated that, based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15229, the "existing conditions" to be analyzed in reuse of a military base are the conditions that prevailed at the time of base closure, and because activities in the base used to generate 46,520 daily vehicle trips, there is, by definition, no traffic impact resulted from reuse of the base until the trip generation of the activities at the base returns to this level. Since the approved development projects in the base and the DHL facility will generate a total of 13,282 daily vehicle trips, which is far less than the original number of 46,520, Mr. Greene concluded that there is no nexus to require any development project within the base to analyze and mitigate any project traffic impact. We do not agree with this reasonmg. Section 15229 of the CEQA Guidelines state" ...the determination of whether the reuse plan may have a significant effect on the environment may, at the discretion of the lead agency, be based upon the physical conditions which were present at the time that the federal decision for the closure or realignment of the base or reservation became final. These conditions shall be referred to as the baseline physical conditions. Impacts which do not exceed the baseline physical conditions shall not be considered significant.. .." It should be noted that the CEQA Guidelines do not specify that the total amount of traffic generated before and after redevelopment of the base is the only factor that should be considered in determining the baseline physical conditions relative to traffic. The former Norton Air Force Base is being redeveloped into industrial/commercial uses that are quite different from its original use as a military base. Warehouse and distribution center projects such as Mattei, Pep Boys and DHL etc. generate traffic that has different characteristics when compared to that generated in a military base. There will be a much higher number of trucks. Because of the length and weight of heavy vehicles, truck traffic presents a different kind of impact on the roadway geometry and pavement structural section. These different types of developments, along with new roadway improvements/extensions constructed within and near the base, have also resulted in a change of traffic circulation and distribution pattern. All these factors could cause a certain street location, which did not receive much traffic from the base when it was in active use, to experience traffic congestion during the peak hours after redevelopment ofthe base. Therefore, it is our opinion that there is a nexus to require projects located within the base to analyze and mitigate their traffic impact to the adjacent roadway system. In addition, all development projects located in San Bernardino County are subject to provisions of San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The CMP requires that all projects that generate more than 250 two-way peak hour trips to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). In 1995, a TIA was prepared to support the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan proposed by IVDA. The TIA revealed that eleven (11) intersections and a number of roadway segments within City of Highland city limits will require physical improvements at or prior to the build out of the International Trade Center. The TIA also calculated the estimated project fair share of costs for these improvements. The CMP states" A jurisdiction in which the CMP system is impacted by another jurisdiction's land use decision should be compensated for any mitigations required within the impacted jurisdiction at the time of project approval. If this is not the case, and a deficiency plan is later required to address the impacted portion of the CMP system, the TIA will be used as a basis to apportion the responsibility to mitigate the deficiency within the impacted jurisdiction." It is our opinion that new developments located within the base are not exempted from having to comply with the CMP, and are responsible for their project fair share of mitigation cost. We believe that our opinion is consistent with that of SANBAG, the County's Congestion Management Agency. 27215 Base Une Highland. CA 92346 (909) 864-6861 FAX (909) 662-3180 www.cLhighland.ca.us City Council Mayor Ross B. Jones Mayor Pro--Tem Larry McCaUon Penny Ulburn Jody Scott John P. Timmer City Manager Sam J. Racadio August 30, 2004 City of San Bernardino Valerie C. Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Subject: DHL Air Cargo Facility (General Plan Amend. No. 04-03, Specific Plan Amend No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-013) & Initial Study Dear Valerie: The City of Highland has completed its review of the subject Development Permit and associated Initial Study and have the following comments. Our meeting on August23, 2004, answered many of our questions and we appreciated your time. A meeting with Hillwood Investment Properties representatives on August 26, 2004, also assisted with our review. 1. Bay Door and Cargo Container Screening Although the concern here is aesthetics, there also is a related issue of sound attenuation as discussed below under item number 2. It is not clear whether the proposed eight feet (8') or nine feet (9') high screen wall located along the north frontage will be sufficient to screen cargo containers and bay doors. As you informed the City, a "line of sight" study was provided recently and some modifications would be made to sufficiently screen bay doors and truck trailers stored within the yard. In relation to cargo storage containers, it is not clear whether the air cargo containers will be stacked, which would make them visible from Third Street. Based on the site plan design, it appears the cargo storage area planned between the LelandlThird Street signalized intersection and tarmac staging area is separate from the distribution activities but could be intended for the long-term outside storage of empty containers. If this is the case, consideration should be given for requiring screening prOVisions similar to those around the warehouse distribution building. 2. Noise According to the Initial Study, the air cargo handling, sorting, and distribution operations will occur primarily at night, with the majority of the work occurring between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Incoming flights are also anticipated from 7:00 to 11 :30 p.m. while outbound flights will occur from 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. The Operational Noise impacts focus mainly on air traffic (take off and landing) and vehicular traffic (passenger and truck) related to the proposed use, both of which are well documented. However, it is not clear what the potential impacts will be related to loading of aircrafts on the tarmac area. Will the noise generated for loading, unloading, and taxi/towing aircraft be conducted within an acceptable noise level, given the reduced ambient noise level at night? In addition, the plans indicate only a chain link fence proposed around the tarmac area. Will the existing noise deflectors be maintained in their present location? This may help reduce any potential noise (and visual) impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods located within the City of Highland. 3. Third StreetlTarmac Frontage The Site Plan/Landscape Plan is void of any proposed landscaping improvements along the Third StreetlTarmac frontage. What type of frontage improvements are proposed for this portion of land located within the City of San Bernardino's right-of-way? Perhaps large specimen evergreen trees could be planted to help soften the existing noise deflector structures and screen air cargo containers. 4 Traffic Impacts Comments from the City of Highland Engineering Department related to traffic impacts are attached for your review (see attached lelterdated August 27, 2004). The City appreciated the opportunity to comment on this project and we look forward to your response. Should you have questions, please contact me at (909) 864-8732, Ex!. 215. Sincereiy, ./~~ ~r:~c~. Mainez V City Planner cc: ~m Racadio, City Manager Rick Hartmann, Community Development Director ErnIe Wong. Public Works DirectorfCity EnglOeer 27215 Base Une Highland, CA 92346 (909). 864-68!l1 FAX (909) 882-3180 www.ci.highlanc;l.ca.us City Council lIayor Ross B. Jones lIayor Pro-Tern Larry McCallon Penny Ulburn Jody Scott John P. Timmer City lIanager Sam J. Racadio City of RIG August 30, 2004 Ms. Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/ City Planner City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San BernardinoCA 92418 Subject: DHL Air Cargo Facility Dear Ms. Ross: Below are comments from City of Highland Engineering Department on the Initial Study and the Traffic Assessment prepared by LSA Associates for the proposed change of land use of Planning Area 6 of the San Bernardino International Trade Center (SBITC) Specific Plan, and the proposed development of the north 60% of Planning Area 6 as a DHL air cargo facility. The Initial Study and the Traffic Assessment were received from City of San Bernardino on July 29 and August 19, 2004 respectively. I. Cumulative impact resulted from development in SBITC Specific Plan area Pursuant to San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared in 1996 for IVDA to assess traffic impacts on adjacent roadways associated with the development ofthe SBITC Specific Plan area. The TIA identified (I) various street locations where future traffic Level of Service is forecasted to drop below an acceptable level, (2) appropriate mitigation measures needed to maintain the Level of Service at an acceptable level, (3) cost of such mitigation measures, and (4) SBITC's fair share of mitigation costs. Based on the TIA, 46 intersections in the adjacent roadway network will require physical improvements at or prior to the build out of the SBITC. Out of the total estimated improvement cost of$17,713,000, the SBITC is responsible for $7,486,000. Eleven (II) out of the 46 intersections that require improvements are located within the City of Highland. The SBITC's fair share for these II intersections is estimated to be $1,60 I ,228. All cost estimates quoted are based on 1996 dollars. It should be noted that in addition to the necessary intersection improvements, the TIA also identified a list of major arterial and freeway segments that will be impacted by development of the SBITC and roadway improvements are required. One of such arterial improvements is to widen 5th Street Bridge over City Creek from 2 to 4 lanes. The TIA estimated SBITC's fair share for this bridge project to be $2,544,000. However, in 2003, the City of Highland completed construction of this bridge project using a combination of federal, state and local funds. Therefore, it is not necessary for SBITC to contribute any fair share amount for this bridge project. While the 2004 Traffic Analysis done for the property owner and project proponent, Hillwood Investment Properties, relative to Planning Area 6 (including the DHL facilities) states that the amount of traffic to be generated by the proposed land use in Planning Area 6 will be less than that generated by the existing land use, physical improvements to the various street intersections remain necessary as previously specified in the 1996 TIA. We request that City of San Bernardino require Hillwood to contribute an amount equivalent to the project's fair share cost of necessary intersection improvements for the II impacted locations in Highland associated with the development of Planning Area 6 (including DHL facility) and other areas within the SBITC Specific Plan (such as Mattei, Pep Boys etc.) In order to determine the amount of fair share cost for each development project in the Specific Plan, we also request that Hillwood's traffic engineer perform and present additional calculations for review by both cities. 2. Alternative to payment of project fair share cost per CMP guidelines Based on reading of the 2004 DHL Traffic Assessment, the City of San Bernardino does not require development projects located in the SBITC Specific Plan area to pay their fair share cost for roadway improvements within or outside its city limits. The San Bernardino County CMP guidelines require the calculation ofproject fair share cost as a part of the TIA. However, City of San Bernardino does collect from projects located within the Specific Plan area a special fee of $25 per daily trip of proj ect traffic. The total amount of special fee applicable to the DHL facility is $44,050. Additionally, City of San Bernardino also collects from DHL the standard city-wide traffic mitigation fee. Furthermore, IVDA have made public street improvements within San Bernardino city limits valued at $16,719,273 which directly or indirectly offset some of the traffic impacts on San Bernardino's roadway network by new developments located within the Specific Plan area. As an alternative to payment of the development projects' fair share cost for improvements needed at various street locations in Highland, Hillwood or IVDA may choose to improve existing streets within Highland city limits along the routes impacted by the project traffic, with private money provided by Hillwood, or federal or state grants acquired by IVDA. 3. Street improvements required prior to opening date ofDHL facility The 1996 TIA listed the various street improvements that must be constructed prior to or at build out ofthe SBITC Specific Plan. Where such improvements are located along the project's street frontage, they should be constructed to its ultimate configurations at the time the particular development project is built. For the DHL facility, street improvements such as curb and gutter, sidewalk, pavement, street light and landscaped median etc. should be constructed along the entire proj ect frontage of 3rd Street on both sides of Leland Norton Way. The width OO'd Street should comply with applicable General Plan or Specific Plan standards. A new traffic signal should be installed at the main truck entrance on 3'd Street at Leland Norton Way. This new signal should be interconnected with the existing signal at the 3rd Street! Del Rosa Drive intersection. Turn pockets with sufficient stacking space should be provided at this signalized entrance. Intersection analysis in the 2004 TIA indicates that both of the westbound left turns on 3<<1 Street at Del Rosa Drive and at Tippecanoe Avenue experience a very heavy demand of approximately 500 vehicles per hour. In order to maintain an acceptable level-of-service, cycle length and required pedestrians crossing times, dual left turn lanes would be essential at both intersections by year 2005. Additionally, a northbound right turn signal overlap would be needed to minimize vehicles queuing. These improvements represent only a portion of the ultimate improvements listed in the 1996 TIA for these two intersections. If these improvements, including needed ROW dedications, are not done at this time, it will put a burden on both cities to have to solve the congestion problems at these shared intersections in the near future. Street improvements at other locations may also be needed prior to the opening date of the DHL facility depending on additional analysis requested in subsequent paragraphs of this letter. 4. Analysis of additional intersections The 2004 Traffic Analysis examined in details three intersections adjacent to the DHL project site: 3'd; Tippecanoe, 3'd; Del Rosa and 3rd; Leland Norton. It also evaluated a truck route consisting of 5th Street, Palm Avenue and 3rd Street under the assumption that 100% of the DHL trucks will use this route to access the project site from SR-30. Because it is quite possible that some of the project trucks will use a route different from the assumed truck route, it would be prudent for the Traffic Analysis to also verifY whether all key intersections on 3'd Street and 5th Street between the project site and SR-30 can adequately accommodate the project truck traffic, along with the cumulative traffic, and recommend the appropriate mitigation measures, if necessary. Of particular concern are the width of travel lanes, intersection turning radii, and queue length of for turn pockets at the impacted intersections. 5. Analysis of freeway ramps An analysis should be included for the SR-30 ramps at 5th Street in light of the special characteristics of slow moving trucks when accessing and climbing up the freeway on- ramps. 6. Impact on roadway pavement The proposed change ofland use for Planning Area 6 from Tourist Commercial to Industrial will result in a noticeable increase of truck trips on city streets. The 2004 Traffic Analysis projected that Planning Area 6 would generate 438 truck trips per day. Since the weight and the frequency of trucks are the most important factors relative to the service life of roadway pavement, it is crucial that project impacts on the roadway pavement sections be fully evaluated. We request that all development projects in the SBITC Specific Plan, including the DHL facility, be conditioned to conduct an analysis of the roadway pavement along the affected roadways, and to mitigate the structural impacts on the roadway pavement. Potential mitigation measures could include reconstruction of the 3rd/ Leland Norton intersection with Portland cement concrete, one-time overlay/repair of the recommended truck route, and/or contribution to a pavement overlay/repair fund on a regular basis etc. 7. Other miscellaneous comments on the Initial Study and the Traffic Analysis: . Is the future 50,400 square foot building expansion included in the analysis of future traffic? . The Level of Service analysis did not consider the required minimum time for pedestrians crossing. For example, the "2005, AM with project" scenario shows 1.9 seconds of green time for southbound left-turn. This is an unrealistic split. Ten (10) seconds should be used, as a minimum. Similarly, the northbound shows 7.8 seconds of green time. This is unacceptable, since this split time dictates the needed time for pedestrians to cross the east leg of 3rd Street. These need to be recalculated at all intersections based on the current MUTCD criteria (curb to curb). . The Level of Service adopted by the City of Highland is "c" for roadway segments and "D" for intersections, not "E" as stated on Page 14 of the Traffic Analysis. Any intersection with a Level of Service below "D" will require mitigations and the Analysis should be revised accordingly. . The second sentence for footnote 2 under Table B is incomplete. . Since the Traffic Analysis was prepared based on specific operating periods of the DHL facility, the project should be required to conduct a new analysis and mitigate any new impact if the operating periods have changed substantially. . Figure 5 and Page 19 of the Traffic Analysis failed to acknowledge the existing bike lane on Palm Avenue between 3rd and 5th Streets. Any reference in the text to use the paved area currently occupied by the bike lane to accommodate the truck turning movements should be revised accordingly. . We would like to point out a potential safety issue at the project's proposed employee entrance off Del Rosa Drive. The existing abandoned guard shack in the median on Del Rosa Drive south of the entrance currently causes a view obstruction specifically to southbound traffic turning left to the proj eel's entrance. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed DHL project. Please let me know ifthere are any questions regarding this letter. I can be reached at (909)864-8732, ext. 212. Sincerely, ~7 ;:u~ Ernest Wong Public Works Director/ City Engineer o o o : RESOLUTION' 0 JP2"f RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN 3 AMENDMENT NO. 04-03 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SAN BERNARDINO 5 INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL FOR 30 ACRES AND TO DELETE LELAND NORTON WAY FROM 6 THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 7 04-27 TO CONSTRUCT AN AIR CARGO FACILITY, AND APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 04-13 TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT, WHICH IS 8 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 3RD STREET, EAST OF DEL ROSA AVENUE. 4 9 10 11 12 13 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Recitals (a) WHEREAS, the General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was adopted by the 14 Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on June 2,1989. 15 16 17 18 (b) WHEREAS, the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 96-50 on March 4, 1996. (c) WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 04-03 and Specific Plan Amendment No. 19 04-02 (a proposal to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from San Bernardino 20 International Trade Center Specific Plan Tourist Commercial to Industrial for approximately 30 21 acres located on the south side of 3rd Street, east of Del Rosa Avenue, to delete reference to 22 Tourist Commercial from the Specific Plan, and to remove Leland Norton Way from the 23 Circulation Element) was considered by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2004, after a 24 noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission's unanimous vote on a motion to recommend 25 26 approval of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment has been considered by 27 the Mayor and Common Council. No.Y9 /ojC;jD1 28 I c o reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations. (h) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council 25 Review Committee 26 0 27 received. 28 (i) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public hearing on October 4, 2004, and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan Amendment No. 04- 03 and Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, the Planning Commission and Environmental actions, the Planning Division Staff Report, and all written comments 2 1 0 2 3 4 o c 3 c o o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 related buildings as an international au carrier airport with aviation-related office, commercial and industrial uses." Removing Leland Norton Way from the Circulation Element of the General Plan and SBITC Specific Plan will not affect traffic/circulation patterns within the Specific Plan or Airport areas, or the adjacent areas. Although Leland Norton Way was designated as a Secondary Arterial, it only accessed 3rd Street from a point in front of the existing terminal. The terminal can still bc accessed from Del Rosa Avenue and Leland Norton Way, as a Secondary Arterial, is not necessary. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the proposed development will have to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements. C. The proposed amendments would not impact the balance of land uses within the City in that the proposed change in land use designation represents a relatively small percentage of the overall land uses within the City. D. In the case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject parcel(s) is physically suitable (including, but not limited to access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development(s) in that all required utilities and public services can adequately serve the site. SECTION 4. Findings - Development Permit II No. 04-27 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that: A. The proposed development is permitted within the subject zoning district with approval of the amendments to the General Plan and San Bernardino International Trade 4 c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o o Center Specific Plan. The warehouse/distribution portion of the project will be located within the Industrial land use (zoning) district. The proposed project is a permitted use in this land use district, as listed in Table V -2 of the SBITC Specific Plan, with approval of a Development Permit. The airport-related portion of the project is a permitted use in the "A," Airport land use district as listed in Table 19.12A.020 of the Development Code, with approval of a Development Permit. The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions in the SBITC Specific Plan and the provisions of the Development Code, including the industrial design guidelines as shown on the site plan, elevations, and landscape plan, and the Conditions of Approval. B. The proposed air cargo facility is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The San Bernardino International Trade Center Plan includes the following goals: . Meet Economic Development and Redevelopment Needs . Encourage future business development, generate or create new jobs for the community and provide revenue . Provide for a broad mix of commercial, office and industrial development opportunities consistent with the overall objectives and policies established for the property . Comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan . Be consistent with state law. Development of the project assists with the Inland Valley Development Agency's and San Bernardino International Airport Authority's goals of providing new development, creating new jobs, and providing revenue. The DHL Air Cargo Facility is a major warehouse/distribution facility, consistent with the mix of permitted uses. The 5 o o o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 proposed project is in compliance with the Specific Plan, which itself is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is consistent with applicable state law requirements. C. The proposed facility will be compatible and harmonious with the existing and surrounding land uses in the area. The proposed new construction will enhance the existing site and be a benefit to the surrounding area due to its architectural design, on- site and off-site improvements, and landscaping improvements. D. Approval of the Development Permit for the proposed development is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19 .20.030( 6) of the Development Code. On the basis of the Initial Study, the Development/Environmental Review Committee found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that were imposed upon the proposed project, and (c) no events have occurred which require the preparation of a supplemental EIR or addendum to the EIR. Although there will be new noise impacts associated with the introduction of DHL aircraft, the number of airplane flights, and related noise, are within the scope ofthe Initial Study prepared for the Interim Airport Operating Plan. That Initial Study also incorporated, by reference, the 1990 IVDA Redevelopment Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. E. There will not be potential significant adverse impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. Prior to approval of the SBITC Specific Plan, the City certified the Environmental Impact Report and 6 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o o Traffic Impact Analysis, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program. In addition, mitigation measures for this project are included in the Initial Study, and also included as Conditions of Approval. F. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed as evidenced by project compliance with all applicable Development Code and SBITC Specific Plan standards, and Conditions of Approval. G. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety. All agencies responsible for reviewing access and providing water, sanitation and other public services have all had the opportunity to review the proposal and none have indicated an inability to serve the project. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health and safety in that all applicable Codes will apply to the construction of this project. H. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics are consistent with all provisions of the Development Code and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed construction of the DHL Air Cargo Facility will be compatible with the existing development in the area. SECTION 5. Amendment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan and the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by changing the land use designation from San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan Tourist Commercial to Industrial, for approximately 30 acres located at the southeast comer of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue, and deleting reference to Tourist Commercial 7 o o o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from the Specific Plan. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 04-03 and Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A, and described in Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein for reference. B. General Plan Amendment No. 04-03 and Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. SECTION 6. Map Notation This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 7. Notice of Determination The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental Quality Act in preparing the environmental documentation. III 8 o o o 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN 2 AMENDMENT NO. 04-03.... LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 3RD STREET, EAST OF DEL ROSA AVENUE. 3 4 5 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the 7 8 Council Members day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 9 ESTRADA 10 LONGVILLE 11 MCGINNIS 12 DERRY 13 14 15 JOHNSON KELLEY 16 MC CAMMACK 17 18 19 20 21 City Clerk day of ,2004. The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 22 23 Approved as to form 24 and legal content: JUDITH V ALLES, Mayor City of San Bernardino 25 JAMES F. PENMAN 26 City Attorney 27 BY:~ t. p~ 28 () 9 !\ ~I 0 cl <> I 589'4S'07"W l~ 328.38' 544C24'46"W t~ I~ 1S0.72' ,\\f/,. 1 I ;., ~~ 0 a:i 'l;.0) "'" I IX) & ~ <:5 ~V . o o 13: In- 110m N 89"04' 2S" E - ": 2S1.3S' IP c; N4S'SS'3S"W I~ "'" 39.60 I N43"06'10"E PARCEL 2 41.73' I l' : N41"20'54"E I / 42.29' N89'53'09"E I 717.63' , 249.67' 328.0S' 389.58 N45"55,~~~3 ~~~TO AVENU-EJ-~- -- 42.80' . gl L PARCEL 3 /:; =29"20'25" R=659.96' L=337.95' PARCEl 1 I w wi ~ >1 ~ 15\:.u 5l c( ~ ~'\I~_- ..J III WI ~I N88'58'07"E 298.59' w . 10 "'- _ 0 ","0 O. . 0 mlD IX) Z 1 1 I NOTE: BEARINGS AND DISTAHC[S SHD~ HEREON ARE GRill, BASED ON, lHE CAUFtflNIA COOlDlNA lE S'tSlEII (NAD 83) ZONE 5. 10 OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES, DIVIDE lHE DISTANCE SHO~ BY 0.99993157. IWL PARCEL LEA5E TO IVDA 501 "01 '53"E 47.30' -NBgo5S'Of~ 443.56' 538'42'44" W 84.51' ATTACHMENT "A" N29"36'31"W 29.07' \ \ , ~ I ~ 1 iii 1 lD I I~ ~ I~ P 10 ~ 15 IZ I~. IW : I~ ~:~I~ "' "'" "'" "'" olwl ~I:ri\ I~ I~I o ICIl I b o N U . or- ~ I < iii -,CIl ~~ <w D..CIl ;i~ --' 16.77' .I ../ REVISION PREPARED FOR: SAN BERNARDINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY PREPARED BY: Associated Engineers, Inc. 3311 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO, CAUFORNIA 91764 TEL:(909)9So-19B2 · FAX:(909)941-0S91 PARCELS 1, 2 AND 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 L: \2004\04Il61\DWG\IIAPPlNG\lEGAIS\ZC>>lEPI.AT o o o LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 ATTACHMENT "B" In the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, being portions of Block 49 and 50 of the Rancho San Bernardino, as per Map recorded Book 7 of Maps, Page 2, Records of seid County, t0gether with portions of vacated streets and alleys lying within and adjacent to said blocks, being a portion of Parcel "A-1" as described in a sub-lease by and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and M!ng Plaza Development, recorded January 24, 1997, as Document No. 19970024757 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the centerlines of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue North; thence along the centerline of 3rd Street North 89'45'07" East; 0.47 feet to the centerline of Del Rosa Drive; thence South 00'55'35" East, along said centerline, 1015.95 feet; thence at right angles to said centerline, North 89'04'25" East, 60.00 feet to the East line of said Del Rosa Drive and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 43'06'10" East, 41.73 feet; thence North 89'04'25" East, 251.35 feet; thence South 45055'35" East, 39.60 feet; thence South 00055'35" East, 255.31 feet; thence South 41020'54" West, 42.29 feet; thence North 89053'09" East, 328.05 feet to a point hereinafter mentioned es Point "!!{'; thence North 01001'53" West, 491.49 feet; thence North 88'58'07" East, 443.56 feet; thence North 01001'53" West, 687.37 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southwesterly, having a radius of 463.97 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 28034'38",231.41 feet; thence North 29'36'31" West, 29.07 feet; thence North 79034'12" West, 17.19 feet to the southerly line of3rd Street, said point bears 60.00 feet, measured at right angles from the centerline of 3rd Street; thence along said southerly line, South 60024'42" West, 229.83 feetto the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northwesterly having a radius of 659.96 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 29020'25",337.95 feet; thence South 89045'07" West, 328.38 feet; thence . South 44024'46" West, 150.72 feet to the East line of Del Rosa Drive; thence along said east line South . 00"55'35"1:65t; 1l4S:03"fiiiitto"lli"e1"RUE POINT'OF"BEGINN1NG. " " .. . ."" . EXCEPTING therefrom that portion described as follows: BEGINNING at the aforementioned Point A, said point being the southwesterly comer of Parcel F-2 as shown on a Record of Survey No. 96-0174, filed as Book 108, Pages 76-77 of Records of Survey in said OffICe of the County Recorder, said point aiso being the southwesteriy comer of Parcel "A-2", as described in said sub- lease by and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and Ming Plaza Development; thence northerly along the westerly line of said Parcel "A_2", North 01001 '53" West, 491.49 feet to the northwesterly comer of said Parcel "A-2"; thence continuin9, North 01'01 '53" West, 47.30 feet; thence South 88058'07" West, 298.59 feet to a point of intersection with the northerly prolongation of a line that bears North 00'55'35" West, 255.31 feet as shown on said Record of Survey, said line being the easterly line of land described in a Deed recorded May 21, 1998 as Document No. 19980196585, of Official Records in said.Office of the County Recorder, said point being distant North 00'55'35" West, 247.00 feet from the northeasterly corner of said land described In said last mentioned Deed; thence along said northerly prolongation, South 00055'35" East, 247.00 feet to said northeasterly comer; thence along the eesterly line of said last mentioned Deed and continuing South 00055'35" East, 255.31 feet; thence continuing along said easteriy line, South 41020'54" West, 42.29 feet to the southwesterly comer of said Parcel "A-1"; thence along the southerly line of said Parcel "A_1", North 89053'09" East, 328.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Area containing 19.90 acres, more or less. Bearings and Distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System, Zone 5 (NAD-83). Divide distances shown by 0.99993157 to obtain ground levei distances. The iegal description above was taken from "New Parcel A" as described In Certificate of Compliance for Lot line Adjustment No. 2003-005, recorded June 19, 2003 as Document No. 2003-0414267 Official Records. 1.:\2004\D4061\DWG\MA?PING\llIgal$\PARCEl.. 1.00C o o c LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 2 In the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, being a portion of Block 49 of the Rancho San Bernardino, as per Map recorded Book 7 of Maps, Page 2, Records of said County, logetherwlth portions of vacated streets and alleys lying wnhln and adjacent to said blocks, being a portion of Parcels "A-1" and "A-2, as descril;leg If) a su!;!-l!l8Se by and be~!ln 1I1!llnlan!l V;llillY PeV!llopmentAgencyand Ming Plaza Development, recorded January 24, 1997, as Document No. 19970024757 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the centerlines of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue North; thence along the centerline of 3rd Street North 89045'07' East, 0.47 feet to the centerline of Del Rosa Drive; thence SOuth 00055'35' East, along said centerline, 1015.95 feet; thence at right angles to said centerline, North 89004'25" . East, 60.00 feetto the East line of said Del Rosa Drive; thence North 43'06'1 0' East, 41.73 feet, thence North 89'04'25' East, 251.35 feet; thence South 45055'35' East, 39.60 feet; thence South 00'55'35" East, 255.31 feet; thence South 41020'54' West, 42.29 feet; thence North 89053'09' East, 328.05 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point hereinafter mentioned as "Point A'; thence North 01001'53" West, 491.49 feet; thence North 88058'07" East, 443.56 feet; thence South 01'01'53" East, a distance of 432.74 feet; thence South 38042'44" West, 84.51 feet; thence South 89'53'09' West, 389.58 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER with that portion described as follows: BEGINNING at the aforementioned Point A, said point being the southwesterly comer of Parcel F-2 as shown ,Cll1,a, R!lcQr,Q Clf SurveYNQ, 116-.0.174, mep, a~,BoQkJ08,f'lIge_s]_6~i'79fJ~ecorps.9fSulYeY.Jn Jl.aid PfflC8 of.tbe . County Recorder, said point also being the southwesterly comer of Parcel "A_20, as described in said sub- lease by and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and Ming Plaza Development; thence northerly along the westeriy line of said Parcel" A-2', North 01001 '53" West, 491 .49 feetto the northwesterly comer of said Parcel "A-2"; thence continuing, North 01'01'53' West, 47.30 feet; thence South 88'58'07" West, 298.59 feetto a point of intersection with the northerly prolongation of a line that bears North 00055'35" West, 255.31 feet as shown on said Record of Survey, said line being the easterly line of land described in a Deed recorded May 21, 1998 as Document No. 19980196585 of Official Records in said Office ofthe County Recorder, said point being distant North 00'55'35" West, 247.00 feet from the northeasterly comer of said land described In said last mentioned Deed; thence along said northerly prolongation, South 00055'35" East, 247.00 feelto said northeasterly comer; thence along the easterly line of said last mentioned Deed and continuing South 00055'35" East, 255.31 feet; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 41'20'54' West, 42.29 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Parcel "A-l"; thence along the southerly line of said Parcel "A-1', North 89'53'09" East, 328.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Area containing 8.69 acres, more or less. Bearin9s and Distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System, Zone 5 (NAD-83). Divide distances shown by 0.99993157 to obtain ground level distances. The legal description above was taken from "New Parcel B" as described in Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003-005, recorded June 19, 2003 as Document No. 2003-0414267 Official Records. l:\2004\04061\OWG\MAPPINCNegalS\PARCEL 2.DOC o o o LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 3 In the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California.. being a portion of Block 49 of the Rancho San Bernardino, as per map recorded In Book 7 of maps, Page 2, Records of said County togelher with portions of vacated streets and alleys lying within al)d adjacent to said blocks, more partlcularty described as. follows: - - - . Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue North; thence along the centerline of 3rd Street, North 89'45'07" East, 0.47 feet to the centerline of Del Rosa Drive; thence South 00'55'35' East, along said centerline 1015.95 feet; thence at right angles to said centerline, North 89'04'25' East, 60.00 feet to the East line of Del Rosa Drive and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 43'06'10" East, 41.73 feet; thence North 89'04'25' East, 251.35 feet; thence South 45'55'35' East, 39.60 feet; thence South 00'55'35' East, 255.31 feet; thence South 41'20'54" West, 42.29 feet; thence South 89'53'09' West, 249.67 feet; thence North 45'55'00" West, 42.80 feet to the East line of Del Rosa Drive; thence North 00'55'35' West, along said East line, 250.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Area containing 2.17 acres, more or less. Bearings and Distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System, Zone 5 (NAD-83). Divide distances shown by 0.99993157 to obtain ground level distances. The legal description above was taken from Quitclaim Deed recorded May 21, 1998 as Document No. 1998-0191:1585 of Official Re~rde. ~\2004\04OB1\DWG\MAPPIN~"\PARCEL 3.DOC . o o o . . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Development Services Department - Planning Division Interoffice Memorandum Mayor and Common Council Valerie C. RO~eputy Director/City Planner TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DHL Air Cargo Facility :;u d m A n September 23, 2004 ,"Tj V) <:: F"T'1 T' James Penman, City Attorney; Rachel Clark, City Clerk; Fred Wi~n, 'C) City Administrator; James Funk, Director I...l ~ DATE: COPIES: -: -0 c' On Monday, October 4, 2004, the Mayor and Common Council will consider sew-al r.~ applications related to the proposed DHL Air Cargo Facility at the southeast comer of ~ Street and Del Rosa Avenue, within the San Bernardino International Airport and San Bernardino International Trade Center. The following documents are being distributed separately to give you additional time to review them: Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, and Conceptual Landscaping Planning Commission Staff Report Attachments: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N o P Location Map Existing Land Use Districts Map Existing Circulation Element Development Permit Lot Line Adjustment Initial Study Environmental Comments and Responses Mitigation Monitoring Plan Letter from Transtech Responses from LSA Associates Letter from Ernie Wong, City of Highland Responses from LSA Associates Letter from Larry Mainez, City of Highland Letter from Southern California Edison Conditions of Approval ' Standard Requirements o c c SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: General Plan Amendment No. 04-03, Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, Lot Line Adjustment No. 04- \3 4 September 8, 2004 I AGENDA ITEM: HEARING DATE: WARD: OWNER: Inland Valley Development Agency San Bernardino International Airport Authority Don Rogers 294 S. Leland Norton Way, Suite I San Bernardino, CA 92408 909.382.4100 APPLICANT: Hillwood Ned Sciortino 275 S. Memorial Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 909.382.0033 REQUESTILOCATION: General Plan Amendment/Soecific Plan Amendment - to change the land use designation from SBITC Specific Plan Tourist Commercial to Industrial and to delete Leland Norton Way from the Circulation Element. Develooment Permit - to construct a 368,550 square foot air cargo facility on 34.9 acres. Lot Line Adjustment - to adjust existing parcel lines to accommodate the proposed project. The project site is located at the southeast comer of3'd Street and Del Rosa Avenue. CONSTRAINTS/OVERLA YS: x Airport Influence Area ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: o Not Applicable o Exempt o No Significant Effects x Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan x Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation MonitoringlReporting Program ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: x Approval x Conditions o Denial o Continuance to: o c c General Plan Amendment No. 04-03 Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 Developmelll PermillI No. 04-2i LOI Line Adjustment No. 04-13 Hearing Date: 09/08/04 REOUEST AND LOCATION HiIlwood Development is requesting amendments to the General Plan and San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan (SBITC SP), approval of a Development Permit, and a Lot Line Adjustment to accommodate the DHL Air Cargo Facility. The project site is located at the southeast comer on'd Street and Del Rosa Avenue. The area west of Leland Norton Way is within the SBITC SP and the area easterly of Leland Norton Way is within the San Bernardino International Airport Authority area (Attachment A). General Plan Amendment No. 04-03/Soecific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 - to change the land use designation from SBITC Specific Plan Tourist Commercial to Industrial and to delete Leland Norton Way from the Circulation Element (Attachments B and C). Develooment Permit II No. 04-27 - to construct a 368,550 square foot air cargo facility on 34.9 acres (Attachment D - Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, and Conceptual Landscaping). Lot Line Adiustment No. 04-13 - to adjust existing lot lines to accommodate the proposed project (Attachment E). BACKGROUND In 1993, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a resolution finding that the reuse/conversion of Norton Air Force Base was consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan and acknowledging that the San Bernardino International Airport Authority would own and operate Norton Air Force Base as a civilian airport facility. Adoption of that resolution included the Interim Airport Operating Plan. The SBlAA is in the process of updating its Airport Master Plan, with the review and approval process anticipated for early next year. In 1995, the Mayor and Common Council adopted amendments to the General Plan and Development Code to establish the "A" Airport District to include the areas within the San Bernardino International Airport. The Airport District allows various aircraft associated activities. In 1996, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan through amendments to the General Plan and Development Code. The SBITC SP was updated in 1999. The SBITC SP contains five different land use districts as shown on Attachment B. Area 2, Tourist Commercial, is proposed to be changed to Area 5, Industrial, through this application. Leland Norton Way is proposed to be deleted from the Circulation Element as part of this application. The existing Circulation Element is shown on Attachment C. o o c General Plan Amendmenr No. 04-03 Specific Plan Amendmenr No. 04-02 Developmenr Permit /I No. 04-27 Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 Hearing Date: 09/08/04 The Inland Valley Development Agency will be processing an amendment in the near future to update some of the background information in the Specific Plan. For example, property ownership changes have occurred. and the IVDA wishes to update the plan to reflect that. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALlTY ACT (CEOA) STATUS Hillwood Development retained LSA Associates to prepare an Initial Study for the City to evaluate the project's consistency with the SBITC Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). At their meeting of July 22, 2004, the Environmental Review Committee recommended that the Initial Study be released for public re\.iew. The public re\'iew period was from July 29,2004 through August 17,2004. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company during the public review period and LSA Associates prepared responses (Attachment G). LSA Associates also prepared the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment H). At their meeting of August 19, 2004, the Environmental Review Committee moved the project to Planning Commission. Transtech, the City's traffic consultant, reviewed the Initial Study and related Traffic Assessment, and provided comments. LSA provided responses to those comments (Attachments I and J). When the project was submitted, the City's traffic engineer had just retired. so the City retained Transtech to review the Traffic Assessment. Since then, the City filled a Senior Civil Engineer position. That person, because of his traffic-related experience, also reviewed the Traffic Assessment, Transtech's comments, and LSA Associates' responses. and concurs. FINDINGS OF FACT - GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. Are the proposed amendments consistent with the General Plan and the San Bernardino llllernational Trade Celller Specific Plan? Yes. changing the land use designation from Tourist Commercial to Industrial is consistent with General Plan Objective 1.39 which states, "Promote the development and use of the existing airport facilities and related buildings as an international air carrier airport with aviation-related office, commercial and industrial uses." The eastern property line of the land use district is immediately adjacent to the San Bernardino International Airport. Changing the land use designation will allow the development of a facility that implements both the General Plan and Specific Plan. Removing Leland Norton Way from the Circulation Element of the General Plan and SBITC Specific Plan will not affect traffic/circulation patterns within the Specific Plan. AIrport district, or General Plan. Although Leland Norton Way was designated as a Secondary Arterial. it only accessed 3rd Street from a point in front of the existing terminal. The previous intent was to provide primary access to the terminal building. However. the San Bernardino International Airport Authority is in the process of updating its Airport Master Plan, and is proposing that the "focus" of tIle airport and o o c General Plan Amendment No 04-03 Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 Development Permit 11 No. 04-2i Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-/3 Hearing Date: 09/08/04 related tenninal(s} will be north and outward toward 3rd Street, and not did not internal toward Leland Norton Way. The SBIAA anticipates that the Airport Master Plan will go through the review and adoption process next year. As a result, Leland Norton Way, as a Secondary Arterial, will not be necessary. 1 Would the proposed amendmellls be detrimelllalto the public illlerest, health. safety, convenience, or welfare of the City? No, The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Proposed development will have to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1. Is the proposed development permitted within the subject zoning district and does it comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code, including prescribed development/site standards and any/all applicable design guidelines? Yes, with approval of the amendments to the General Plan and San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan, the warehouse/distribution portion of the project will be located within the Industrial land use (zoning) district. The proposed project is a pennitted use in this land use district, as listed in Table V-2 of the SBITC Specific Plan, with approval of a Development Pennit. The airport-related portion of the project is a pennitted use in the "A," Airport land use district as listed in Table 19.12A.020 of the Development Code, with approval ofa Development Pennit. The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions in the SBITC Specific Plan and the provisions of the Development Code, including the industrial design guidelines as shown on the site plan, elevations, and landscape plan, and the Conditions of Approval. 2. Is the proposed development consistent with the General Plan? Yes, the San Bernardino International Trade Center Plan includes the following goals: . Meet Economic Development and Redevelopment Needs . Encourage future business development, generate or create new jobs for the community and provide revenue . Provide for a broad mix of commercial, office and industrial development opportunities consistent with the overall objectives and policies established for the property . Comply with the City of San Bernardino General Plan . Be consistent with state law. Development of the project assists with the Inland Valley Development Agency's and o o o General Plan Amendmem No. 04-03 Specific Plan Amendmem No. 04-02 Developmem Permic II No. 04-27 Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 Hearing Dace: 09/08/04 San Bernardino International Airport Authority's goals of providing new development, creating new jobs, and providing revenue. The DHL Air Cargo Facility is a major warehouse/distribution facility, consistent with the mix ofpermined uses. The proposed project is in compliance with the Specific Plan, which itself is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is consistent with applicable state law requirements. 3. Would the proposed development be harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the land use district and general area. as well as with the land uses present~)' on the subjeCt properly? Yes. the proposed facility will be compatible and harmonious with the existing and surrounding land uses in the area. The proposed new construction will enhance the existing site and be a benefit to the surrounding area due to its architectural design, on- site and off-site improvements, and landscaping improvements. 4. Is the approval of the Development Permit for the proposed development in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code? On the basis of the Initial Study, the Development/Environmental Review Committee found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that were imposed upon the proposed project, and (c) no events have occurred which require the preparation of a supplemental EIR or addendum to the EIR. The Environmental Review Comminee independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised judgement in reviewing the Initial Study in making its determination. Although there will be new noise impacts associated with the introduction ofDHL aircraft, the number of airplane flights, and related noise, are within the scope of the Initial Study prepared for the Interim Airport Operating Plan. That Initial Study also incorporated, by reference, the 1990 IVDA Redevelopment Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 5. Wi/lthere be potential significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored? Prior to approval of the SBITC Specific Plan, the City certified the Environmental Impact Report and Traffic Impact Analysis, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program. In addition, mitigation measures for this project are included in the Initial Study, as addressed above, and also included as Conditions of Approval. o o c 6. General Plan Amendme;.t No. 04-03 Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-0] Development Permit II No. 04-]7 Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 Hearing Dare: 09/08/04 Is the subject site physical~1' suitable for the type and density/illlensity of use being proposed? Yes, the site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed as evidenced by project compliance with all applicable Development Code and SBITC Specific Plan standards, and Conditions of Approval. 7. Are there adequ({{e provisions for public access. water. sanitation. and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimelllal to public health and safety:) Yes, all agencies responsible for reviewing access and providing water, sanitation and other public services have all had the opportunity to review the proposal and none have indicated an inability to serve the project. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health and safety in that all applicable Codes will apply to the construction of this project. 8. Would the location. size. design, and operating characteristics of the proposed developmelll be detrimental to the public interest. health. safety. convenience, or welfare of the City? No, the location, size, design, and operating characteristics are consistent with all provisions of the Development Code and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed construction of the DHL Air Cargo Facility will be compatible with the existing development in the area. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Section 19.48.110 of the Development Code establishes the parameters for lot line or boundary adjustments. The review authority may approve a lot line adjustment if it can determine that the boundary adjustment does not do any of the following: I. Create any additional or fewer parcels; 2. Include any parcels which are not legal as defined in the Municipal Code; 3. Impair any existing access or create a need for new access to any adjacent parcels; 4. Impair any existing easements or create a need for any new easements serving any adjacent parcels; 5. Require substantial alteration of any existing improvements or create a need for any new improvements: and 6. Adjust the boundary between parcels for which a covenant of improvement requirements has been recorded and all required improvements stated therein have not been completed unless the DRC determines the proposed adjustment will not significantly affect the covenant of improvement requirements. o o o General Plan Amendment No. 04-03 Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 Development Permit J/ No. 04-27 Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 Hearing Date: 09/08/04 The Lot Line Adjustment affects none of the above provisions. It is solely for the purpose of creating the development area for this project. COMMENTS RECEIVED Letters were received from Ernie Wong, City Engineer with the City of Highland. LSA Associates prepared responses to the comments from Ernie Wong (Attachments K and L). Staff concurs with the responses. Larry Mainez, City Planner with the City of Highland also submitted a letter (Attachment M). Staffs responses to Larry Mainez are as follows. 1. Bay Door and Cargo Container Screening Staff concurs with the concern related to screening of truck docks. The purpose of the 9-foot screen wall is to block the view of the truck doors from Del Rosa Avenue and 3rd Street, similar to the screen wall that was installed for the MatteI's facility at the southeast comer of3rd Street and Tippecanoe Avenue. The cargo storage containers are the kinds that are loaded directly onto the airplane, not the large containers hauled by trucks. The storage will not be long term per se, but an ongoing activity. Although screening is not required in the "A," Airport district, landscaping will be planted along 3rd Street, east of Leland Norton Way. 2. Noise Noise impacts will be related to airplanes, loading/unloading of airplanes, and loading/unloading of trucks. The planes land and load/unload on the east side of the facility, and the cargo goes into the building on the east side also. Inside the building, the cargo is transported/separated by conveyor systems. The trucks are loaded and unloaded on the north and south sides of the building, westerly of Leland Norton Way. The screen wall in this area will also help buffer noise related to the loading and unloading of trucks. Noise impacts from the airport-related activities were included in the Interim Airport Operating Plan, and there are no additional provisions in the Development Code for the "A" district. However, the existing noise deflectors will remain in their present location. 3. Third Street/Tarmac Frontage Staff has included a Condition of Approval requiring landscaping to be installed along 3rd Street, east of Leland Norton Way. This landscaping will be consistent with the other proposed landscaping, but within the parameters established in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 4. Traffic Impacts As noted above, traffic impacts have been addressed separately. o o o General Plan Amendment No. 1J4-03 Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 Development Permit 1/ No. 1J4-2i Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-/3 Hearing Date: 09/08/04 Comments were also received from Southern California Edison and are included as Attachment N. CONCLUSION The proposed amendments do not conflict with the General Plan, San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan, "A," Airport land use district, or the Development Code. All Findings of Fact can be made for approval of the Development Permit. The Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with the provisions of the Development Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: . Independently review, analyze, and exercise judgement in reviewing the Initial Study in making its determination. . Recommend that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. . Recommend that the Mayor and Common Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 04-03, Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 based on the Findings of Fact in this staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. Respectfully Submitted, James Funk Director of Development Services ViluivC,~ Valerie C. Ross Deputy Director/City Planner o ATTACHMENTS: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N o P o o General Plan Amendmem No. 04-03 Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 Development Permit II No. 04-27 Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 Hearing Date: 09/08/04 Location Map Existing Land Use Districts Map Existing Circulation Element Development Permit (Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, and Conceptual Landscaping) Lot Line Adjustment Initial Study Environmental Comments and Responses Mitigation Monitoring Plan Letter from Transtech Responses from LSA Associates Letter from Ernie Wong, City of Highland Responses from LSA Associates Letter from Larry Mainez, City of Highland Letter from Southern California Edison Conditions of Approval Standard Requirements ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION LOCATION MAP LAND USE DISTRICTS PROJECT: GPA 04-03, SPA 04-02, DPII 04-27, LLA 04-13 HEARING DATE: 9/8/04 u NORTH 6THST UNION ST :! '''~STl!5 r UNKIlST '0 !liON ST IOID :>:1 - Ice: V1Nm~ 0; -Sf ~.~ I~ "n !l!g FLEMING Sf z' ~ _II!!Q!!E.<It !1 ~l..., VINE Sf j TTl4~ CYPAESSSf [I, j Iii = IS il ~BERnELN is ~ '~:;I II: '-z U iCl . .." ~ w 5. "ri" nt p- ~ t;~ z ,~ ", '" .1:----... ~ .~AUt nELD , z c u ... ... ... >= I. .. .. '. .. .. .___-: @! ! ST ""51 @ ~ EITHST WAAD Sf ~ :: 5TH 5T ! = iI ,.:::l _. _..i ffi . ~ ~ E 5TH 5T ~~ :; i= "" Wi j . ';:1 iCII'8 em CREEK AD E3RD5T ~ PERIMETER AD 3AtI1T .E 3RD 5T E RlALTO AV -- '.... ERIALTO.. ~ z SAS BEItl\iARDINO l'iTERSATIOl'iALAIRl'ORT @ % I;; - '.....n r-iIUJJO i ~ ~ :; :;; - '" J,UL YlLLASfNOA BLVD .. I JlIIlL!L ., II .. z w ~ ~ I~ ~"i,::,,:-'.~:---::;~3~ -, ..', ~ ~ o ! ~ E MILL ST ~ I:SANT... 51 "' w S; ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ >1! PAUl MIlADOWS OOlJ'aJVIlSE @ '.;.:.r---- .--.-.-.-.- , , -- AN "CINTO ST " " , , " //------- / " '-&,O't!-J- - AV " PALM MEADOWS DR ii ~ i "' - 92408 !!! ~~a$T ~ ciTmiEDI ZA. w ~ - ~ ~ E HQPESi --' ~ ~ :i[ ~- ~ j' -- ---- ! qMAN AD ....----- OR ,~ " "'VEf<t~- ,"' .. ,~ , U -- ~' i!j .w ... !~ '- ... Z ,0 ~ ... IlE .ALLACUJ ,<< >= !~ '" w ~~ E SAN BERNARDIN AV""- ili - ., r1-~"'- ,# ~~ ~ '" S z z ~ '" z W PALMrnO AV ~ ~ ~ '" ~ z W SAN BERNARDINO AV o o o ""--'.,.--,. ~~'"tfI"',~ ~'..,--.. :oV!"~.~:-~lI~.;". .. 'JP""'E'4i,- "I'l"!"",~,~, . P'''.!'~,-- _ ......... - lD I I I , : I: 'III: I:' "ai, I,I'~I,I, IIII I II" 11'1'1: III, 1,'1'1 , , T .~B" ATTACHMEN N :> o z ~ o ~ ....:l i E-< ~ ~ a u ~ ! ; ~~"8~ ~~ ~~ilil~1 0;:; ~ rn ~ . G G V" _.. i~rn~~~D~ tl ~ ., ~ IS Ii I ~ rn ..j,..) C) ....... l-. ..j,..) rn ....... Q ~ W E-- Z W U W Q ~ "Oo~ ~Z - oroQ~ ,....,7~~ I ~ ~z roZO >O:~E=: E-<C)~~ .......... ....... I-'-l Z cn~ W ..........C)ZE-- ::r: ~~z fJrnrn_ Q) rn :::> ATTACHMENT "C" o 5TH ST. ~ .. 3RD ST. . RlALTD AYE. ~ Ii! t < 0 Z !! ~- ri <i :;l 21= i! zlo <l- :II Wi r.1 .. :II ..- -- CENTRAL AYE. .. I LEGEND FREEWAY MAJOR ARTERIAL SECONDARY ARTERIAL _11- PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL(120' R.G.W.) - I - PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL(100' R.O.W.) ...... PROPOSED SECONDARY ARTERIAL :XHIBIT V-2 irculalion Elemenl- Amended Circulation r'AN BERNARDINO '-NTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTER t .... V-7 o o o r :"]@rnowrnl]) .IUL 1 6 2004 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 1 OF2 Ci,~~(O~~N~t'Rs:= LEGAL DESCRIPTION o(P.~EFORE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ATTACHMENT "E" PARCEL "A" In the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, being portions of Block 49 and 50 of the Rancho San Bernardino, as per Map recorded Book 7 of Maps, Page 2, Records of said County, together with portions of vacated streets and alleys lying within and adjacent to said blocks, being a portion of Parcel "A-l" as described in a sub-lease by and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and Ming Plaza Development, recorded January 24,1997, as Document No. 19970024757 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the centerlines of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue North; thence along the centerline of 3rd Street North 89045'07" East, 0.47 feet to the centerline of Del Rosa Drive; thence Sou1h 00055'35" East, along said centerline, 1015.95 feet; thence at right angles to said centerline, North 89004'25" East, 60.00 feet to the East line of said Del Rosa Drive and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 43006'10" East, 41.73 feet; thence North 890Q4'25" East, 251.35 feet; thence South 45055'35" East, 39.60 feet; thence South 00055'35" East, 255.31 feet; thence South 41020'54" West, 42.29 feet; thence North 89053'09" East, 328.05 feet to a point hereinafter mentioned as Point "A"; thence North 01001'53" West, 491.49 feet; thence North 88058'07" East, 443.56 feet; thence North 01001'53" West, 687.37 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southwesterly, having a radius of 463.97 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 28034'38",231.41 feet; thence North 29036'31" West, 29.07 feet; thence North 79034'12" West, 17.19 feet to the southerly line of 3rd Street, said point bears 60.00 feet, measured at right angles from the centerline of 3rd Street; thence along said southerly line, South 60024'42" West, 229.83 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northwesterly having a radius of 659.96 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 29020'25",337.95 feet; thence South 89045'07" West, 328.38 feet; thence South 44024'46" West, 150.72 feet to the East line of Del Rosa Drive; thence along said east line South 00055'35" East, 848.03 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion described as follows: BEGINNING at the aforementioned Point A, said point being the southwesterly comer of Parcel F-2 as shown on a Record of Survey No. 96.0174, filed as Book 108, Pages 76-77 of Records of Survey in said OfflCeoflhe County Recorder, said point also being the southwesterly corner of Parcel "A-2", as described in said sub- lease by and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and Ming Plaza Development; thence northerly along the westerly line ofsaid Parcel "A-2", North 01001'53" West, 491.49 feetto the northwesterly comer of said Parcel "A-2"; thence continuing, North 01001'53" West, 47.30 feet; thence South 88058'07" West, 298.59 feet to a point of intersection with the northerly prolongation of a line that bears North 00055'35" West, 255.31 feet as shown on said Record of Survey, said line being the easterly line of land described in a Deed recorded May 21, 1998 as Document No. 19980196585, of Official Records in said Office ofthe County Recorder, said point being distant North 00055'35" West, 247.00 feet from the northeasterly comer of said land described in said last mentioned Deed; thence along said northerly prolongation, South 00055'35" East, 247.00 feetto said northeasterly comer; thence along the easterly line of said last mentioned Deed and continuing South 00055'35" East, 255.31 feet; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 41020'54" West, 42.29 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Parcel "A-l"; thence along the southerly line of said Parcel "A-l", North 89053'09" East, 328.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Area containing 19.90 acres, more or less. Bearings and Distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System, Zone 5 (NAD-83). Divide distances shown by 0.99993157 to obtain ground level distances. U2004\04061\1la\EXH.A-NEW.8EFORE lLA.OOC LLA 04-13 c o c EXHIBIT "An PAGE 2 OF 2 PARCEL"B" In the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, being a portion of Block 49 of the Rancho San Bernardino, as per Map recorded Book 7 of Maps, Page 2, Records of said County, together with portions of vacated streets and alleys lying within and adjacent to said blocks, being a portion of Parcels" A-l" and "A-2, as described in a sub-lease by'and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and Ming Plaza Development, recorded January 24, 1997, as Document No. 19970024757 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the centerlines of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue North; thence along the centerline of 3rd Street North 89045'07" East, 0.47 feet to the centerline of Del Rosa Drive; thence South 00055'35" East, along said centerline, 1015.95 feet; thence at right angles to said centerline, North 89004'25" East, 60.00 feet to the East line of said Del Rosa Drive; thence North 43006'10" East, 41.73 feet; thence North 89004'25" East, 251.35 feet; thence South 45055'35" East, 39.60 feet; thence South 00055'35" East, 255.31 feet; thence South 41 020'54" West, 42.29 feet; thence North 89053'09" East, 328.05 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point hereinafter mentioned as "Point A"; thence North 01001'53" West, 491.49 feet; thence North 88058'Or East, 443.56 feet; thence South 01001'53" East, a distance of 432.74 feet; thence South 38042'44" West, 84.51 feet; thence South 89053'09" West, 389.58 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER with that portion described as follows: BEGINNING at the aforementioned Point A, said point being the southwesterly comer of Parcel F-2 as shown on a Record of Survey No. 96-0174, filed as Book 108, Pages 76-77 of Records of Survey in said Offtceofthe County Recorder, said point also being the southwesterly comer of Parcel "A-2", as described in said sub- lease by and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and Ming Plaza Development; thence northerly along the westerly line of said Parcel "A-2", North 01001'53" West, 491.49 feet to the northwesterly comer of said Parcel "A-2"; thence continuing, North 01001'53" West, 47.30 feet; thence South 88058'Or West, 298.59 feet to a point of intersection with the northerly prolongation of a line that bears North 00055'35" West, 255.31 feet as shown on said Record of Survey, said line being the easterly line of land described in a Deed recorded May 21, 1998 as Document No. 19980196585 of Official Records in said Office of the County Recorder, said point being distant North 00055'35" West, 247.00 feet from the northeasterly corner of said land described in said last mentioned Deed; thence along said northerly prolongation, South 00055'35" East, 247.00 feetlo said northeasterly comer; thence along the easterly line of said last mentioned Deed and continuing South 00055'35" East, 255.:31 feet; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 41020'54" West, 42.29 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Parcel "A-l"; thence along the southerly line of said Parcel "A-l", North 89053'09" East, 328.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Area containing 8.69 acres, more or less. Bearings and Distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System, Zone 5 (NAD-83). Divide distances shown by 0.99993157 to obtain ground level distances. This real property has been descri Land Survey , Act. ection, in conformance with the Professional te L:\2004\04061\1la\EXH.A-NEW-BEFORE lLA.OOC c o o EXHIBIT liB" PAGE 1 OF 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NEW PARCEL "A" In the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of Califomia, being portions of Block 49 and 50 of the Rancho San Bernardino, as per Map recorded Book 7 of Maps, Page 2, Records of said County, together with portions of vacated streets and alleys lying within and adjacent to said blocks, being a portion of Parcel "A-1" as described in a sub-lease by and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and Ming Plaza Development, recorded January 24, 1997, as Document No. 19970024757 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the centerlines of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue North; thence along the centerline of 3rd Street North 89045'07" East, 0.47 feet to the centerline of Del Rosa Drive; thence South 00055'35" East, along said centerline, 1015.95 feet; thence at right angles to said centerline, North 89004'25" East, 60.00 feet to the east line of said Del Rosa Drive; thence North 00055'35" West, 300.63 feet along the east line of said Del Rosa Drive to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 89000'48" East, 1152.71 feet; thence South 00059'12" East, 39.13 feet; thence North 89000'48" East, 32.00 feet; thence North 00059'12" West, 747.30 feet; thence North 89000'48" West, 150.51 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave southwesterly, having a radius of 463.97 feet a radial line through said curve bears North 74002'37" East; thence northeasterly 110.55 feet along said curve through a central of 13039'07"; thence North 29036'31" West, 29.07 feet; thence North 79034'12" West, 17.19 feetto the southerly line of 3rd Street, said point bears 60.00 feet, measured at right angles from the centerline of 3rd Street; thence along said southerly line, South 60024'42" West, 229.83 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northwesterly having a radius of 659.96 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 29020'25",337.95 feet; thence South 89045'07" West, 328.38 feet; thence South 44024'46" West, 150.72 feet to the East line of Del Rosa Drive; thence along said east line South 00055'35" East, 547.39 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING Area containing 18.83 acres, more or less. Bearings and Distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System, Zone 5 (NAD-83). Divide distances shown by 0.99993157 to obtain ground level distances. NEW PARCEL "B" In the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, being a portion of Block 49 of the Rancho San Bernardino, as per Map recorded Book 7 of Maps, Page 2, Records of said County, together with portions of vacated streets and alleys lying within and adjacent to said blocks, being a portion of Parcels "A-1" and "A-2, as described in a sub-lease by and between the Inland Valley Development Agency and Ming Plaza Development, recorded January 24, 1997, as Document No. 19970024757 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the centerlines of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Avenue North; thence along the centerline of 3rd Street North 89045'07" East, 0.47 feet to the centerline of Del Rosa Drive; thence South 00055'35" East, along said centerline, 1015.95 feet; thence at right angles to said centerline, North 89004'25" East, 60.00 feet to the east line of said Del Rosa Drive; thence North 00055'35" West, 300.63 feet along the east line of said Del Rosa Drive to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; North 89000'48" East, 1050.41 feet; L:\2004\04061\1laIEXH.B-new-AFTER llAOOC c o o EXHIBIT "B" PAGE 2 OF 2 thence South 01001'53" West, 531.42 feet; thence South 38042'44" West, 84.51 feet; thence South 89053'09' West, 717.63 feet; thence North 41020'54" East, 42.29 feet; thence North 00055'35" West, 255.31 feet; thence North 45055'35" West, 39.60 feet; thence South 89004'25" West, 251.35 feet; thence South 43006'10" West, 41.73 feet; to a point on the east line of said Del Rosa Drive; thence North 00055'35" West, 300.63 feet along said east line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Area containing 11.99 acres, more or less. Bearings and Distances used in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System, Zone 5 (NAD-83). Divide distances shown by 0.99993157 to obtain ground level distances. This real property has been descri Land Surveyg' Act. irection, in conformance with the Professional 7f~t/ l:\2CJ0.4\04061\1la\EXH.B-new-AFTER LLA.OOC I ~ wi >, ~1,p.l <( ~ ~I'~ ~ ..J (/) r,o WI ci ~I g .W in N' . 0 '<to O' ,0 Olr,o <Xl Z I~ I~ I~ I I N79'34"Z"W 17.19' , N89'4S'p7"E / . 0.47 ~ . o ~ EAST 3rd STR:=>EET / <;l~~i~ L ~ 11~1. s'i:,'::' --- ----- b. =13'39'07" R=463.97' ,,'I L=110.SS' f-vl .07 ,,'" b. =29'20'2S" '9"~---I R=6S9.96' " L=337.9S' PROPERTY LINE ------- i--i BEFORE LLA. I") NEW PARCEL "A" ~: EXHIBIT "e" NZ9'36'31"w 29.07' \ N89'OO' 48"E lS0.S" 589'4S'07 'w 328.38' . 544'24'46"W lS0.72' '" I") r..: '<t ll'l PROPERTY LINE AFTER L.L.A. .w in I") in ll'l b o (/) IWL PARCEL LEA5E TO IVDA PROPERTY LINE AFTER LLA. N89'00'48"E 11S2.71' 10S0.41' 98.68' N88'S8'07"E 443.S6' I I~I I~ I") ~Ill'll ~I \ bl WI ~I:ril 15 15' I(/) I N88'S8'07"E ~ - 298.S9' - I ot,.... 01") r..:1N ;t~ I TPOB N 89'04'ZS" E 2S1.3S' N4S'SS'3S"W 39.60' ~ ll'l N43'06'10"E . !'J 41.73' ~ !il "o;~:'?fc:" ~ ~ NOT A PART N41'20'S4"E 4Z.29' 249.67' N89'S3 09 E . N4S'SS'O~~ RIALTO AVENU-EJ----- 42.80' . gl PROPERTY LINE BEFORE L.L.A. NEW PARCEL "B" 538'4Z' 44" W 84.S1' N89'S3'09"E NOTE: BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOVlN HEREON ARE GRID, BASED ON THE CAUFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEll (NAD 83) ZONE 5. TO OBTAIN OUND DISTANCES, DI'IIDE THE DISTANCE SHOVlN BY 0.99993157. PREPARED BY: Associated Engineers, Inc, 3311 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 TE~ (909)980-1982 . FAX: (909)941-0891 ~ 3:36' 'I~ ~ ,0 z o ':5 I~ V o o N II , ~ gl r..: '<t Ol ll'l b o z W , lXl '<to 00 . 0 O. ON 0,1") lXl Z <( iii ....J(/) Wo iE~ <w Q.(/) ,g~ _....J LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PARCEL "A" AND PARCEL "B" JULY 15, Z004 I J ! : c, r:~~ ~~_STR(ET-t.-{,~) 1t..' , -, 10! 0 , 1'2:. .lei 11,..e ~ oII/l,.: Il'll.i , I ll7JI.C I I;, I I 01.. _ , ;---;'--50- -.;- - ---i I ' ... ~", I ..~.- I;' : c&(\ ( :;:':;'.'Z ~ Ii, L 2 2 I ..'....0. ~y rl"" I .~~~ I I:, ".. ~~, CRf[lI "__?". ~ ~ /" I~ ~ fW::C: ~~~"~_CH:~., ''':''' ~ ~ ~ LI"" '....' \ ,:,,,,.,, /"./,,~ ......... .~"'1. " \ (;'y~~''''' . :;~'"~~ " I ! I .11 I -"::l F 1,1 II I I J1 J . rJ . I I I t J ~ Itl~ ~I. ~rl! ~~.; '"'. ") .. \.... r Po< r,"c' ~ JODI! "'DoOO" - (,6, ....J -.~~r!':'-':.i:lli~: . ~..~...~t-~II~':.r':-J ;~:.:~-:.'..:P;- _:.:.j: ',~,' '. - - I . · . .... ,,-- l-('O'7.>. -', t::;, i:,';,:: . ~ .,' :::;:t:"., . ...,....~...,...,_. -I" -I-;~r.:li' . /' )....1 i'!\ .~j 11;- '".. -'-. .-.- .~.-;.- 'Gt' . .."... .... ...' '. .,' , I '~',. .' p........l...~:". , ':';::.L':'~ ..-;,:. '",L. _"/"..:?~.;r'i""__ @ , , 15 DO' " ;';"'1 ~." .. ., ". .~ , 'I-;. le, o . II 12 - 1 I RVATlONS ... l- ~ I .1 -~ T - Jernar ,OX Rate ~;, :~. :.~. .r.::. ;~. :' . ~. ~ . 0;:, . _::~ ". o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY ATI'ACIlMENT "F" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INITIAL STUDY FOR DHL AIR CARGO FACILITY Development Permit II No. 04-27 The Proposed Project will result in the development of approximately 34.9 acres of land at the southeast corner of the intersection of Third Street and Del Rosa Drive. The Proposed Project will entail the construction and subsequent operation of up to 368,550 square feet of building space to accommodate an air cargo facility. Development of the Proposed Project will be in accordance with the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and the City of San Bernardino General Plan and Development Code. July 22, 2004 PREPARED BY LSA Associates, Inc. 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 500 Riverside, California 93507 LSA Project Number HL W 432 PREPARED FOR City of San Bernardino Development Service Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 (909) 384-5057 REVIEWED BY Independently reviewed, analyzed and exercised judgment in making the determination, by the Development/Environmental Review Committee on July 22, 2004, pursuant to Section 21082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). IS I o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary appi-oval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. 1. Project Title: DHL Air Cargo Facility 2. Lead Agency Name: Address: City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, California 92401-1507 3. Contact Person: Phone Number: Ms. Valerie Ross (909) 384-5057 4. Project Location (Address/Nearest cross-streets): Approximately 34.9 acres located at the southeast comer of Third Street and Del Rosa Drive (Figure I). c 5. Project Sponsor: Address: HillwoodlSan Bernardino, LLC 275 S. Memorial Drive San Bernardino, California 92408 6. General Plan Designation: "ITC" (San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan) and "A" (Airport District) 7. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site feature necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary): The Proposed Project consists of the following components: Proposed DHL Air Cargo Facility The Proposed Project will result in the development of approximately 34.9 acres of land in accordance with the San Bernardino International Trade Center (SBITC) Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and the City of San Bernardino General Plan and Development Code. The Proposed Project will entail the construction and subsequent operation of up to 368,550 square feet of building space to accommodate an air cargo facility (Figure 2). Initial on"site development will result in the construction of approximately 318,150 square feet of building space, followed by an additional 50,400 square feet of building space to be constructed at a later date. In addition to the total 348,600 square feet of warehouse/distribution space, the proposed structure will include approximately 19,950 square feet of office space, located within the western portion of the building. The proposed structure will also include building maintenance areas, pilot lounges, and employee facilities. Any extensive overhaul, refurbishment, or O maintenance of aircraft will occur off-site. Truck docks will be located along both sides of the east-west axis of the T-shaped structure. An outdoor staging area for air cargo containers will be located on the airport tarmac, north of the proposed structure. IS 2 o wi I i ~ w wi , '!i " "I wi 2 ~. ~ 2 2' w ~I ~ ~ " ". ~ ". ~ "I ", w ~i ~I ,,' ~, ~ ~I ~ . ~ ~, " ~ ,,' ~; ',0+- " w, ~I w 0, PROJECT >' ~; \ LOCATIOK .J 5TH STREET ~ 66 3RD STREET \\\ r- .--- I I __ RIALTO~V~.~~_-Lr----_ .,..'~ ......... I o I I w " 2 ~ .. Iti"cr ~ ~' 1;;1 I :: ~ SA.!\ BI:;R~ARDI"O l:\n::Kr'liATlO:\AL AIRPORT 30 ,CENTRAL AVENUE =.. "15 MILL STREET $ ORANGE i SHO~ ROAD 2 ~ ~ W ~ ~I ~, ::;, "I ----- SAN BERNARDINO ~YENUE FIGURE I 2~c';' 10 .... '- REDL.ANDS BOULEVARD L S ^ f'1'i()]FCT ~ {h.;Th)\ S.",>.;'llEk".-\IUll'\U I'-;-EJ( 'AT:\J'.".:. TII.."';'[ C[\TFii. DHLAir Cargo Facili!)' InitialStu<fy R~gional and Project Location _.~--- snl, RCf:TB\I;:"'" ~ III \l,.,,~ (;r~rn,,;' 1\ I""~",,,., _<'\., ~ :~ n.', o o C I ~..,.,._--_.._-" ~. ,- ir~ -' BUILDING AREA r ,- ~ 51 :=L. 'NAREHCIJSE ~S1':=L. OFFIC:. 1: 77} S.F ".. ;-sf~.ioTAi..~~-- ~25040is} MEZZ WAREHOUSE 'IEZZOFFICE . MEZZ.TOTAL ~ TOTAL IULDlNG MfA: FUTURE EXPANSIOH: Ii.. TOTAlIULDlNG AREA: !i!'.-"t~~-- ,- 234 ~3' S.::, ..... BUILDING AREA t: ARE.A FOP. BUI~OING 581,853S,F. AIRCRAFI~~9.t!-.t~~""'1ea area- 5J~ ~l:g SF. TOTAL. 51""EAREA 1,S~9, 982 S.F..' C)! -...;~~--~~. ; - .9'{E.AI\ROOO,' .J...;r _... "ASTolR .., <- ./ _ PILOT - I.' MEA . - -./ /. 635625_F J, ~ ao SF 677425F 3U,146S.F. 5UOllS.F. 361.50&85.F. l , i ~. . ~, .,'c': - .:;, ,~. ,-.", --.....----.. f~ .....~_ HSan Semai'dino 'nternation~/4jrpor1 I L S A __I'" FIGURE 2 $ ~" DHL Air Cargo Foci/if)' Initial Stuc!J Conceptual Site Plan " 'I p('~ 111'.\ in. - :- ,,~ R IfL....-~::..C".~rh'c>l5.,'I'"J'I~n "~" ~':~ ~I o c o c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY The Proposed Project will serve as a regional hub for DHL. Air cargo from approximately ten (inbound/outbound) aircraft will processed through the facility on a daily basis. Aircraft (747-200) will land at the San Bemardino International Airport (SBIA) and will taxilbe towed to the tarmac adjacent to the proposed facility. In this staging area, aircraft will be off-loaded by ground crew. Air cargo containers will be towed into the facility, where they will be unloaded. The air cargo will be sorted and distributed via a conveyor system to trucks. Upon the completion of the sorting and loading process, the trucks will be dispatched to smaller regional and local distribution centers. The air cargo facility will operate seven days per week. Operations at the facility will include the loading of empty aircraft with air cargo collected from DHL's regional and local facilities. Batring unforeseen circumstances, incoming aircraft associated with the operation of the DHL facility will atrive between 7:00 and 1 I :30 p.m., while outbound flights will depart from 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. Air cargo handling, sorting, and distribution operations at the facility will occur primarily at night, with the majority of the work occurring between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The facility will have a maximum of 400 employees (non-drivers), of whom 100 will work the day shift. Up to 300 employees will work the night shift (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) Truck access to the project site will be via signalized intersection at Third Street and Leland Norton Way. Employees of the facility will access the site via a driveway on Del Rosa Drive. In addition to these driveways, an additional access point (emergency access only) will be provided onto Third Street. Routine vehicular access to this additional driveway will be prohibited through the installation of access control features. Combined, automobile and truck traffic associated with the Proposed Project will total 2.057 passenger car equivalent (PCE) average daily trips (ADT). Of these, 271 trips will occur during the a.m. peak hour, while 289 will occur during the p.m. peak hour. All outbound truck traffic will occur between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. While the majority of these trucks will be DHL vehicles, some will be driven by outside operators. The recommended route for truck traffic to and from the project site will follow Third Street, Palm A venue, and Fifth Street prior to entering State Route 30 (SR-30). In the City of Highland, Fifth Street and Palm Avenue are designated truck routes. Third Street is signed along its alignment as a "Truck Route." The Proposed Project includes the construction of an 8-foot screen wall around the truck loading and parking areas. Site improvements include the installation of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters along the frontages of Third Street and Del Rosa Drive. Project landscaping will be installed along Third Street and Del Rosa Drive and throughout the employee parking areas. Construction of the primary building and office space (318,146 square feet), parking areas, access drives. and other site improvements will occur in one phase, upon approval by the City. The project applicant anticipates the expansion of 50,400 square feet of building area at a future date. Together, the primary construction and expansion will total approximately 368,550 square feet. Construction of the proposed facility is anticipated to commence in October 2004. Operations at the facility are anticipated to commence late 2005. Specific Plall Amelldmellt No. 04-02 To accommodate the Proposed Project, the Specific Plan Land Use District designation assigned to the project property will be changed. Currently, that portion of the project site located within the Specific IS 5 o Os. o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Plan area is designated for "Tourist Commercial" uses. The project proponent has requested to amend the Specific Plan to change the Land Use District designation of the project site and adjacent (to the south) land (totaling 29.2 acres) from "Tourist Commercial" to "Industrial" (Figure 3). The Proposed Project will occupy the northern 2/3 of this area. Additionally, the removal of Leland Norton Way from the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan will require a corresponding amendment to the remove this roadway from the Specific Plan. Ge/leral Pla/l Ame/ldme/lt No. 04-03 The Proposed Project includes an amendment to the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, the purpose of which is to remove the alignment of Leland Norton Way from the southern boundary of the project site to Third Street. From the southern property boundary to Rialto Avenue, Leland Norton Way will exist as a private drive. Lot Li/le Adjustme/lt No. 04-13 The final component of the Proposed Project is a Lot Line adjustment to increase the size of APN 136- 341-15 for parking and storage requirements of the Proposed Project. No new parcels will be created as a result of this action. Parcel A will be approximately 18.83 acres, while Parcel B will measure approximately 11.99 acres. Surrounding Land Use and Setting: The majority of the 34.9-acre project site is located within the Specific Plan Area. The tarmac area ",here aircraft ",ill be staged and portions of the warehouse/distribution building are located on property owned and operated by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBlAA). The City's General Plan designates the portion of project site within the Specific Plan area as "ITC" (San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan). The portion of the site located on airport property is designated "A" (Airport District). Currently, several strucrures, including the former Base Exchange (BX), Commissary, Non-Commissioned Office's (NCO) Club, and an aircraft wash facility are located on-site. The NCO has been leased to a private party for use as a nightclub. The removal of these strucrures has been anticipated in the Program EIR and is an action independent of the Proposed Project. Demolition permits for the removal of on-site structures have previously been issued by the City. As the issuance of demolition permits is a ministerial action, it is not a project subject to CEQA. Property located directly across Third Street from the project site is located in the City of Highland. On-site and adjacent land use designations established by the Cities of San Bernardino and Highland are identified in Table A (second page following). Utilities are present on-site and within roadways adjacent to the project site. Storm drain, water, wastewater, telephone and natural gas lines are located within the existing alignment of Leland Norton Way. A six-inch fuel line is located just north of the northern boundary of the property, while an industrial waste line (lWL) is located in the vicinity of the SBIA portion of the project site. Electrical and narural gas lines traverse the project site in an east-west direction. Utility features located within the footprint of the Proposed Project will be relocated. Water, wastewater, narural gas, storm drain and telephone lines are located within Del Rosa Drive. IS 6 d I , i Existing @ n ..., ~O,',. L.4.~D [SE I CATEGORY LEGESD I AREA CATEGOR\' SAME .-s \ RCKardI &. ~'clllplDCnt _.: TOIm,t(ommm;illl c:::J 3 T rJd~ Pad c:J4 Qllicc _51n,JU$Ul.tl _ (, RecrQtiooOpc:nSpacc Proposed Land USe District to be Changed n \o('\I...LF LA~D l'SE I CATEGORY LEGE~D I ARE,\ CATEGOR\' flOAME I ~ 1 R<:scarcli &:. DcvclOJ1lT1Cll\ c:J 3 TraW:Pin.. c::J 4 UllIcc _5Ino.lu;;tn~1 _ II RCl:fCal...mOpcnSpacc n",< L S ^ FIGURE 3 o SOURCE San Bl.:rnardino Int.:rnational Trade Center Specific Plan DHLAIr Cargo Facility Initial Stu& Existing and Proposed Land Use Districts R:\Hl W432\Gr;1phics' IS,landusC:.cdr (7 26;041 o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Table A - Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Location Land Use Land Uses Designation On-site ITCI andA" Structures associated with the former Norton Air Force Base North BpJ Commercial, residential South ITC and A Structures associated with the former Norton Air Force Base; San Bernardino International Airport East A San Bernardino International Airport West ITC Recreation facilities associated with the former Norton Air Force Base I City of San Bernardino: San Bernardino International Trade Center .: City of San Bernardino: Airpon District ~ City of Highland: "BP" Business Park 9. Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, finance approval, or participation agreement): The following approvals are required prior to project implementation: . Santa Ana Water Quality Control Board, NPDES Permit . City of San Bernardino approval of Development Permit Type II No. 04-27 . City of San Bernardino approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. 04-02 . City of San Bernardino approval of General Plan Amendment No. 04-03 . City of San Bernardino approval of Lot Line AdjustrnentNo. 04-13 . City of San Bernardino approval of grading and building permits 10. Background and Procedural Considerations In 1988, the Secretary of Defense established the Base Realignment and Commission (BRAe) for the purposes of recommending the realignment or closure of military facilities. In 1989, the Commission recommended the closure of Norton Air Force Base (NAFB). Base operations were discontinued in September 1993 and the facility was officially closed in March 1994. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) assessing the potential environmental effects associated with the disposal and reuse of NAFB was completed in June 1993 (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal and Reuse of Norton Air Force Base California, June 1993.) This report addresses the impacts of the closure of the base consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and considered various options for reuse of the base, including a civilian airport and a trade center. Shortly after the Federal Government announced that Norton Air Force Base would be closed, ownership of most of the land formerly constituting the base was transferred to two new entities. The SBlAA took ownership of the runways, tarmacs, and adjacent property for development ofa commercial airport. The Inland Valley Development Authority (IVDA) took ownership of most of the remaining IS 8 o c c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY portions of the base for development of compatible office, commercial, and industrial projects. In 1991, the IVDA prepared an EIR (Inland Valley Development Agency Redevelopment Project Draft EIR, Inland Va1ley Development Agency, April, 1990), which addressed the reuse ofNAFB at a conceptual level. along with the proposed redevelopment of 14,426 acres surrounding the base, consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City. the County of San Bernardino (County), and neighboring cities. In 1993. the SBIAA prepared an Initial Study for an interim operating plan for the SBIA (Norton Air Force Base Conversion to Civilian Operation Interim Operating Plan Initial Study). The Initial Study and the resulting Negative Declaration were adopted by the City on May 26, 1993. The Interim Operating Plan is the current go\'erning plan for flight operations at SBIA. The IVDA identified the land under its ownership as the San Bernardino International Trade Center (SBITC). In 1996, the IVDA prepared and the City of San Bernardino approved a Specific Plan for development of the SBITC (San Bernardino Imernational Trade Center Specific Plan, Topping Jacques Consultants, March 1996). Pursuant to CEQA, a Program EIR was prepared to assess the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the Specific Plan (Final Environmental Impact Report San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan, LSA Associates, Inc. 1996). The Specific Plan was approved and the Program EIR was certified in 1996. In 1999, the Specific Plan was revised. An Initial Study was prepared to assess potential impacts that may result from the revisions to the Specific Plan. Again, the City approved the revised Specific Plan and recertified the Program EIR. The proposed DHL facility wi1l be considered as a second-tier project implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan; therefore, the Proposed Project will be considered a second-tier project under the certified Program EIR. Pursuant to CEQA. the City must determine whether the Proposed Project results in new significant impacts not evaluated in the Program EIR and must decide what CEQA environmental determination to make if it chooses to approve the Proposed Project. A Program EIR is used when a project consists of a program that will entail a series of future actions or specific construction projects which can be characterized as a large project (e.g., such as development within a Specific Plan.) A Program EIR describes the broad program objectives and facilities and evaluates the cumulative impact of implementing the total project over a period of time with a1l its elements. Tiering refers to the concept of using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects, incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR. and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. A Program EIR. a "first-tier document." does not typically address site-specific impacts that result from subsequent development projects. Subsequent actions may include specific development projects, installation of infrastructure, or other related projects that contribute to the implementation of the Specific Plan. CEQA requires every subsequent development project within the scope of a Program EIR to be evaluated to assess its potential site-specific impacts. Where activities or facilities being implemented in the future fa1l within the scope of impacts identified within the Specific Plan, subsequent later environmental documentation can be minimized through finding that the environmental impact analysis in the Program EIR was sufficient to fully address all project impacts even though an intervening period has elapsed. Subsequent actions will be reviewed for consistency with the Specific Plan. If subsequent environmental review is required CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162(a) states: IS 9 o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project. no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless that lead agency determines. on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects: , Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects: or 3. New information of substantial importance. which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted. shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project. but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This Initial Study addresses the specific project-related impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Where a significant impact has been identified, the analysis will include a comparison of these impacts to the impacts identified in the Program EIR. As necessary, the Initial Study will identify mitigation measures from the Program EIR to reduce the significance of any such impact. To facilitate this process, the City hereby incorporates by reference the certified Program ErR for the Specific Plan as part of this Initial Study (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15150 and 151 I 68[d]). By incorporating the Updated Program EIR by reference, subsequent environmental documents can focus on new or site-specific impacts. The following reports and/or studies have been prepared to support development of the project site and are hereby incorporated by reference. IS 10 c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY . Draft Environmental Impact Report, San Bernardino International Trade Center, LSA Associates, Inc.. November 1995. . Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal and Reuse of Norton Air Force Base, California, June 1993 . San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan, Topping Jaquess Consultants, Revised September 12,1999. These reports/studies are available for review at: City of San Bernardino Public Service Counter Department of Planning and Building Services 300 N. "0" Street, 3'd Floor San Bernardino, California 92401-1507 (909) 384-5057 Hours: Monday-Thursday: Friday: 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. IS II o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STIJDY 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. 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 181 Air Quality 0 Biological ResourCes 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology I Soils 181 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology I Water Quality 0 Land Use I Planning Materials ~ Noise 0 Population I Housing 0 Mineral Resources Recreation 0 Transportation I Traffic 0 Public Services 0 Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities I Service Systems Significance On the basis of this Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino Environmental Review Committee finds: o I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D 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. o I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D 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. 181 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. -ItlLUu C. ~ Signature fuIt 'J,'},.. I 'J-00-4- Dati VAt..e1<16 (). RPft5 Printed Name For IS 12 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Where appropriate, this Initial Study identifies Mitigation Measures included in the Program EIR. The identification of these measures follow the numbering scheme utilized in the Program EIR (e.g., 9-1, 5-4, etc.). Additional Mitigation Measures required by the Cil)' are designated with an alphanumeric identifier (e.g, H-I). Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 0 0 0 IZl vista as identified in the City's General Plan? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 IZl 0 including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 c) Substantially degrade the eXlstmg visual 0 0 IZl 0 character of quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare 0 0 IZl 0 which would adversely affect day or nighttime view in the area? e) Other: 0 0 0 0 Discussion: La The Program ElR determined that the development within the Specific Plan area would not result in the obstruction of any scenic view, Since the Proposed Project will be required to adhere to design guidelines contained in the Specific Plan and the City's Development Code, the Program EIR determined that the development of the Specific Plan would not result in the obstruction of any scenic views, no impact associated with this issue will occur, Lb-c The Proposed Project site is currently developed with urban uses, On-site infrastructure and landscaping within the project limits has generally been ill-maintained, No significant scenic resource is located within the project limits, nor is the project site located adjacent to a State designated Scenic Highway, The Proposed Project will result in the construction of a 368,000+ square foot air cargo facility, The proposed structure will be designed and constructed to be compatible with other facilities that have been constructed within the Specific Plan, The Proposed Project includes the construction of an 8-foot high screen wall around the facility, This o IS \3 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY screen wall will restrict views of the truck parking areas and the building from Del Rosa Drive and Third Street. Additionally, the Proposed Project will install landscaping along the frontage of Del Rosa Drive and Third Street, and within employee parking areas. Landscape features include: a mixture of trees (up to 210 individual trees), shrubs, and groundcover, and a meandering sidewalk along Del Rosa Drive and Third Street. While the visual character of the project site will be altered upon construction of the proposed facility and the installation of project landscape features, compared to the existing character of the project site, the visual character of the project area will be enhanced by the development of the Proposed Project. The Program ElR prepared for the Specific Plan (Appendix A, Initial Study International Trade Center) determined that development of the Specific Plan would not "create aesthetically offensive changes in the existing visual sitting of the site." While the proposed facility differs from that uses originally envisioned in the Specific Plan, the development permitted by approval of the development permit would require that the facility be designed and constructed in compliance with the standards established in City's General Plan, Development Code, and the Specific Plan. Compliance with these standards will ensure that potential impacts associated with changes to the existing visual character of the project site will be less than significant. I.d Development of the Proposed Project will result, through the installation of on-site lighting, in an incremental increase in the amount of light and glare within the site and adjacent areas. The City's Development Code! includes provisions to reduce the impact of on-site light sources. The Specific Plan requires development to adhere to the City standards contained in Section 19.20 of the Development Code. Adherence to Specific Plan and City standards will reduce impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level. c 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 Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 0 ~ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: b) Other: Conflict with agricultural zonmg, an existing agricultural use, or Williamson Act Conservation Contract? o o o ~ 0, City of San Bernardino Development Code. Section 19.20. IS 14 o c 0, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Discussion: IJ.a-b The project site is identified as "Urban or Built Upl.. land by the State Department of Conservation. The project site is currently developed with urban uses. No agricultural activity occurs on-site and the project site is not zoned for such operations. No Williamson Act Conservation Contract exists on any property within the project limits. No impact relative to agricultural resources will result from the construction or operation of the Proposed Project. III. AIR QUALITY - Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (South Coast Air Basin) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation based on the thresholds in the SCAQMD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook~" 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)~ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people based on the information contained In Project Description Form~ t) Other: Alter air movement, moisture, temperature. or cause any change in climate? Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Department of Conservation. 2002. IS 15 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o ~ ~ ~ o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o ~ o No Impact ~ o o o o ~ o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Discussion: III.a-b The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. It includes all of Orange County, the non-Antelope Valley portions of Los Angeles County, and the non-desert portions of Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The current regional air quality plan is the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on August I, 2003. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the standards for ozone and PM 10, replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the Federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard, provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future, and updates the maintenance plan for the Federal nitrogen dioxide (N02) standard that the SCAB has met since 1992. The SCAB is currently a Federal and State non-attainment area for PMIO and ozone. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any of the control measures in these air quality plans. . The SCAQMD has developed the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2001) that establishes suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted. According to the Handbook, any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact: . 55 Ibs. per day of ROC (reactive organic compounds) (75lbs.lday during construction) . 551bs. per day of NO x (oxides of nitrogen) (100 Ibs.lday during construction) . 550 Ibs. per day of CO (carbon monoxide) (550 Ibs.lday during construction) . 150 Ibs. per day ofPMIO (150 Ibs.lday during construction) . 150 Ibs. per day of SOx (oxides of sulfur) (150 Ibs.lday during construction) Construction-related Emissions. During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on- site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated daily during construction would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and on-site workers may be exposed to blowing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential dwellings located directly across Third Street from the Proposed Project site. These residential dwellings are located approximately 150 feet north of the project's northern property line. The construction related emissions resulting from typical grading of 5.0 acres per day are identified in Table B. IS 16 c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Table B - Construction Emissions Number and Equipment Hours of Pollutants IIbs/dn) Type Ooeration CO ROC NOx SO, PM,. 4 Scraners 8 40.00 8.64 122.88 14.72 13.12 1 Motor Grader 8 1.20 0.31 5.70 0.69 0.49 I Tracked Loader 8 1.60 0.76 6.64 0.61 0.47 2 T rac ked Dozers 8 5.60 1.92 20.16 2.24 1.79 I Wheeled Tractor 8 28.64 2.88 20.32 1.44 2.24 2 Miscellaneous 8 10.80 2.40 27.20 2.28 2.24 Commute for 14 Workers 25 mile roundtrip 6.00 1.10 1.90 0.30 0.70 Subtotal Exhaust Emission 122.48 18.01 204.8 22.28 21.05 Fugitive Dust Emissions Onen Stocknile 42.80 DebrislDirt Pushin~ 348.80 GradedlExoosed Surface 132.00 Subtotal 523.60 TOTAL GRADING Unmitigated 122.48 18.01 204.8 22.28 544.65 EMISSIONS Miti~ated 282.85 Emission Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 Significant? NO NO YES NO YES Source: Draft EII\';ronmentaf Impact Report Tile HUB Project, LSA Associates. Inc.. January 30. 2001. The Program ErR provided the following mitigation measures to reduce the significance of construction-related air quality impacts. 5-3 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project sponsor shall submit to the City a mitigation plan for both exhaust and dust impacts. No construction will be conducted prior to acceptance of this plan. The City shall verify use of the plan measures during regular site inspections. 54 Grading plans shall indicate that on-site grading will be limited to a total of 6 acres per day. 5-5 Grading plans shall indicate that the contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that trucks used for hauling excess material are covered to minimize loss of material, flagmen assist trucks moving into traffic, and peak hour truck travel is minimized. 5-6 The dust control plan shall be included as part of the grading plan and shall specify steps that would be taken to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) 403 (Fugitive Dust). Measures outlined in the plan shall include but not be limited to: daily watering of graded areas, washing of equipment tires before leaving the construction site, and use of SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers or'soil binders. IS 17 o c o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY 5-7 The grading plan shall indicate that during construction, the contractor shall discontinue construction activities during first and second stage smog alerts, or when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. 5-8 The grading plan shall indicate that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor will ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained. 5-9 Prior to approval of a grading permit, the contractor shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. 5-10 Roadway and parking lot plans shall indicate the use of emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement, where feasible. The use of cutback asphalt should be avoided whenever possible. 5-11 Where feasible and/or applicable, the project proponent shall: (1) specify construction materials with natural finishes that do not require coating; (2) where coatings are to be applied. specify the use of high-volume low-pressure or manual application of paints and coatings on structures; (3) use pre-finished or pre-primed and sanded wood molding and trim products and pre-primed wallboard; and (4) specify the use of non-polluting powercoating operations and power-coated metal projects. The Program EIR envisioned the development of up to 11.5 million square feet of industrial, commercial, and office uses. The Program EIR stated, "With the implementation of.. . mitigation measures, construction impacts will be reduced to the extent feasible. However, pollutant emissions are projected to remain significant for the duration of the construction effort. To date, eight years after its initial approval, approximately 3.02 million square feet of uses have been developed. The Specific Plan Amendment area was once envisioned to be developed with up to 635,976' square feet of "Tourist Commercial" uses. The extent and level of development associated with the Proposed Project does not exceed that previously identified in the Program EIR. As part of the approval of the Specific Plan, the City Council considered the significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impacts identified in the Program EIR. The City Council, in its decision to approve the Specific Plan and certify the Program EIR, determined that the benefits derived from development of the Specific Plan overrode the Specific Plan's significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impacts. While the construction- related emissions of NOx and PMIO that would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, this exceedance is no more significant than that previously forecast in the Program EIR; therefore, no additional mitigation is required. Operational Emissions. The pollutant emissions associated with the operation of the Proposed Project were assessed using the URBEMIS 2002 model, a computer model that evaluates air quality impacts. The analysis assesses the mobile source emissions generated by vehicles driving to and from the proposed land uses, as well as area source emissions generated by project heating and electrical systems. IS 18 c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY A comparison of operational emIssIons anticipated to result from development of "Tourist Commercial" uses and those associated with the change ofIand use from "Tourist Commercial" . to "Industrial" is provided in Table C. As shown in Table C, operational air quality emissions resulting from the Proposed Project are significantly reduced from those associated with the approved "Tourist Commercial" uses, and below the SCAQMD levels of significance for CO, ROC, SOx, and PMIO. While NOx emissions associated with the Proposed Project (the air cargo facility and the proposed land use change) exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOx, under this project. the amounl of NO x emitted is substantially reduced (by 180.7 pounds per day) from that associaled with 'Tourist Commercial" uses. Table C - Summary of ApprovedlProposed Operational Emissions POLLUTANTS (Ibs/day) CO ROC NOx SOx PM,. Approved Uses Tourist Commerciall.2 1,945.7 187.3 250.3 1.2 122.0 Proposed Uses DHL Air Cargo Facilityl.2 186.8 20.3 28.6 0.2 14.0 Balance of Planning Area 1.2 291.0 25.0 41.0 0.3 21.0 Total Emissions Proposed Uses 477.8 45.3 69.6 0.5 35.0 SCAQMD Operation Threshold 550.0 55.0 55.0 150.0 150.0 Significant? NO NO YES NO NO Change from Approved Uses -1,467.9 -142,0 -180,7 -0.7 -87.0 I. Combined stationary (heating. electrical) and mobile (vehicular emissions). 2. Worst case: CO. ROC. SOx.. and PM", "" summenime: NOx.'" wintertime. Source: LSA Associates. Inc. 2004 Based on the above data, the potential air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project will not result in impacts more substantial than that previously identified in the Program EIR. As air emissions (including NOx) forecast for the project site are significantly reduced from that previously identified; the mitigation provided in the Program EIR is appropriate for the Proposed Project. The Program EIR contains the following measures to mitigate for long-term operational air quality impacts: 9-10 Prior to the development of more than 100,000 square feet of cumulative development, the project sponsor shall develop a commuter center, which would include such information as bus and rail transit schedules/maps; telephone numbers for the designated transportation coordinator; Omnitrans bus route and Metrolink schedules ridesharing promotional material; bicycle route and facility information; location of and directions to the San Bernardino Metrolink station; and location of on-site vanpoollcarpool spaces. The above mitigation measure has been completed for a project previously approved and constructed. IS 19 c c 0, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY 9-11 Prior to the issuance a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate the building and landscape plans include the following: Thermal load reduction through the use of automated time clocks and/or occupant sensors; The utilization of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods; The utilization of energy efficient heating, air conditioning, water heater, furnaces, boiler units, etc.; The incorporation of passive solar design and solar heaters, where appropriate; and Landscape with native, drought resistant species to reduce water consumption and provide passive solar benefits. While the Program EIR concluded that cumulative air quality impacts resulting from development of the Specific Plan in combination with emissions from other proposed and approved projects in the SCAB would be significant, the Proposed Project's contribution to this cumulative effect is reduced from that previously identified. Aircraft Emissions. The Proposed Project will result in up to 20 daily flights to/from SBIA. The Program EIR prepared for the IVDA Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan EIR) in 1991 addressed the reuse of the former Norton Air Force Base (NAFB) and the redevelopment of 14,426 acres surrounding the base. Relevant to operation of a civilian airport, the Redevelopment Plan EIR concluded that, ".. . long-term or permanent emissions would be reduced" compared to pre-closure conditions at NAFB. The Redevelopment Plan EIR also concluded that the redevelopment .of NAFB was fully consistent with regional air quality goals. The Initial Study prepared to evaluate potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Interim Airport Operating Plan and the operation 9f 37,000 annual flights at the SBIA determined the Plan was consistent with the impact forecast in the Redevelopment Plan EIR1. As the level of air activity resulting from the Proposed Project is consistent with that envisioned under the Interim Airport Operating Plan; no operational or cumulative air quality impact greater than that previously identified will occur. No additional mitigation is required. With implementation of the mitigation proposed in the Program EIR, no significant long-term air quality impacts would directly result from the operation of the Specific Plan. Because potential air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project fall within the range forecast in the Program and Redevelopment Plan EIRs, and because mitigation identified in the Program EIR is forecast to reduce to the extent feasible operational air quality impact, no additional mitigation is required. III. c The Program EIR concluded that development of the SBITC would contribute pollutant emissions within the SCAB, a non-attainment zone for ozone and PMIO. Emissions from Specific Plan uses, in combination with other projects within the SCAB would contribute to continuing Response 2a. Norton Air Force Base Conversion to Civilian Operation -Initial Study for lhe Interim Airport Operating Plan. San . Bernardino International Airpon Authority. IS 20 o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY violations of State and Federal air pollution standards. As established in Table C, the level of emissions resulting from the Proposed Project is significantly reduced from pollutant emissions that would result from the construction and operation of "Tourist Commercial" uses. While cumulative operational air quality impacts would remain significant, because the Proposed Project would contribute a smaller amount of air pollutants in the SCAB, the cumulative air quality impacts assigned to the Proposed Project fall within the impacts identified in the Program EIR, no new mitigation measures are required. m.d Please refer to the Response to Checklist Questions lILa-b. lILe During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. Additionally, the application of architectural coatings and installation of asphalt may generate odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project boundaries. SCAQMD requirements regarding the application of architectural coatings and the installation of asphalt surfaces are sufficient to reduce temporary odor impacts to a less than significant level. m.f The Proposed Project will not result in the introduction of structures or facility that would alter the existing air movement, moisture, temperature, or climate on or adjacent to the project site. The total permitted amount of developed square footage within the project area will remain unchanged from that identified in the Specific Plan. As no impact related to this issue will occur, no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact 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, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? o o o o b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? o o o o IS 21 o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With SIgnIficant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Continued c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 0 0 ~ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of 0 0 0 ~ any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 0 0 0 ~ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? t) Other: Removal of viable, mature trees. 0 0 ~ 0 Discussion: IV.a o The Proposed Project site is currently developed with existing structures, parking lots, and an existing tarmac. The development present on the Proposed Project site has eliminated natural plant communities and most wildlife associated with those plant communities. While the former NAFB does contain Santa Ana River woollystar habitat, (Eriastrom densifolium ssp. sanctorom) this habitat is located to the south and the east of the existing runway, approximately one mile south of the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project site is separated from the area containing the Santa Ana River woollystar habitat by the runway and other developed features. Other species, such as the slender-homed spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) may occur in the runway area and in the adjacent Santa Ana River floodplain; however, these portions of the formerNAFB are not part of the Proposed Project site. The site is not located within the federally designated critical habitat established for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Due to the development that currently exists, and the existence of the runway between the Proposed Project site and the areas containing biological resources, no impact to endangered, threatened, or rare species will occur. IS 22 o c o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY IV.b-c Based on the Program EIR, there are two areas on the former NAFB that were designated as jurisdictional wetlands. A small unnamed tributary to Warm Creek located on the northwestern boundary of the base is designated as jurisdictional wetlands. This drainage contains approximately 1.1 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. This portion of the former base is located approximately 0.5 mile to the east of the project site and is not within the Proposed Project boundaries. The second area of wetland habitat is the City Creek drainage, which contains less than 0.1 acre of jurisdictional wetlands. This area is located approximately 0.75 mile southwest of the Proposed Project site. Wetland habitat is also found in the drainage of the Santa Ana River. Since the jurisdictional wetlands identified by the Program EIR are not located within the Proposed Project site, no impact to riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands will result from the development of the Proposed Project. The project site is developed with a variety of urban uses. Vegetation on-site consists of human installed landscape features. As no natural vegetative community exists within the limits of the Proposed Project, development of the Proposed Project will not affect any such community identified as sensitive by the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). IV.d The Proposed Project site is currently surrounded by developed areas which include vacant and occupied buildings and parking lots. Due to the lack of natural habitat on and adjacent to the project site, no wildlife migration and/or movement corridors are located on-site. No impact related to this issue will occur. IV.e The Proposed Project site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. No impact related to this issue will occur. IV.f All trees on-site will be removed to accommodate the Proposed Project. The City requires that all trees within a project site six inches or greater in diameter at 54 inches above ground shall be identified and included in a Tree PreservationlRelocationlRemoval Plan. Based on a Tree Condition Report'. 78 trees within the project site meet this criterion. All of the trees on-site are common varieties exhibiting low value and/or structural/cosmetic defects. Due to the lack of irrigation. the prolonged southern California drought, and insect infestations, many of the trees within the project limits are in various stages of decline. The Tree Report rates the on-site trees on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 being best). No on-site tree meets the criteria to be rated a 4 or 5. Trees with ratings of 1-3 are not considered candidates for relocation. The Specific Plan includes provisions for the preservation of trees to the, "... maximum extent feasible." The Specific Plan further states: Any healthy, mature tree that must be removed to accommodate new construction shall be subject to review and approval of a tree removal permit. Prior to issuance of a tree removal permit. an overall landscaping plan must be approved by the Development Services Department which Includes provision for tree removal. relocation and/or replacement as may Tree COIJdilion Repol1. Dave Matias. Plant and Pest Consultant. July 2004. IS 23 o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY be appropriate. Any tree that must be removed shall be evaluated by a local certified arborist prior to removal to determine if it can be successfully relocated. Where an existing tree is judged healthy and yet cannot be feasib(l' relocated. it may be removed subject to replacement with three 36-inch box specimen trees of a type and quality to be approved by the Development Services Department. All site plans submitted to the City for development approval shall indicate the location. size, t>pe and condition of all mature trees currently on-site. Those trees proposed to be removed shall be clearly marked on the site plan. A mature tree is defined as having a trunk of 6 inches or greater as measured 4 feet up from the ground. No trees shall be removed without a tree removal permit. All tree removal, relocation and/or replacement shall be accomplished at the project proponent's expense c The Proposed Project includes a landscape plan that will result in the planting of 210 trees on- site. Adherence to Specific Plan guidelines and compliance with Proposed Project's landscape plan will ensure that impacts to viable, mature trees will be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With SIgnIficant Impact Impact Mitigatlon Impact Incorporated V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Be developed in a sensitive archaeological area D D D ~ as identified in the City's General Plan? b) Cause a substantial adverse change In the D D D ~ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~15064.5 ofCEQA? c) Cause a substantial adverse change In the D D D ~ significance of a historical resource as defined in 915064.5 ofCEQAry dl Directly or indirectly destroy a umque D D D ~ paleontological resource or site or umque geologic featurery 0 IS 24 o c 0, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Continued e) Disturb any human remains, including those 0 0 0 [gJ interred outside of formal cemeteries~ f) Other: 0 0 0 0 Discussion: V.a-d The Proposed Project site is located on the former NAFB and is located within an area substantially developed with urban uses. The Proposed Project site is not located within a sensitive archaeological area as identified in Figure 8 of the City's General Plan. There are no known unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the site, nor are there any religious or sacred uses associated with the project site. No prehistoric sites have been previously recorded on NAFB or within one mile of the base boundaries. In addition, no fossil remains have been found at the base. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Air Force reached a concurrence on the determination that no historic properties occur on NAFB property. Tetra Tech determined in 1991 that World War II structures on Norton were not eligible for the National Register. The California SHPO concurred with Tetra Tech's determinations'. Based on the City's Historic Resource Reconnaissance Survey, no historic sites exist within the project site. As no historic properties, paleontological resources, or archeological resources have been identified within the project limits; no impacts associated with these issues will occur. V.e No evidence is in place to suggest the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that if human remains are discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State law is required for all development, no mitigation is required in the unlikely event human remains are discovered on-site. Final Environmentallmpacl Statement: Disposal and Reuse afNorton Air Force Base. U.S. Air Force. June 1993. IS 25 o c o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Involve earth movement (cut and/or fill) based on information included In the Project Description Form? b) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death? c) Be located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone? d) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? e) Be located within an area subject to landslides, mudslides, subsidence, or other similar hazards as identified in the City's General Plan? f) Be located within an area subject to liquefaction as identified in the City's General Plan? g) Modify any unique physical feature based on a site survey/evaluation? . h) Result In erOSIon, dust, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, fill, or other construction activities? i) Other: Development within Hillside Management Overlay District of on slopes in excess of 15 percent. DIscussion: Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant With MitIgation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ ~ D D ~ ~ D [gJ D No Impact D D ~ ~ D D ~ D [gJ Development of the project site will require the movement of earth during site preparation and construction of the proposed buildings, parking areas, and infrastructure improvements. On-site grading operations will be required to adhere to applicable standards established and enforced by the City. Adherence to these standards will reduce potential impacts relative to on-site earth moving to a less than significant level. VLa IS 26 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VI~b. VI.c o VI.d VI.e 0, The project site, like most of the San Bernardino Valley is located in an area of high regional seismicity. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site, while the San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 2.0 miles southwest of the site. Because no fault traces have been located on-site, impacts associated with on-site fault rupture are anticipated to occur. The most likely hazard to persons and property would result from ground shaking during a seismic event. A maximum I1round acceleration of 0.55g may occur during a magnitude 6.7 event on the San Andreas FaulL The project site is located in Uniform Building Code, Seismic Zone 4. The State has modified the Uniform Building Code (UBC) to incorporate modifications specifically for construction within seismically active areas. Adherence to standards set forth in this revised building code, the California Building Code (CBC), which is required for all construction within the State, will reduce potential ground shaking impacts to a less than significant level. Based on Figure 47 of the General Plan, the Proposed Project will not result in development within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. In addition, the Program EIR does not identify the Proposed Project site as being located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. No impact associated with this issue will occur. The Proposed Project site is not located within an area defined as having high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Figure 53 in the City's General Plan. In addition, the buildings, paving. and landscape resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Project will eliminate potential exposure to wind or rain erosion. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. The Proposed Project site is not located within an area identified in Figure 53 of the City's General Plan as containing high potential for wind erosion. Additionally, the Proposed Project site is not located within an area susceptible to slope instability or landslides as shown in General Plan Figure 52. Based on Figures 48 and 51 of the General Plan. the project site is located in an area susceptible to liquefaction and subsidence. Adherence to appropriate design standards will reduce impacts associated with liquefaction to a less than significant level. As identified in General Plan Figure 51. the project site is located within an area of potential ground subsidence. Subsidence could occur if groundwater is removed from the underlying groundwater basin. Prior to 1972, groundwater levels were dropping in the City of San Bernardino and subsidence was a problem. Since 1972. the San Bernardino Municipal Water District (SBMWD) has maintained groundwater levels through a recharge/percolation program. The potential for subsidence to occur at the Proposed Project site is reduced to a less than significant level through the SBMWD's groundwater level maintenance program. The project site is relatively flat with, with an approximate grade of 1-3 percent (to the west), and is not located adjacent to or near any topographic feature from which landslides or mudflows would originate. Preliminary Georeclmicai Im'esrigario1l Office and Warehouse Development. West and East of Tippecanoe Avenue and North oj Paul Villasenor Dereiopment alld Harry Shepard Boule~'ard. Norcal Engineering. November 20. 2000. IS 27 o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Compliance with the City of San Bernardino and CBC construction standards will reduce impacts associated with landslides, mudslides, subsidence, or other similar hazards to a less than significant level. VI. f Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when strong earthquake shaking causes soils to collapse from a sudden loss of cohesion and undergo a transformation from a solid state to a liquefied state. This happens in areas where the soils are saturated with groundwater. Loose soils with particle size in the medium sand to silt range are particularly susceptible to liquefaction when subjected to seismic ground shaking. Affected soils lose all strength during liquefaction and failure of building foundations can occur. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where groundwater is present within 50 feet of the surface. The Proposed Project site is located within an area identified as highly susceptible to liquefaction (General Plan Figure 48). The City maintains construction standards based on the CBC for development within areas susceptible to liquefaction hazards. As adherence to these standards is required for any development within the City, potential liquefaction hazards are reduced to a less than significant level. Vl.g The Proposed Project will not result in the modification of any creek, channel, or river. The Proposed Project site is relatively flat and contains existing development; therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in the modification of any unique geologic or physical feature. No impact associated with this issue will occur. Vl.h Implementation of the Proposed Project will require the excavation, stockpiling, and movement of on-site soils. The disturbance and movement of soils will increase the potential for on-site soil erosion. On-site soils consist primarily of Tujunga gravelly loamy sand (TvC), which occurs on slopes of 0-9 percent. Erosion hazards associated with this type of soil is minor, due to the gravelly surface layer. Development of the site will result in the movement of soil in excess of 1.0 acre. The project proponent will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as well as submitting a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address erosion and discharge impact associated with the proposed on-site grading. In addition to complying with the NPDES permit, the project proponent will be required to comply with grading and erosion control measures (including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property) set forth in Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code. Adherence to the NPDES permit requirements and the standards established by the City will reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level. Vl.i Elevations on-site range from 1,098 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the northeaster comer of the site to 1,083 feet amsl at the site's southwestern comer. The project site is relatively flat with, with an approximate grade of 1-3 percent (to the west); therefore, no earth movement on slopes in excess of 15 percent or within a Hillside Management Overlay District (HMOD) will occur. No impact related to these issues will occur. IS 28 o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VII. 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 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances. or waste within one-quarter mile 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 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 airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physical1y interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? h) Other: IS 29 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant With MItigation Incorporated D D D rZ1 D D D D Less Than Significant Impact rZ1 rZ1 rZ1 D rZ1 rZ1 D D No Impact D D D D D D rZ1 D c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Discussion: VILa Potentially hazardous materials such as fuel, paint products, lubricants, solvents, and cleaning products may be used during the course of daily activities at the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project will result in an increase in the amount of hazardous materials routinely transported to the site. In addition, the construction of the Proposed Project will require the transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g. paints, fuels, etc.). The transport and use of hazardous materials during the construction and operation of the site will be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and Federal laws. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations will reduce the potential impact associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. VILb Activities conducted on military bases often include the use, storage, and generation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. During the 50 years of base operation, hazardous waste contamination occurred in several different areas on the base. As part of the closure process and as part of its ongoing program of cleaning up military bases, the Air Force has identified 22 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites on the former NAFB. IRP sites are contaminated with hazardous wastes. Based on Figure 4.6.1 of the Program EIR, the Proposed Project is not located within any of the 22 identified IRP sites. The lease between the IVDA and the Air Force requires the Agency to limit building activities on contaminated sites until Air Force cleanup is completed. Since the Proposed Project site is not located within any areas identified as IRP sites, impacts associated with this issue are considered less than significant. VILc No schools are located within 0.25 mile of the Proposed Project. Due to the presence of hazardous materials on-site, the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environmental is present at the Proposed Project site. Prior to operation of any facility that may utilize hazardous substances, the City requires the development and implementation of a Business Plan. The City typically requires Business Plans to identify a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) that defines the steps that will be taken by the owner/operator to control, minimize, or prevent spills of hazardous or toxic materials; what responses will be taken to remediate the adverse consequences of any accidental spills and how any contaminated materials will be managed once collected for treatment and disposal. Additionally, hazardous materials and hazardous waste on-site will be handled in accordance with all applicable State and Federal laws. The handling of hazardous materials and hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable City, State, and Federal laws will reduce the potential impacts associated with an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environmental to a less than significant level. VII.d Portions of the former NAFB are identified on the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese list) (identified as site ID 36970004)'. The Specific Plan assessed potential impacts associated with the redevelopment of the former NAFB. including the construction of "Tourist Commercial" uses within the project Ha=ardollS Waste Substance alld Sires List (Cortese List). California Department of Toxic Substance Control. July 9. 2004 IS 30 c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY limits. The Proposed Project would alter the land use of the project site, replacing "Tourist Commercial" uses with "Industrial" uses. The Proposed Project does not increase the level of development within the Specific Plan area, nor would it increase the number of persons that would frequent the project site. To mitigate for potential hazardous material impacts, the Program EIR identified the following measures, which were determined to be adequate and appropriate to reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level. 6-1 Prior to the approval of any building permit or grading permit within the project area, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the City's Development Services Department, Planning Division, that the Air Force has released the site for development. 6-2 Prior to the approval of any building permit or grading permit within the project area, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the City's Development Services Department, Planning Division, that an individual site survey meeting City of San Bernardino requirements for hazardous waste has been conducted. A TCE contaminated groundwater cleanup program is being implemented by the Air Force. This contaminated groundwater is at such depths that it does not pose a direct threat of hazard to people from development in the Specific Plan. Indirectly, development does have some potential to hinder the groundwater cleanup program. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6-2 is considered adequate to mitigate this potential to a non-significant level. VILe The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area established by the SBIAA'. Based on this map, the project site is also located within the "Traffic Pattern Zone" (Zone 6) established for the Airport. The development of the proposed on-site uses is permitted, subject to a development review, in both the Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. Additionally, the number of flights servicing the Proposed Project is well within the flight operations established in the SBIAA Interim Operating Plan. As the construction and operation of the proposed on-site uses will be required to adhere to all design, construction, and operating standards established by the City and the SBIAA, no significant impact associated with this issue will occur. VILf Truck access to the project site will be via a signalized intersection located at Leland Norton Way and Third Street. Employees of the facility will access the site via a driveway on Del Rosa Drive. In addition to these driveways, an additional access point (emergency access only) will be provided onto Third Street. Routine vehicular access to this driveway will be prohibited through the installation of access control features. As required by City and emergency service providers, the project applicant will prepare an Access Plan. The design, construction, and maintenance of roadways and facilities will be in compliance with the City's emergency access standards and the provisions identified in the Access Plan. The SBIAA updates its access plan annually. Access to airport properties will be maintained via the United States Forest Service access to Perimeter Road (directly south of Third Street, within the fence line of the SBIA property) and through Gate 3, located at Harry Sheppard Boulevard, Airport Influence Area, Runway (24/6) Category D-VI (Map), San Bernardino International Airport Authority, December 4, 2003. IS 31 c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY south of the project sitel. Construction activities which may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic will be required to implement adequate and appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Adherence to applicable City and SBIAA access control measures will reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level. VII.g The City has identified the northern and northeastern portions of the City, those areas located near the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, as a wildland/urban interface. Within this area, the City has established three categories of fire hazards. As identified in Figure 61 of the City's General Plan2, the project site is not located within or near Foothill Fire Hazard Zone A, B or C. No impact related to this issue will occur; therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? D D ~ D 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 nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? D D ~ D c) Substantially alter the eXlstmg drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? D ~ D D Auport MaSler Record Map. San Bernardino International Airport, July 15. 2003 and conversation with Eric Ray. San Bernardino International Airport. July 22. 2004. City of San Bernardino General Plan. Envicom Corporation. Adopted June 2. 1989. IS 32 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY c o VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Continued d) Substantially alter the eXIsting drainage pattern of the site or area. including through the alteration of the course of a stream or nver. 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 provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. such as from areas of material storage. vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing or detailing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor areas" f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map" (Panel Nos. 06071C8682F and 0607IC8701F). h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures which 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 failure of a levee or dam? IS 33 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o Less Than SIgnificant Impact ~ ~ ~ o o o No Impact o o o ~ ~ ~ c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALlTY- Continued j) Expose people or structures to inundation by 0 0 0 [8J seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Other: 0 0 0 0 Discussion: VIIl.a The project will be designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. Waste discharges include discharges of stormwater and construction project discharges. A construction project resulting in the disturbance of 1.0 acre or more requires an NPDES permit. Construction project . proponents are required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to measures included in the SWPPP will reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant will be required to satisfy City requirements related to the payment of fees and/or the provision of adequate wastewater facilities. All facilities will be designed, installed, and maintained to meet City standards to ensure wastewater-related water quality standards are not exceeded. With adherence to NPDES and City requirements, no significant impact related to this issue will occur. VIII. b Because the Proposed Project will not result in the direct withdrawl of groundwater or interception of the underlying aquifer, no direct impact to groundwater sources will occur. The Program EIR concluded that at build out, water demand required of the Specific Plan and SBIA would increase regional water demand by 1.4 percent. The Program EIR further determined that adequate sources of supplemental water will be available to provide adequate recharge of the groundwater basin and that development of the Specific Plan would not have a significant adverse impact on available water supplies. The Proposed Project does not increase the amount of development within the Specific Plan area, nor does it require a water demand greater than the previously approved "Tourist Commercial" uses; therefore, no significant impact will occur. VIIl.c-d With the exception of project landscaping, development of the Proposed Project will result in the installation of impermeable surface throughout the project site. Drainage from paved surfaces will flow west. The project site is located within the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin of the Santa Ana Watershed. Regional groundwater flow is in a general southeast direction. The Proposed Project will not require direct additions to, or withdrawals of groundwater. The project site is currently developed with a variety of impermeable surfaces. Compared to the size of the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin (80,443 acres) I , the additional impermeable surfaces associated with the California Department of Water Resources. 1994. IS 34 c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Proposed Project represent a negligible loss of permeable surface area; therefore, the loss of the potential recharge area is less than significant. As stated in the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)l issued by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the City's General Plan, and the Program EIR, the project site is not located within an identified 100-year floodplain. Currently, the project generally drains in a westerly direction. An 18-inch storm drain (private) is located in Leland Norton Way and a 30-inch (quasi-private) storm drain is located in Del Rosa Drive. The design of on-site parking areas and access will be such to contain on-site flows in paved parking areas, and to ultimately convey flows to catch basins located within the western portion of the project site. These catch basins will be connected via a 24-inch storm drain to the existing 30-inch storm drain in Del Rosa Drive. All on-site drainage features will be privately owned and maintained. As part of the approval process, on-site drainage features meeting the City's Public Works Division standards will be required. Adherence to these standards will reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level. No mitigation is required. VULe As stated in the response to Checklist Questions VULc-d, the design and construction of on-site drainage will adhere to standards established by the City Public Works Division. Potential long- term operational surface water quality may include storm runoff from roadway surfaces tainted by sediment, petroleum products, commonly utilized construction materials, and (to a lesser extent) trace metals such as zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, and iron, may lead to the degradation of stormwater in downstream channels. As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCQB), the disturbance of more than 1.0 acre ofland requires the filing of a Notice ofIntent with RWQCB. The City's NPDES permit establishes measures that sufficiently mitigate potential impacts associated with construction related discharge. The Program EIR identified the following measures to reduce potential water quality impacts: 2-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that on-site storm water discharge will be mitigated sufficiently to maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm water Discharge Permit Requirements. A Notice of Intent shall be filed with the state Water Quality Control Board for construction disturbing 5.0 acre or more ofland. As previously stated, the NOI is now required any construction disturbance in excess of 1.0 acre. In accordance with the NPDES permit and as monitored by the City of San Bernardino, the developer shall comply with the NPDES requirements. The City and the County have established performance requirements that address the potential for non-point source releases of such materials that may result from routine operational activities. These requirements include measures that will effectively limit the amount of pollutants that may enter surface waters during operation of the Proposed Project. Additional mitigation to reduce potential water quality impacts have been identified as follows: Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map No. 06071C8701F. Federal Emergency Management Agency. March 18. 1986. IS 35 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY H-l Prior to the issuance of any permit for on-site development, the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP.) The SWPPP and WQMP will identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be followed throughout the construction and during the operation of the proposed facility to reduce potential water quality impacts. o Prior to operation of any facility that may utilize hazardous substances, the City requires the development and implementation of a Business Plan. The City typically requires Business Plans to identify a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) that defines the steps that will be taken by the owner/operator to control, minimize, or prevent spills of hazardous or toxic materials; what responses will be taken to remediate the adverse consequences of any accidental spills and how any contaminated materials will be managed once collected for treatment and disposal. The level of development proposed on-site does not exceed that identified in the Program EIR. The Proposed Project will be appropriately conditioned to include all applicable measures required to comply with required permits. Because the level of development proposed would not exceed that identified in the Specific Plan, and because the project applicant will be required to adhere to the requirements and standards set forth by the City, the NPDES permit, the SWPPP and WQMP, and the Business Plan and SPCCP, potential surface water quality impacts will be less than significant. VIII.f Please refer to the response to Checklist Question VIILe. VIILg-j As the Proposed Project is not located within an area identified as being subject to flood hazards, either by the City or FEMA, and because the Proposed Project does not include a residential component, will not place housing within a flood hazard area, will not impede or redirect flood flows. will not expose persons of property to a significant loss, injury, or death from flooding, no impact related to this issue will occur. Because the project site is located approximately 65 miles from the Pacific Ocean, is not located adjacent to any enclosed bodies of water, and is generally flat with no nearby mountainous areas, no potential exists for impacts resulting from tsunamis, seiches, or mudflows. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. LA:"iD USE AND PLAl'iNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? o o o ~ o IS 36 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES C INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Continued b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 ~ 0 policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 ~ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? d) Be developed within the Hillside Management 0 0 0 ~ 0 Overlay District? e) Be developed within Foothill Fire Zones A, B, 0 0 0 ~ or C as identified in the City's General Plan? t) Be developed within the Airport Influence Area 0 0 ~ 0 as adopted by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority? g) Other: 0 0 0 0 Discussion: IXa Land uses adjacent to the Proposed Project site consist primarily of former NAFB airport facilities, Air Force-related structures, commercial uses, and developing warehouse uses. Because of the existing on- and off-site pattern of development, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project will not disrupt or divide an established community. No impact related to this issue would occur. IXb The Proposed Project will result in the construction and operation of a 368,500-square foot air cargo facility. The General Plan land use designations for the site include "ITC" (San Bernardino International Trade Center) and "A" (Airport District). The project site is located in the Specific Plan's Land Use District 2 ("Tourist Commerciall,,). This district was originally intended to include tourist commercial uses to capitalize on the site's proximity to the San Bernardino o San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan. Topping Jaquess Consultants. April 18. 1996. IS 37 o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY c o IX.c IX.d IX.e IX.f International Airport. Uses envisioned within this district includes, "...high quality restaurants, hotels, visitor-serving and specialty retail, offices, meeting and conference facilities." Based on the size of this district and its permitted FAR, development within the district would yield 635,976 square feet of 'Tourist Commercial" uses. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to the Specific Plan to change the Land Use District from "Tourist Commercial" to "Industria!." As stated in Table V-2 of the Specific Plan, suggested uses within the "Industrial" Land Use District include, "Large industrial related operations, including.. . distribution, aircraft sales and services, and airport related uses." The Proposed Project consists of the construction and operation of an air cargo facility, a use that is consistent with suggested uses for the "Industrial" Land Use District. The Specific Plan further states that development of transportation, distribution, and warehousing uses are permitted within this district, subject to a Development Permit. Based on current and planned utilization of the SBIA, development of tourist related commercial facilities within the project limits is not likely. Development of the Proposed Project represents a land use scenario which is consistent with the stated goals of the IVDA and SBIAA. Under the Specific Plan, both "Tourist Commercial" and "Industrial" uses are permitted FARs of 0.5; therefore, no reduction in the amount of development within the area of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will occur. The Proposed Project will occupy approximately 60 percent of the former Tourist Commercial use. The balance of this area will be permitted to develop with approximately 254,400 square feet of industrial uses. Both the Specific Plan and the City's Development Code permit the operation of an air cargo facility within the project area. The Proposed Project consists of a use that is complementary to existing airport facilities; therefore, no permanent or temporary land use incompatibility impacts will result from the development of such a use. The project is consistent with the General Plan. Adherence to Development Code standards will ensure the orderly development of the project site. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment will would not reduce the development potential within former "Tourist Commercial" area. While the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would eliminate the potential for development of "Tourist Commercial" uses, because of the current and probable future development pattern within the Specific Plan area, potentially significant impacts associated with the changed land use designation will not occur. No mitigation is required. Please refer to the response to Checklist Question IV.e. Please refer to the response to Checklist Question VI.i. Please refer to the response to Checklist Question VII.g. The Air Force developed the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program to minimize development that is incompatible with aviation operation in areas on and adjacent to military airfields. The AICUZ program only applies to military airfields. The former NAFB has been converted to a civilian use facility (SBIA.) The AICUZ designation and Airport District, Final Em'ironmenta/ impact Statement. Disposal and Reuse of Non on Air Force Base, California. June 1993 IS 38 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY holdovers from past Air Force operations, currently exist in the City's General Plan and Development Code. The City is in the process of converting the AICUZ designation to the FAA FAR Part 77 Guidelines through amendments to the General Plan and Development Code. As previously stated. the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area established by the SBlAA and the "Traffic Pattern Zone" (Zone 6) established for the Airport. The western portion of the project site is located within the Specific Plan and is subject to the design and development guidelines identified in the Specific Plan, General Plan and Development Code. The eastern portion of the project site is located within the City's Airport District. Development within this portion of the project site will be required to adhere to City's Development Code. As stated in the Development Codel, air cargo and air freight terminals are permitted within the Airport District subject to a Development Permit. As the Proposed Project is permitted within the Airport District, and will be constructed and operated in accordance with the standards set forth in the Development Code, no significant impact related to this issue will occur. No mitigation is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact 0 Impact Mitigalion Impact Incorporated X. :\UNERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known D D D ~ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state" b) Result in the loss of a locally-important mineral D D D ~ resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan" c) Be located in a Mineral Resource Zone as D D D ~ adopted by the State Mining and Geology Board and identified in the City's General Plan" Discussion: X.a-c The project site is extensively developed with urban uses. While the Program EIR identifies portions of the former NAFB as having been identified by the California Department of Mines and Geology as possessing a high potential for containing construction aggregate resources, the project site has not. Access to these potential resources is restricted by eXIsting development 0, Ci(l' olSon Bemardillo Dewlopment Code. Chapters 19.12A.020-19.12A.050. IS 39 c c c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY located on the former air base. Most of the identified aggregate resources are located on property within the portion of the former Air Force Base controlled by the SBIAA. As the Proposed Project will be constructed in an area that is already developed, it will not restrict access to potential aggregate resources. Because the project site is not designated in the City's General Plan or Specific Plan as a mineral resource zone, or identified as a source of a known mineral resource, no impact related to these issues. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than SignIficant Impact XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan or Development Code, or applicable standards of other agencies? o ~ o o b) Exposure of persons to excessive groundbome groundbome noise levels? or generation of vibration or o o ~ o c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? o ~ o o d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? o ~ o o e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or Airport Influence Area, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? o o ~ o 1) Other: o o o o Discussion: X.a,c,d The City's General Plan states that an acceptable exterior community noise equivalent level (CNEL) in residential areas is 65 dB(A) with an interior noise level of 45 dB(A). The CNEL is a 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight obtained after the addition of 5 decibels (dB) to sound levels occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB to the sound levels occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The 5 dB and 10 dB penalties added to IS 40 c o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY the evening and nighttime hours account for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during these time periods. Construction-Related Noise. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential dwellings located directly across Third Street from the Proposed Project site. These residential dwellings are located approximately ISO feet north of the project's northern property line. Mitigation Measure N-l, in addition to Measures 8-2 to 8-6 (from the Program EIR), has been identified to reduce the significance of short-term noise impacts include: !'i-I Construction-related activities may not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No construction vehicles, equipment, or employees may be delivered to, or arrive at the construction site before 7:00 a.m. or leave the site after 8:00 p.m. Construction activities may only occur Monday through Saturday, and is not permitted on state or Federal holidays either. 8-2 Construction equipment (both fixed and mobile) shall be equipped and maintained with properly functioning mufflers. 8-3 Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive areas. Temporary noise barriers shall be used when construction is to be performed within 450 feet of residential units or 250 feet of commercial units. 8-5 Low noise level equipment shall be utilized. 8-6 Noisy activities shall be planned to occur together, whenever practical. 8-4 As stated in the Program EIR, with implementation of these measures, potential construction- related noise impacts to sensitive receptors further than 140 feet from the project boundary will be reduced to a less than significant level. As the nearest sensitive receptors to the project are approximately ISO feet from the project boundary, adherence to these measures is sufficient to reduce project-related construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Operational Noise Impacts. While some level of operational noise is generated by exterior machinery, the majority of operational noise associated with the Proposed Project will result from project traffic. As previously stated, the nearest sensitive receptors to the project are located directly across Third Street approximately ISO feet north of the project's northern property line. Under the approved Specific Plan, development of the "Tourist Commercial" uses was to generate 14,529 vehicle trips per day. Development of the Proposed Project and changes in land use designation of the former "Tourist Commercial" land use district would generate a total of 3,819 daily vehicle trips. The changes in traffic-related noise levels, as predicted by the FHW A Rd-77-108 noise level model. are identified in Table D. While the number of daily vehicle trips associated with the Proposed Project is decreased, a larger proportion of these trips would be truck trips, which are typically noisier than passenger vehicles. As shown in Table D, the net change in noise levels is an increase of 2.6 dBA over that predicted in the Program EIR. An IS 41 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY increase of 3 dBA is perceptible by the human ear and is considered potentially significant1. An increase of 2.6 dBA is a less than significant impact. While project-related traffic noise may impact sensitive receptors along adjacent roadways, the level of impact is no more significant than that identified in the Program EIR. Because the increase in project-related does not exceed the threshold of significance, and because no significant traffic-related noise impact will occur, no mitigation is required. CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Average Center-line to Center-line to Center-line Centerline of Daily Trips 70 CNEL 65 CNEL to 60 CNEL Outermost (ADT) (feet) (feet) (feet) Lane "Tourist Commercial" uses 14,529 < 50 98 206 67.0 Proposed Project 3,819 70 143 305 69.6 Net Change 20 45 98 +2.6 Table D - Operational Traffic Noise Source: LSA ASSOCiates. Inc. 2004 X.b During operation ofthe Proposed Project, tractor trailers will access the project site, primarily in the evening and at night. While the utilization of construction equipment and tractor trailers may generate ground vibrations, any such vibration will be dispersed by project's distance from any sensitive receptor. Potential groundbome vibration impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. c X.e In June 1990, the IVDA certified the Final EIR for the Inland Valley Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan EIR). Amongst other issues, the Redevelopment Plan EIR evaluated potential noise impacts that would result from the operation of a civilian airport offering up to 37,300 annual flights. This level of air activity was incorporated into the SBIA's Interim Airport Operating Plan, which anticipates up to 37,000 flights per year at SBIA (approximately 101 per day)'. Even at this level of activity, "...the Proposed Project [the Interim Operating Plan] will result in a significant contraction of the existing noise contours that reflected Air Force flight operations through 1989." The Interim Operating Plan further states that this level of flight activity is, .....consistent with the airport operation noise forecasts" evaluated in the Redevelopment Plan EIR. The Proposed Project will result in up to 20 daily flights (10 inbound and 10 outbound flights) at SBIA. The level of air activity resulting from the Proposed Project is consistent with that envisioned under the Interim Airport Operating Plan; therefore. no significant noise-related impact greater than that previously identified will occur. No additional mitigation is required. c Caltrans Traffic Noise Protocol. 1998. Norton Air Force Base Conversion to Ci\'ilian Use Inlerim Airport Operating Plan Enl'irollmelllal Impact Checklist. San Bernardino International Airport Authority. IS 42 c o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact XII. 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 indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? o o r2J o b) Remove eXlstmg housing and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o o r2J o c) Other: Create a significant demand for additional housing o o r2J o Discussion: XI!.a XII.b o XI!.c The Proposed Project is located on a former military base within an urbanized area of the San Bernardino Valley. The primary goals of the Specific Plan include the replacement of jobs lost subsequent to the closure of NAFB, and the integration of the former military base into the physical structure of the community. The Proposed Project will partially satisfy these goals. While the Proposed Project will generate employment opportunities, the jobs created are not expected to induce substantial growth in the City or region that has not been previously anticipated. Infrastructure including roads, sewers, water, and electricity already exists on and around the Proposed Project site. No impact related to this issue will occur. Existing structures are located adjacent to the Proposed Project site. One existing structure, an aircraft washing facility, will be relocated to a different location on airport property. Another structure (the former NCO Club) is currently operated as a nightclub. The remaining existing structures are scheduled to be demolished. Prior to the demolition of on-site structures, and in accordance with State and Federal standards, the tenant of the occupied structure will be either relocated or provided compensation to terminate operations. The demolition of the existing structures is a separate action and is not included as part of the Proposed Project. No residential structures, including affordable housing units are located on-site; therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. The Proposed Project will result in the construction of an air cargo facility. While short-term construction-related jobs will be created, these positions would most likely be filled by local IS 43 c c 0' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY workers. The Proposed Project is expected to create approximately 400 jobs; however, jobs created by the Proposed Project are expected to be filled by persons already living in the community. Based on the California Department of Finance I , of the 63,857 dwelling units in the City, 7,055, or II percent are vacant. An adequate supply of vacant housing exists in the City to accommodate any increase in population that may result from the operation of the Proposed Project. Because a surplus of housing exists in the City; no significant demand for additional housing will result from the Proposed Project. Impacts associated with this issue are considered less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incol]lorated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable servIce ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection, including medical aid? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks or other recreational facilitiesry v) Other governmental services? o o o o o o o o o D o o ~ ~ ~ IX! ~ D o o o o o o b) Other: Discussion: XIII.a.i Fire prevention, fire protection, and emergency medical assistance in the City of San Bernardino are provided by the San Bernardino Fire Department (SBFD). The construction of the proposed structures will be required to adhere to all applicable standards established in the City's Municipal and Development Codes, as well as conditions mandated by the SBFD. In addition, Stale of California. Department of Finance. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. 2004. Revised 2001-2003. with 2000 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento. California, May 2004. IS 44 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY the project proponent will be required to pay applicable development fees to the City for the provision of fire protection services and facilities. Adherence to these standards and conditions and payment of fees will reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level. Jobs created by the Proposed Project are likely to be filled by persons already residing in the area. As stated in the response to Checklist Question XII.a, the new jobs created by the Proposed Project are not expected to induce substantial growth in the City or region that has not been previously anticipated. In the unlikely event every job is filled by a new resident of the City, the 400 new residents would increase the City's population (currently 196,273 persons) by 0.2 percent. Any additional demand on medical aid and hospital service resulting from this increase is expected to be less than significant. XIII.a.ii Police protection services are provided by the City of San Bernardino Police Department (SBPD). Development of the project site with the air cargo facility would incrementally increase the demand for police services. Adherence to requirements established by the SBPD and payment of required development fees will reduce potential impacts related to the provision of police protection services to a less than significant level. XIII.a.iiiBased on the Program EIR, the IVDA entered into an Agreement for Cooperation in 1990 with C each of the school districts that contain the project site. The IVDA has agreed to pay to or .. otherwise apply the benefit of each of the school districts certain of the Agency's Tax Increment Revenues in order to alleviate any financial burden to the School Districts resulting from adoption and redevelopment of the Redevelopment Plan. The pass-through of additional tax increment funds to the school districts from the 1990 Cooperation Agreement will reduce potential impacts of the Proposed Project on schools to a less than significant level. XIII.a.iv Please refer to the response to Checklist Question XIV(a). XIIl.a. v All on-site access, parking areas,. utilities, and structures will be maintained by the project applicant or operator of the proposed facility. Maintenance of public facilities and infrastructure would not be significantly altered by the development of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will result in a reduction of vehicle trips from the Specific Plan Amendment (from 14,529 daily trips to 3,819 daily trips). Truck traffic will comprise up to 1,314 of these trips. While the physical impact of truck traffic is generally greater than automobiles, the recommended truck route for project traffic is along roads identified or designated for such traffic. At build out, the proposed Specific Plan envisioned the occupation of up to 11.5 million square feet of industrial, commercial. and office space and was expected to generate up to 103,000 daily trips. Current and approved development within the Specific Plan totals approximately 3.02 million square feet. Combined, the reduction in the number of vehicle trips resulting from the Proposed Project and the current level of development within the Specific Plan area is not expected to increase the City's maintenance burden significantly. C The IVDA has made public street improvements valued at $16,719,273. The IVDA is continuing , to seek Federal funding for additional roadway improvements on Fifth Street, as well as for a ThIrd Street to Fifth Street connector. IS 45 c c o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY In additian, ather agencies have made recent impravements ta the raadway netwark in the vicinity .of the SBITC ta accammadate develapment in the Specific Plan area. In 2003, the City .of Highland campleted a prajectta widen Fifth Street between Palm A venue and Staie Raute 30 (SR-30), including replacement .of the bridge aver City Creek. Accarding ta the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) prepared by the City .of Highland (Octaber 2000), .one .of the purpases .of the Fifth Street widening was ta "[i]ncrease roadway capacity ta suppart anticipated cantinued grawth .of San Bernardina Internatianal Airpart/lnland Valley Redevelapment Agency Specific Plan Area" (p. 1-9). In its discus sian .of respanses ta the enviranmental checklist farm, the IS/EA reiterates that, "The propased Fifth Street project provides infrastructure impravements ta suppart existing develapment and anticipated grawth .of San Bernardina Internatianal Airpart/lnland Valley Redevelapment Agency Specific Plan area, cansistent with adapted lacal and regianal plans" (pp. 5-23 ta 5-24). The IS/EA states that the Fifth Street project received $3.75 millian in Federal funds, $2.3 millian in Caunty .of San Bemardina funds, and $197,000 fram the State .of Califarnia. As with any cammercial aperatian, the Propased Project will be required pravide revenue ta the City in the farm .of fees, praperty taxes, etc. It is anticipated that the payment.of such manies will .offset any increased maintenance burden assaciated the develapment .of praject site; therefare, patential impacts assaciated with this issue are anticipated ta be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact XIV. RECREATION - Wauld the praject: a) Increase the use .of existing neighbarhaad and regianal parks .or ather recreatianal facilities such that substantial physical deteriaratian .of the facility wauld .occur .or be acceleratedry o o [8J o b) Include recreatianal facilities .or require the canstrUctian .or expansian .of recreatianal facilities which might have an adverse physical effect an the environmentry c) Other: o o [8J o o o o o Discussian: XIV.a-b As the Prapased Project daes nat include a residential campanent, na direct increase in papulatian will result fram the canstructian and aperatian .of the air carga facility. The Propased Project is expected ta create appraximately 400 jabs; hawever, jabs created by the Prapased Project are expected ta be filled by persans already living in the cammunity. Therefare, it is IS 46 c c o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY unlikely a significant population increase will result from development of the Proposed Project. No increase demand on existing park and/or recreational facilities will occur. The Proposed Project does not include anyon-site recreational facilities. Because the Proposed Project will have no significant impact on population, a significant demand for new park and recreation facilities will not occur. The project proponent will be required to pay required park fees to offset any potential impact relative to the provision of park and recreation facilities. Payment of required park fees will reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level. XV. TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial In relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result In a change In aIr traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? IS 47 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incolporated Less Than Significant Impact o o IZI o o IZI o o IZI o o o o o o D IZI D No Impact o D D IZI o IZI c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XV. TRANSPORTATlON/TRAFFIC - Continued g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 ~ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? h) Other: 0 0 0 0 Discussion: XV.a-b Roadway Capacity and Level of Service. The Proposed Project will result in an increase in traffic volumes on the roadways and intersections surrounding the project site over existing conditions. A traffic impact analysis (San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. LSA Associates, Inc. March, 1996) was completed at the time of the Program EIR approval. In conjunction with the 1999 Specific Plan Amendment in 1999, the TIA was amended. The amendment to the TIA did not make any changes to the land uses or trip generation for Planning Area 6, the area currently designated for "Tourist Commercial" uses (which includes the Proposed Project site). Planning Area 6, as approved, was expected to generate 14,529 daily vehicle trips, with 2,068 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour (because the Congestion Management Program does not require an analysis of a.m. peak hour conditions for non-residential projects, the SBITC TIA did not calculate a.m. peak hour trip generation). Table E summarizes the trip generation for Planning Area 6 as originally approved in the SBITC TIA. c Land Planning Sq. Ft. P.M. Peak Hour Use Area' Land Use (OOO's) Daily District' In Out Total 2 6 Tourist Commercial' 635.976 1,622 1,622 3,243 22,791 Pass-by reduction (405) (405) (811) (5,698) Trip Generation - 1.216 1.216 2,433 17,093 Planning Area 6 Internal Trip Capture (122) (122) (243) (1,709) (10%) TDM/Transit (61) (61) (122) (855) Reduction (5%) Total Effective Trip 1.034 1.034 2.068 14,529 C Generation ~ San Bemard~'1O lnterna/~onal Trade Center Speci..(ic Plan, Topping Jacques Con~ultants. revi~d November 12. 1999. Table E - Approved Trip Generation for Planning Area 6 San Bemardmo ImernallOllal Trade Center Specific Plan Traffic Impact AnalysIS. LSA Associates, March I. 1996. IS 48 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY The Proposed Project will generate approximately 1,762 daily passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips, with 108 PCE trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 139 occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Planning Area 6 will generate a total of 3,819 daily PCE trips, with 379 PCE trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 428 occurring during the p.m. peak hour. The daily trip generation is approximately 26 percent of the approved daily trip generation in the SBITC TIA, and the p.m. peak hour trip generation is approximately 21 percent of the approved p.m. peak hour trip generation. Therefore, the total trip generation of the Proposed Project is well within that analyzed in the SBITC TIA. Table F summarizes the trip generation for Planning Area 6 with land uses as proposed in the current Specific Plan Amendment. Table F - Proposed Trip Generation for Planning Area 6 Land Planning % Sq. Ft. A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Use Area' of Land Use (OOO's) Daily District' P.A. In Out Total In Out Total 5 6 60 DHL Air Cargo Facility 368.546 Facility Employees' 100 0 100 0 100 100 800 () Truck Drivers' 0 2 2 0 3 3 74 Total Passenger Vehicles 100 2 102 0 103 103 874 Trucks' 2 0 2 12 0 12 296 Truck PCE4 6 0 6 36 0 36 888 Total PCE - Air Cargo Facility 106 2 108 36 103 139 1,762 5 6 40 Light Industrial' 254.390 Passenger Vehicles 178 37 215 28 201 229 1,631 Truck PCE 47 10 56 7 53 60 426 Total PCE - Light Industrial 225 46 271 35 254 289 2,057 Total- Planning Area 6 Passenger Vehicles 278 39 317 28 304 332 2,505 Truck PCE 53 10 62 43 53 96 1,314 Total PCE - Planning Area 6 331 48 379 71 357 428 3,819 c The facility will have a maximum of400 employees. of whom 100 will work the day shift and 300 will work the night shift (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.). ApprOlumately 25% oftTUck trips will be driven by drivers based in the San Bernardino area. Therefore. 25% of outbound truck trips will require an inbound passenger vehicle trip and 25% of inbound truck trips will require an outbound passenger vehicle trip. Based on operational data provided by DHL All outbound truck trips will take place between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. All DHl trucks will be tractor trailers. Therefore, a passenger car equivalent (peE) factor of 3.0 has been used. Institute of Transponation Engineers, Trip Generation (5th Edition). land Use 110. General Light Industrial. The Fifth Edition was used for consistency with the SBITC Specific Plan TIA. Under the SBITC Specific Plan. both the tourist commercial and industrial uses were pennined a tlooH<rarea ratio of 0.5. Therefore. with the change of designation from Land Use District 2 (Tourist Commercial) to Land Use District 5 (Industrial). the pennined amount of building space will not change. A truck percentage of 8% and a truck PCE factor of 3.0 are assumed for the industrial uses. based on Land Use 130 . Industrial Park from Trip Generation. IS 49 c c o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY a e - xistinl! I ntersectJon evels 0 ervice A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Control V/C' Delav' LOS' V/C Delav LOS I Tippecanoe A venue/Third Street Signal 0.46 19.6 B 0.65 27.2 C 2 Del Rosa DrivelThird Street Signal 0.41 15.6 B 0.48 22.0 C 3 Leland Norton WavlThird Street Signal 0.28 0.3 A 0.35 0.3 A The distribution of passenger vehicle trips for the DHL Air Cargo Facility is expected to be the same as has been assumed in prior analyses. Because the total trip generation for Planning Area 6 has been reduced as part of the Proposed Project, the total number of trips generated by these sources will be lower on each roadway segment. DHL will instruct trucks to use SR-30 to access its facility and to travel to and from the freeway via a route consisting of Fifth Street, Palm Avenue, and Third Street. As with all such directions, compliance will likely be less than complete. The trip distribution for DHL trucks will be assumed to be either following the recommended route, or according to the trip distribution analyzed in the SBITC TIA, whichever represents a worst-case scenario for the analysis in question. The City of San Bernardino uses level of service (LOS) D as its minimum standard. The County of San Bernardino uses LOS C as its minimum standard, and the City of Highland uses LOS E as its minimum standard. Degradation of traffic operations below the applicable standard is considered a significant impact. In cases in which an intersection is partially within two or more jurisdictions that have different level of service standards, the San Bernardino County CMP applies the less stringent standard. The Traffic Assessment completed by LSA Associates, Inc. in July 2004 selected the three intersections with the largest share of project trips for analysis. The following three intersections were analyzed: . Leland Norton Way/Third Street (City of San Bernardino) . Del Rosa Drive/Third Street (Cities of San Bernardino and Highland); and . Tippecanoe Avenue/Third Street (Cities of San Bernardino and Highland and County of San Bernardino). Existing conditions at the three identified intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service. Level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate existing, opening year (with and without the project), and year 2025 (with project) peak hour traffic operations at the study area intersections. Tables G, H, I and J summarize the result of these analyses. T bl G E L fS I vie = Volume/capacity ratio. Delay = Average control delay in seconds. LOS = Level of Service IS 50 c o c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY a e - ear It out rOlect ntersection eve S 0 ervlce A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Control V/C' DeJa," LOS' V/C Delav LOS I Tippecanoe AvenuelThird Street Signal 0.56 20.9 C 0.77 30.3 C 2 Del Rosa DrivelThird Street Signal 0.46 16.2 B 0.57 23.8 C 3 Leland Norton WavlThird Street Si lITlal 0.32 0.4 A 0.40 0.4 A Table I - Year 2 5 With Project Intersection eve S 0 ervlce A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Control V/C' Delav' LOS' V/C Delav LOS I Tippecanoe Avenue/Third Street Signal 0.65 22.5 C 0.94 41.8 D 2 Del Rosa DrivelThird Street Signal 0.53 18.7 B 0.64 26.2 C 3 Leland Norton WavlThird Street Signal 0.34 0.4 A 0.43 0.7 A , T bl H Y 2005 W" h P' I L fS v/e = Volume/capacity ratio. D.::!.l: = A\..:rJg:~ comrol JdJ.) 11l s.::conJs. LOS = Level of Service 00 L I fS vie - Volume/capaclt) raUo. Delay = A verage control delay In seconds. LOS = Level of Service T bl J Y 2025 W' h P . I f L I fS a e - ear It rO.Ject ntersec Ion eve S 0 ervlce A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Control V/C' Dela," LOS' V/C Delav LOS 1 Tippecanoe A venue/Third Street Signal 0.95 37.30 D 0.83 34.90 C 2 Del Rosa DrivelThird Street Signal 0.71 21.80 C 0.73 29.20 C 3 Leland Norton Wav/Third Street SilITlal 0.50 0.70 A 0.41 2.90 A \' C = \'o!umeicapaclty rauo. Delay -= Average control delay in seconds. LOS = Level of Sen'lce All study area intersections are currently operating at satisfactory levels of service, and all are projected to continue to do so under opening year and year 2025 conditions. Therefore, the project will not have any significant impact on traffic operations at the intersections in its immediate vicinity. The change in trip distribution resulting from the recommended truck route to the Proposed Project will not result in traffic volumes on any roadway segment in excess of the volumes analyzed in the approved SBITC TIA. The Proposed Project includes the deletion of Leland Norton Way from the Specific Plan and General Plan Circulation Elements. The Specific Plan identifies Leland Norton Way as a proposed Secondary Arterial extending from Third Street to an unspecified point in the vicinity of the easterly extension of Rialto A venue, but not as far as Harry Sheppard Boulevard. Under the proposed amendments, this roadway segment will no longer exist as General Plan roadway. The DHL Air Cargo Facility will access Leland Norton Way from Third Street as its primary access. Leland Norton Way will not extend further south to serve the remaining portion of the Specific Plan Planning Area 6. The deletion of Leland Norton Way from the Circulation Elements will not adversely affect traffic operations compared to the conditions analyzed in the San Bernardino International Trade Center Traffic Impact Analysis (SBITC TIA). The traffic analysis conducted for the SBITC TIA did not assign any traffic from the entire Specific Plan IS 51 c c c, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Area to Leland Norton Way; therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project, including the deletion of Leland Norton Way from the Specific Plan and General Plan Circulation Elements, will not alter present patterns of circulation. Access to the United States Forest Service facility (directly north of the Proposed Project staging area) will be maintained from Perimeter Road (via an entry off of Leland Norton Way.) The Proposed Project will have no impact on present patterns of circulation. Suitability of Recommended Truck Route. A field survey was conducted of the proposed truck route in July 2004 to determine whether there are any factors that make it unsuitable for use by trucks. Both Third Street and Fifth Street are signed as truck routes (Fifth Street and Palm Avenue are designated as Truck Routes by the City of Highland). The main factors evaluated during the field survey were turning radii for right turns and storage capacity for left turns at the two locations at which trucks would need to make turns along the route, the intersections of Palm A venue/Third Street and Palm A venuelFifth Street. The findings of the field survey are included in the Traffic Assessment for the DHL Facility and are summarized as follows: Intersection of Palm AvenueiThird Street. The design of the intersection of Palm A venuelThird Street is adequate for trucks to make a southbound right turn, and there is no difficulty with queuing for the eastbound left turn. In addition, all truck departures from the DHL Air Cargo Facility will occur between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., so no DHL trucks will be making this eastbound left turn during peak hours. Intersection of Palm Avenue/Fifth Street. The design of the intersection of Palm AvenuelFifth Street is adequate for trucks to make a northbound right turn, and there is no difficulty with queuing for the westbound left turn. At most, one DHL truck would be expected to make this left turn during each signal cycle, with a substantially lesser rate during peak hours, even if all trucks follow the recommended route XV.c The project site is located on and adjacent to the SBIA. Approximately 10 inbound and 10 outbound flights will arrive/depart per day. Inbound flights will arrive between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 11 :30 p.m. Outbound flights will depart between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. The Interim Airport Operating Plan anticipates up to 37,000 flights per year at SBIA (approximately 101 per day)l. The Initial Study prepared to evaluate potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Interim Airport Operating Plan determined the plan was consistent with the impact forecast in the IVDA Redevelopment Plan EIR. Air traffic generated as a part of the Proposed Project is consistent with and will not exceed the number of flights predicted in the Interim Airport Operating Plan for SBIA. Because the level of air activity resulting from the Proposed Project is consistent with that envisioned under the Interim Airport Operating Plan; and because the construction and operation of the Proposed Project will be required to conform to standards established in the Specific Plan, the Development Code, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations; no significant increase in safety hazards will result from the Proposed Project. Norton Air Force Base Conversion to Civilian Use Interim Airport Operating Plan Environmental Impact Checklist, San Bernardino International Alrpon Authority. IS 52 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY XV.d Access features and roadway improvements will be designed and constructed to satisfy the requirements of the City's Public Works Division. Truck access to the project site will be via a signalized intersection at Leland Norton Way and Third Street. Employee access to the site will be via a driveway onto Del Rosa Drive. A second, emergency-only, access will be located on Third Street, west of the truck access. The design of the Proposed Project does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The project will not, therefore, create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. No impact associated with this issue will occur. XV.e Please refer to the response to Checklist Question VILf. XV.f c XV.g The Proposed Project includes 300 auto parking spaces and 80 truck parking spaces. The Specific Plan requires compliance with San Bernardino Development Code for parking standards. The City of San Bernardino parking standards I requirement for industrial! warehousing uses greater than 50,000 square feet is I space for each 1,250 square feet of ground floor area. The Proposed Project consists of the construction of 368,550 square feet of warehouse/distribution space, requiring 295 parking spaces. Because the Proposed Project will be designed and constructed to incorporate applicable City parking standards, no impact related . to this issue will occur. Roads, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian crossings for the Proposed Project site will be installed, as required by City standards. The Proposed Project will comply with all City development policies and standards supporting alternative modes of transportation; therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. Potentially Significant Impacl Less Than SignIficant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than SIgnificant Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: CI a). Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board? o o ~ o b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? o o o ~ City of San Bernardino Development Code. Section 19.24. IS 53 c o c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Continued c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand In addition to the provider's existing commitments~ t) Be served. by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste~ h) Other: Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? Discussion: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact D D ~ D D D ~ D D D ~ D D D ~ D D D ~ D D ~ D D XVl.a Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the RWQCB issues NPDES permits to regulate waste discharges to waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. include rivers, lakes, and their tributary waters. Waste discharges include discharges of stormwater and construction project discharges. A construction project resulting in the disturbance of 1.0 acre or more requires an NPDES permit. Construction project proponents are required to prepare an SWPPP and meet the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB regarding wastewater. As stated in the Response to Checklist Question VULe, the project applicant will be required to file a NO! and comply with NPDES permit requirements, as well as prepare an SWPPP and WQMP. Adherence to IS 54 c c c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY applicable provIsIons of these programs and RWQCB requirements will reduce impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements to less than significant. XVl.b. Wastewater treatment services will be provided to the Proposed Project by the SBMWD. Wastewater flows from the project will be conveyed to and processed by facilities at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Facility (WRP), located at 399 Chandler Place in the City of San Bernardino. This facility is operated by SBMWD, which provides combined domestic and industrial wastewaler treatment services 10 the cities of San Bernardino and Lorna Linda, as well as the East Valley Water District (EVWD) and Patton State Hospital. The WRP has a design capacity of 33 million gallons per day (mgd). Current inflow to the WRP is approximately 26-28 mgd, resulting in 5-7 mgd of surplus capacity. The Program EIR determined that the City's wastewater and collection treatment facilities have adequate capacity to serve the Specific Plan at build out; however, the sewer system within the Specific Plan area connecting to the City's system does not have adequate capacity for build out of the Specific Plan. According to the Program EIR, the connection system has a capacity of approximately one million gallons per day. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant will be required to satisfy SBMWD requirements related to the payment of fees and/or the provision of adequate wastewater facilities. All facilities will be designed, installed, and maintained to meet SBMWD standards. No significant impacts related to the provision of sewer or wastewater treatment services are anticipated. XVl.c Currently, the project generally drains in a westerly direction. An 18-inch storm drain (private) is located in Leland Norton Way and a 30-inch (quasi-private) storm drain is located in Del Rosa Drive. Upon construction, on-site flows will be conveyed via paved parking areas to catch basins located within the southwest and northwest comers of the project site. These catch basins will be connected via a 24-inch storm drain to the existing 30-inch storm drain in Del Rosa Drive. The City's Public Works Division administers storm drain and flood control facilities within the City. The storm drain system has been divided into sub-areas within the City based upon County Flood Control District's Comprehensive Storm Drain Plans. The project site is located within Storm Drain Sub-Area 7, which corresponds to a portion of Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No. 41. Approvals of on-site systems are made through the plan check process. Because the installation of project-related storm drain systems will occur within an existing urbanized are, and because the on-site storm drain system will be designed, installed, and maintained per Public Works Division standards, potential impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project are less than significant. XVl.d The Proposed Project does not trigger the requirement for preparation of a water supply assessment (a proposed industrial, ntanufacturing, or process plant, or industrial park planned to employ more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than City of San Bernardino General Plan Update Technical Background Report, Envicom Corporation. February 1988. IS 55 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY 650,000 square feet of floor area) as set forth in Section 10910-10912 of the California Water Code. The Specific Plan evaluated in the Program EIR allows up to approximately II million square feet of building area to be constructed; however, the water supply within the Specific Plan Area has a capacity of about one million gallons per day which can serve about 9 million square feet of development. Current and approved development within the Specific Plan area totals approximately 3.02 million square feetl. Development of the Proposed Project, in combination with other operating and approved uses, will not approach or exceed the 9.0 square foot limit; therefore. no water supply impact greater than that forecast in the Program EIR wil1 occur. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant wil1 be required to satisfy City requirements related to the. payment of fees and/or the provision of adequate water facilities. All facilities will be designed, installed, and maintained to meet water supply standards. Prior to development, the project applicant will be required to obtain evidence that the Proposed Project's water demands can be met. Adherence to these conditions wil1 reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level. XVl.e Please refer to the response to Checklist Question XVI.b. C XVI.f-g The City of San Bernardino provides solid waste collection services for the Specific Plan area. , Based on the Program EIR. build out of the Specific Plan is estimated to generate approximately 71,828 pounds of trash per day. Using the generation factors contained in the Program EIR2, the development of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately 2,948 pounds (1.47 tons)3 of solid waste per day. Using an average of Waste Compositions for Air Transport and Warehouseffrucking facilities', the ten most common forms of solid waste generated on-site will include: other paper (14.6%); lumber (8.2%); film plastic (6.3%); white ledger paper (6.1%); corrugated cardboard (5.6%); other organics (4.4%); miscellaneous paper (4.3%); non-ferrous metal (3.2%); bulk items (2.1%); and PETE plastic (2.4%). Combined, these materials can be expected to make up approximately 57.2% of the solid waste stream at the Proposed Project. As required by the City, the operator of the proposed facility will be required to sort and separate recyclable materials from the solid waste stream. Non-recyclable solid waste from the Proposed Project wil1 be collected by the City of San Bernardino Refuse Department and transported to the Colton Refuse Disposal Site, located in the City of Colton, or to the San Timoteo Solid Waste Disposal Site, located in the City of Redlands. The Colton landfill is permitted to accept a maximum of 3,1005 tons of solid waste per day. The San Timoteo landfill is permitted to accept a maximum of 1,000 tons of solid waste per day. The Colton landfill is expected to reach capacity between 2005 and 2006. The San Timoteo landfill is expected to reach capacity at around 2016, but will be allowed to expand through permitting past 0' Kohls Distribution Center: 651.880 sf: Pep Boys Distribution Center: 1.169,040 sf; and Mattei Distribution Center: 1.205.020 sf. Source of Generation Factors: County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Division. industrial generation rate. 8 lbs/day/l.OOO square feet. Derailed Waste Composition by Selected Business Group, California Integrated Waste Management Board. n \\ \\.r.:i\\11lb.":<1.1l'I\\\-astcChar\\r.:iJhscm.aso site assessed on July 23. 2004. California Integrated Waste Management Board. Solid Waste Information System, \\w\'.ci\\mh.c::l.\!o\'.s\\b, site accessed on July 9. 2004. IS 56 c o 0, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY this date. Because the Proposed Project wiII not significantly impact current operation or the expected lifetime of these landfills and because the operators of the air cargo wiII be required to comply with local, State, and Federal mandates regarding solid waste, potential solid waste impacts will be less than significant. XVI.h Utilities are present on-site and within roadways adjacent to the project site. Storm drain, water, wastewater. telephone and natural gas lines are located within the existing alignment of Leland Norton Way. A six-inch fuel line is located just north of the northern boundary of the property, while an industrial waste line (lWL) is located in the vicinity of the SBIA portion of the project site. Electrical and natural gas lines traverse the project site in an east-west direction. Water, wastewater, natural gas, storm drain and telephone lines are located within Del Rosa Drive. Based on the location of existing utility features, the Proposed Project wiII not result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions based on review of existing patterns and proposed extensions. The City of San Bernardino General Plan states that all utility providers have indicated an ability to provide service to new developments in the Planning Areal No impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur, therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. 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 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 major periods of California history or prehistory? o o o IZI City of SOli Bernardino General Pial!, Envicom Corporation. Adopted June 2.1989. IS 57 c o c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - Continued b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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.) o [8J o o c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o [8J o o Discussion: XVIl.a The project site is developed with a variety of urban uses. No endangered or threatened species or their habitats are located on-site. Development of the Proposed Project will not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining level or restrict the movementidistribution of a rare or endangered species. No structures or culturally significant features are located on-site; therefore, development of the Proposed Project will not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts to biological and cultural resources are consistent with those identified in the Program EIR. An evaluation of the conditions currently existing on-site and those present during the previous environmental analysis for the Specific Plan reveals that no greater impact to biological or cultural resources will result from implementation of the Proposed Project. No new site-specific or project-related impact to biological or cultural resources not previously identified in the Program EIR would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. Adherence to the measures identified in the Program EIR, City standards, and applicable State and Federal law will reduce any such impact to a less than significant level. XVI1.b-c The cumulative effects resulting from the development over II million square feet of industrial, commercial, and office space was previously identified in the Program EIR. To date, development within the Specific Plan area has not approached the levels previously anticipated. The Proposed Project represents a complementary use to the SaIA and is consistent with the development standards identified in the Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. None of the project-related impacts identified in this Initial Study exceed the impacts previously identified for the project site or the total Specific Plan Area. Adherence to the mitigation IS 58 c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY measures identified in the Program EIR, the conditions imposed on the project by the City, and compliance with State and Federal law, reduce to the extent feasible, the potential environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan. While the Proposed Project will result in short-term and long-term air quality impacts and long- term operational noise impacts, these impacts are no greater than that already identified in the Program EIR. Because the proposed direct and cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project fall within the impacts identified in the Program EIR, no new mitigation measures are required. LIST OF PREPARERS AND REFERENCES List of Preparers This document was prepared under the direct management of the City of San Bernardino as Lead Agency for the Proposed Project, and reflects the independent judgment and position of the City regarding the environmental consequences of the Proposed Project. The Lead Agency was assisted by the following outside consultant(s): C Environmental Consultant LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) Environmental/Planning Consultants Lynn Calvert-Hayes, AICP, Principal Carl Winter, Senior Environmental Planner Sheryl Hom, Assistant Environmental Planner Mark Matson, GIS Specialist David Cisneros, Graphics Steven Dong, Editing Nancy Hasegawa, Word Processing References The following references have been cited in the Initial Study. Airport Influence Area. Runway (24/6) Category D-VI (Map), San Bernardino International Airport Authority, December 4,2003. Airport Master Record Map, San Bernardino IlIternational Airport, July 15,2003. California Department of Water Resources, 1994. o California Department of Finance, E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates 2004. Revised 2001-2003 with 2000 DRU benchmark, Sacramento, California. May 2004. IS 59 c o c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY California Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System, \I \I\I.ci\lmb.ca.(!()\ .S\l is, site accessed on July 9, 2004. Caltrans Traffic Noise Protocol, 1998 CEQA Air Qualitv Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. City of San Bernardino Development Code. Title 19, Jacobson & Wack, Revised June 1997. Ci~J' of San Bernardino Municipal Code, amended January 23, 2004 City of San Bernardino General Plan, Envicom Corporation, June 1989. City of San Bernardino General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Envicom Corporation, March 1989. City of San Bernardino General Plan Update Technical Background Report, Envicom Corporation, February 1988. Detailed Waste Composition by Selected Business Group, California Integrated Waste Management. Board, \I \1\\ .ci\ll11b.ca.(!o\!WasteChar/\lcabscrn.asp site assessed on July 23, 2004. Drafi Environmental Impact Report HUB in San Bernardino, LSA Associates, Inc., January 30, 2001. Draft Traffic Assessment, DHL Air Cargo Facility. LSA Associates, Inc. July 13,2004. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Department of Conservation, 2002. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 06071C8682F and 0607lC8701F, March 18, 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Disposal and Reuse of Norton Air Force Base. California. United States Air Force, June 1993. Hazardous Waste Substance and Sites List (Cortese List). California Department of Toxic Substance Control, July 9, 2004 Initial Studyfor Hillwood/San Bernardino. LLe.. Westgate Project, Tom Dodson & Associates, June 2004. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (5th Edition). Norton Air Force Base Conversion to Civilian Use Interim Airport Operating Plan Environmental Impact Checklist. San Bernardino International Airport Authority. IS 60 c c c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan. Topping Jaquess Consultants, April 18, 1996. San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan, Topping Jaquess Consultants, Revised September 12, 1999. San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. LSA Associates, Inc., March I, 1996. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County. Southwestern Part. California, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Tree Condition Report, Dave Matias, Plant and Pest Consultant, July 2004. IS 61 c o o ATTACHMENT "G" RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the individual responses to each comment are included in this Appendix. The primary objective and purpose of the public review process is to obtain comments on the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts, the mitigation measures presented, and other analyses contained in the report. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the City of San Bernardino respond to all significant environmental issues raised (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088). Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis in this document (i.e., are outside the scope of this document) are not given specific responses. However, all comments are included in this section so that the decision- makers know the opinions of the commentors. Aside from the courtesy statements, introductions, and closings, individual comments have been identified and assigned an alphanumeric identifier. The first digit in the identifier indicates the specific comment letter, while the second digit identifies the specific comment within the comment leller. Copies of each comment letter are included in the Final IS/MND. Brackets delineating the individual comments and the numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of each letter. Following each comment letter is (are) the page(s) of responses to each individual comment. R;\HL W432\1nitial Study New Formal\RTC.doc (O8l26/04) c o o Letter 1 MSOUlllIm ClIIIlIIlU Bu CanI...... 1981 'N. L~onla Avenu.. ~lfl.Ila&. CA 923704'9196 ~~:~~:rn[Q) ) A ~ SempraEnergy utility. AuguSt 9.2004 CITY OF SAI'I 9l:i<NAADINO CEV!aOpA.:t!NT ScFNrC58 OE.c:.;"iiT.~.:NT City of SlID BeJ'lW"diDo Development Services Departlllent 300 Nortb "D" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 Attention: Ms. Valerie C. Ross Re: DHL Air <;:alio Facility Thmk you for the opponuniry to J'llspond to the above-refercnced proj ect. Please note than Southem California Gas ColTlJl8IIY bas facibries in the =a where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided witbour any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Conunission at the time conlractUal aznngements ace made. You should be aWllrC that this letter is not ro be interpreted as a conttactUal commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an infOlIIlational service. The availability of namral ps service, as set forth in this letter. is based upoo presmt conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utiliry, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the Califomia Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal reaWaTory aQl:ncies. Should these agencies talce any action, which affeelS gas supply, or the condinons under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with 1.1 revised condiaons. Typical demand use for' a. Residential (System Area AveragelUse Per Meter) ~ Single Family 799 thermslyear dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less uniTS 482 thermslyear dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more uniTS 483 thennslyear dwelling unit Tho:se averages are based on total gas consu:nption in residential uniTS served by Southern Califomia Gas Company, and Il should not be implied that any panicular home, apartment or traCt of hotIlts will use these amounts of energy. c c o II!DaI August 9, 2004 Page 2 b. COllll1lllICial Due to the fact that CODS1rIlction varies so widely (a lJlass building YS. a heavily 1-1 insulated building) and there is such a wide variatillll in types of materials and, a typical demand figurc is not available for Ibis type of construction. CalculatiOllS would need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Managcmcot programs available to colUllleroiallindustrial customers to ~ 1.2 provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy of our energy i cOIlllCIVation prognuns, please contact our CommerciallIndustrial Suppon Center at 1-800-GAS- ! 2000. ~ Si=~ 4~L; ~ ~ A. Rawlins T eclmical Services Supervisor c o c LaA AISOCIAT!I. INC. AuaUST 2OD' RESPONSE TO COMMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITICATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DHL AIR CARGO FACl1TY RESPONSE TO LETTER 1 The Gas Company Response to Comment 1-1: The Gas Company comments that, "Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment." Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant will be required to provide evidence that it can be adequately serviced by the natural gas provider, and submit plans to the City showing the incorporation of energy conservation measures into the project in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Adherence to these requirements and the requirements mandated by the City and Gas Company will reduce gas utility impacts to a less significant level. Response to Comment 1-2: The City recognizes and appreciates the availability of the Gas Company's Demand Side Management programs. The City will convey to the project applicant, the availability of these programs. R:\HLW432\lRltlal SlUdy l\cw Format\RTC.doc (08i26/Q4) o o o ATTCHMENT H MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN This mitigation monitoring plan has been prepared for use in implementing certain of the conditions of approval for: DHL AIR CARGO FACILITY The California Environmental Quality Act requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment. (public Resource Code Section 21081.6) The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The monitoring program contains the following elements: I) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verifY implementation of several mitigation measures. 2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3) The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program. R:\HLW432'Jnitial Study:Sew Format\.L\1MRP.doc (08/26/04) o E- ~ ...l ~ '-' firil :c u (.;I Z a Z o ~ z o ... < (.;I 1= - ~ c U ..l ..l = = :c '- '" =~ '-= "'= =", =.... "'", '" -E- '0", g;:l ~(.;I =~ :C<( .:.; = '" .S:! firil -E- g;<( <(Q '" firil E- <( - '-u "'0 u'" ,-'" .- <( <(<( ...l", :C..l Q .: ;lo == ZQ '" fi:~ -<( a::=- '-firil E=: =-=- u z - '" o U '- o ~ ~ ~ .~ '" '" .~ r::. .9 a> 5~ ;t ~ u o - co .. = = ';)! .. '8 firil = .S! - .. = '- - .. = = u llJ~~s:b~ .;: >. :J 'C 'J:: 'Vi ~:::"CC.OUl- - ~', i:l;;' ~ .1" -- '0 " t:Q);u"';~ 8.-=_..g~~ co 0 ~ 5 ~::o c: _ co Co) C c ~ ..c: Q,) 'r:: ~.~ ~.c~-6 ~.g .;:'~ c ~ co cr. 0 C t':l l-::l '- ,0= 0:; ... .- "E. ~ .... ti cr. lU 8~tE 2~ E ; l- r:: Vi ~ c ::s 0 co C 0 C'O tt:I CfJ _ 0 - .~ C 0.. CJ aJ Q. Q,) 0 0 g lU -sl"Fc=:Zs"c_ '0. Bt;'~~Q)'- .... II) eo C'O u 0 o .~.- Q. ~ 'C 0 .-:: E " ~ 5.. E '_'.9 ~ .., , '" '" u '- o ~ ~ ~ .~ '" " .!!a 0. .9 ~ o~ 'C ~ Q.0Il co Q co Oll <= '5 '" ... Oll " - .;;; , c c oi .~ - " " 0. '" .5 >. '" "" ... " Co '" c; ~ -= ~ "", ;;'- u 0 ~(; .5 ~ c;; '" ~.9 ",'0 =2 '" .- 'Q.E /:lO;': = " :.coO E:-= o ~ ,. '" '- o 8~ ~ .~ '" " .~ Q. .9 ~ s~ 'i: f:2 Q. OIl ... '0 C o <:.J - U cr. '" ::l '0 I- r.r:; Q) 'E ..::.::: l- o (,) ~ " ::l C C,) .:: u -5~ -= e 'E 00 co .; c 'C c; Q) ;::I 't: C; CIl 1lJ U C c; :.a ~ E .5 ~ '" C;:E~ ~"Vi ~ ~ ~ 5 Q) ~ ~ c.. 0l).2 c.. ~.5 ...:; .5] ,g '0 f: c; .... o"5Jc.3 '" , or, '" u ~ co o 23 ~ .~ g~ :: ~ "'Vi :: 'Vi~ '" " '" E c ... E g 0Il.c: ~~ to ~ 'C "0 " C ;; '" E u E ~ o . Q) .5 13 N c.o.t:l :g5 E .5 ~:5 E E E ~ '" o '- o 8 ~ ~~ '" " .~ Q.. .9 ~ 6:.0 'C t':l Q. 50 u as o as 1;~..s:!~] ~]~ ..s::: :;.... ~ _ ;> t:: - 0:::: ::::1_ .... ..... 0 ca.^ tn 0 ca Io'U ... Q. a 0. ~ c .S ~ ~*~:E:;]~cp '0 CI .,O-g.!!o ..gc<=- ... :E :::s .- U ~ ~ bQ ~ CI oi u~tt:lo::s tS; ~ .5 fF -= lU ] ~ ] cJ "8 ~ :> > bllcr.OO:E c; "; - - c u '- _ .c >. 'SO c;'c ... 0._ ~ CIl 0. ~ ~ ~ '= ~ ~ l"I'l "C E _ ~ E ::s I- CCOt"ica::Q)~o ~~UO~ Ec:(/J c.. c .9 v c.. ~.S- ~ '':~ '0 ~ c - IU'; ::s B l:: c.. Q) 8 -= ~ C"._ .- c ..::..:: c Q) (/J..o o I:l.O ~ ~ C 00 ~ c !3 U C - (/J ._ 0 0 0 (/J tii ~ ] "; "'0 - 00 ''E c; ::s~ :ZIU"'OC;::SU '0 5o:!2 ~5 2 :2 ~ .5 ~ Q) g ~ E Oe ~ C Q) E-.;~~c;::~8ii ;;- 8 N ;c N ~ ~ 'C c; '" ::< ::< g ~ o !!' C ~ :;; ..J :I: o 1 ;; :; -e , '" ~ N ~ N ~ N ... - N ~ N u u u u u ... ... ... ... ... 0 0 0 0 0 " :i " :i " :i " '" " '" " " " " " c '~ c '~ l; '~ c 'g l; 'g to to to = = = = = '" " '" " '" " '" " '" " ,~ 0. ,~ 0. ,~ 0. ,~ 0. ,~ 0. .9 00 0 00 .9 00 .9 00 .9 00 c - c c c c ... '6 ... '6 ... ,- ... ,- ... '6 0 ,9 0'" 0'" 0 'C to to ,_ to ,_ to 'C a ~ ... ~ 6: ~ 6: ~ "- "- "- ~ co Q co OJ"'''' = eN .5 0 "'0 - " " C " " o '" " ~ "'0 ~ - C " ~C':I~ '" ..~51 -5it.:"O OD.S ,5 ~ ;; C "'~ ~ o - " E! E '" 8 .~ ~ "S: 0 ';:: " to ~cc ._ 0 0 ~ '';: '';: ~ 2 2 t;;t;; C C o 0 " " C to " -.0 0.- '" u ~ C; 5 00.0 o ... ~ 8- " '" OIl..!:! to ,- 1;; E u 2i Q co c; .5 " .0 0 '" .. C ]~ .g Vli:~ U C vi cEo c co c. t) .9 c.. ':; 00 ~ C'" C .- 00 " ';:: E c c co QJ .- 0 """- -g.=8.~ 1-. " 0 0 OIl 2 .;:: .... "0 co co QJ tIl 0 .... .... .0 C 0 8. to E-8ooo-S ... , lI'l - c " E 0., '513 g" .5 c to o E '';: ';j g E ... 1ij] S to "'" " - " ';; ... " '" w 2i Q co QJ I QJ "0 :~..cc: .9 = '~ ~ E l; " Ell .9- 1U = 00 C""'::: QJ ~ ~ C ;. _ .9.5 QJ - '~o !:':J QJ () tn "'" "O:3C"Oc.. <- "S ..:. ~ QJ oe~~.; c.. 0 :J "- (J tIl t2 ~ .':::: u :E~:E 0-5 'r;; '"" E l-o co ooco~ .... U 0 .. C l-o e'~]'~ .g c 'S;..c c...8o.>'$.E - '~ ] " - 0. " 00" C C .- " "'0:= to ;. ~" .. ;. ec; 0..0 0.'" to '"' , lI'l w - co Q co Q)~"O -=E:; "E.,g eo Q.) tn " ,,- ~ C; .5.g -a ..]~ .0 0.-'" en ~ ~ ~ ......c tJ C':Io:i;e c...= (,) r.fJ - to...o '" 0.0 0 -0.1;l0. ~ ~ ::s t .- Q);> ~"'O.ctl) !.~ t- 5 ._ oj oJ:: -g.!!l:E~ to e 'r;; '" >.uCQQJ CO ~"O ~ ... " '0 "0 0 .... ;> fa Q) iU CO ~~~] = - , lI'l u 2i o 2i UC~.o .~.g 'S.2 ...00. 2(J ff Q.. t;;~~ u C 0 u oS 0 C ..c " 0 ~ "0 g :Ceca B '(j';; ;.:: Q) tn 0.0." 0."'.0 co .~ C s=t.: - ~- '" E! l; = c;~ ".0 c :EVl-5 '~ '~ ~Ctll ".. ~ s 'C " 0." ~ ~ ~ - - , lI'l .... c: "0 I , I ooc!:!cll~ .. 0. Oc ~ ~"O "'0 '- 0 ~ .5 e a 0 c. !:! ... 'C '" 1;l "'l; 0.. 0 c.. 1:) ::s I (.) I :3 Q) ~'" ~'8-5 ~ -c'-....>..o e lL'I (Q 0 c..~..= to E J!l '" E H E! tIl :J = 1IJ 'E c." 00"0 .; ~ tIl c.. C _ 0.'- - _ 0 '';:; "j'"" =..., "=t C':S.J:~t;:a-bI) 8.!:lOO JJ 00"'0.5 vi Q).E c a.5 fa c; 1:) .... r.- 0 "0... 0 u ~ 0 '';: ~"2] ~ '8' ~ ~.~ ..:.. E ~ Co _=c..('t')"O_OC; N"0.~8-0.- -,.c ... co u ,._tO~~~~E ~ a ca 3"t:l "t:l .- "t:l ._ ._ = ~ u g ~ U _C,)c...."t:l~_- 8 8- to E l; 'C -8. 8 C,) f/l e f/l f/l c.. C,) ~ s; g ~ ..; '" ::lE ::lE E '~ ... ~ '" ~ :.( ..J :0 Q 1 ;; :; r3~ '2 ro ~ v. u " ~; u '" :; oo E .g E 'E 8 E oo 0 c."" o ,5 O:;.c ,. u u " ~ '" ~~ .c " ~cr.u o a ,5 t) ~ :!2 c2 ~ g '" ~ ~~oJ: ~ '0"= g._oJ: cr. C. ~ " OJ E 0. o 0:; ,. u ~ :r. cr. ti ..= ;'E-5 E c ::: ~ ~ s::: _ "ti C) 0 cr. e:: g ~ i ... ,5 ~...g ] ~ u "0:::;: ~ c."O C'O v:: .... E ~ ::; Vl .: t1,) OJ <;:: -~- " OJ 0 "0 c; - OJ C '" -5 0.0 ::: IT.'v, ~ _ CJ tI'.! 'Vi "0 c:: " oo ~ t1,) .!:: .: -= 'c 'e ~ 6 g~~ E a <:: CJ ...... t) ~ :::;: u " :E '~ g ~u~ 'C,.g ~ ~ ~ E ._9 co '" " = E ~~ .S:: _ ...,~ "'0 ~ iU E ,S -5 :> ~ 0.,.,0 :.0 ,-= - "'0 e:::::: en = ,- u C ~ ~ ~ ,2 ..;s ti t1,) "'0 ~ ~~~ o E- oo u ~ o o 0. C " ,. .;! .;;; , " o '- o " .s c;; u .s ,,~ u C u ~ ;~ u ;; 6 .c ~ C) c;- !:: ,., ~cr. oo " OJ 0 E .S: u 3 0- c;; .:!J 'E u OJ .~ o ~ 0. " s::: ri ,9 ~ c;; oo _ 0. '" '" ~ CJt2--d ~ "0 (lJ ~ (lJ U tU OS =' c..= (lJ E ~ ~ 0 0 :- u U '" v '- o ~ i ~ .~ iil OJ ,~ c- ell oS " -;.0 0- 't: '5 Q..; c:l o ~ c:l u~ u c '0' ~ ~ c.~ ::,) .- .c~ - - ..: '5 'E ~ ~ u " o..c ell- .S CJ t1,) ::S2 "E oJ:_ .- ~ ::) r:;: C..) ;,,~ oo 0 " u EO:; g ~ ,S oo " '" .:!l ~ " .~ .s ~ <.::: '" " ~~ .co. ~ r/) (lJ - ... go .8 ~ ~ S 5 "0 'C Q.. ~ Q..lr._ - - , '" '-0 r.i " OJ 0 v:: v:: " Ii OJ '" -5'2 oo .c 0. ell" " u o u ~ 0 -= S ,,'" .52 c U oo " '" ~~ ~ 0 0:; -g OJ .s E - ,""0 E " ~ c;; " E ~ 0 :; oo '" ~ c,; ~ . 0 ell.c ,S t) ~ E - " t:l1J,52 ~] o ~" " OJ .~ ,. " '0 C) .(3 "e ,2 t1,) ]~ :; ~ ~ '(; E on '0 ,S ~ te en" " " .c u " oo u E '(32 E 0( ri' ,.,c;; ellu 13.c " ~ OJ OJ '-c;; ~ ~ .s 16 eO N " 'c u 'S ,52 Q) t1,) ,-= .c"O f- a u c .s " c;; .co f- '" .:: :6 .E " "0 " " " ell .;;; OJ ~"O ~ C 0" r.J'J Q.) " c;; > 't: 'C;; Q.. '" 0 oo ~ 0.0. '- 0. o oo " ~ ,52 CJ _.c E ~ o . e-~ o OJ u c;; " " .- .c OJ ~ .c oo r-'O '" -S"g ;3 oo '" .;;; " ~ , - .c ell " o ~ "0 " .s is. E " '" " 8 .; <E t " c;; " ~~ ~ -=8'0 .~ " '" "0 " ~ ,. .;;; o '" - ~ '" " .,"0 '(3 'S; 8.e '" 0. i <; '" <; ~ .; ,. ..;:: oo " g ." c.: '" ;:; ~ g .u ~ u.. ~ ~ r.., " :< .. '" c ] ~ => ., 0. oo u '" "0 C 'l - N N N N 0 0 0 0 '- '- '- '- 0 0 0 0 " ~ " .;!i " .;!i " .;d u u u u t: .~ t: .~ t: .~ t: .~ '" '" '" '" " " " " " " '" Q. '" Q. '" " '" " .!!l .!!l .!!l Q. .!!l Q. .s OIl .s OIl .s OIl .s OIl t: t: t: t: ... :2 ... :2 ... ::a ... ::a 0 .9 0 0 .t: .5 .5 .t: '" .t: '" ... 50 ... Co .!> Co .!> c.. C- OIl c:l c:l c:l . c.., c.. c.., c.. c.., -iUV..;-"O :-=-=~~ .~ ~ B ~ ~ V iU Q) i:O a- c.. ~ t) c.. tI;I t: " '" ~t)~O..c ;.e; .~'> ~ :-: C Q) CIl 0 ::l a c 8 ~ ~ Q.).-... ~ CJ.;: t:.- c..c a- Cl) < (OJ - ~ r;n Cl) 15cIU -='t: -;::~~'E'aiCJE .. >" .<: > .~ 0 E - Q. 2 0.. Q. C ..9 0.. _ 0 0 Q.) ~ 'E c; v .~ ~ tU ~ ..c ~.:= "'0 ..c c.. CIl,....., - I- - - - "';0<.2 o :Q C - .S .~ ~IJ) '2 .~ l5 "'0 - >. c Vol 'C e 2:::= ~ Q) c.. 00 cu v 0...-5 " u t: OIl " .5 U "'0 "'0 .~'> :-: 0 ll) ::s l5.. c .!> " >,11)::: c..c .- '" - ~ ~ E ~ ~ -< ~ .~ o~O~~t) -~cQ.,c .s ".>! Z "E .5 ~ ~ ,"= u Vi ~~ - C 0.. tf ~ - 0 :Q 5 ~ Pb '5:€ U c tnug~-"ci ~c:;"'O ",,_J2s ..c ~ Q)"""''''' ..::::: ~_C':I..c_iU"'O<- 00 (1) .~ - 's: G ~ 0 ~ c:; - ..c t:: lU ~ t- .=: 's 'i ~ ~ co 0 Og] Q.)_o~ gE 8~~'=o C OJ .- c cu'Vi c ~ "'0 ~ .~ ~ _ ,0, ~ - Q.) o...~ c -....; g ~= ~E'" ".-"'_c: .- ] c; 0 ~ .5 .sCll-5CJt~~~ c .~ c t; 0 0 .S .s co "'0'; ~ Q.) ,-.J:J .... ~ t .e E .~ ~ :; .~ 8: ~ cu .9 0 ~ en c- '" :: E :Jl Z ;> ::a .... , >C - , >C c:l c.. c.., .~~~~~]~g I B.. 0: c: c: 'C "'0 c~ _CIJO-SGJ o ,..., _ e"'O - I- -.... 11)'- "'0 ,t5 -;:: .52 e - - c .s -'.""~~"'''' _~f1)e.o ~C:E j: :> ~ c.. -. .9 .~ .~ c ~ t':S 00:::" ...... - __ Q)cu-oo:::'~-ocu Q..;! c.. "'" 0 2 "" ",Q.t:o~~u;ll co..o;.: (J e tI:I t':S CO ''::: t'tS "'0 '': 0 0 <-_::l::l~~Uc..E o u _ Ci .. CJ 0._ .~"O - E: c....s a 11) e c.. llJ Q., := go.. c; -:s]c; '" " ... ~ ~ ii,.g - " ::l..cV cnEOIl'- tI;I _ c:; (OJ Q) ::l 0 _ .~ ....::> "S!,.C ~ 0 = B ~ = ~ - ~ ~ - 0 ~ .<:_~ ~_c-='=~ e~-'~ ~ .s 8"~~~::E] u] __c-"" "8"" 5~CZl~~1ii..9 B ._" Vl ~ ,,- " 0 c':"'O~__cotE-= ~ is N ;; N ~ g " 0: '" ::; ::; ~ .~ ... ~ C <1 c ~ i ::> - , :c r-- - <q- <q- <q- <q- <q- <q- <: <: <: <: <: <: " " " " " " <.l ~ " ~ <.l ~ " ~ " ~ <.l .~ 0 0 0 0 g 0 '" .~ '" '': '" .~ '" ~ E '" ::l ::l E ::l ::l ::l ~ '" '" '" '" '" ~ '" ;: .~ " .5(: " .~ " .5(: " .5(: " .5(: " " Cl. " Cl. " Cl. " Cl. " Cl. " Cl. -= 00 -= 00 -= 00 -= 00 -= 00 -= 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 oS 'i5 oS 'i5 S 'i5 S 'i5 S 'i5 S 'i5 ~ '" ~ '" ~ '" ~ '" ~ '" ~ '" 50 ~ ~ ~ 50 50 0 0 00 s: OIl 0 OIl 0 0 ";: '- .;: '- ~ '- .;: '- ';: '- .;: '- C- O C- O C- O C- O C- O C- O v o - Cl ~ 0 Bz g E "0 cU 00 9 >,r-- E"g '" ~"'::l B~ g~ >,,, "2Cl. 0"0 >,0 '" " E a ","'::l .~ ; ~ ';; >. C'>' ~~ u~- '" ::l 0 ....0 o CIl '" .2.J: loo U oo.g ::l ::l " ~ p ~ ;:;; - c -= 5 o v ~.:! "'::l-S 'OCll E 0 0 c..::E 0 .~ E ';; ci. o u9 "'00 '- o - , z c.., ii3 Q Cl ~~ ~ J5 ~ o 0 E c. ]:@ "'::l ~ ~"'::l ~ ~ ~'C:O '0 C e ';; c: E ""'::l E 0 ui c.. t'3 v ':;"'g E C"Cl.::l " Cl. E 5 ':; OQ .- C" C U ~ .- 2] i5 - .- ~ _ u o '" 0 u..;;e.E .... , oc v a: ~ '-" - Cl " " ..c ,. ~ .~ "'ir. ~ '" " '" '" ~ '0 '" 0 f:OE 'On 2 ",= <r. -;;; .::! U '" ~ Cl. "" " :;: " ,. '" "'::l '" o ~ '" '" OIl'" .: ~ ::"'::l Cl." .:;tt _ tti " '" '" S " " 00.9; .... , oc c..; ii3 Q Cl 8 ~ ~ ..c ~ '2 ~ ~ :3 "'Co"';; ~ ~'2 ::l 0 " 1j:S~ .~ 8 -;;; ..o"'::l'- : ~ ~ t3r.E~ 'E [) 0 '" Cl.'" .o1j~ o 0 - '" - .~ '2 ::l ] c: " "'::l 'Vi " ~ " '" o o ~.~ '" - ~ " o 2 Cl._ E '" .~ s ..... " ,. oc .,,; " ~ "S " .0 -;;; ..0 '" c: " E c- ':; C" " ;; > ,.!,! " '" '0 o ~ o ....l III , oc u ii3 w ii3 o ii3 o ii3 ~ ::l " <.l o S "'::l " o o '" C. ,,-;;; ~ .::! U c; e ..0 Cl. '" ~ " '" > .~ ~ " :~ ..c U ~ '" .: " >,..0 '" - '0 ~ zS ~ o N ;a N e ~ "0 ..: '" ::;: ::;: g .~ "" ~ ~ '-' :< == 1 :; ::; '" , oc .. .. '" '" <i: ::2 C '- ':; '" 0 ell '- '" '" 0 '" ,2 .. " 0 .. 0 .. ell .. u .. .. 'E c <;: " 0 0 '6 i: '" - u co .. ';;; " .. " 0 0 "- IX " W -'" g. ::J '" '" '" .. W "0 "0 "0 >, 0 e c '" ;?; " ,2 '" .<: ~ .<: u c -'" .S .;: ~ '" c.. ';; 0 J3 " > - ~ ~ ';:: ;?; Co 0 OJ " 0 " c.. E ;:: iii IX IX '" u '" co , " , u I <Il ~ '" "- '" 0 .... V) "" " '" " '6 .. ;:: ;> iii 0 ~ .. '" c.. 1: c.. 0 < c.. ~ " '" - IX E ~ .S c ~ - .. '" ,2 " " t; "- 'E I;: " >, .n ;:: c.. u .. '" c -'" ;:: .. .E " u CIl .. " " '- " < .<: - " - W co ';;; .. .. 'Cl " '" " , .<: c..~ " c is ..!! " '" ..: 0 "- iZl ~ 0 - .. :0:: :!: < :::c W e ~ c 2 c g >, ,2 " t; .':: '" '" .. ~ ;:: c ;:: .. 0 '" ... " "i1. W .S .. z c t; I- 0' '" .<: V C 0- ell u ;: CII f~ 0 .<: ~ ,= '" - " ~ ;0 'C .;: E .. 0 v .. " c.. 0 .. " - ~ 0 ~ ~ c c.. 0" U 0 0 " > I I , " :!: < e :::c u c LU .. 0 .. '"' 0 ~ t; ~ '" is c:' e ;: " .g " '" " '" " '" E " ell u .; .S " " ';;; c '" - c.. " ~ " ell ;< co 0 c '" ';;; " ;< 0;; "ii ell ';;; .. " " ~ > '1;; " 0 '" '" .. " " '" ell l- e '" .. .. .. ';;; 'u .c 0 ~ , .n '" .. 0 'u " "" I < " ~ 0 .. E '" '" ~ .. " .. " ';; .. - I- " " ,.., 15- 0 ,~ C .. .. ;:: c c ~ '- - ~ =- E c '50 .. co " I .. E " c '" W :E <: " ~ :0:: :.z..: :2 " u .. 0 ,S:! ..: -;; W u .~ ,2 ':; "0 " 3 W '" " .. t " I ~ U U ell "- <i: I " Q, c - , ~ >, :I c ';;; "- ~ 0 0 w .. =: w " w W ell ~ ::.=: '" c.. "- i :;; lranslech ATTACHMENT "1" ENGINEERS .PLANNERS .MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS C98 N Arrowhead Avenue, SUIte I . San Bernardino. CalifornIa 92408 . Telephone 1909\ 383-8579 . Faes'mlle 19"9' 595-880; August 10, 2004 Ms. Valerie C. Ross City Planner/Deputy Director City of San Bernardino 300 N, "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Attn.: Ms, Valerie C. Ross Subject: DHL Facility Traffic Study Dear Ms. Ross: Per your request, Transtech Engineers, Inc. has reviewed the latest traffic study prepared by LSA to address City's concerns and incorporate infonnation requested in the meeting held on June 24, 2004 at the City Hall. It appears that most of the items of the scope of the study prepared by LSA following the meeting were addressed in the study. However, we have some comments on the study. A summary of our comments is presented in the following: o I. Page 3: Proiect Description. The project consists of the entire planning area 6, where 60% would be developed for DHL with the remaining 40% developed with industrial usage. Ultimate conditions (Year 2025) only looked at the impacts of the 60% for DHL. Also, where will the industrial have access if Leland Norton Way is closed from the south? 2. Was the future expansion ofDHL (50,000 sf) considered in future 2025 analysis? 3. Page 4: Figure 2: Site Plan. No access to Leland Way Entrance for employees is provided. Also, the driveway designated for employees is too close to truck entrance of Leland Way from 3'd Street. An evaluation may be needed to restrict driveway access to right in right out only, 4. Although Leland Way shows no employee access in the Site Plan, volumes used in the traffic study show using Leland Way. 5. How will DHL restrict trucks to only using 3'd Street to travel east to the SR-30? Are they going to post no left turn signs for trucks at the outbound approach? 6. The Site Plan dated July 12, 2004 shows the driveway (40' wide) on Del Rosa Drive to be available to public at all time, Isn't this only for emergency access? 7, Should the facility only have one access route to and from 3'd Street? What would be the lane configuration on 3'd Street at the employee driveway? Would there be a left-turn pocket from westbound approach? c Comments on DHL Traffic Study Page 2 of2 C 8. Internal Circulation. Do trucks have enough turning radii to turn comer of building to get to docks on the south side? Would there be a STOP sign-controlled pedestrian crosswalk across this truck route in front of the building facing Del Rosa A venue? It appears that pedestrians from the parking area would walk all the way to the front of the building, and then cross the truck route in order to enter the building. Also, the handicap and visitor (?) parking area does not provide an adequate turn-around area for vehicles in case there is no parking available there. The same is true for the main parking area, specifically there is no turn around area available in the west side of the parking area. Access to the handicap parking area appears to be too far away from the main driveway on 3'd Street. 9. Page 6: Trio Generation. Although the trip generation was provided by DHL how was the truck and truck driver numbers arrived at? Where is the technical backup? 10. Trio Distribution. Why would all the trucks be willing to take 3'd Street east to Palm Avenue, then to 5th Street to SR-30, with several left turns and signals when all they would have to do is go west on 3'd Street down to Tippecanoe Avenue, then to the 1-10 Freeway? Particularly, if they were heading to LA and Orange County areas for deliveries. II. Shouldn't the distribution be based on known delivery locations and the paths chosen at that point? o A figure separately depicting project only truck trips and vehicle trips needs to be provided on a conceptual map in the traffic study. The volumes as presented in stick format rather than in a network format are very hard to follow. 12. 13. A conceptual figure showing how project traffic will come and go from the site at each driveway needs to be provided in the traffic study. 14. Page 19. Will the project contribute its fair share to the signal at Leland Way/Del Rosa Avenue? It has been a pleasure to review the project documents and plans for you. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Jana Robbins at 909-595-8599 xl28 or me at 909-595- 8599 x 128. Sincerely, ~~ M. Yunus Rahi, Ph.D. P.E. PTOE Consultant Traffic Engineer c c o c ATTACHMENT ''j'' L S ^ LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. 1650 SPRUCE STRDT.'UJTE SOD RlVERlIDZ, CAUroJUnA 92507 OTII&R aFrIca: BERKELEY JRVDO: "'. COLLINS PT. RICHMOND ROCKLIR 909.781.9310 TEL 909.781.4277 ,.AX August 27, 2004 Valerie C. Ross Deputy Director De\'e!opment Sen'ices Department City Of San Bernardino 300 North D Street San Bernardino, California 92418-0001 Subject: DHL Air Cargo Facility Traffic Assessment - Response to Comments Dear Valerie: We are in receipt of M, Yunus Rabi's letter dated August 10, 2004, providing comments on the Traffic Assessment prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) for the DHL Air Cargo Facility (July 26, 2004). Our responses to the comments are as follows: 1 Parze 3: Proiect Descrivrion. The project consists of the entire planning area 6. where 60% would be developed for DHL with the remaining 40% developed with industrial usage. Ultimate conditions (Year 2025) only looked at the impacts of the 60%for DHL. Also. where will the industrial have access if Leland Norton Way is closed from the south? As stated on page 19 of the Traffic Assessment, the year 2025 volumes include build out of the San Bernardino International Trade Center (SBITC) Specific Plan area as previously approved, which had a higher trip generation than the currently proposed project. Therefore, projects trips were not added to those volumes because doing so would have resulted in double counting of trips. The industrial area will have access via Del Rosa Drive if Leland Norton Way is closed. Leland 'Norton Way does not provide access from the south. 1 Was thefllture expansion of DHL (50.000 sf) considered infuture 2025 anal)'sis? As shown in Table B of the Traffic Assessment, the trip generation for the proposed project is based on a project having 368.546 square feet, which includes the 50,000 square foot expansion area listed on Figure 2. 3. Page 4: Figure 2: Site Plan. No access to Leland Way Entrance for employees is provided. Also. the drive\my designated for employees is too close to truck elltrance of Leland Way ji-om 3"/ Street. An evaluatIOn may be needed to restrict driveway access to right in right out only. The conmlent is correct in that there will be no employee access from Leland Norton Way. All employee access will be via Del Rosa Drive. The driveway on Third Street west of Leland Norton Way is not designated for employees. As stated on page 4 of the Traffic 8 ~72004 IR: HLW432 Traflk.R~sponse to Comments.doc} c c c LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Assessment, this driveway will be restricted to emergency access. It will be blocked by removable bollards. 4. Although Leland Way shows no employee access in the Site Plan. volumes used in the lraffic sllldy show using Leland Way. The volumes shown in the Traffic Assessment on Leland Norton Way are truck trips. 5. How will DHL reslrict lrocks to only using 3'" Street 10 travel easl to the SR-30? Are they gO/llg Eo post no left lIIm signs for lI"l/cks at the outbound approach? Outbound left turn movements will be permitted from the facility. DHL will instruct trucks to use SR-30 and Third Street to access the facility. As noted on page 9 of the Traffic Assessment, compliance is not expected to be complete. Therefore, in its various analyses, the Traffic Assessment assumed that trucks would either use the recommended route, or be distributed as previously assumed in the SBITe, whichever resulted in a worst-case scenario for the analysis in question. 6. The Sile Plan dated July 12, 2004 shows the driveway (40' wide) on Del Rosa Drive to be available 10 public at all lime. Isn't this only for emergency access? As stated on page 4 of the Traffic Assessment, the driveway on Del Rosa Drive is the employee access. The site plan has been refined since the July 21 conceptual site plan included in the Traffic Assessment to separate the drive aisle for employee vehicles from the drive aisle for trucks circulating around the building. As a result of this change, the driveway on Del Rosa Drive will provide vehicular access only to employee parking areas, not to the truck courts. 7 Should the facilily on(v have one access rollle to andfrom 3'" Slreet? Whar would be the lalle COI!figurarion 011 3'" Streel at Ihe employee driveway? Would Ihere be a left-lIIm pockel from ),t'estboulld approach? Leland Norton Way will provide access to and from Third Street for trucks. Del Rosa Drive will provide access to and from Third Street for passenger vehicles. The driveway on Third Street will be for emergency access only, or deleted as described in the response to comment 3. There will be two lanes in each direction on Third Street at this location, plus a painted median, as currently exists. No left turn pocket will be provided. 8. 11llemal Circulalion. Do lrucks have ellough lIImillg radii 10 lum corner of buildillg to get to docks on the sOlllh side? Would there be a STOP sign-colllrolled pedeslriall crosswalk across this truck rollle infrolll of the building facing Del Rosa Avenue? II appears that pedeslrians from the parking area would walk all the way 10 the frollt of the buildillg, alld thell cross the truck rollle in order 10 enter the buildillg. Also, the halldicap alld visilOr (1) parkillg area does not provide all adequale tum-aroulld area for vehicles in case Ihere is 110 parking available Ihere. The same is true for the maill parkillg area, specifically Ihere is 110 turn aroulld area available in Ihe west side of the parking area. Access 10 the halldicap parkillg area appears to be too far away from the main driveway on 3'" Street. K'272oo4 rR:',HL \\"432' TraffkResponse 10 Comments.docl 2 c o c LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. The site has been designed to ensure sufficient turning radii for trucks to access all loading docks and truck parking spaces. There will be a pedestrian crosswalk across the vehicular drive aisles that will employ a colored pavement to increase its visibiltty, but it will not be STOP sign controlled. The site plan shown in the Traffic Assessment was a conceptual plan, and refinements will continue to be made through the approval process. Turn-around areas will be provided at any dead-end parking areas. Additional handicap parking has been added at the east end of the main automobile parking area (near Leland :-;orton Way). 9. Pafle 6: Trio Gelleratioll. Although the trip gelleratioll was provided b,' DHL how was the truck alld truck driver lIumbers arrived at? Where is the techllical backup? The hourly truck arrivals and departures are provided in Table 0 of the Traffic Assessment. The arrival and departure schedule was provided by DHL, as was the percentage of trucks expected to be driven by drivers who Itve in the local area. The spreadsheets provided by DHL were not included in the Traffic Assessment because they merely duplicate the data shown in Table D. 10. Trio Distributioll. Why would all the trucks be willillg to take 3'" Street east to Palm Avellue. thell to 5" Street to SR-30. with several left turns alld signals whell all they would have to do is go west on 3'" Street dowllto Tippecalloe Avellue. thell to the 1-10 Freeway? Particularly. if they were headillg to LA alld Orallge Coullly areas for deliveries. As noted in the response to comment 5, it is not expected, nor was it assumed in the Traffic Assessment, that all trucks will follow the recommended route to access the facility. The trucks serving this faciltty will not be making local deltveries. The large majority of trucks will be making long-haul trips to and from other cities throughout the western United States. 11. Shou1dll 'tthe distribution be based all kllown delivery locations alld the paths chosell at that poim? As noted in the response to the previous comment, the large majority of trucks will be making long-haul trips to and from other cities throughout the western United States. Analyses were conducted based on two different distributions, as described in the response to comment 5. In the first distribution, it is assumed that DHL has full control over the truck routes, and that trucks follow the recommended route. In the second distribution, it is assumed that DHL has no control over the truck routes. and that trucks travel over the same routes as previously assumed for the SBITC in general. I:!. A ftgure separately depictillg project OIlZl' truck trips and vehicle trips needs to be provided 011 a cOllceptl/almap ill the traffic sllldy. The I'oll/mes as presellled ill sllckformat rather thall ill a lIetworkformat are vel)' hard to follow. Comment noted. The analysis was conducted as described in the text. and the visual presentation does not affect the conclusions of the analysis. 8 .::!-::r:200-l (R:\HL w432'.1 raffic\Rcsponse to Comments.doc) 3 c o c LSA ASSOC1ATES, INC. 13. A conceptual figure showing how project traffic will come and go from the site at each driveway needs to be provided in the traffic study. Figure 4 illustrates the project traffic volumes at Leland Norton WaylThird Street (the driveway providing access for trucks) and at Del Rosa DrivelThird Street. To enter the facility. the project trips on Del Rosa Drive will make a southbound left turn. To exit the facility. the project trips on Del Rosa Drive will make a westbound right turn. The analysis was conducted as described in the text, and the visual presentation does not affect the conclusions of the analysis. 14. Parle 19. Will the project contribute its fair share to the signal at Leland Way/Del Rosa Avenue? Leland Norton Way does not intersect Del Rosa Avenue or Del Rosa Drive. As stated on page 4 of the Traffic Assessment, the project will install the traffic signal at Leland Norton Way/Third Street. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to call me at (951) 781- 9310 or e-mail meatsteveng.greene@lsa-assoc.com. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, f /tJ- ..----~ -' , Steven Greene Associate 8.27 200~_(R:'HLW432\Tral1ic'Response to Commenls.docl 4 c 27215 Base Line Highland, CA 92346 (909) 864-6861 FAX (909) 862-3180 www.ci.highland.ca.u5 City Council Mayor Ross B. Jones Mayor Pro-Tam Larry McCallon Q. . Ulburn ~ _ Scott John P. Timmer City Managar Sam J. Racadio c A 11 ACHMEN1 ""K" City of HIG il~----- ~. ! ~ I o~ I August 30, 2004 Ms. Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/ City Planner City of San Bernardino 300 North ""D" Street San BernardinoCA 92418 Subject: DHL Air Cargo Facility Dear Ms. Ross: Below are comments from City of Highland Engineering Department on the Initial Study and the Traffic Assessment prepared by LSA Associates for the proposed change ofland use of Planning Area 6 of the San Bernardino International Trade Center (SBITC) Specific Plan. and the proposed development of the north 60% of Planning Area 6 as a DHL air cargo facility. The Initial Study and the Traffic Assessment were received from City of San Bernardino on July 29 and August 19, 2004 respectively. 1. Cumulative impact resulted from developmentin SBITC Specific Plan area' Pursuant to San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared in 1996 for IVDA to assess traffic impacts on adjacent roadways associated with the development of the SBITC Specific Plan area. The TIA identified (I) various street locations where future traffic Level of Service is forecasted to drop below an acceptable level. (2) appropriate mitigation measures needed to maintain the Level of Service at an acceptable level. (3) cost of such mitigation measures, and (4) SBITC's fair share of mitigation costs. Based on the TIA. 46 intersections in the adjacent roadway network will require physical improvements at or prior to the build out of the SBITC. Out of the total estimated improvement cost of$17,713,000, the SBITC is responsible for S7,486,OOO. Eleven (11) out of the 46 intersections that require improvements are located within the City of Highland. The SBITC's fair share for these II intersections is estimated to be S 1.60 1.228. All cost estimates quoted are based on 1996 dollars, c It should be noted that in addition to the necessary intersection improvements, the TIA also identified a list of major arterial and freeway segments that will be impacted by development of the SBITC and roadway improvements are required. One of such arterial improvements is to widen 5th Street Bridge over City Creek from 2 to 4 lanes. The TIA estimated SBITC's fair share for this bridge project to be $2,544,000. However, in 2003, the City of Highland completed construction of this bridge project using a combination of federal, state and local funds. Therefore. it is not necessary for SBITC to contribute any fair share amount for this bridge project. While the 2004 Traffic Analysis done for the property owner and project proponent, Hillwood 1I1\'estment Properties, relative to Planning Area 6 (including the DHL facilities) states that the amount of traffic to be generated by the proposed land use in Planning Area 6 will be less than that generated by the existing land use. physical improvements to the various street intersections remain necessary as previously specified in the I 996TIA. o We request that City of San Bernardino require Hillwood to contribute an amount equivalent to the project's fair share cost of necessary intersection improvements for the II impacted locations in Highland associated with the development of Planning Area 6 (including DHL facility) and other areas within the SBITC Specific Plan (such as Mattei, Pep Boys etc.) In order to determine the amount of fair share cost for each development project in the Specific Plan, we also request that Hillwood's traffic engineer perform and present additional calculations for review by both cities. 2. Alternative to payment of project fair share cost per CMP guidelines Based on reading of the 2004 DHL Traffic Assessment. the City of San Bernardino does not require development projects located in the SBITC Specific Plan area to pay their fair share cost for roadway improvements within or outside its city limits. The San Bernardino County CMP guidelines require the calculation of project fair share cost as a part of the TIA. However, City of San Bernardino does collect from projects located within the Specific Plan area a special fee of $25 per daily trip of project traffic. The total amount of special fee applicable to the DHL facility is $44,050. Additionally. City of San Bernardino also collects from DHL the standard city-wide traffic mitigation fee. Furthermore, IVDA have made public street improvements within San Bernardino city limits valued at $16,719,273 which directly or indirectly offset some of the traffic impacts on San Bernardino's roadway network by new developments located within the Specific Plan area. o As an alternative to payment of the development projects' fair share cost for improvements needed at various street locations in Highland. Hillwood or IVDA may choose to improve existing streets within Highland city limits along the routes impacted by the project traffic, with private money provided by Hillwood, or federal or state grants acquired by IVDA. c 3. Street improvements required prior to opening date ofDHL facility The 1996 TIA listed the various street improvements that must be constructed prior to or at build out of the SBITC Specific Plan. Where such improvements are located along the project's street frontage. they should be constructed to its ultimate configurations at the time the particular development project is built. For the DHL facility. street improvements such as curb and gutter. sidewalk. pavement. street light and landscaped median etc. should be constructed along the entire project frontage of 3'd Street on both sides of Leland Norton Way. The width OD,d Street should comply with applicable Gcneral Plan or Specific Plan standards. A new traffic signal should be installed at the main truck entrance on 3rd Street at Leland Norton Way. This new signal should be interconnected with the existing signal at the 3'd Strcet! Del Rosa Drive intersection. Turn pockets with sufficient stacking space should be provided at this signalized entrance. c Intersection analvsis in the 2004 TIA indicates that both of the westbound left turns on 3'.1 Street at Del Rosa Drive and at Tippecanoe Avenue experience a very heavy demand of approximately 500 vehicles per hour. In order to maintain an acceptable level-of-ser..ice. cycle length and required pedestrians crossing times. dual left turn lanes would be essential at both intersections by year 2005. Additionally. a northbound right turn signal overlap would be needed to minimize vehicles queuing. These impro\'ements represent only a portion of the ultimate improvements listed in the 1996 TIA for these two intersections. If these improvements. including needed RO\\' dedications. are not done at this time. it will put a burden on both cities to have to solve the congestion problems at these shared intersections in the near future. Street improvements at other locations may also be needed prior to the opening date of the DHL facility depending on additional analysis requested in subsequent paragraphs of this letter. 4. Analysis of additional intersections The 2004 Traffic Analysis examined in details three intersections adjacent to the DHL project site: 3'd! Tippecanoe. 3rd; Del Rosa and 3'd, Leland Norton. It also evaluated a truck route consisting of 5th Street. Palm Avenue and 3rd Street under the assumption that 100% of the DHL trucks will use this route to access the project site from SR-30. Because it is quite possible that some of the project trucks will use a route different from the assumed truck route. it would be prudent for the Traffic Analysis to also verify whether all key intersections on 3'd Street and 5th Street between the project site and SR-30 can adequately accommodate the project truck traffic. along with the cumulative traffic. and recommend the appropriate mitigation measures. if necessary. OfparticuJar concern are the width of travel lanes. intersection turning radii. and queue length of for tum pockets at the impacted intersections. c c 5. Analysis of freeway ramps An analysis should be included for the SR-30 ramps at 5th Street in light of the special characteristics of slow moving trucks when accessing and climbing up the freeway on- ramps. 6. Impact on roadway pavement The proposed change ofland use for Planning Area 6 from Tourist Commercial to Industrial will result in a noticeable increase of truck trips on city streets. The 2004 Traffic Analysis projected that Planning Area 6 would generate 438 truck trips per day. Since the weight and the frequency of trucks are the most important factors relati\'e to the service life of roadway pavement. it is crucial that project impacts on the roadway pavement sections be fully evaluated. We request that all development projects in the SBITC Specific Plan, including the OHL facility. be conditioned to conduct an analysis of the roadway pavement along the affected roadways, and to mitigate the structural impacts on the roadway pavement. Potential mitigation measures could include reconstruction of the 3'd/ Leland Norton intersection with Portland cement concrete, one-time overlay/repair of the recommended truck route, and/or contribution to a pavement overlay/repair fund on a regular basis etc. 7. Other miscellaneous comments on the Initial Study and the Traffic Analysis: o . Is the future 50.400 square foot building expansion included in the analysis of future traffic? . The Level of Service analysis did not consider the required minimum time for pedestrians crossing. For example. the "2005. AM \\ith project" scenario shows 1.9 seconds of green time for southbound left-turn. This is an unrealistic split. Ten (10) seconds should be used, as a minimum. Similarly, the northbound shows 7.8 seconds of green time. This is unacceptable, since this split time dictates the needed time for pedestrians to cross the east leg of 3'" Street. These need to be recalculated at all intersections based on the current MUTCO criteria (curb to curb). . The Level of Service adopted by the City of Highland is "C" for roadway segments and "0" for intersections, not "E" as stated on Page 14 of the Traffic Analysis. Any intersection with a Level of Service below "0" will require mitigations and the Analysis should be revised accordingly. . The second sentence for footnote 2 under Table B is incomplete. c . Since the Traffic Analysis was prepared based on specific operating periods of the OHL facility, the project should be required to conduct a new analysis and mitigate any new impact if the operating periods have changed substantially. c . Figure 5 and Page 19 of the Traffic Analysis failed to acknowledge the existing bike lane on Palm Avenue between 3'" and 5th Streets. Any reference in the text to use the paved area currently occupied by the bike lane to accommodate the truck turning movements should be revised accordingly. . We would like to point out a potential safety issue at the project's proposed employee entrance off Del Rosa Drive. The existing abandoned guard shack in the median on Del Rosa Drive south of the entrance currently causes a view obstmction specifically to southbound traffic turning left to the project's entrance. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed DHL project. Please let me know if there are any questions regarding this letter. I can be reached at (909)864-8732, ext. 212. Sincerely, o C) ./t:~1u?/ 1U~:1L-r Ernest Wong Public Works Director! City Engineer c c o c A TT ACHMENl "L" Ross_Va From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Steven Greene [Steven.Greene@lsa-assoc.com] Wednesday, September 01,200410:30 PM Ross Va Carl Winter; Lynn Hayes DHL Air Cargo Facility - Responses to City of Highland's Comments Dear Valerie, We are in receipt ofa copy of the letter dated August 30, 2004, from Ernest Wong, City Engineer for the City of Highland, to you providing comments on the Traffic Assessment for the DHL Air Cargo Facility. Following are our responses to the comments contained in that letter. I. As specified in Section 15229 of the CEQA guidelines (which were included as Appendix B of the Traffic Assessment), the "existing conditions" to be analyzed in reuse of a military base are the conditions that prevailed at the time of base closure. These conditions were determined to include the generation of 46,520 daily vehicle trips by activity on the base. Therefore, there is by definition no traffic impact of reuse of Norton Air Force Base (NAFB) until the trip generation of activities at the base returns to this level. As shown in Table E and explained on page 24 of the Traffic Assessment, approved projects on the base will generate a total of 11,520 daily vehicle trips. The DHL Air Cargo Facility will generate an additional 1,762 daily vehicle trips, bringing the total daily vehicle trips to 13,282, far below the threshold for creating an impact. Since there is no traffic impact under CEQA, there is no nexus for collecting a "fair share" payment from development at NAFB, including development in the San Bernardino International Trade Center (SBITC) Specific Plan area. 2. The comment is correct that the City of San Bernardino does collect a fee of$25 per daily vehicle trip for the first 46,520 daily trips generated by reuse ofNAFB, in addition to city-wide traffic systems fees. The fee increases to $50 for the next 30,073 daily trips. This fee is deposited into the "Inland Valley Development Agency - Specific Plan Infrastructure Fee Special Fund" (the "IVDA Special Fund"). The IVDA Special Fund may be used to pay for circulation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the SBITC Specific Plan area. With regard to the suggestion that Hillwood or IVDA improve existing streets within Highland City limits as an alternative to payment of fees for off-site improvements, we refer to our response to comment I, which explains that, under CEQA, there is as yet no traffic impact of reuse ofNAFB and therefore no nexus for requiring any off-site "mitigations." 3. The project will construct frontage improvements on Third Street as specified in the SBITC Specific Plan. The Specific Plan does not include a landscaped median on Third Street. The project is deleting Leland Norton Way from the City's General Plan and SElTC Specific Plan circulation elements. It will not be a public road within the project site.. The project will install a traffic signal at Leland Norton Way/Third Street and conduit to provide an interconnection with the traffic signal at Del Rosa Drive/Third Street. The intersection will be designed to provide adequate storage for all turning movements. . c c o The project will post a bond for improvements (addition of a second westbound left turn lane and provision for a northbound right turn overlap) at the intersection of Del Rosa Drive/Third Street, which is located on the project frontage. It is our understanding that the need for these improvements will be evaluated by the City of San Bernardino one year after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the DHL Air Cargo Facility. The intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue/Third Street is an off-site intersection. We therefore refer to our response to comment I, which explains that, under CEQA, there is as yet no traffic impact of reuse ofNAFB and therefore no nexus for requiring any off-site "mitigations." However, the City of San Bernardino may choose to use funds deposited in the IVDA Special Fund by this project and other projects in the vicinity to make the requested improvements at this location. 4. The Traffic Assessment considered the adequacy of key intersections on Third Street to accommodate truck traffic. According to the City of Highland General Plan, Fifth Street is a designated truck route in the City of Highland. We assume that the City of Highland assured that this roadway was of adequate design to accommodate trucks at the time that the roadway was constructed and/or designated as a truck route. Therefore, if trucks from this project do use Fifth Street to access State Route 30, they will be using the roadway as intended and designed by the City of Highland, resulting in no impact. 5. We refer to our response to comment I, which explains that, under CEQA, there is as yet no traffic impact ofreuse ofNAFB and therefore no nexus for requiring any off- site "mitigations." Therefore, there is no need to conduct the requested analysis. 6. To eliminate the City of Highland's concern about the impact of truck traffic on Third Street, the City of San Bernardino can choose to condition DHL to instruct trucks to use Fifth Street through the City of Highland to access SR-30. Trucks would then travel from the project site to SR-30 via Third Street to Sterling Avenue, Sterling Avenue to Fifth Street, and Fifth Street to the freeway. According to the City of Highland General Plan, Fifth Street is a designated truck route in the City of Highland. We assume that the City of Highland assured that this roadway was of adequate design to accommodate trucks at the time that the roadway was con.structed and/or designated as a truck route. Therefore, if trucks from this project do use Fifth Street to access State Route 30, they will be using the roadway as intended and designed by the City of Highland, resulting in no impact. 7. Bullet points: a. The Traffic Assessment considered the project at full build out, including the expansIOn area. b. With the longer signal phases described in the comment, the intersections operate at satisfactory levels of service. c. All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better and are projected to continue to do so in 2005 and 2025. Therefore, whether the City of Highland's standard is D or E has no impact on the analysis. Furthermore, we refer to our response to comment I, which explains that, under CEQA, there is as yet no traffic impact ofreuse ofNAFB. Even if a study intersection were found to be c o o operating at an unsatisfactory level of service, there is no nexus for requiring any off-site "mitigations." d. The remainder of the second sentence of footnote 2 in Table B should read, "outbound passenger vehicle trip." The omission of this portion of the sentence from the footnote does not change the analysis presented in the Traffic Assessment. e. The operating periods of the project have not changed. f. The comment is correct that the Traffic Assessment mischaracterizes the bike lane on Palm Avenue. However, the added pavement width provided by the bike lane does increase the turning radius available to vehicles making right turns because it increases the distance between the vehicular travel lane and the edge of the pavement. Trucks will not travel in the bike lane, except to cross it as any right- turning vehicle must. g. The guard shack will be removed. Please call me at (951) 781-9310 or e-mail meatsteven.greenew:.Isa-assoc.comif! can be of further assistance. c 27215 Base Line Highland, CA 92346 (909) 664-6861 FAX (909) 862-3180 www.ci.highland.ca.us City Council Mayor Ross B. Jones Mayor Pro~T8m Larry McCallon Opburn cott ~ . Timmer City Manager Sam J. Racadlc c ATTACHMENT "M" August 30, 2004 City of RIG HAND DELIVERED City of San Bernardino Valerie C. Ross. Deputy Director/City Planner 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 Subject: DHL Air Cargo Facility (General Plan Amend. No. 04-03. SpecifiC Plan Amend No. 04-02, Development Permit II No. 04-27, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-013) & Initial Study Dear Valerie: The City of Highland has completed its review of the subject Development Permit and associated Initial Study and have the following comments. Our meeting on August 23, 2004, answered many of our questions and we appreciated your time. A meeting with Hillwood Investment Properties representatives on August 26,2004, also assisted with our review. 1. Bay Door and Cargo Container Screening Although the concern here is aesthetics, there also is a related issue of sound attenuation as discussed below under item number 2. It is not clear whether the proposed eight feet (8') or nine feet (9') high screen wall located along the north frontage will be sufficient to screen cargo containers and bay doors. As you informed the City. a "line of sight" study was provided recently and some modifications would be made to sufficiently screen bay doors and truck trailers stored within the yard. In relation to cargo storage containers, it is not clear whether the air cargo containers will be stacked, which would make them visible from Third Street. Based on the site plan design. it appears the cargo storage area planned between the Leland/Third Street signalized intersection and tarmac staging area is separate from the distribution activities but could be intended for the long-term outside storage of empty containers. If this is the case, consideration should be given for requiring screening provisions similar to those around the warehouse distribution building. c 2 Noise According to the Initial Study, the air cargo handling, sorting, and distribution operations will occur primarily at night, with the majority of the work occurring between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Incoming flights are also anticipated from 7:00 to 11 :30 p.m. while outbound flights will occur from 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. The Operational Noise impacts focus mainly on air traffic (take off and landing) and vehicular traffic (passenger and truck) related to the proposed use, both of which are well documented. However, it is not clear what the potential impacts will be related to loading of aircrafts on the tarmac area. Will the noise generated for loading, unloading, and taxi/towing aircraft be conducted within an acceptable noise level, given the reduced ambient noise level at night? In addition, the plans indicate only a chain link fence proposed around the tarmac area. Will the existing noise deflectors be maintained in their present location? This may help reduce any potential noise (and visual) impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods located within the City of Highland. 3. Third StreetlTarmac Frontage o The Site Plan/Landscape Plan is void of any proposed landscaping improvements along the Third StreetlTarmac frontage. What type of frontage improvements are proposed for this portion of land located within the City of San Bernardino's right-of-way? Perhaps large specimen evergreen trees could be planted to help soften the existing noise deflector structures and screen air cargo containers. 4 Traffic Impacts Comments from the City of Highland Engineering Department related to traffic impacts are attached for your review (see attached letter dated August 27, 2004). The City appreciated the opportunity to comment on this project and we look forward to your response. Should you have questions, please contact me at (909) 864-8732, Ex!. 215. Sincerely, c '---/ 1'7. /- ;"-;;:$~v(",p'-~;~~ ..-tawrence-li. Mainez !-/ City Planner cc: Sam Racadio, City Manager Rick Hartmann. Community Development Director Ernie Wong. Public Works Director/City Engineer A TT ACHMEJ\'T "J\''' I "ILlH!I" ('lll""'" ~~^~,I,~ON I{;II I~_ l'Ull/ilk, ",'''::I;!III.:!"I.:, 1',_:,,<. \:!,.,,-, August 24. 2004 : D<~~~~UW~~'\ ffil ...J _' .. -. "t.... :.L:,_:'" City of San Bernardino Development Services Department Attn: Valerie Cross. City Planner 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 -' ."- - .',:';:",-.',-".,.',..: DEv=.:"opr/G.i S~?VICES D~C~ PTL!'El~: Subject: Notice to Adopt Negative Declaration For DHL Air Cargo Facility Dear Valerie: Thank you for including the Southern California Edison Company (Edison) in the review process for the above-referenced document. c The DHL Air Cargo Facility project is located within the service territory of Edison. Edison's power distribution system is prepared to deliver the power produced by the State's electricity market to this project. The California Independent System Operator is the agency now responsible for managing the State's electric power grid and securing power supplies. The relocation, reconstruction. extension or undergrounding of Edison' s electrical distribution system, which may be necessitated by activities within the proposed project area. will be performed by Edison. in accordance with Edison's effective Tariff Schedules approved by and filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. In the event the proposed development impacts SCE's transmission/distribution pipeline/communication facilities. property or exclusive easements. please send five sets of development plans delineating the conflict/impact to 14799 Chestnut Street. Westminster, CA 92683. for processing. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. c nurs, ,- ;/ :;ft!;}fr ~~I . , Ray R. Gonzalez ~,,- 1 ~n:I~'~'l_':-i: R...',lbnj,. l\ '-1.2j-") dl, ""-1l"--l'- ~L' Lr\ ...jl"~" Jl17 -l~7qj c c c ATTACHMENT 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 04- DHL Air Cargo Facility I. This approval is for the development of a 368,550 square foot air cargo facility on approximately 34.9 acres ofland. The facility will operate on a 24-hour basis. ~ This approval does not include the future expansion area. It will require separate submittals, and environmental review, at the time the expansion is anticipated. 3. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. However, approval of this application does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities included in the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. Expiration Date: Two years from Mayor and Common Council Approval 4. The review authority may grant a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required submittal items. 30 days prior to the expiration date. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 5. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency (EDA), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commissions of either the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of either the City or EDA from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City and the Economic Development Agency any costs and attorney's fees which the City or the Economic Development Agency may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this section. The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as "attorney's fees for the purpose of this condition. c' o c GPA No. 04-03 SPA No. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 2 of5 As part of the consideration for issuing this permit or approval, this condition shall remain in effect if this Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the applicant. General 6. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable. 7. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no change of use of land or structure( s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Public Works Division prior to issuance of the Certificate, is necessary. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance imposed on the intended use by this permit. 8. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code (including the Development Code) in effect at the time of approval. 9. If the color of the building or other exterior finish materials are to be modified, the revised color scheme and/or finish materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 10. Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of structure, or ground shall be screened as required by the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and City of San Bernardino Development Code. 11. If a water tank is proposed in the future, the applicant shall submit specifications, including the proposed materials and color of the water tank for review and approval of the Planning Division. Landscape screening shall be reflected on the landscape plans. 12. Permanently affixed ladders leading to roofs shall be fully enclosed with sheet metal or a similar, durable material. The finish shall be consistent with, and compatible with, the overall architectural theme of the building. DPIII No. 04-07 Page 2 of5 OS/20/04 c c o GPA No. 04-03 SPA No. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 3 of5 13. The following standards for lighting and address markings are applicable: a) The address number of the building shall be located and displayed so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than six (6) inches in height and be of a color contrasting to the background. In addition, any business that affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. b) Roof top address numbers shall be provided. They shall be a minimum of three (3) feet high and two (2) feet in width and of contrasting color to the background. Numbers shall be placed parallel to the street address as ssigned. c) Each building within a commercial complex shall have its own address/assigned number affixed to the roof. 14. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient with the ability to lower or reduce usage when the store is closed. Signage may be required to be turned off when the business is closed. 15. Submittal requirements for permit applications (building, site improvements, landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/or Public Works/Engineering shall include all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with the Development Review Committee approval. Walls and Fencing 16. Barbed wire, razor wire, and/or concertina wire are not permitted anywhere on-site. 17. The screen wall shall be constructed along Del Rosa Avenue, 3rd Street, and the southerly property line as shown on the August _' 2004 site plan. 18. Black vinyl coated chain link fencing may be installed or remain on 3rd Street, easterly of the Leland Norton Way access and the other locations shown on the August _, 2004 site plan. 19. Chain link fencing with a black vinyl covering may be used on the interior along the west side of the site. Signage 20. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Prior to establishing any signs, the applicant shall submit an application, and receive approval for a sign permit from the Planning Division. All signage on the site shall be consistent with the provisions of DPlII No. 04-07 Page 3 of5 OS/20/04 c o c GPA No. 04-03 SPANo. 04-02 DP II No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 4 of 5 the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and the City of San Bernardino Development Code. 21. No painted window signs, roof signs, permanent sale or come-on signs will be permitted at this site. 22. Signsfbanners may not be placed on or over the roof or within landscaped areas. Banners and other signs for special events (i.e., grand opening) will require a Temporary Sign Permit to be approved by the Planning Division prior to installation/hanging. Signs and banners may not encroach into the public right-of- way. Landscaping 23. The applicant shall post a bond in an amount equivalent to the cost oflandscaping including landscape installation and one year of maintenance service. The purpose of the bond is to ensure that all landscaping survives the planting process and last for a period of at least one-year. The bond will be released no sooner than one-year after issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy and only after such time as the survival of the landscaping has been verified by City staff. 24. The applicant will comply with the recommendations contained within the "Tree Inventor)' Report ", prepared by STB Landscape Architects, dated January 27,2003, as specified by the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. Landscape plans shall reflect those trees to be relocated and contain details regarding those trees to be replaced, including the replacement ratio. Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the permit. 25. All landscaping shall be consist~nt with Section 19.28 (Landscape Standards) from the City's Development Code. Where an existing tree is judged healthy and yet cannot be feasibly relocated, it may be subject to replacement with three 36-inch box specimen trees of a type and quality to be approved by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department. The replacement trees are in addition to the trees required in Chapters 19.24. Off-Street Parking Standards, and 19.28, Landscaping Standards, of the Development Code. 26. The landscape plan shall include one 24" box tree for every four parking spaces (employee and customer), consistent with the requirements of Section 19.24.060(6)(B) and Chapter 19.28. of the Development Code and the San Bernardino International Trace Center Specific Plan. Other DPIII No. 04-07 Page 4 of5 OS/20/04 c c o GPA No. 04-03 SPA No. 04-02 DP " No. 04-27 LLA No. 04-13 Page 5 of5 27. The project is subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures contained in the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan and the Initial Study prepared for this project. 28. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: . Development Services Department - Public Works Division . Development Services Department - Building Plan Check Division . Water Department . Fire Department DPIII No. 04-07 Page 5 of5 OS/20/04 c c c ATTACHMENT P CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Development Services Department - Public Works Division Standard Requirements DHL Air Cargo Facility Hillwood Development Development Permit II No. 04-27/Lot Line Adjustment No. 04-13 1. Drainal!e and Flood Control a) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary. b) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage facility. c) The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S\\TPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). These plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of permits for land disturbing activities. ([Refer to the City's web page at \\w\\.ci.san-hernardino.ca.lls - Departments - Development Services - Public Works for templates of these plans.) d) A "Notice ofrntent (NOl)" shall be filed with the State Water Quality Control Board for construction disturbing I acre of more of land. 2. Gradiol! at If more than I' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plot/grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings." b) An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted with the grading plan. c) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development Code shall be obtained from the Development Services Department, Planning Division, prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits. DHL Air Cargo Facility DP II No. O4-27/LLA No. 04-13 Page 2 of 8 c d) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading bond will be required and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with Section 70I2(c) of the Uniform Building Code. e) A hauling plan shall be submitted concurrent with the grading plan. This plan shall specify the haul route, hours of operation. number of daily truck trips. traffic safety control measures, street cleaning provisions, covering ofloads, and any other pertinent information. A truck-hauling permit must be issued before these activities can commence. f) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). g) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. Please note that the design of the screen wall is subject to approval by the Planning Commission, concurrent with review of the Development Permit. o h) A liquefaction evaluation is required for the site. This evaluation must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan. i) Refuse enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 508. The number, size, and location shall be determined by the Public. Services Department, Refuse Division. j) The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting, including light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design. conduit location and size. and the number and size of conductors. Photometry calculations shall be provided which show that the proposed on-site lighting design will provide I foot-candle of illumination uniformly distributed over the surface of the parking lot during hours of operation and 0.25 foot-candles security lighting during all other hours. k) The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements ofThe California Building Code, Title 24, relating to handicap parking and accessibility. c I) A handicap accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public way to the building entrance. All pathways shall be concrete paved and shall provide a minimum clear width of 4 feet. Where parking overhangs the pathway, the minimum paved width shall be 6 feet. c c c DHL Air Cargo Facility DP II No. 04-27fLLA No. 04-13 Page 3 of8 m) Where the handicap accessible path of travel crosses drive aisles, it shall be delineated by textured/colored concrete pavement. n) A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan approval if reciprocal drainage, access, sewer, and/or parking is proposed to cross lot lines, or a lot merger shall be recorded to remove the interior lot lines. 3. Landscapinl! a) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit (5 copies). b) The following areas shall be included in a Landscape Maintenance District. (The specific boundaries will be determined by the City Engineer through the LMD plan check process.) However, the applicant/developer is required to maintain these areas. In the event that the landscaping is not maintained, the City will activate the Landscape Maintenance District. . Between the curb and the drive aisle/parking along Del Rosa Avenue. . Between the curb and the drive aisle/parking along 3rd Street. . Between the curb and the drive aisle/parking along from Leland Norton Way to the easterly property line from the curb to the fence. . The median island in Del Rosa A venue c) All required maintenance districts shall be formed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. d) The applicant shall grant a landscape maintenance easement for the areas included in the Landscape Maintenance District. e) Separate landscape and irrigation plans are required for the areas within the Landscape Maintenance District (5 copies). f) The Landscape Maintenance District shall be formed prior to issuance of a grading permit or the Developer will provide a Letter of Agreement for Participation in the Landscape Maintenance District. g) The Real Property Section shall prepare a landscape easement and covenant document for execution by the property owner. The purpose of this documentation is to ensure that if the property owner or subsequent owner(s) fails to properly maintain the landscaping, the City will be able to file appropriate liens against the property in order to accomplish the required landscape maintenance. Execution of the document shall occur prior to issuance of any permits. A document-processing fee in the amount of $200.00 shall be paid to the Real Property Section to cover processing costs. c c c DHL Air Cargo Facility DP II No. 04-27/LLA No. 04-13 Page 4 of8 4. Utilities a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV. b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the area can serve it. c) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the finished floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest upstream manhole. d) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at the Developer's expense. e) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. 1) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. g) A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets where the street is not being repaved as part of the required improvements. h) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance with Section 19.30.110 (subdivision) of the Development Code. i) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code Section 19.30.110. j) Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to City standards and inspected under a City On-Site Construction Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the developer and approved by the City Engineer will be required. This plan can be incorporated in the grading plan, where practical. k) A Street Lighting Maintenance District shall be formed prior to issuance of a grading permit or the Developer will provide a Letter of Agreement for participation in a Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District. c c c DHL Air Cargo Facility DP II No. 04-27/LLA No. 04-13 Page 5 of8 5. Street Improvement and Dedications a) All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap ramps, street lights, sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but not limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications. relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with new construction, striping, shall be accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Street Lighting Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall be shown on street improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line(C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows: , Street Name Del Rosa A venue , 3' Street Curb Line Existino Existing - c) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard No. 200. Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb and gutter. Construct approach and departure transitions for traffic safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer. d) Construct a 6' wide sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard No. 202, Case "A." e) Construct Handicap Ramps in accordance with City Standard No. 205 at all curb returns within and adjacent to the project site. Dedicate sufficient right- of-way at the corner to accommodate the ramp. f) Construct curb return approaches on Del Rosa Avenue and 3'd Street with widths as depicted on the site plan. g) Construct driveway approaches in accordance with City Standard No. 203. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of the approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter and sidewalk. h) The applicant shall provide emergency access from Del Rosa Avenue, directly to the north and south truck areas. This may require that the Del Rosa Avenue access driveway be widened to provide adequate turning radius for emergency c DHL Air Cargo Faciliry DP II No. 04-27/LLA 1\0. 04-13 Page 6 of8 vehicles. The applicant may install gates (with Knox box access) or bollards, as determined by the Fire Marshal, to keep truck traffic from using that access point, and to "control" pedestrian/employee access to the building. The details shall be shown on the site improvement plan. i) Prepare a design safety study to identify measures to ensure pedestrian safety at the truck/pedestrian crossing on the west side of the building. The study shall be completed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any site improvement permits. j) Only one path oftravellemployee/pedestrian access shall be provided from Del Rosa Avenue. The details shall be shown on the site improvement plan. k) All Curb return radii shall be 25 feet minimum. I) Install streetlights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard Nos. SL-I and SL-2 (200' spacing). m) Install fire hydrants every 300 feet along Del Rosa Avenue and 3rd Street, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. o n) The applicant shall design and construct the traffic signal at Leland Norton Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to issuance ofa Certificate of Occupancy. The specifications shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements. The applicant is responsible for 100% of the associated costs. 0) The applicant shall design and construct interconnection between the traffic signals at Del Rosa Avenue and Leland Norton Way. p) The applicant shall provide a second westbound left turn pocket from 3'd Street to Del Rosa Avenue and modify the traffic signal accordingly with northbound right turn overlap phasing, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. However, the applicant may post a bond to cover the costs of these improvements and request re-evaluation after one year from issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Based upon the updated traffic counts and other pertinent information provided by the applicant, the City Engineer may determine that these improvements are not required. If so, the bond will be returned to the applicant. q) The truck access driveway at Leland Norton Way shall be constructed with new concrete pavement, at the full width of the street, a minimum of 125 feet in both directions from the centerline of the access drive. c r) The applicant shall design and construct the modifications to the median on Del Rosa Avenue to provide a left turn pocket and one opening for employee c c c DHL Air Cargo Facility DP II No. 04-27/LLA No. 04-13 Page 7 of 8 access as shown on the site plan. The applicant is responsible for 100% of the associated costs. s) In conjunction with the previous requirement, the applicant shall demolish the guard shack in Del Rosa A venue and install landscaping and irrigation. t) Combine walkways/paths of travel from Del Rosa Avenue to one location to minimize conflicts. u) Provide on-site truck turn tracking to ensure adequate space for truck maneuvering. This study shall be completed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any site improvement permits. 6. Required Enl!ineerinl! Plans a) The rough grading plan shall be designed and submitted separately from the precise grading plan. b) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to, building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks, geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed with the City Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592. c) All plans submitted for plan check purposes shall be prepared on the City's standard 24" X 36" sheets. d) Provide the City with an electronic file of all improvement plans/drawings. This file shall be in a format compatible with Auto Cad 2000, and shall be submitted with the plans for final approval. 8. Required Enl!ineerinl! Permits a) Grading permit. b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping. c) Off-site improvements construction permit. 9. Applicable Enl!ineerinl! Fees a) All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on the Public Works Fee Schedule, including submittal timeframes. b) This project is subject to an additional historical traffic unit fee, acquired capacity unit fee, or daily vehicle trip fee as identified in City of San c DHL Air Cargo Facility DP II No. 04-27/LLA No. 04-13 Page 8 of8 Bernardino Resolution No. 2003-72. The applicant shall provide written documentation from the Inland Valley Development Agency indicating the number of historical units or acquired units, which apply to this project. o c . --' J ./ ( ") - - - 0. . _ -.J .. - = n I til : !II iil '1\ !~d ! l'llll !:ii :fllh ; ,I ~ lilPI ~ ~d 1! ' !ll ;11 ~ l'1I': _ ~ 11111 ~ l: ~ ,ll.l iiI ;1 I '1 Ii Q .. -------~ ~ -------i I __un< ~ -------i ------i a ::::::~ --------1 ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i --------1 ------i ------i ______i ------i -------i ------i . I If.I no III ! E!~! I ~ j.'i'! Ii ~n H ! ~ ~ I " ll! .. i " '_JJ.:.:;.--i 11'-1" --lin< -- ---'1 __ ----i -- ---i .-- ---i -- ---i ==t-==~ -- ---i -- --i .. --____--1 ~ :::t::~ ;; =-~===~ -- ---i ~ -- ---i -- ---i ... - ----I i ------i '" ------i ------i = ------i :; ------i ~ ,::::::~ ------i -------l ------i ------i --------l --------1 -------1 -------i ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i --------1 ...-----i --------1 ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i ------i .:::::~ :J 000 0 i~ !!III n i~!SI 15 ~.Ii! II! !e~~I! Ii ;I!' . a! ~!!~~; 'I'~' ~'!'i' il R!<I II ill~!! 'j II~ ,~ "!III! II il~ ;e h;ll~ :i l~; Ii l;:~! I! i'l ,1,.11 l~ I~ ~ ~a;~ 1; I .~; .; I~ ~ : \\ @@ @@@ i I '~I i I , ~ ill ~ ; ~ o.! 'Q . , ',< ~ . I ' I,! . , ~ Pili i ill~. I 'i" , '!~ i ~ ~.;P m ..1 iiI Ii! ;0 OJ! ~ I,! S .' z " " ~~ fjJ llI'-T ~ '" ~ I '" C ;= o > '" ~ ~~ Wlill /m Ii ~~ II 5~ Z II DEL A V E. R ,,-'. UJ"-Il/' ( ~0 r J _ ---L- _ L-.J _ -1- _ L-- --l--W--!-- I I I . I -1-11-1-11 - --r- - r-I - --r- - I I - - - - - - --f)-E - -b-- --R--Q-~ -A- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- + - - -- I I , I I I , I I I ~ I , I 70 rjn , rr r , l \ \ , \ ~~ \. -I I I I -~ \ I , r;~;II!lr il! !~II ;11 ii, ijlil!~"rl"ij"l I I qll lillllllll' 1llllP 1! Ill!!! II! lilli" III !lll 11 fill II I 1 , I I '1'1 !- 'l Ii . I I ,. I !!l Ii I' !!UH I P1IW 1 !I I Iii I II i I II . i .11111 i' hIll Iii '! I Il I ,I I Ii I !I,:.rl I :'1... . ~ ,::... . , ) . J J . j i j i i j; t~ ~ t J J 1 1 I I I I I I . ----- . It r' I" - " . . ----- . / ,.. ? . . ,,-, ,-,,1T ,.-< '_1' "4 II....,. :I: ."-r T_III' . 'r-( 1J'_1<I' IT-C' -,. .- ". ,..-. m z ~ '" m C ." .... C o :c '." . "S;: 'z I , I I U I I 0- I I ~ I I 11 ---+-----~-------~-----~----- i i i i ", . m ( ~ , , , , - - N J"'" , ~ =r=tl=t i '" , .. I I I I , =1t:1 '" , , 0> , , , -tr ... , - -- 0> , , , -0- ., , . - - ~ 2 > CCI: - g~ 0 J:: ::::s ~ , , , " ~ ~ · 6 ; ii ? ?? -0- ~ . ~ ~i . , ~~ ~ - - ~ ! . ~ . , , , =1:t1 ~ '" . ~ .. , , , ~ :t1:[ , ~ '" 0> l!; ; ~.e l!: i!i , , , , .. :tf:[ ~ ~ . .~:.\: t ~~ ~ ... 8... .. , . . ~ ~t: ~ ~t: , , ;..'" -:!=!:r , . :100 00000 ~I' , ;1;lPI'Plljl ~ O~ ~J , h.I\,id I' - 't ,! II jli': Ii " 1~" ' . .. jil jl III Hlll ... - "i1li z . 0 ... ~~ ,. I n!l! :linl .. . .. ~lt~- . iL Norton - 4128\Design\DAB\DP 3-1.dwg, 7/13/2004 3:32:09 PM, bridget, lOON.pc3 @ I' 0', ~, (;s:, ..' II~; :c " ~. . :~ ~ . I I @ .~ ~ '~ . i~ ' -'" ~ , ~~, ~ ,"'v;: '. ~.~ \ . ...... . ~ '8 , -<& -~ \, ~. :~ ' '" .N . .~~ ,.~~ I~' ~' , , . .. @ ,... Ie: i ! I~ . ~ . F= I, ~ ,- "'8 - ~ "'8 .~ - 3< "'8 , ~ . :D , rn \'l ~ .. . ,. , z ~ en i5 . z ~ ,... . " . . ~ co . . ~ .. ... " . ~ co . . ~ '" . :E . m . " 3~ . i!m . -r- ,~ . ~> -< ,6 .- Oz 0 . l-