HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-Development Services
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SAN
BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - REQUEST FOR
BOARD ACTION
From:
Valerie C. Ross
Deputy Director/City Planner
City of San Bernardino
Subject: Joint public hearing of the
Mayor and Conunon Council/San
Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District related to the North
& South Lake Area Projects.
Randy Van Gelder
Assistant General Manager
San Bernardino Valley Muiricipal Water District
Date:
April 5, 2005
Hearing Date: April 25, 2005
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
1998 -the City of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the
Inland Valley Development Agency formed the San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority.
2003 - the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District entered
into a Co-Lead Agency Agreement related to environmental review.
Recommended Motions:
That the hearings be closed and:
. The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Conunon Council adopt the Resolution which certifies
the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2003121150), adopts the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan, adopts the Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration,
and adopts General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 (Circulation), and table General Plan
Amendment No. 05-07 (Land Use).
. The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District adopt the Resolution which certifies the
Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2003121150), adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, and adopts the Facts, Fiildings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration.
~~::~ ~t~
Contact person: Valerie Ross. City of San Bernardino (909.384.5057) & Randv Van Gelder. San
Bernardino VallevMuniciual Water Districtl909.387.9218)
Supporting data attached: StaffReoort & Resolutions Ward(s): 2 & 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
(Acct. Description:
Finance:
CouncD Notes:
a I
'1/ 5Il)~
, I
Agenda Item No. .~
o
o
o
m" """'~~~'''''P''''''"'~''''=F"'<'~'''''''''''''''''''
~f'.~:l';:O~Y"'"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICI' - REQUEST
FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
Joint public hearing of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District related to the North Lake Area and South Lake
Area Projects.
Owner:
Various
Applicant:
San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority
Request
The San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority requests that the City of San
Bernardino Mayor and Common Council and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the North Lake Area
Project and South Lake Area Project, and that the Mayor and Common Council approve
General Plan Amendment (Circulation) No. 05-06 and General Plan Amendment No. 05-
07 (Land Use).
Location and Description
North Lake Area Proiect
The North Lake Area Project site is an 82.4-acre area bounded by Baseline Street on the
north, 9th Street on the south, "H" Street on the west, and "E" Street on the east, north of
. downtown San Bernardino. The North Lake Area Project will be undertaken by the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and includes the acquisition of all land
necessary for the North Lake Area Project and construction of a 44.S~acre lake. The
District has determined that the full 82+-acre area is necessary for construction staging
activities. Therefore, the District will be responsible for acquisition and relocation of
existing usesltenantswithin this area. After completion of the lake, the remnant lands will
be available for development/redevelopment activities including residential, commercial,
and recreational uses.
Within the North Lake Area Project, General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 will remove "G"
Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 1 Oth Street between "E" Street and "H"
Street from the General Plan Circulation Element. Both are designated as secondary
arterials.
General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 would change the land use designation from RM,
Residential Medium High to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along Olive Street
(between lOth and 11th Streets, east of"H" Street) and will change the land use designation
from CG-2, Commercial General to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along the north
side of Orange Street (north of 11th Street, east of"H" Street).
o
o
o
.'"""'."",-",,,,",
,..,
North Lake Area Project
South Lake Area Project
Request for CouncillBoard of Directors Action
April 25, 2005
Page 2 of6
South Lake Area Proiect
The South Lake Area Project site is a 53.7-acre area bounded by the BNSF Railroad right-
of-way on the north (south of Rial to Avenue), Mill Street on the south, 1-215 on the west,
and "G" Street on the east. Proposed development/redevelopment activities include
acquisition and relocation of existing uses and development of office, retail, and restaurant
uses and water features, along with related development improvements.
The South Lake Area Project includes the construction of a 5-acre lake/water feature with
related commercial redevelopment of new buildings and improvements on land located to
the south of downtown San Bernardino. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Bernardino will undertake the acquisition of property as necessary for the South Lake Area
Project subject to the terms of one or more redevelopment participation agreements with
third party redevelopers.
The locations of both projects are shown in Exhibits I-A and I-B.
Background
In 1998, the City of San Bernardino, along with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District and the Inland Valley Development Agency formed the San Bernardino
Regional Water Resources Authority, a Joint Powers Authority (Water JPA) to identifY
options for resolving several numerous complex issues facing the member agencies.
The following year, the Water JP A completed the ''Vision 20/20" Plan, which included a
series oflakes and streams in several areas around the City. The North Lake Area Project
and the South Lake Area Project are two of such areas that were identified.
In 2003, the City of San Bernardino and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
entered into a Co-Lead Agency Agreement for purposes of implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act for the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project.
Both the City and Valley Water District share responsibility for the environmental
documents. In addition, Valley Water District agreed to follow the City's regular
environmental review process. Each agency will only take action on those items within
their respective areas of responsibility or authority. Exhibit 2 is the Co-Lead Agency
Agreement.
Environmental Process
In 2003, the Water JP A retained RBF Consulting and a team of lake design experts to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the North Lake Area & South Lake Area
projects. The City's Development/Environmental Review Committee (DIERC) reviewed
the Notice ofPreparationllnitial Study (NOPIIS) prepared for the North Lake Area Project
& South Lake Area Project at their December 18, 2003 meeting. The DIERC concurred
that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required, and determined that the
NOPIIS adequately outlined the scope of the Program EIR.
o
o
"~d,"'"_,' _^,,_, ,
,-~. '
North Lake Area Project
South Lake Area Project
Request for Council/Board of Directors Action
April 25, 2005
Page 3 of6
The public review period for the Draft Program EIR was September 7, 2004 through
October 22, 2004. The Draft Program EIR identified the following significant
environmental effects that were anticipated as a result of the project:
Air Oualitv
Implementation of both the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project will
have temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions impacts,
ongoing/operational vehicle emissions impacts, and indirect impacts from electricity and
natural gas consumption. The Project may conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP). Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
Land Use
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would introduce a barrier land use that
would obstruct traffic circulation throughout the vicinity and physically divide an
established community. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Noise
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would create a significant unavoidable
impact at the off-site Disposal/Clay Borrow Site(s) due to the requirement for a large
volume of excavation of materials at the Disposal/Clay Borrow Site(s) and the extended
period of time import/excavation/grading activities would take place at that site. This
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Population and HOUSinlZ
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would displace a substantial number of
people, housing, and businesses. Additionally, cumulative impacts would occur due to
displacement caused by cumulative projects in the vicinity. This impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
Upon completion of the mandatory review processes, the consultant prepared responses to
comments received. After staff reviewed the responses, they were distributed to the
commenting agencies and members of the public.
The City's DevelopmentlEnvironmental Review Committee and Planning Commission
independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised judgement in reviewing the Draft
Program EIR, comments received, responses to comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program in making their recommendations.
The Draft Program EIR, Comments to Responses, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan were previously distributed to the Mayor and Common Council and Board
of Directors under separate cover.
o City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
The City's Development Services Department scheduled the North Lake Area Project and
South Lake Area Project for consideration by the City's Planning Commission on March 8, ,
o
o
o
North Lake Area Project
South Lake Area Project
Request for Council/Board of Directors Action
Apri125, 2005
Page 4 of6
2005. After considerable public input and discussion, the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution recommending that the Mayor and Common Council certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2003121150), adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 (Circulation). The
Planning Commission recommended that General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 (Land Use)
be deferred for any further action until completion of construction of the regulating
reservoir in the form of the at-surface lake. Commissioners Coute, Durr, Heasley, Morris,
and Sauerbrun voted in favor of the motion; Commissioner Brown was opposed to the
motion; and Commissioner Enciso was absent. Please refer to Exhibit 3, the Planning
Commission StafIReport.
Comments from members of the public at the Planning Commission hearing were related
to the acquisition/relocation process, potential environmental impacts, and historic
preservation. Those comments and staff's responses are summarized in Exhibit 5, the
Planning Commission minutes for the March 8, 2005 meeting. Exhibit 6 is correspondence
received before or at the Planning Commission meeting.
Public InputJParticipation
The resolutions certifying the Final Program Em. and the Facts, Findings and Statement of
Overriding Consideration outline the required public review and comment periods related
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the proposed General Plan
Amendments. Although not required as part of either process, the Water JP A provided
additional opportunities for public inpUt.
Instead of publishing legal notices in The San Bernardino County Sun to make the public
aware of the various environmental documents and public comment/review periods, the
City and Valley Water District published display advertisements that were ~ page to more
than a half of one page in size. In addition to publishing these notices in the newspaper,
both the City and Valley Water District posted information on their respective web pages.
That information includes the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(which includes the Initial Study)/Public Scoping Meeting Notice and the Notice of
Completion of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, along with the Draft
Program Em. and Technical Appendices. "Frequently Asked Relocation Questions," a
pamphlet prepared by the Water JP A, was posted in English and Spanish.
For both the City of San Bemardino Planning Commission meeting and the joint public
hearing of the Mayor and Common and the Board of Directors, the City mailed notices of
the public hearings to all property owners within the North Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project, and all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of both
project areas.
The Water JP A held a Draft Program Em. public information meeting on September 30,
2004 in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Notices in English and Spanish were hand
delivered by Los Padrinos to residents within the North Lake Area Project. That meeting
o
o
o
""-"'~
North Lake Area Project
South Lake Area Project
Request for Counci1/Board of Directors Action
April 25. 2005
Page 5 of6
was followed by a Spanish-translated Draft Program EIR public information meeting on
October 14, 2004 also in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
On April 14, 2005, the Water JPA held a community meeting at the Feldheyn1 Library
related to the acquisition/relocation process. Notices of this meeting were printed in
English and Spanish and hand delivered by Los Padrinos, to residents within the North
Lake Area Project. John Hoeger, the WaterJP A project manager, moderated the meeting,
which also included Georgia Marquis and Brian Everett of Overland, Pacific & Cutler,
Inc., Valley Water District's relocation consultant. Approximately. 100 people attended the
community meeting, which lasted about an hour and 15 minutes.
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. stated that on February 24, 2005, they started the process
of collecting the household survey information for the preparation of the relocation plan.
During the community meeting, the relocation consultants reported that approximately 389
households out of 475 had responded to the initial survey. The consultants stated that they
would be following up with personal interviews with the remaining households that had
not yet responded. After the meeting, Mr. Hoeger, Ms. Marquis, and Mr. Everett met
individually with about a dozen people who had additional questions.
This staff report, and all referenced exhibits, were also posted on the City and Valley
Water District web pages.
Financial Impact
The Water JP A submitted the applications and paid the processing fees. Valley Water
District is responsible for all costs related to acquisition of property, relocation of
businesses and residents, and construction of the reservoir.
Additional Comments
Exhibit 6 includes correspondence received since the Planning Commission meeting of
March 8, 2005.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that:
. The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council adopt the Resolution which
certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2003121150), adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, adopts the Facts, Findings, and Statement
of Overriding Consideration, and adopts General Plan Amendment No. 05-06
(Circulation), and table General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 (Land Use).
. The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District adopt the Resolution which
certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2003121150), adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopts the Facts, Findings, and
Statement of Overriding Consideration.
~
o
o
o
Exhibits:
>---~
North Lake Area Project
South Lake Area Project
Request for Council/Board of Directors Action
Apri125, 2005
Page 60f6
I - Location Maps
2 - Co-Lead Agency Agreement
3 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 8, 2005
4 - Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2005
5 - Correspondence received before or at the March 8, 2005 City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting
5-A Richard F. Dootson (02/28/05)
5-B Lilice Andreson (03/06/05)
5-C Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams, Ph.D. (03/07/05)
5-D James L. Mulvihill, AICP (03/08/05)
6 - Correspondence received since the March 8, 2005 City of San Bernardino Planning
Commission Meeting.
6-A Louis E. Goebel (04/18/05)
7 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino
Attachments:
A
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (distributed under
separate cover 09/01/04)
Comments and Responses (distributed under separate cover
04/05/05)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (distributed under
separate cover 04/05/05)
D Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration
8 - Resolution of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Attachments:
A
B
C
B
C
D
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (distributed under
separate cover 09/01/04)
Comments and Responses (distributed under separate cover
04/05/05)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (distributed under
separate cover 04/05/05)
Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration
:' iC=,i::=~:~':~~~_~~":C-k ~~_'"',"_
EXHIBIT i-A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROtJECT: North Lake
PLANNING DIVISION Project Area
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 4/25/05
it
NORTH
r411 ; I ~ ~~L~~ '. In .,.
JL!j :::l \j J~I;" ~~
3 c;;J N Ufo: : . . ':'"1
3GJDlLJ rr--r: ,~J~
: ~,-.y ,I c;;: \V ~1I~ t-'- . ....., 1'~LIl'! -', t
~/:1G.. . . 'I~ .' ,., ~1,~ ~~ ..
~ = II:-.E ~ I fl..~ I ,.J . '"or . !I-
~ ,....II --r- ~ ~ .,." I 1 .. t'r-' 4::.
~~..J&' . .~~. il.~. ff.~,,:t iI.l, 4;r~!1 fA",;, fJ~i'r.
' ife1'1.' , ~ ~...S~~, ..t; t1
_ _ _ ___- . ... ., --r.i"T"::i, _.
.. ! . '........;,....-):... ,! . . $_ ~.
. -- !..""u .... . . :::::'I::::~ .... ...... ~ 1.'-
I i ~ ~ I LU) 1 . ."'_..~ ::::::: '. J:::: . -, i ri
. i ....I~\: r i: J.... .... ........ .... .... ' . i. tl!'! ~
j . · ...11 · ..:~\iIil! [H;ii:;ji~ :r~~;; i' ~ll : . Q1"'t '-
} (P)' . .::::::::: : ......... ::: ..... -=: II -.. r
" ......... .......... .:.: ::;':.... l lU= L
...."~ .......... : .......... . .VJ; ..
. . . ... . . w \-i-1 . =-,
] _. u.. IE:( ~\\ ~m;[) EE \? Itl'. v'fUj" ~[]- 'loA II "
c::: r-- ':::::: ~:~ ~ :::: . ,_ I I \
!.. .... F~'" ...~ '; '. -
J -:[] II"" : I. 'r~ - f1La..J t" r::~m ~.'~
J "- i ,. ...s ft. 11t1T1. I J'" L1...J _ :
J~D~':: ; . aJ~ff~ .~-' !~f:
~nnn[] ". l:r L -;iJlu&'Z!f1~
'C;:I
II
II ~. .
. J.
I, ,
I. i [j
..
, c
..
,
. 1.:.0
r. .t~I~.
~;I I.....
-,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DIVISION
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS
-->":""'-CC"C-~~<1',::'':Y!:,;:O;'_;E~~0-'!'---'(''-''"'~?'t~~''!r::'_~~,;;" ,:___
EXHIBIT 1-B
PROdECT: South Lake
Project Area
1J
HEARING DATE: 4/25/05
R'" ..,t;. .' - OC', .... ,,}'."'\.""""""""I' ",.c,'i,',U;c.:t;
.^' ~"~"!>-j:~ ",,11:. ", ~t~,'/;t{?"I _:~':-'
. . .....
',_",. .--. 'J ' .----.....
li':..:...;.,................,...., ".~.,.., .~:.,..."..;..';..,;,.'.;
..... .. ....r,'"..", ~.&J:i,;j. .;i.,.,.,;,..,.
0':;;,;(';€i,~;/;"";,,=;,iiW....".
",," ".,\. <:,~"<:."~T}-:'
:,.....,.} ....,>il,~..... ,;;,'fh,..
rii~:~f::;~:.......jf:-'~~",.
.'.:..'......'..........'.'....:.......................'."~;'; ....'.'..'.-.....-:1
';"', 't; ..l.i.' IT,'.
~~~>;si;~ I,lil ,'., Iii'
C ~''''''~':'att--......., 1',/11 r':~".(~.
~ ",'" .' . I:;.{ I'
"?;-,H",.ti~ II .: ..... ,: ,'" < "
..~,ll<2r.G' ':~,~ t "'~'. .,'
UL:. ~ ". "I<';\~ "." I'
i......,. li.1I '~IJI tj'I'
,'11 I .~L..~_~~
.', ~. '.. '.. ~,., 'fr"
." . Ir- .....'
~' :.., :';, . 1'71 ..'
.... '.' .,~....,4.:. ~. ..; ....... " ' i'"
4 ill ~. . '-:'"' ....... >
": ~ I~.. ." . . .'" j
i~l~ !( '~ J~ ~
.~ .. ....=.\ .... A
" ..' j,~! . " , 5T. :'. -) ,tJI.;'
~ ". . J=J> , ::..
~.,... .,.-. . .::' ...' ;.
.........' .... i~.n '.t' ' I, I" .'~
-, ....,"T" - . . l I ~
(I~[II:NZ. 1 Sf II. I [ II'
NORTH
.
~I_ I::=-,
t::J L~ ~
" "ft-..
I
rr-.., e_
I
'll' '.
f
[
G:
.
JJ CI."IUL
! V~)
10:
r
-
=z
(ite ",
/'
..
I Eli,
1. J"" ~,,~, ~ f/C
Rialto Avenue r11C:m '
. be. :X .\ ,
... ...
:';.:':::' ~!~ .'-
:. " ,~......", I' Ri . .. IC-
, ,.. ~u,.i , (!) ,.....'
::...~: ~~.~., 'cgot~, :, '~~'
.::'~: "'; . h ., .,.....
. ~ ':' ,J .. 1"',
;~r::, . . . _...~!
" .');~ ." 1.:- .....W .. \~
;.;~.:.'~ ~~ .1....',- ~ · \I
," ':"., .. '~t."'"
:. ;;;: . .C, . 1- "'- ..
. . .. .. , ....... _ II
':::.,-": ~..,
":~H: ,~. " ,::; /' :. If}
"... " . ~ 1iIo....JIIII
....
",.
Mill Street ',j .
00_,
--
. I ."A~ r
J L, .A ~
.
o
o
'--e;,."-,-"".-',-'T"'-. "y==
EXHIBIT 4
..~~~~!~lh~
~"';~' ~".'.n1lo. ~"":~~t.
~.,. ~~"""'~
/!" "'~. '-'v
( ... . '.... Li.':;; .~.
,"" r ,l,..:..:......JAtJi":~. ~,...:
,'" ~..."'--,"'~
'.:I. ~.;r;.' "..,;' "'~'<'.'~ -:;
~ ~'r,'-'-.........." -,,"
.';0 "/Jlli"ii"" h
...?,>~_" ~T~
~I ') ;tiII~" \X
Cheryl Brown
John Coute .
Kenneth Du"
Alfredo Enciso
lArry Heasley
Jim Morris, Vice-Chair
Mike Sauerbrun, Chair
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino. CA, 92418
Phone: (909) 384-5057/5071 . Fax: (909) 384-5080
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF MARCil 8, 2005
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17017 (SUBDMSION NO. 04-32) &
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 04-47
2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 16780 (SUBDMSION NO. 04-30)
3. NORTH LAKE PROJECT & SOUTH LAKES AREA PROJECT
-"..-
Page 1
3/8/05
.
o
.
en ..
r
"'.cc".".,..=.. .C<"'<>'" .... . ..
....._..."w
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Sauerbrun at 7:02 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall. ..
Present: Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Heasley, Morris, and Sauerbrun. Absent:
Commissioner Enciso. Staff Present: Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner; Ben Steckler,
Associate Planner; Brian Foot~, Assistant Planner; Henry Empefl.o, Senior Deputy City Attorney;
James Funk, Director; Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner; and Linda Dortch, Secretary.
Commissioner Durr led the flag salute.
ADMINISTRATION OF OAm
Ben Steckler, Associate Planner, administered the oath.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were no public comments.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner, stated that the Minutes of February 8, 2005 and
Items 1 & 2 were recommended for the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Durr made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Coute
seconded the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Heasley,
and Sauerbrun. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioners Enciso and Morris.
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17017 (SUBDMSION.. NO. 04-32) &
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 04-47 - A request to subdivide approximately 2.35
acres into 4 parcels ranging in size from 0.5 acres to 0.69 acres. Also, a request to
construct four concrete tilt-up industrial buildings ranging in size from 8,6~2 square feet
to 12,159 square feet. The subject property is located on the north side. of Orange Show
Road approximately 300 feet east of Waterman Avenue in the IL, Industrial Light land
use district. .
Erivironmental Determination:
Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332-Infill
Development
Spooner Properties, LLC
0280-142-11
1
Brian Foote
Owner/Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 17017 (Subdivision No. 04-
32) and Development Permit II No. 04-47 based on the Findings of Fact contabled in the
Page 2
3/8/05
.
o
o
,"'-"- ---, ^'"-'-'0,,'rr"''1'':''~'':'-''-W'''''{'l'II
Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment E) and Standard
Requirements (Attachment F).
2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 16780 (SUBDIVISION NO. 04-30) - A request to
subdivide approximately 6.29 acres to create four parcels ranging in size from
approximately .57 acres to 2.41 acres. The subject property is located on the northwest
comer of Harriman Place and Tippecanoe Avenue in the CR-3, Commercial Regional-
Tri-City/Club land use district.
Environmental Determination:
Exempt from CEQA, Section 15315-Minor Land
Divisions
Hopkins Hub Phase 2, Inc.
0281-081-01 to 20, 0281-082-01 to 06, 0281-082-
29 to 41
3
Ben Steckler
Owner/Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 16780 (Subdivision No. 04-
30) based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) and Standard Requirements (Attachment D).
V. AGENDA ITEMS
Commissioner Morris arrived at 7:20 p.m.
3. NORTH LAKE PROJECT & sotrrll'LAKES AREA PROJECT - Certification of
- the Final Program Environmental Impact -Report for the North Lake Area Project and
South Lake Area Project. The North Lake Area Project is bounded by."E" Street and "R"
Street, between 9th Street and Baseline Street. The South Lake Area Project is bounded
by 1-215 and "G" Street, between the BNSF Railroad right--of-way (south of Rialto
Avenue) and Mill Street.
Appro~a. of General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 to remove "G" Street be~een 9th Street -
and Baseline Street and' 10th Street between "E" Street and "R" Str~et as secondary
arterials from the General Plan Circulation Element.
Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 to change the land use designation from
RM, Residential Medium High to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along Olive Street
(between 10th and 11 th Streets, east of "H" Street) and will change the land use
designation from CG-2, Commercial General to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels
along the north side of Orange Street (north of 11 th Street, east of "R" Street).
Environmental Determination:
Owners:
Applicant:
Program Environmental Impact Report
Various
San Bernardino Regional Water Resources
Authority (JPA)
Page 3
3/8/05
o
o
o
:~~:~7"'7'~~r~"""'",",, ' ~
APN:
Wards:
Various
2'&3
Valerie Ross introduced John Hoeger, Project Manager for the North Lake Area Project and
South Lake Area Project, and Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting, the firm that prepared the
environmental documents.
The North Lake Area Project was bounded by "E" Street and "H" Street, between 9th Street and
Baseline Street. The San' Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley Water District)
identified a need for additional water storage facilities within the City of San Bernardino. This
site met their needs as discussed in the environmental documentation. Within this project area,
the Valley Water District would be responsible for acquisition of all properties, relocation of
residents and businesses, and construction of a 660-acre foot regulating reservoir, in the form of
an at-surface lake. The project area consists of approximately 82Y2 acres. Although the
regulating reservoir will be approximately 44Y2 acres, the remaining area was needed for staging
and construction purposes. Upon completion of the reservoir, it was anticipated that the
remaining acreage, approximately 38 acres, would be available for residential and commercial
development.
The South Lake Area Project was bounded by 1-215 and "G" Street, between the BNSF Railroad
right-of-way, south of Rial to Avenue, and Mill Street. This project area included approximately
482,000 square feet of office and supporting retail development on about 34 acres north of the
Lytle Creek flood control channel. There were approximately 13 acres of open space and
wetlands south of the channel to Mill Street. The City of San Bernardino would be responsible
for all development or redevelopment activities .~~ this project area.
General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 would remove "G" Street between 9th Street and Baseline
Street and 1 Oth Street between "E" Street and "H" Street as secondary arterials from the General
Plan Circulation Element. This amendment was necessary to allow the City to vacate the streets
for the lake. In addition to "G" and Baseline Streets, ''F', 10th, Olive, and Temple Streets and
Crescent Avenue would be vacated.
General Plan' Amendment No. 05-07 would change the land use designation from RM,
Residential Medium to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along Olive Street (betWeen 10th and
11 th Streets, east of "H" Street) and would change the land use designation from RM, Residential
Medium to CG-2, Commercial General for parcels along the north side of Orange Street (north
of 11 th Street, east of "H" Street). This amendment would accommodate projected development
around the perimeter of the lake once it was completed.
Ms. Ross stated that RBF prepared an Initial Study that was reviewed by the City's
Development/Environmental Review Committee (D/ERC) in December 2003. The D/ERC
concurred that an Environmental Impact Report{EIR) would be required. The Notice of
Preparation was published in the Sun, distributed to public agencies, and posted on the City's
web page. The comments received were considered during preparation of the EIR. A Program
EIR was prepared because North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project were a series of
Page 4
3/8/05
.
()
.~~~T,- ~,
," '^' " -
actions that would take place over time. Some activities would be concurrent, whereas others
would be sequential.
The Draft Program EIR was released for public review and comment last fall. The Notice of
Completion was published in The Sun, distributed to public agencies, and posted on the City's
web page. It was also distributed to the D/ERC, Planning Commission, Mayor and Common
Council, and Board of Directors of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District The
Draft Program EIR evaluated short-tenn construction-related impacts, long tenn or operational
impacts, and cumulative impacts for all of the areas identified on the Initial Study checklist.
The Draft Program EIR determined that many areas of concern could be mitigated to a, level of
less than significant However, there were other areas where there would be unavoidable
significant adverse impacts after inclusion of feasible mitigation measures. Those areas were
outlined in the Executive Summary of th~ EIR, and were generally related to air quality, noise,
demolition debris, the introduction of a barrier land use, and displacement of residents and
businesses.
Comments on the Draft Program EIR were received from four agencies or organizations and two
individuals, and responses were prepared. Staff had received calls from numerous interested
parties regarding these projects. The majority of calls were related to acquisition and relocation
in the North Lake Area Project. The Planning Commission was provided with copies of two
letters that had just been received.
The Valley Water District was not subject to the City's zoning and building ordinances for the
location or construction of facilities for, the production, generation, storage, treatment, or
transmission of water as outlined in the State'Government Code. Valley Water had its own
powerS of eminent domain. For the proposed North Lake Area Project, the City would have to
vacate the underlying streets in order for the project to proceed. However, Valley Water District,
through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, had agreed to follow City requirements.
Also, Valley Water District was responsible for all costs related to acquisition, relocation, and
construction of the lake.
Valley Water District had sent letters to residents within the project aria informing them that the
Water District was considering proceeding with the acquisition/relocation Prcx.esses. This issue
was briefly discussed during the EIR scoping meeting that was held on January 14,2004. In
addition, the City and Valley Water District held two workshops last year.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the
Mayor and Common Council certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH
2003121150), adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopt General Plan
Amendment No. 05-06 (Circulation). Staff recommended that General Plan Amendment No. 05-
07 (land use) be deferred for any further action by the Planning Commission until completion of
construction of the regulating reservoir.
o The Planning Commission opened the Public Hearing.
Page 5
3/8/05
.
c
o
"^'n-
Matt Owen, 216 E. 10th Street, San Bemardino, stated that the Bunker Hill Aquifer was already
in place to store water and felt that the water in the lake would be made available for sale. Mr.
Owen stated that once water was on the surface it was part of the Santa Ana River Watershed and
would be subject to litigation. He was also concerned about "dewatering," liquefaction, and
ground failure.
Edith Ortiz, 1097 North "G" Street, San Bernardino, asked ifher home would be purchased.
Don Schwameck, 181 South "G" Street,' San Bernardino, stated that he owned Aztec Uniform
and Towel. He stated that there were two other businesses located near him and some houses
that would be removed for the 1-215 widening project. He felt the other business owners would
support the South Lake project if help were provided to move the businesses. Mr. Schwameck
felt the South Lake should be a priority as it would displace fewer people and businesses.
Linden MaUd, 565 W. 9th Street, San Bernardino, stated that she was part owner of land that
would be part of the project. She wanted to know a time-frame for acquisition of the property.
Ms. Malki stated that she also owned a business on 9th Street. She was concerned about water
from the lake spilling out during earthquakes.
Constance Ratliff, 659 W. 10th Street, San Bernardino, stated that if she were forced to move,
she would need a home of equal size and value.
Janet Hansen, 1328 La Lorna Drive, Redlands, stated that she was a Historic Preservation
Consultant representing Deanna Adams. Ms. Hansen stated that she had prepared a nomination
to the California Register of Historic Resources for Ms. Adams for property at 1156 North "F"
Street. -. "
Deanna Adams, 1156 North "F" Street, Sail Bernardino, stated that her property waS an
historical resource and should be preserved. She did not feel 'the EIR adequately addressed the
historical value of her property. She provided copies of the historical nomination application to
the Planning Commission.
John Neuhalfen, 7138 Glasgow Avenue, San Bernardino, stated that he owned tw~homes in the
project area. He felt there were 'other solutions than to remove a portion of the downtown area.
Mr. Neuhalfen was concerned about West Nile Virus.
Edgar Wessel, 302 Santa Helena, Solano Beach, stated that he was concerned about storing
water on a slope.
Victor Acevedo, 625 W. 11th Street, San Bernardino, stated that he had not been told about the
project by the realtor when he purchased his home.
Bill Jerabek, 672 Kesha Court, San Jacinto, stated that he was unsure if he should continue to
put money into his rental properties.
Page 6
3/8/05
.
o
o
"'7'""??~~,, '~~<
Jim Mulvihill"407 W. 25th Street, San Bernardino, stated that he was a certified City Planner.
He provided copies of a letter to the Planning Commission. He was concerned about traffic
impacts from the project. The 280 heavy truck trips generated by the project would be offset by
the reduction in traffic volumes of 20,074 trips that would be removed by thcdemolition of the
neighborhood. He felt the number of trips that would be eliminated was an overestimate. He did
not feel traffic impacts related to the 1-215 widening project had been taken into account. He had
suggested an alternative site for the project along the Baseline feeder west along Lytle Creek that
would not require moving people.
Mr. Mulvihill challenged the EIR based on the fact that all the property was necessary for the
construction of the lake and that a smaller lake would be environmenta1lysuperior. Mr.'
Mulvihill was also concerned about the slope of the land. He was also concerned about funding
for the project. If federal money were used, NEP A would require a social impact analysis.
Debbie Villa, 737 W. Orange Street, San Bernardino, stated that she was opposed to the project
as she did not want to move.
Lucy Romero, 1070 North "G" Street, San Bernardino, stated that she did not feel that adequate
compensation could be given to homeowners. She was also concerned about property taxes.
Jobn Dootson, 685 Baseline Street, San Bernardino, stated that he owned a shopping center in
the project area. He wanted to know who would appraise properties and what recourse there
would be if an owner did not agree with an appraisal.
Leonardo Alvizu, 839 W. 10th Street, San Bernardino, stated that he would have liked to hear
the whole proceeding in Spanish. He \\fIlS concerned about losing money on his home if he had
to relocate.
Jackie Lura, 1252 W. Edgemont Drive, San Bernardino, stated that she was concerned about the
wording of the last paragraph of the Notice of Public Hearing. She did not feel that adequate
time had been given to review facts related to the project. She requested additional 'time for the
public to make comments.
.-
Ubayde Medina, 1088 North "G" Street, San Bernardino, stated that she w~. concerned about
moving to a new home.
Lernalasia Taaruli, 786 W. 9th Street, San Bernardino, asked if help would be provided to help
relocate. She was also concerned about the cost of moving.
David Oteda, 636 W. 10th Street, San Bernardino, stated that he was concerned about losing his
home. He wanted to know how he would be compensated for relocating.
The following individuals did not speak, but were in favor of the project: Rose Miller, 4710 N.
Leroy Street, San Bernardino; Lenton Leboir, 1024 North "G" Street, San Bernardino; Ali
Fawaz, 799 W. Baseline Street, San Bernardino; and Martha Hall, 505 Skylark Drive, San
Bernardino.
Page 7
3/8/05
o
o
o
The following individuals did not speak; but were opposed to the project: Tamra Long, San
Bernardino; Pristillo Dean Ruoche, 577 W. Olive Street, San Bernardino; Paul Adams, 1156
North "F" Street, San Bernardino; Steven Snowball, 767 W. Congress, San Bernardino; and
WUltam Garner, 210 South "G" Street, Sari Bernardino.
The Planning Commission closed the Public Hearing
Commissioner Heasley made a motion to take a break to allow Staff to prepare responses to
comments. Commissioner Durr seconded the motion.
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m.
The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Commissioner Brown asked if the Water District would be obligated to sell water stored in the
lake. She wanted to know what would happen to renters in the project area. Commissioner
Brown also wanted to know how homes lost due to construction of the lake would be replaced.
Commissioner Morris was concerned about the design and fluctuation of the level of the lake.
He also wanted to know the ownership rates for the homes in the project area. Commissioner
Morris asked ifthe Lytle Creek Flood Control Channel would be altered in any way.
Commissioner Heasley asked if the economic impact to residents was discussed in the EIR..
Ms. Ross provided responses to the environmental questions. She stated that the EIR. addressed
liquefaction, dewatering, and subsidence. Staff relied on experts in various City departments to
review the EIR.. Based on the review oftbe ErR: It was felt that liquefaction had been adequately
addressed. CalTrans recognized liquefaction as a-problem to roads and interchanges and was
implementing mitigation measures.
Concerns had been raised regarding the slope and earthquakes. The EIR stated that the Valley
Water District would need to prepare a Jurisdictional Dam and Inundation Study as required by
the State Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams. The study would outline
how water would be accommodated if all of the water in the lake were released at ~Qe time.
Ms. Ross stated that there would be fluctuation in the water level in the lake. She did not know if
the fluctuations would be visible.
Concerns had been raised about the traffic section of the EIR.. Staff relied on Development
Services Traffic Engineers to review the traffic portion of the EIR.. RBF contacted CalTrans to
, get specific dates for the 1-215 project, however, the dates were not available due to of concerns
with the State budget. The project was generally discussed in the EIR..
Questions had been asked about alternatives to the proposed project. Staff felt that issue was
adequately addressed by the EIR.. The alternate location was located on the San Jacinto Fault.
The EIR. discussed water cycling through the lake. The water would be consistently moving,
preventing the spread of West Nile virus.
Page 8
3/8/05
....;;
i;;;:
()
o
~ ...."
Ms. Ross was not able to address lack of disclosure by realtors as she did not know what realtors
were telling prospective buyers. Staff did not make recommendations as to whether a buyer
should or should not p~hase a particular property.
The language in the Notlice of Public Hearing was standard and was used fot all notices for the
Planning Commission ~d the Mayor and Common Council. The language had been in use for
more than 10 years.
The EIR. identified that 'the property located at 1156 North "F" Street had potential local
significance. Mitigation!measures had been addressed in the EIR.. Staff did not feel the pending
application to the Stare affected the decision requested from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Ross stated that sne did not know how V alley Water proposed to finance the project.
Funding for projects waS not under the City's review. If Federal funding were used, the project
would be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Valley Water would be
responsible for NEP A compliance.
The Lytle Creek Flood Control Channel would not be changed. The existing concrete channel
would be softened by the addition of treatments and paths along the edges. A lake/wetland area
would be located on the ~outh side of the channel. Businesses located in the area would remain a
legal non-conforming use. No timeframe had been established for the South Lake Project Area.
John Hoeger, Project Manager for the JP A, provided responses related to the concerns about
acquisition of property ~d relocation of existing residents and businesses. The EIR. contained a
schedule showing that acquisition of property continuing for approximately 2 years. Demolition
was scheduled for 2007.
Infomiation about acquisition and relocation was available on the City web page, at the
Feldheym Library, and tram the Mayor's Office. Notices had been sent by Overland Pacific
Cutler, the firm hired by Valley Water to assist with relocation and acquisition. The contact for
the firm was Georgia M4rque and the phone number was 562/590-8564. Representatives from
Overland Pacific Cutler Were in the project area and would be contacting residents and an office
would be placed in the project area.
Federal and State law re~ated' acquisition and relocation procedures. R~ters in the project
area must be given time ~ find a new location, provide information about available rentals with
the same rental rate, and [provide payment for moving expenses. In addition, five years of rent
subsidies were required. 'It was not unusual that a renter would receive an additional $10,000 to
$15,000 in addition to moving expenses allowing many to purchase a home.
The Valley Water District must show homeowners houses that were similar in size, amenities,
and neighborhood at the $ame mortgage rate. If the homeowner owned the existing home free-
and-clear, the new home would also be free-and-clear. If an individual chose a better house, they
would only be required tQ pay the difference in price. Property owners could relocate anywhere
they chose, including out of state. Property taxes would remain the same. Investors would
. !
receIve the same benefits for mortgage and tax rates.
Page 9
3/8/05
.
o
()
_.~,..
Mr. Hoeger stated that Valley Water District was a wholesale water distribution agency that
delivered to water companies. The lake at Yucaipa Regional Park was built and operated by
Valley Water District. Water for the lake would come from northern California via the California
Aqueduct. Valley Water was responsible for distributing the water to local water companies and
recharging the Bunker Hill Basin. Use and distribution of the water was under court orders.
Commissioner Brown asked if this situation would be similar to the fight with Metropolitan
Water District. She also asked about NEP A requirements.
Mr. Hoeger stated that Valley Water District sold water to Metropolitan Water District to fill
Diamond Lake. Mr. Hoeger stated that the project would require federal funds and Valley Water
District was in the process of selecting a NEP A consultant.
Commissioner Brown stated that the EIR was prepared by experts in the Department and she
asked for further information.
Ms. Ross stated that the EIR was prepared by RBF Consulting for the Water JP A. The EIR was
reviewed by staff from Valley Water District and the City of San Bernardino. Within the City
there was expertise in various areas, so many Departments had reviewed the document.
Commissioner Morris asked if the Mayor and Common Council would adopt a Statement of
Overriding Consideration for impacts that could not be mitigated.
Henry Empeilo, Senior Deputy City Attorney, stated that State Law required that the Mayor and
Common Council and Valley Water District Board to certify the EIR and adopt the Mitigation
Monit?ring/Reporting Program and to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration.
Commissioner Morris asked if"F" Street was part of the Circulation Element.
Ms. Ross stated that "F" Street was not part of the Circulation Element.
Commissioner Brown stated that a state housing agency had indicated th~t there was not enough
housing in San Bernardino. She asked how residents could be relocated' if there .was a housing
shortage. .
Ms. Ross stated that the State Housing and Community Development Department (RCD) had
accepted the City's Housing Element as meeting the provision of State Law. The Housing
Element contained a five-year plan to provide housing to all economic segments of the
community. The City tried to achieve the plan through various programs. When the Notice of
Preparation for the EIR was completed, it was sent to the State Clearinghouse. No comments
were received from HCD.
Commissioner Sauerbrun stated that it would be helpful to have the NEP A report as it dealt
with social impacts. He wanted to know if certifying the EIR would guarantee that the project
would go forward.
Page 10
3/8/05
.
o
o
_._~. .,...., ~"P.cc",""""".=_,..",..,.,. ,
Mr. Hoeger stated that NEPA had its own requirements. Additional scoping sessions would be
required, a Citizens Advisory Committee would need to be established, and notices were
required in the Federal Register. Certifying the EIRwas the first step and did not guarantee that
the project would proceed.
Commissioner Coute stated that he served on the Planning Commission to help enhance the
quality of life in the City. He did not have enough knowledge to understand the entire project,
and would need to put his faith in experts who dealt with the issues on ,a daily basis. He felt
comfortable with the progress that had been made. Commissioner Coute felt that every effort
was being made to insure that the project was an enhancement to the community and solved
some problems. He acknowledged that the solution would not be perfect for everyone. He urged
members of the community to learn as much as possible about the project.
Commissioner Morris stated that he agreed effort had been made to reduce the impacts of the
proposed project as much as possible. Even though the EIR had done a good job outlining
potential impacts 'and mitigation measures, there were some impacts that could not be mitigated.
He was concerned about displacement of residents from the project area, and the location of the
lake disrupting traffic flows. Commissioner Morris stated that there would be differences of
opinion about the project and that there was no way to predict a final outcome. He felt risks
needed to be taken as a City to improve the safety and economic viability of the community. He
hoped that other risks undertaken by the City such as the ballpark and theater would collectively
improve the lives of the citizens.
Commissioner Brown stated that she was concerned about putting faith in experts. She felt that
experts had said ,it was safe to build on hillsides that are now sliding. Commissioner Brown was
concerned about moving people and remoVing 1ii~toric areas of the City. She cited examples of
projects in the City that had been recommended by. experts that she believed had failed. She felt
that there were significant impacts from the proposed project and would vote against it.
Commissioner Durr made a motion to adopt the resolution and recommend that the Mayor and
Common Council approve the requests as proposed. Commissioner Coute seconded the
motion.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Coute, Durr"Heasley, Morris,
and Sauerbrun. Nays: Commissioner Brown. Absent: Commissioner Enciso. '
The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Mayor and
Common Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCD 2003121150) adopt
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and adopt General Plan Amendment No.
05-06. Staff recommends that General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 be deferred for any
further action by the Planning Commission until completion of construction of the
regulating reservoir.
Ms; Ross announced that the project would be scheduled for consideration by the Mayor and
Common Council. The meeting was tentatively set for April 25, 2005.
Page 11
3/8/05
o
o
o
.".
Ms. Ross announced that the project would be scheduled for consideration by the Mayor and
Common Council. The meeting was tentatively set for April 25, 2005.
VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
There was no Director's Report.
VB. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Coute requested an investigation into Temporary Use Permit No. 04-96 at 310
W. 4th Street.
Ms. Ross stated that an investigation was currently underway and that she would provide an
update at the next meeting.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Brown made amotion, seconded by Commissioner Morris and unanimously
carried, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The next regular meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, 300
North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California.
[9:50 p.m.]
Minutes Adopted by:
Planning Commissionen:
-~.-
Date Approved: April 19, 2005
Minutes Prepared by: Brown, Coute, Heasley, Morris, Powell, and Sauerbrun
~ t>
Linda Dortch
Planning Commission Secretary
Page 12
3/8/05
~ me" 'C,~,~, - -
o
()
o
,- ""
,- r
"","'<C" '>c-_"""_c'.___<,, ""-"'---"'~"~"'~l'''f''''r~~:oIt*\~~":1+''"~2',''7-;''::'1,lli".~
t
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTION OF
THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06 FOR THE
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT.
3
4
5
6
7 SECTION I. RECITALS
8
9
(a)
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan for the
City of San Bernardino by Resolution No. 89-1 S9 on June 2, 1989; and
10
(b) WHEREAS, on December 18, 2003, the Environmental Review Committee
11
determined that the development of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area
12
13
Project and amendments to the General Plan Circulation Element (General Plan Amendment No.
14 05-06) to remove "G" Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 1 Oth Street between "E"
15 Street and "R" Street as secondary arterials could have a significant effect on the environment
-,
-......
16 . and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California
17
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
18
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
(c)
19
20 was prepared for the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Pro~~ct and other
21
22
23
24
entitlement actions and circulated for public review and comment from December 22, 2003
through January 28, 2004.
(d)
WHEREAS, a Draft Program EIR was prepared for the North Lake Area Project
and the South Lake Area Project and other entitlement actions and circulated for public review
25
and comment from September 7, 2004 through October 22, 2004, and all comments relative
26
thereto have been reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee; and
27
28
(e)
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee determined that the Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report, Comments and Responses, and a list of persons,
>>
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
o
o
-,>>
organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR, and the
Final EIR is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and local regulations;
and
(f) WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee independently reviewed,
analyzed, and exercised judgement in reviewing the Draft Program EIR, comments received,
responses to comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in making its
determination; > and
(g) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on
March 8, 2005 in order to receive public testimony and written and oral comments on the
Program EIR, comments and responses, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
13 and
14
15
16
17
18
19 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT THE
20 - PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DOES HEREBY
21 RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
22 SECTION II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/GENERAL PLAN
23
AMENDMENT NO. 05-06..
24
(a) The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and exercised
25
26 judgement in reviewi~g the Draft Program EIR, comments received, responses to comments, and
> 27 the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
28 (b) The Planning Commission finds that the Program EIR for the development of the
North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project and amendments to remove "G" Street
(h) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Program EIR,
comments and responses, the Mitigation-Monitoring and Reporting Program, other pertinent
- reports and documents, and fully reviewed and considered the staff report and the
recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee.
o
~'..^
~
between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 10th Street between "E" Street and"H" Street as
c
C)
SECTION III. TRANSMm AL OF RESOLUTION
-.....
12 Durr
13
Enciso
0 14
15 Heasley
16 Morris
17 Sauerbrun
18
19
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0 27
28
"_' "'C 'H'~.~
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTION OF
THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06 FOR. THE
NORm LAKE AREA PROJECf AND SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECf.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a 'CtL,I" 't...- meeting thereof, held on the
?.~. day of ,,~\. ,2005, by the following vote to wit:
Commission Members:
Navs
Abstain
Absent
Aves
Brown
-X
Coute
L
X
1-
-L
.\1 -......
--A:."
X'~-
. (l "'.
(:;Ct..~ 1
Linda Dortch,
Planning Commission S_ecretarY
The foregoing resolution is h~bY approved this 9,wa _
Mike Sauerbrun, Chairperson
,2005.
---
Approved as to form and Legal Content:
James F. Penman
City Attorney
By. 1k.g ~
<; f\. /J2f'4""1 en, 1fa~,
-..".
. .. ...~".~w ~_~..- . .... ......_""..~~.,._
o
EXHIBIT 5
Correspondence received before or at the March 8, 2005 City of San
Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting
5-A Richard F. Dootson (02/28/05)
5-B Lilice Andreson (03/06/05)
5-C Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams, Ph.D. (03/07/05)
5-D James L. Mulvihill, AICP (03/08/05)
o
o
o
o
()
EXHIBIT 5-A .
00 1"2.[' r~ lll\V/'. i' i..-;:' Ir .
o 15 GL:-',l. ',-, ;C21W
-- '-~I
uA' i:i ii' 2u~"'" :....
. :;.,. .'1 '>.' n .. U,)
February 28. 2005
CITY OF SAN BEflN,:"!-c(""""
DEVELOPMENT SERViCES
OEPARTMFN'T
City of San Bernardino
CITY PLANNING DMSION
300 North "D'; St.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: North Lake Area Proiect
Dear Persons;
We do not object to the North Lake Area Project perse, however, we are
very much concerned about the compensation. .
I am 79 years old and my wi(~_is 78 years old. My wife has Parkinson's
and requires considerable medications and 24 hour caregiver service.
Let this be a formal notice sayiligthat if we are not fully compensated for
the property we own at Baseline/G, we want to be sure that we can have
our day in court.
Sincerely,
"://1~~
/,1-'"
Richar F. Dootsori
11629 Clark 81.
Arcadia, CA 91006
-.--.
;.
L /lH~
?J:
);'1/ ~
a ;.... /~!!'" t
'1"~ ,
,. j,.. ,
/ v'-'
Jr'
l:;"~i. ..r e;,
).v t:.. ,// t! CtI-"
/ S't.; 7"
"
(j :f
/'1 i.,I J.
,<",/ .....,
.A I! I? fi-
t1 r ,If ,i" tl-11' / It.;
'-VO 1...,<...
pl.R[L~,
'"
1/ ,-.h /7 I
~r t,.. ;.~. ,."",c~:.~ ;0-,,,-:,. "t"'" ...."'.
(:/ J/
o
o
o
~""~ "'>"'~"~,",'~~"",,,,~rp" "~''""")_'"__
TO:
Valerie C. Ross, City Planner
City of San Bernardino
EXHIBIT S:B
:~<"I i-@((2:r.::n'\\I71'"2[0
:~)<t.::::l~LSU 'G LS
in i
iJ \...1 MAR Ii 7 2005
FROM:
LiUice Andreson
963 North Arrowhead Ave.
San Bernardino CA 92410
Ph: 909.383.9203
ern. OF St..N SERNARDINO
OE:VaOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
DATE: Marcb 6, 2005
SUBJECT: Comments re~ North Lake Area / South Lake Area Projects
San Bernardino Planning Commission
Public Hearing 318105
The following are my comments and concerns regarding the proposed North Lake Area
Project. In as much as public comments at the hearing to be held on ;J/8/05 will no doubt
be limited to three minutes, it will not allow enough time to address the items listed
below. Therefore I am submitting these comments in writing for review by the Planning
Commission.
The concerns regarding significant impacts are the same items as submitted in my
response to the notice of preparation January 2004. Since these items were inadequately
addressed or simply ignored, in the subsequent version of the project, I am submitting
them again.
I will preface my concerns with the stitteme~nhat this proposed lake project bas
alWays been and continues to be a method whereby the San Bernardino Municipal
Water District would sell oft' our most precious natural resource - water. The
purpose of this project is to provide water to Orange County - which lacks significant
water resources of its' own.
Given the recent water history in this state, with the problems facing people living near
the Sacramento Delta to the sale of Blythe's agricuhural water resources to San.Diego
County it is clear tbis projeCt is solely about relocating natural water ~urces. If
we hope to continue to have growth in our City and the surrounding communities, we
must maintain a substantial amount of water in this area. We cannot sacrifice our own
growth and potential expansion for the sake of Orange County.
In order to "sell" the project to the residents and elected representatives of San
Bernardino, Muni embarked on a comprehensive advertising campaign. Muni appealed
to the locals on several levels.
First through fear. Muni has consistently maintained that "high" groundwater would
result in liquefaction in a future earthquake, thereby risking the safety of countless
residents. Even though, despite the recent rains, we are in the sixth year of a drought.
(note: In a report to the Metropolitan WaterDistrict, researchersfrom several research
1
o
o
()
facilities including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of Pasadena have stated that Southern
California experiences 15 - 20 years droughts followed by 15 - 20 years of normal
rainfall- and has done sofor the past 1,500 years}. There is no record ofliquefiletion
occurring in this area, or any area in Southern California. Recorded incidences of
liquemetion aregenera1ly in areas where land has been artificially extended out into the
ocean, such as in San Francisco or Japan.
Muni's second attack has been directed at the locals who live in the targeted area.
Through the past yearS representatives ofMuni, who sit on the JPA, have attempted to
portray the citizens living in the targeted area as undesirables. This started (nearly seven
years ago) with a Muni sponsored bus tour through the targeted area where homes in .
disrepair were pointed out to those on the "tour". The homes, businesses, and churches.
that were and are maintained were ignored. The message was that. if the people living in
the targeted area were "gone", the City as a whole would benefit.
These people are residents of the City. Therefore, they are entitled to the same services
as other City residents. They are not undesirable nor are they expendable. The question
that begs an answer is where and with whom does the discarding stop? At what point and
with what criteria does a person and their home become valueless? At what point do we
decide to raze a neighborhood rather than put resources into restoring an existing
neighborhood?
The third attack launched by representatives ofMuni has been directed against the homes
in the targeted neighborhood. This neighborhood is practically all that remains of the
oldest historical neighborhood in San Bernardino (as identified in both the Donaldson
report of 1991 report and the CRM Ttch Survey of 2001). Once these homes are gone-
Sait Bernardino's early history will be totally gone. To callously demolish what remains
of our collective history is unconscionable.
In response to peoples' complaints that they do not want to lose their homes, Muni
representatives have brushed aside their concerns with connnents such as the homes are
substandard. The filets are that the historical homes are built in a more substantial marmer
than most new homes are built today. And the met that residents desire to live iQ
reasonably priced historic homes has been dismissed as meaningless.
This final Environment Impact Report is inadequate in it's response to the questions
raised by citizens. Legitimate questions are either ignored or glossed over in the
response. The connnents that follow represent real concerns regarding safety and the .
quality of life for all the citizens ofthe City if this ill conceived project were to become a
reality.
Significant effects to environmental factors in the event the "North lake" reservoir is
built:
1. AeSthetics:
The following concerns ret1eet significant impacts:
2
()
()
. The development bf the proposed ptojeet would result in the destruction of
several hundred homes in what is left of the City's oldest historic
neighborhood. This oldest neighborhood has -through other projects -
been reduced by 80010. (This includes the homes affected by the planned
construction of a new school South of the proposed project area. During
the planning of the school project. tlSSlllYlllces were given that historic
homes would be relocated to another site - this was not done and the
homes were lost.) The North Lake project would destroy a significant
number of the remaining stri1ctlU'es.
. In addition it would result in the. destruction of six churches in the targeted
neighborhood 8nd the resulting dislocation of the afrected congregations
would place an unfiUr burden on these congregations as they embark on
the difficult search for new church facilities
. Of serious concern is the proposed dislocatiori of the low income I elderlyl
ethnic minorities and immigrant residents of the targeted neighborhood.
This proposed project - that would benefit aftluent people - places an
unfiUr burden on those residents who would be discarded.
. The placement ofa body of water in the middle ofan existing
neighborhood will. increase the humidity in the area due to predictable
evaporation - especially during suminer months.
. Due to the radical change in elevation from Baseline Avenue to 9th Street,
an unsightly benn will have to be built at the south end of the resc::rvoir.
This will prove to be an eyesore along 9th street. And it will do nothing to
enhance the ''beautification'' of the neighborhood
. There will be a significant increase in people I traffic and congestion in the
area as people come to "enjoy" ~ water amenities - uthe reservoir does
live up to the "promise" that it will provide recreation opportunities.
. The proposed reservoir would benefit only those special interests in the
City who would profit from the development of the reservoir and the
adjacent buildings. And this project would not benefit the residents of the
targeted neighborhood or the City's residents as a whole.
2. Air quality
o
The following concerns reflect significant impacts:
. Pollutants currently in the groundwater would escape into the air, ifbrought to the
surface in a reservoir, (as acknowledged by a Muni member at a recent JPA
meeting). TQis would increase the amount of air pollution in the local area and
create a hazard affecting local residents.
. . During the demolition and construction phases of the project an increase in the
amount of dust would result from the activities. Together with the pollution
emitted by numerous vehicles used during the demolition and construction phases
an unacceptable ~ of increased air pollution would result, affecting the people
who live and work in the surrounding neighborhood.
. There woUld be an increase in humidity as a result of water evaporating from the
proposed 4S acre reservoir.
3
G
o
o
. The proposed reservoir Would have a pumping Station at the site.. Depending on
the type of energy used to fuel this pump there is a chance this would also
increase the amount of pollutants being released in the area.
3. Cultural Resources
The following concerns reflect significant impacts:
. The loss of hundreds of historic homes in the remaining oldest neighborhood in
the County's oldest city would be a significant result if the reservoir were to be
developed. The homes targeted for destruction are anywhere from SO to 100
years old (as documented in both historical surveys). The poor condition of some
homes is not an excuse for demolition in that with adequate resources historical
structures can be restored (as many cities have done in their historic areas). Once
the historic neighborhood is destroyed there is no way to reclaim the City's
history or heritage. The City's continual disregard for historical sites has led to the
loss of the majority of historical structures in the City and has led to a loss ofa
marketable identity for the City.
4. Hydrology and water quality
The following concerns reflect significant impacts:
. A test well at 9th Street indicates the water table is more than 150 feet below the
surfuce of the ground. Given that the Southland is in the 6th year of a drought, the
loss of water through evaporation coupled with the sale of water to outside
interests is not acceptable. The City and the surrounding conununities who rely on
the groundwater should not be put at risk ofa shortage of water.
. As per a report made to the MWD in 2000, the Southland is in the early years of a
15 to 20 year drought. This pattern has repeated itself for the last 1500 years in
. Southern California. Selling groundwater to outside interests is not an acceptable
risk for the City. .
. Lowering of the groundwater has the potential to negatively affect the remaining
trees and vegetation that rely on groundwater to exist, in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
. The reservoir would change the landscape and along with the loss of existing
storm drains; this would alter the run-offpattem The resulting change in the
runoff would negatively affect the neighborhoods to the East and South. The
resuh could be flooding of homes, businesses and streets.
. In the event of a heavy rain, there is potential for the reservoir to overflow its
banks - especially to the south, given the change in elevation from the north to the
south end of the reservoir. This creates a threat ofa potential flood, where
currently none exists.
. The potential for erosion of the soil is also a factor in the event of heavy runoff in
the rainy season.
4
o
o
o
...~~"" ,~~ ~
~ "~..,, ~
. While there is no documented incident of liquefilction in either the City or
surrounding conununities, there is documentation of subsidence. In 2001, Orange
County experienced a drop of over 3 inches, in elevation, from Garden Grove to
southern Santa Ana, as a result of the removal of groundwater in that area. An
additional effect is that with the land sinking it diminishes the ability of the
underlying aquifer to store water. This is not an isolated occurrence. As per the
USGS this has happened numerous times in Southern California in the 20di
century as a resuk of overdrawing groundwater ftQm aquifers. Most notably,
regions of the San Joaquin Valley have dropped 30 feet due to the removal of
groundwater. Subsidence is a very real and unacceptable threat that could result
from this project.
5. Land use and planning:
The following concerns reflect significant impacts:
. The reservoir would divide and destroy much of the remaining oldest historic
neighborhoodlconununity in the City.
. Those affected are primarily elderly, low income, ethnic minorities and
immigrants. This rese(Voir places an un1Bir burden on these members of the
conununity and provides no benefit to them.
. Six local churches would lose their facilities and their congregations would be
forced to find new facilities. Given that some of the congregations are small they
might not be able to find suitable facilities and be forced to disband entirely.
6. Noise
The following concerns reflect significant impacts:
. The noise pollution resulting from the use of heavy equipment, during the
demolition and construction phase, together with the large number of trucks
would negatively impact the living conditions of area residents and impact
_ businesses several blocks away.
. The loss of 4 well traveled north/south streets during the demolition and--
construction phase and the pennanent loss of 3 main north/south streets upon
completion of the project ~ force the north and southbound conunuters to
merge on the remaining two streets that provide access to the downtown area and
the area north of Baseline Avenue - "0" Street and Arrowhead Avenue. This
increase in noise pollution from passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, will lower
the quality of life for the people who live and work on those two streets.
7. Population and housing
The following.concerns reflect significant impacts:
. The loss of existmg homes would serious impact the elderly, low income, ethnic
minorities and inunigrants who currently own / rent and live in the targeted
neighborhood. With limited resources and options, these neighbors will be hard
5
o
o
()
, "
"'''~ ,",""-
hit by dislocation and are dispioportionably targeted by this project. The
"replacement" homes are designed to target new homeowners - people who do
not currently live in the neighborhood. The people who would be displaced by
this project would not be given the opportunity to benefit from the "new and
improved" neighborhood due to the high cost of the new homes. The discarded
people are being discounted as being unimportant (ifnot undesirable).
· However, there is no guarantee ifnew homes and a recreation area are developed
around the perimeter of the proposed reservoir that "they will come". The
proposed new homes and business opportunities may not draw the aftluent
clientele the project is,designed to serve. Given the existing blighted
neighborhood north of the project area and the close proximity to the freeway
with its' traffic and noise and the train whistles that are heard 24 hours a day,
aftluent people may prefer to relocate their. homes and businesses to another
community.
8. Public services
The following concerns refleetsignificant impacts:
· Due to the short term effects (during the demolition and construction phases) of
blocking access to 4 of the streets providing north I south access through the heart
of the City and the long term effects of permanently closing off3 of those same
streets, Police and Fire services will be seriously hampered and lives and property
will be at increased risk in the City. Fire and Police personnel will be forced to
utilize either "0" Street or Arrowhead Avenue in order to access the
neighborhoods North of Baseline. Since there will be increased commuter traffic
on these streets the response time of Fire and Police personnel will be severely
compromised as they compete with the "increased traffic. And there will also be an
increase in the response time to emergency calls due to the filet Fire and Police'
personnel will have to take extra time to make a detour to these 2 streets in order
to provide services North of Baseline. .
. In order to maintain the proposed reservoir, additional personnel and :financial
resources will be required. In order to ensure public safety in the event of a flood
and the reservoir ovedlows its' southern bank scarce public resources wiD have to
be utilized. In addition given current conditions, the threat of sabotage is a
serious concern and one that will require additional public funds in order to
prevent.
9. Transportation I traffic
The following concerns refleet significant impacts:
.As stated above in items number 6 and 8, the short term closure of 4 major streets
and the long-term closure of 3 streets that provide north I south access from the
heart of the City to neighborhoods north of Baseline Avenue is a serious concern.
· The proposed project would force commuter traffic to ''0'' Street and Arrowhead-
Avenue. Currently there is a considerable amount of traffic already on both.
streets during the busine~ day. An increase in traffic on these two streets will"
6
.
o
()
seriously and negatively affect the quality oflife of those who live and work on
these two streets.
. In addition, the number of automobile accidents will increase in response to the
increase. of commuter traffic on these already well traveled streets.
10. Utilities and service system
The following concerns reflect significant impacts:
· The creation of a reservoir and pumping station with the related costs of
maintenance will resuh in a need for increased public funds. Currently there are
limited public funds available for existing services. Citizens do not need to be
taxed in order to fund the continued operation of this project.
. The re-routing of existing, water, sewer, gas etc... utilities is not without
considerable cost to the taxpayers. Re-routing utilities north of the proposed
project will be a costly endeavor and one that may result in less than adequate
services in the long run to the neighborhoods north of the project area. In
addition, by re-routing the existing services, a strain may be put on the remaining
services south of the project area since they were not designed to take on the extra
load.
11. Mandatory findings of significance
-......
The following concerns reflect significant impacts:
· The proposed project targets an historic neighborhood for destruction, thereby
resuhing in a loss of not only local history and identity, but a loss of California
history. The City has long shown little regard for our shared history and historical .
sites. Except for the homes remaining in the City's oldest historic neighborhood,
only a handful of historic structures remain in the City. This has resulted in a loss
ofidentity. As the City struggles to develop a marketable identity there are no
downtown landmarks. around which to center such a development. Instead of
treasuring what little historic resources remain, the City is bent on deStroying the
remaining historic structures and neighborhoods thereby destroying any chance of
developing a unique identity.
7
o
o
o
EXHIBIT 5-C
From: Deanna Helena PetrovnaAclams, PhD,.
To: City Planning Commission
Date: March 07, 2005
Subject: 1156 North F street,
San Bemardino, Ca. 92410
To Whom It May Concem:
"I object to the City Planning Commission's approval of the Program Environmental Impact
Report for the North Lake Area Project on the grOunds that my property at 1156 North F Street is
a historical resource. The Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary was initiallycon&tructed on the property in
1928, with the chapel constructed in 1938. Both original structures remain. This prOperty is of
historical significance.to the City of San Bemardino and must be preserved. The proposed North
Lake Project would result in the destruction of this historical property.
The EIR identifies the property as meeting the City's criteria for historical significance,
however, the EIR stateS that the property is not a "historical resource." In fact, a California
Register Nomination Application has been filed for the property. As a property IistecI in the
Califomia Register, any impact would constitute a "significant environmental impact" Because this
. impact was not properly identified or addressed in the EIR, the EIR is flawed.
Accordingly, approval of the EIR must be delayed until the impact of the North Lake Area
Project on 1156 North F Street is properly identified and addressed.
Attached is a copy of the Application setting forth, in detail, the historical signicance of the
property. .
-~ ~...
Sincerely,
Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams, Ph.D.
1156 North F street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92410
909-884-6105
Cc Glenn L. Block
(213) 624-SS44
Sullivan, Workman &. Dee, LLP.
800 South Figueroa St., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 900 17 .
!J~/08J 05 pc,
()
o
o
~~~ ,~
JANET HANSEN
HISTORIC RESOURCES CONSULTANT
1328 LA LOMA DR
REDLANDS.CA 92393
(801) 713-8583
January 27,2005
Rachel Clark
City Clerk
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "0" Street, 2ad Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBMITTAL OF mE APPLICATION
TO NOMINATE THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1156 N. "F" STREET TO mE
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Dear Ms. Clark:
The commercial building located at 1156 N. "F'.!.Street, owned by Deanna Helena
Petrovna Adams, was recently evaluated by me, Janet Hansen, (Applicant) and found to
be eligible for designation to the California Register of Historica1 Resources at the local
level for its association with the history and development of the mortuary business in the
City of San Bernardino and as a good example of a mortuary building as a property type
(California Register Criterion I and 3, respectively). The period of significance for the
property is 1928 to 1964, the years during which the fmn operated a mortuary atJhis
location. The building is one of the only remaining historic period mortuaries. dating from
the city's early growth and develop~ent and retains a .good level of integrity.
... ....
As the local government with land use authority over the property, and in accordance
with the local government review process, the City of San Bernardino has 90 days to
comment on the nomination of the building to the California Register. All comments
should be submitted to me (Applicant) at the above referenced address and will be
forwarded with the nomination application (copy attached) to the State Office of Historic
Preservation for their consideration. If the City of San Bernardino does not respond
within the90~y period, the application wiUbe forwarded to the State Office of Historic
Preservation at"the end of that period without comment.
o
o
o
~~'" .~.~,
Thank you for your time in reviewing the enclosed nomination application. Please feel
free to contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to receiving your comments.
/'S~cerely, 0
Ai
o 0,;'
..0 .' ,/o.,J!.J.-'
Janet Hansen
Historic Resources Consultant
c: Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams, property owner
"" ~.
-
P1. Otherklentlfler:' Stephens' Bobbitt Mortuary
.P2. Location: 0 Not for Publication 0 Unrestricted
and (P2boftdP2carP2d. _._IllIII"_.1
.b. USGS 7.5' QUId Date
c. Address 1156 N. F ST
d. UTM: (GIve..........onalrl_oncIIotllnll...........)
e. Other Locatlona' Data: APN: , 0140-031-45
.P3a. Description: (0._ ralOUR>> ond III mojar _. Include -11I1. 11III1...11. condiUon..rations, _. aalllng. ond _..)
See Continuation Sheet
.a. County
San Bernardino
T
R_ _ 1/4 of
City: San Bernardino
Zone
1/4 of See
Zip
,_8.M.
mEl
mN
(List Allributes and codes) HP06 1-3 Story COllllll8rcial Building
~ Building 0 Structure 0 Object 0 Site 0 Olstrlct 0 Element of Dlstricl 0 Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo:
-'_ (\/law. -. --')
:~ Fa9lde looking louthwelt, 12/27104
.PI. Date Conatructed: 1928
Age and Sources: II Historic
o Prehistoric 0 Both
0.'. .... .P3b. RHourceAttrlbutH:
...: .P4. RHOUrcH P.....nt
"P7. Owner and Add,...:
Deanna Helena Petrovna A4amS
1156 N F Street ._
Ian Bernardino CA 92410
....: Reeorded by: Janet Hansen, M.A.
Janet Hansen, M.A.
'Historic Resources'Consultant
1328 La Lorna Dr
Bedlands, CA 92373
"Pt. Date Recorded: 01/25/2005
"10. Survey Type: (0""'")
Intensive Survey
.P11. Report CltaUon: (CIla......'raplIlt ond ~_. aronlar"llona.'
Oone .
;" .... Attachments: NONE 0 location Map 0 Sketch Map ~ Continuation Sheet ~ Building, Structure, and Object Record
o Archaeological Record 0 Diltrlct Record 0 Linear Reature Record 0 MllUng Slatlon Record 0 Rock Art Record
o Artifact Record. 0 Photograph Record Other (List)
,--
.
r.f.r '
~( ,
Pag. 2 o~ Ii
"Recorded By: Janet Hansen, M.A.
"A_ouree Name or I: (AIoIgnecI .., ReClonIorI115 Ii N. r ST
.Date 0112'1200' 00 Continuallon 0 UpdIle
P3a. DeecdpUcml_UDuec:i):
This one and'two story 9,393 square foot Spanish Colonial Revival style mortuary building is located on a
.91 acre lot on the west side of North F Street and faces east. It is one-half block south of Base Line
Street, a heavily trafficked commercial street, within a residential neighborhood. The mortuary 'was
constructed in 1928; a new chapel was added to the north elevation in 1938. The building is irregular in
plan and sits on a concrete foundation. The reinforced brick masonry structure is sheathed with smooth
stucco. While the majority of the roof is flat the 'front portion features low front and side gables capped
with decorative barrel clay tile. Below the roofline, at the sides and rear elevations, the building walls
are punctuated with small square vents with wood slats_ The fenestration pattern appears to be intact
although some wood fr'ame windows have been replaced with aluminum sliding windOWS, particularly at the
south side elevation.
The fa~adefeatures an arcaded entrance that t.rminates into the 1938 chapel addition at the notth end.
The six arched openings are flanked on either side by a window siz. arched opening. The northernmost arch
and adjacent smaller opening have been filled in to prOVide wall space for an interior office Ica. 1967).
However, the filled in area is recessed behind the wall plane so that the arches still read as part of the
arcade. The main public entrance to the building is via a pair of wood paneled doors from within the
arcade. The doors enter into the reception area and directly to the west is t~e original chapel. The rooms
to the left of the reception originally served as offices. At the south end of the arcade a wood staircase
leads to the second story that housed a casket display room and the undertaker's five-room apartment; the
apartment serves as housing for the current owner. Fenestration on the second story fa~ade includes three
arched, wood frame windows that were recently replaced (2004) based on historic photographs. North of the
arcade, the chapel is entered via a pair of paneled wood doors set within an arched opening that is
sheltered by a small gable roof porch extension. Small rectangular windows with decorative wrought iron
grilles are located on either side of the entrance. A simple decorative relief is located below the roof
gable. The north side elevation features a one story shed roof extension sheathed with clay tiles and
adjacent one story flat roofed portion to the west. Along the walls of both are tall rectangular opaque
Oixed glass windows with simple sills. The east wall of the flat roofed portion features a door that
, rovided private aCcess to the chapel's family rooms. The door has been replaced (dat,e unknown). Directly
ehind the chapel a one-story portion at the northwest corner was used as storage. A one-story garage,
which housed the mortuary's six vehicles, is located directly to the west of the original 1928 building
and spans the entire original rear elevation. No vehiele doors or openings remain on the garage
(alteration date unknown). Within the building ihterior, the area east of the garage is where the body
preparation took place.
At the south side elevation all of the original door and window openings remain intact although most of
the wood frame windows have been replaced with aluminum sliding windows. Doors on this elevation appear to
have been replaced (date unknown) and the transoms have been boarded. Historic photographs and Sanborn
maps indicate that a small gable roof: porte cochere was located above the westernmost door on this side
for discreet access to the "slumber rooms" for private viewing of the deceased. A handicap access ramp,has
been added to this entrance, (date unknown).
Consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood, the property features a turfed front yard
with a concrete sidewalk and parkway strip. Two mature palm trees are located in the front yard and small
shrubs are located at the front and along the south side elevation. The front yardwa. enclosed with a
wood picket fence in 2000. Two lattice entrance pergolas and a decorative fountain were added in 2004. The
remaining property is paved with asphalt to provide vehicle access and parking and the property is secured
with a painted concrete block wa~1,(1940). Concrete driveways are located both to the north and south of
the building. Concrete walkways providing access to the building from the sidewalk and parking areas
appear to date from the time of construction. The building is now the home of Victory ,Chapel, a location
for weddings, baptisms and other celebrations. The "Victory Chapel" sign was added to the building in 1990
in the same location as the original "Stephens , Bobbitt runer~ Directors" signage.
o
.
o
()
, _u>~"~,~_
..
~f'" 'd'?:,",", . '....;-~.~ '~'~'.''''';;', _'., .,.,. , ..'q~, " '''''', '"""._, . '. .,..
.,..'f:I....,.....;~ ,~~.'-~'-It "Ii.............,,... "'.<;}.~~l-",~.. ~ ':~ _' .;.>.. . :1-~ ~ " ..... . , '.':'2
~ ' ^?, . .....~4. ... ) T ~ 'If
'f '.' . i.' ;';.-:. .~;~ . .\
" ~:.~. . ..,;~~,/tt~E~~~:~"."; ~.:'.'~~.L ,-_. """.. u :d~
Pav- 3 o~ .
-NRHP Status Code: 3CS
.R_ouree Nlme or I: (AAIgnoll br ~ 1156 N. F ST
B1. Historic Nlme Stephens> Bobbitt Mortuary
B2. Common Nlinl! Victory Chapel'"
B3.0rlgmeIUle: Mortuary
.85. An:hltKturaIStyle: Spanish Colonial Revival
*88. Construction Hlatory: (-..Ian _. .UOlltianl. and d... ot......liana) Construction Dlte: 1928
1928 New Building No original permit on file
1938 Addition Chapel Addition, No permit on file
1940 WaU
84. Present UN:
Church
*87. Moved? DOlle Moved:
.88. ReIItad Feeturae: None
*S9a. ArchIIect: None Known
.B10. Significance: Theme: Mortuary Development
Period ofSllInlficence 1928-1964
Appllclble Crtt.rIa: NA
(Di...... ~ In .......111111_ or __ -.... daftned by hmo. parIod. .nd geographic _. AI.. _..Integrity.)
See Continuation Sheet
Original LocaUon:
b. Builder: George Voss.
~ City of San Bernardino
Property Type Mortuary
B11. Addition" Resource Attribules: (UIlI\1l1IMf.. and COelI.)
.812. ~n_:
See Continuation Sheet
813. Remlrks:
"814. EVlluator:
Jane~ Hansen, M.A.
Historic ReSOUrces Cbnsultant
1328' La LOlM. Dr
Redlands. CA 92373
.Date of EVlluatlon 0112512005
(This space reserved for olficlll comments.)
'~'~~~<F.H
1m C".", ",'" '" ' . , "
""'", ,'1"" ,'- .....' . T' ." .. ...,
\P:";j~'" . '
,
" ..l..._.'_~'" ~,,t: 1..~ .t>_,..,,~ , ..~ ~,~ :^
Opage.e of'
." . .Recorded By:
.Resource NMlI or Ill:
(AAlgned IIr RoCalllotI 11 5 6 N. F ST
"Dlle 0112'12005 IKI Contlnulllon
o Updlle
Janet Hansen, M.A.
B10.SlllnlflClncl(colitlnu~'d-'-' "------." ._-._- "'-, .--,,, ,
The Stephens , Bobbitt Mortuary building is eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources under Criterion 1 at the local level of significance for it's association with the history
and development of the mortuary business in the city of San Bernardino and under Criterion 3 as a good
example of a mortuary as a property type. The period of significance for the property is 1928 to
1964, the years during which Stephens' Bobbitt operated their mortuary at this location. The building
is one of the only remaining historic mortuaries in the city and retains a good level of integrity.
The significance of mortuary buildings to the social infrastructure of a community is generally not
considered in traditional local histories. Furthermore, little secondary source information is
available on the mortuary, or funeral home as it is also called, as a building type. At the end of the
nineteenth century, most American communities had undertakers who would go to the home of the deceased
and take care of activities such as funeral arrangements, casket selection, and coordinating the
burial site with the local graveyard. By the turn of the century a variety of institutional and
cultural changes contributed to the removal of the dead from the home. 1n "nia work, Rest in Peace,
author Gary Laderman discusses changes in home design and domestic space, including the di.appearance
of the parlour. where, funerals typically took place, as well as the standardization of embalming in the
preparation of the dead for disposal. (1) From.the beginning of the twentieth century embalming was
the lifeblood of the American funeral industry and the job of funeral director became viewed as a
profession. Between 1900 and 1920 schools devoted to training embalmers appeared in cities throughout
the United States, including Lo~ Angeles. However, as Laderman states:
....for the public to fully relinquish control over the dead body, lose traditional fllllliliarity with it
in everyday life, and embrace the entire range of services offered by the funeral director another
mortuary innovation would have to appear: the American funeral home. The rise of funeral homes in
communities throughout the nation created a new social space for preparing, displaying, and communing
with the dead. The introduction of the automobile, expansion of telephone lines, and advances in
public sanitation all contributed to the viability and efficiency of separate funeral homes that cared
for the dead."(2)
0.... .. In both interior layout and faCilities., the funeral home provided a domesticated space to care for
. .. the deceased and help meet the mourners' need for closeness with the body. The buildings featured
private rooms (not seen by the public) where chemical embalming and body preparation took place,
casket display rooms, viewing or "slumber room" rooms, a chapel, living quarters for the undertaker
and his flllllily, and a garage for the business' hearses. By the 1920s, funeral homes became the primary
place for carrying out the responsibilities associate~"ith burial and were conveniently located
within the ~ommunities they served.
In the city of San Bernardino, the mortuary business has always been relatively small. (3) The Sanborn
Fire Insurance Map from 1894 shows an undertaking business at 544 3rd Street. City directories from
1902 list three undertakers, all of which were located within a block of each other on 3rd Street
between C and E streets - W.O. Aldridge (444 3rd Street), Barton' Catick (54e-546 3rd Street) and
HcDonald Brothers (372-374 3rd Street). All three undertaking .businesses were in the heart of San
Bernardino's downtown commercial core located within the original townsite founded in 1854. This mile
square area was bounded by present day 10th Street to the north, Rialto Avenue to the south, Sierra
Way to .,the east and I Street to the west.
The next available directory in 1906 shows that George Stephens was now in business wit~"'.D. Aldridge
as Aldridge' Stephens. Just one year'later the firm became Aldridge, Stephens and Dean, relocated to
410-420 E Street. Barton' Catick moved across the street to 579 3rd Street. By 1911 Stephens, Son
are listed as undertakers at 420 E Street and were no longer in partnership with Aldridge and Dean.
Barton' Catick became J.W. Barton' Company located 457 4th Street. The new firm of HarkB. Shaw
appeared at 496 5th Street. By 1913 McDonald Brothers is listed as J.D. McDonald Undertaking Company
at 455 4th Street.
In 1920 only the firms Stephens , Son, still at 420 E Street, and Mark B. Shaw, now at 468 5th Street,
remain listed as undertakers. The 1926 directory indicates that J.W. Woodhouse, Company was in
business at 597 4th Street and George Stephens went into business with James D. Bobbitt to form
Stephens, Bobbitt. By 1928 the firm relocated to a new Spanish Colonial Revival style building at
1156 North F Street, several blocks north of the downtown area where mortuary businesses had been
located since the turn of the century. At the same time, J.W. Woodhouse' Company built a new Spanish
Colonial Revival style building at 1354 Mt. Vernon Avenue, almost directly west of'the Stephens'
Bobbitt building. Shaw's business remained at 468 5th Street. By 1ge2 Tillies Funeral Home opened at
551 Ht. Vernon and. by 1944 J.W. Woodhouse' company became Kremer Funeral Home. In 1948 the Colonial
Revival style Harriso~-Ross Funeral,Home was constructed on E. Highland Avenue (22nd St~eet),
0" signaling the beginning of the me ve'of mortuary businesses outside of the city's historic core. The
. ompany remains in business today. In 1955 the long time Mark B. Shaw mortuary building at 468 5th
treet was demolished to make way for a new furniture store. (4) The chapel was remodeled' and leased as
commercial space, but is no longer extant~ The same year the company moved to a new California Ranch
style mortuary building at 1525 N; Waterman Avenue, only a few blocks from E. Highland Avenue, and
continues to operate today at this location. Tillies Funeral Home was demolished some time after 1951.
In 1964 the new Bobbitt Memorial Chapel opened at 1299 E. Highland Avenue. Today, there are fo~r '
mortuary businesses located on E. Highland, all of which are in the proximity of Nt. View Cemetery
(establiShed 1907).
Of the various locations used for San Bernardino undertaking businesses before 1948, only the
()
o
o
.er ",'" " ,-.....",',' ...-. "p '" 'J' ,-,,' - "
~~1-c--,:","':4")..1t':.---~~~-;tr~1 (....;.o'......,~~t...;,J'f" .', .,' > . + :;- .,tc' ,
.~ <. ,,_J...... .., .. .. ' \ ~.. ,.
~-... '" ''!'''",' '..... '''1
,
, ,
,0 . _
Pap 5 of!" "R..oun:e Nul. or': (AuIgnecI W RIclaIWr)1156 H. r ST
.Recorded By: Janet Hansen, M.A. .Datll 0112512005 IKI Continuation 0 Updlte
buildings at 1156 N. r,Street and 1354 Mt. Vernon Avenue remain. The Kremer Funeral Home on Mt. Vernon
Avenue is currenhy used 'iis"i'-saptfi"f Cliurcll:"'Tii.-'spai11sh cciiiiilfirRev1"iI"style building has had seme
alterations since its construction, including the removal of the original clay tile roof and covered
walkway to the fa~ade entrance. The integrity of setting has also been diminished by surrounding
commercial development. The Stephens , Bobbitt mortuary building has had only minor alterations over
time. With the exception of the replacement of some windows with aluminum frame windows, and removal
of the porte cochere on the south side elevation, the building remains remarkably intact, including
the interior floor plan, site design, and overall setting.
George M. Stephens was born in New Haven, Connecticut and came to San Bernardino via Canada in the
late nineteenth century. IS) As indicated above, he became involved in the undertaking busines,s in San
Bernardino by 1906, joining the firm of W.O. Aldridge to form Aldridge, Stephens. Stephens' Son were
in business independently following the partnership with Aldrige, from about 1911 to 1923. At that
time Stephens went into business with James D. Bobbitt and formed Stephens 'Bobbitt. James Bobbitt
and family came to San Bernardino from Lynchburg, Ohio in 1923.(6) Descendants continue to operate the
funeral home in San Bernardino on E. Highland Avenue. The Bobbitt Memorial Chapel is one of the,oldest
continuously owned and operated businesses in the San Bernardino County area. It is also one of the
only family-owned funeral home businesses remaining the San Bernardino County area. (7)
Stephens , Bobbitt built a new funeral home for the business in 1928 on land that George and Kathryn
Stephens purchased in a residential neighborhood on the west side of North r Street just below
Baseline Road.18l The Stephens' purchased the property frem George N. Voss, a local developer and
contractor who designed and built the mortuary building. (9) The mortuary is a good example of the
Spanish Colonial Revival style, popular throughout Southern California in the early decades of the
twentieth century and in particu1ar'the 1920s and 30s. In San Bernardino the style wa~ favored for
civic and commercial buildings as well as apartments and single-family residences. The Stephens ,
Bobbitt mortuary building is highly utilitarian on the side and rear elevations with the fa~ade
reflecting elements of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in its use of arched openings, entrance
arcade, clay tile rOOfing, and wrought iron details. The building may be one of the first mortuaries
in San Bernerdino designed and built specifically for that purpose as it was common for existing
buildings to be converted to funeral homes in the early decades of the twentieth century. (10)
The public opening of the new mortuary building was on Sunday, October 14, 1928. The event spurred an
almost entire page of articles and illustrations in the San Bernardino Daily Sun newspaper. As stated
in one article: -'"
"Virtuall~ in the center of the city's population and"in a district that is separated from the hustle
and noises of the congested business zone is the new funeral home of Stephens , Bobbitt..The modern
work of a funeral director is to comfort as well as to bury and with these ends in view George M.
Stephens and J.D. Bobbitt-have embodied in their new building an atmosphere of home rather than an
office or businessbuilding."(lll
As the article suggests, the mortuary was sited in a residential neighborhood, in contrast to the
commercial setting of earlier funeral homes. As San Bernardino experienced the growth of the boom of
the 1920s, the commercial core no doubt became less than conducive to the quiet domesticated
atmosphere then required of the funeral business. By this time the former farm lots that surrounded
the'original townsite ha~ been subdivided for residential and commercial use and the ~~banized area of
the city expanded to 16th Street tO,the north, Waterman to the east, Mill Street to the south, and
beyond Mt. Vernon to the west. (12) The chosen site for the new cemetery was within'a neighborhood that
included turn of the century Victorian-era cottages as well as numerous Craftsman bungalows built
during the Arts and Crafts period and intpthe 1920s. The mortuary building, like other public
buildings within the neighbo~hood, was designed to complement the overall scale, setting, and setbacks
'of the area. The interior of -th'l! building reflected all the conveniences associated with a new funeral
home during the first quarter of the twentieth century. Characteristic of the property type it
featured a second floor apartment for the undertaker's family, three slumber rooma, offices, casket
display room and chapel. Private entrance to the slumber rooms and chapel was provided from side
entrances. The body preparation 'aiea was secluded from publ~c view and accessed from the, rear of the
building.
George Stephens died in August 1935, but his wife Kathryn continued as owner of the mortuary that
carried the family name. In 1937 James and Lulu Bobbitt bought ~ interest in the property on N. F
Street froa Kathryn and anew chapel was built at the north end of the mortuary building. (13) The old
chapel then served as a new'casket display room. By 1964 the Bobbitt family renamed the business,
dropping the long time reference to George Stephens, and the new Bobbitt Memorial Chapel opened on E.
Highland Avenue. The old mortuary'building was sold to the San Bernardino Lodge of the Odd Fellows for
use as a meeting hall. According to Gary Bobbitt, grandson of James, the Odd Fellows enclosed one of
the arches on the arcade to provide a wall for an interior office and the pews were removed from the
chapel. Since the 1980s the building had been used as a non-denominational church owned and operated
by Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams.
.,.- ',=,<==",..--" '.
.
~tlii;1;!""'~". ',' ., '0', .""' " ,> '.". ",' ',_ .". ...., , , . .,...
tI-x::.;&i"'::.....-.:,~ .#.~-f~..,~!""-"...}".,~,:-..-f.;. ~.4 -'.' ' r . ~
~ ..:',\~-I-,."\ ., , ,_.,', .
, ..L.
~ , ~ . .- _ \,....J."- ~ _ _, ,
Pqe , o~ ,
oRecorded By: Janet Hansen, M.A.
ORaource NMla or.: (AIolgnod1l'."--ll151 N. F ST
.Date 01/2$/200' I!J ConUnuallon
o Update
4. "Demolition pavinif Way for" Barker 'Bros. 'Store,""Sari-li"rniiillno"Silii';-n:"""Diciiii6er 199~29~
5. "rirm Owners Widely Known,n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 14 October 1928.
6. "James D. Bobbitt Praised at Last Rites for Service,n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 8 October 1959.
7. Gary Bobbitt, Phone interview by Janet Hansen, ,17 January 2005.
8. The property is a portion of Lot 8 within the A.K. Johnson Subdivision, a subdivis~on of Part of
Lot 3 Block 74 of the Nine Acre Survey of San Bernardino Rancho.
9. "Voss Erects New Bui1ding,n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 14 October 1928. Assessors records indicate
that Voss sold the property at 1159 r Street to the Stephens.
10. Gary Bobbitt, Phone interview by Janet Hansen, 17 January 2005.
11. "ArChitecture of Building is Spanish Type,n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 14 October 1928.
12. Bai Tang and Michael Hogan, CRN Tech, Historical Resources Survey Report: North Lake and Central
City South Project (City of San Bernardino, CAl: May 30, 2003, 4.5-2. .
13. San Bernardino, County of: Assessors Records.
o
812. RaferenC118 (conUnued):
Adams, Deanna Helena Petrovna. Unpublished written history of property at 1156 North F. Street, 2004.
"Architecture of Building is Spanish Type.n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 14 October 1928.
Avila, David A. "Family firm plans $300,000 expansion.n San Bernardino Sun, February 10; 1999, B-1.
BObbitt, Gary. Phone interview by Janet Hansen, 17 January 2005.
"Demolition Paving Way for Barker Bros. Store.n San-B~rnardino Sun, 21 December 1995, 29.
Donaldson, ,Milford Wayne AlA, Inc. Historic Resources.Jeconnaissance Survey, San Bernardino, 1991.
"Firm ,Owners Widely Known.n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 14 October 1928.
"George Voss Dies at 82.n San Bernardino Sun, 14 April 1996.
"James D. Bobbitt Praised at Last Rites for Service.n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 8 October 1959.
"James D. Bobbitts Greeted at Anniversary Celebration.n San Bernardino D~ily Sun, 28 November 1952.
"J.Russell Bobbitt Sr. Obituary.n San Bernardino Sun, 21 June 1988.
Laderman, Gary. Rest in Peace. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
"Mortician of S.B. gets State Post.n San Be~nardino Daily Sun, 6 NOvember 1968.
San Bernardino, City of: Building Permits
San Bernardino, County of: Assessor's Recor?s; Building Records, 1156 N. "Fn Street
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps, 1908, corrected to 1931: 1951.
"Six Cars are Used by rirm.n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 14 October 1928.
Smith, Ronald G. E. The Death Care Industries in the United States. London: McFarland' Company, Inc.,
Publishers, 1996.
Tang, Bai, CRN Tech. "Cal1fornia H1sForic Resource Inventory (OPR) forms, 1156 N. F Street, August 2000.
0,', Tang, Bai and Michael Hogan, CaM Tech. Historical Resources Survey Report: North Lake and Central City
'0' outh Project, City of San Bernardino, CA. Hay 30, 2003.
"Tribute Paid Bobbitts by White Shrine.n,San Bernardino Daily Sun, 16 November 1952.
~Voss Erects New BUildinq.n San Bernardino Daily Sun, 14 October 1928.'
Whitehair, John. "Former mortuary operator dies at 81.H San Bernardino Sun, 21 June 1988.
o
o
o
~ """ <''''' 'F'"'"
Q
CAUFORNIA STAtE UNIVERSITY,
SAN _HARDlNO
COL....E OF SOCIAL AND
BEHAVlORAL.ClENeD
5600 University Parkway
Department of Geography & Environmental Studies
San Bernardino, CA92407-2397
EXHmIT 5-D
909-880-5522
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 8, 2005 ~.
/~ ,
PJanning Commission. CJty of San ~II /7/7
James L. Mulvihill, AICP _ '~V]' '
Response to SBVMWD Respo~~ Co~s for March 8, 200S Planning
Commission Meeting
TO:
FROM:
RE:
As have my comments in the past, the following comments refer to the North Lake
portion of the proposed project. I have been told that my previous memos from January 22,2004,
in response to the Statement ofIntent, and from October 22, 2004, in response to tbe Draft EIR,
have not been included among the communications in the EIR, so I have attached a copy to this
memo. The references to pages below,refer to page numbers on the comments sheet I have
received from the SBVMWD.
I have ranked my responses, with those of greatest concern first:
1. , A general comment: SBVMWD comments in response to my comments virtually all
"miss the point" of my concerns, and so the responses filii to adequately address
many significant impacts of the proposed project.
2. Pag~s 29-30: Section labeled"S.18." Economic and Traffic Effects. The SBVMWD
response to my memos reference the EIR Section 4.12. On EIR Page 4.12-12,
reference is made to 280, heavy truck trips during the construction of North Lake
being, .....offset by the reduction of traffic volumes (20,074 average daily trips)
"" """~
",""""~
.
Page Two
MEMO: SB Planning Commission, North Lake Project
March 8, 2005
o
resuhing from removal of existing onsite land uses. Although some onsite demolition
activities could occur as properties are secured by SBVMWD, excavation,'and
construction activities could not begin until the site was vacated. "
My concerns:
a. The EIR attn"butes 20,074 daily trips to the project site and the EIR assumes
ALL of these will be removed by the demolition of the neighborhood. The
EIR (p. 4.9-2) estimates that 1,442 men, women and children live in the area
to be demolished. Ifa substantial portion of that population is composed of
children (and other non-drivers), and if the h"bera1 use of9 trips per day per
person were used, the total would fiill &r short of20,074. It's likely most of
those trips are due to the location of San Bernardino City Unified School
District Headquarters, the location ofI21S on- and off-ramps, and the use of
several north-south by through traffic. Those trips will not beeli~inated by
the project -- where will this traffic go, particularly given comment 4 (b)
below.
b. Nowhere in the EIR is the traffic disruption caused by the 1215 expansion
discussed. What will be the cumulative inpcts of these various projects.
Effects include reduction in the accessibility of downtown San Bernardino.
c. There is no discussion of the likelv su~uent proiects the North Lake
proposal advocates had continuously promoted, e.g. commercial and
residential projects. These are ignored in the EIR.
3. Page 27: Section labeled "5.10." Location of project a1tematives. My comments
specifically refer to an imporWit alternative location to the proposed North Lake. In
my January 22M and October 22M, 2004_memos I specifically mention a reservoir
location west along the Baseline Feeder, in the Lytle Creek Wash. This ahemative '
was NOT evaluated in the EIR, yet the area is already public property and would not
displace population. ,The SBVMWD response simply reviews several locations that
are only "straw men," that are easily refuted. CEQA standards and 'case law require
that "viable" ahemative projects be evaluated. The EIR has not evaluated the viable
ahemative I have previously suggested.
4. Page 26: Section labeled "'5.3." Topographic variation. My memos comment on a 40'
drop across the area of North Lake; this is shown on current USGS Topographic maps
for the area. The SBVMWD response provides a calculation of.....a slope of 1.41
percent." Again, there is no consideration of the "effects on safety.. . " that this drop
entails. Specifically, if the reservoir is a ground level at its north end, along Baseline
Avenue, there would have to be a 40'+ embankment along 9th Street, and the '
reservoir would be completely above~. The vital issue of the configuration of the
reservoir, especially given the change in topography, has been completely ignored by
the EIR.
The issue of seiche (p. 28: Section 5/13) has been completely ignored, as not
being significant -: possibly the issue should be called tsunami. Yet, the relatively
shallow depth of the reservoir and its total length could virtually empty if the
reservoir were raised a few degrees (NOTE: the capacity of the reservoir is Yt billion
o
o
o
o
'.C'.,.,'<" H~'_
PageTbree
MEMO: SB Planning Commission. North Lake Project
March 8, 2005
gallons). The location of the reservoir would be upslope from SBCUSD offices, as
well as doWntown San Bernardino.
5. Page 27: Section labeled "5.9." My earlier memos address the requirements of
providing 700-800+ units of affordable housing, given the elimination of affordable
units within the project area, and the expressed desire of project proponents to make
the area one of "upscale residences." SBVMWD response refers the reader to EIR
Section 4.9-7 to 4.9-10. The referenced section states, "...new housing units will not
need to be constructed as a resuhofthe displacement resuhing from the North Lake
Project..," (p. 4.9-10). The EIR gives little indication of the "affordability" issues, or
of availability.
Besides the validity of the statements made in the environmental impact report, there
are other factors the City of San Bernardino must consider in evaluating this project. Of
particular concern are the project's costs and benefits. SBVMWD representatives have
alluded to extensive Federal subsidies for this project, e.g. from FEMA, among others. If
Federal funds were to come to this project, the National Environmental Protection Act
(NEP A) would require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Ahhough the EIS
process often closely corresponds to the EIR process under CEQA, there is a key
difference for the North Lake project. Whereas an EIR is not required to conduct a study
of social impacts, NBP AlEIS is required to answer the question: Will the proposed
federal action have a significant, adverse effect on minorities and low-income persons to
a greater extent than on the general population of an area? (Bass, 1998, p. 90). Bass'
study provides an example of coblbined-EISIEIR program in Sacramento, CA. The
, project advanced only after "extensive, innovative efforts" were made to actively
involved minority residents in the process,"8nd the fmdings showed that, "...all
ahernatives would have approximately the same impact on the target population as the
proposed project,"(Bass, 1998, p. 90). The North Lakes project has consistently treated
the affected community as "being in the way of progress" and not assessed the project's
adverse impacts relative to either other project ahematives, nor other area population
groups. To avoid a negative findine when AuinV for Federal sqpJlOrt. SBVMWD apnears
to demolish the commlJ.tlity first. then Ac1c for Federal 111111:1!l.
Many assertions have been made for the great potential for ecollOmie revitalization in
the project area. The SBVMD .commissioned a May 2003 "Market and Financial
Analysis" of the project by the Natelson Company. The Company used several methods
to assess the feasibility of redevelopment; one of these being a series offocus groups
composed of several dOlen local development and real estate professionals. From these
. assessments, the report concluded that, after the cost of land assembly and clearance of
$13.00 per square foot, for residential uses development would pay a maximum of$2.75
to $4.00 per square foot-the City would subsidize redevelopment $9.00 to $11.25 per
square fool The subsidy from the City would be slightly less for commercial uses.
Today;' such public "give-aways" are unacceptable.
.
Bass, Ronald (1998): "Evaluating Environmental Justice Under the National Environmental
Protection Act," Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, pp. 83-92.
()
o
o
- Y"'K''"'CC''F=_~'C''''~'~_
Comment Letter #5
t&\
fii){g@~n\Y1rn\ID
lffi OCT 2 2 200~
CALIFORNIA STA1E UNIVERSITY,
SAN II!IINARDINO
eou r... SOCIAL AND
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
'100 Univeraity Parkway
San Bernarclino, CA 8240'7-289'7
CI1Y~=
D DEPAInUIN'I'
Department of Geoll'aplq
aDd EDvironwneata1 Studies
909-880-601
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
October 22. 2004
Valerie Ross. Develop
James L. Mulvihin, AlCP
hspome to Draft Program
,
I am greatly coacemcd that noDe of my colbmCDts from my .Jamwy 22, 2004 com......"t, of the Draft EIR
were c&ectly Iddress in the present cfocumen1. Each commeat in the JaDuary 22- memo was IddIas by the
pRSCIIl doCUlllellt as, "...the issue will be ~ied in. the Filial EIR end mitigation measures may be
sugpsted." or words to that cfI'ect. ~ City of Saii'BemardiDo does DOt have 1UQds to adequately provide
.police oflicels to usure the safety of ill citi=os, as has been iDdklted by the fi.iIure to implement
adcquatc1yCbicfZimmon's"Beat Prognan." The Cit)rlias already spent. tremendous amouDl offiscallUld
personnel resources on this program, wbjch the citizeas simply caDDOt afford. Thus the City must DOt go
forward with this project until mltiptlon measures have been &pecuied ami all costs made public.
What fullows in italics are my comments from the.January 22'"' memo tbathave not been addressed.
. There are snertll COnclmS about I1(ormmlon contained in'l. "initial slUdylnOllce o/puparallon" 5.1
~nt IhaI IMarrl clart/ied In th'DEIR and Final EIR of the "HIS LaD Area" projeCt. MY.~all
addruslh, North La. JlDrlion lIjthis initial Shltiy. Aftq fin/listing my concerns, I will elaborat, on eaeh
OM, with specific njuencl$lO lhe dot:wnent: '
J. Norlh LaD design;
2.' Pf"t)Udu", reping conJaminaled brownfieliJs in North Lake projecl area;
3. Provision/or 814 units 0/ qffordable housing;
4. Locatioru 0/ proj,cJ alternatives;
\ 5. Disruption of a predominDn/ly lower income, millorlly neighborhood;
6. S,iche hozt1rds;
7. Risla ofpromoling blight k /0 non-attainmen/ lIjproj'ct pis;
8. Economic and Irqffic 'ffects on down/own San BlT1IIITdino caused by years 0/ project-r,lated
dl~ion;
25
. .,'
--
. Page Two .
0,.. ..... MEMO: Comments North Lake Project
., . .... October 22, 2004
o
o
Again, all re/erenas are 10 Norlh Lake in the "Initial SludylNotice of PrBparation" document:
Ij North Lilb desigrl:
II) ~111. p. IS, paragraph 3 describes North Lake tIS being DJ1PI'O%lmately 44.5
acres. tlVfTaging 15' depth, with dtJIly lwei JluctuIlIlD1I8 ofles8 tIrtm .5' - though
ItJIrB levels may on DCCfUion drop more lbon j 'per dfIJI. Fm JiBt is 1/3 the ctlJ1llcity 5.2
of reSUWJlr, or 72 million gallons, i.eo ((660:r 324 000)/3). y~ the pI'OIKJIed
treatme1ll plant's CtJpQCIty is only 8 MGD (mil/ion gallons per day). So the CQ]1Qclty
of lhe treJltme1ll plant is only I#' of proposed need, Le. 8 million to 72 mi/lion-
p/etl# uplain discTeJKl"CY In drGft enviromnental Impact report (DEIR).
Furlher, document p. 33, paragraph 6 describes this areD tIS being "relatively flat. H
An examinlltion of topographic mtlpl shows thallhe Intersectiorr of /JQseline Avenue
and <lH" Street lies on lhe 1120' contow; whll, the intersecilon 01Y" SlreBt and
HE" SJrUllies appro:rimtllelyon lire 1080' contollT - a droD'across tire arf!!. if
4RP"o:r(~atelv 40 'f This substantial drop in ground elevD/ion and its effects on
safety ond reservoir must be IhorouglrIy examined in /he DEIR.
b) (p. 1 S, r paragraph) The slope of the reservoir tltlau edge will be a "minimum"
of4:1, that'satleart a drop 0/4 'for every 1 'from lalrB <<Ige. So ifa chi/dshould
talrB Q step of 2: he/she It'Ould be in lWIter 8' deep. Yel there is no.irltflCation of this
safety issue in lhe document. How will the project mitigate this hazard? Please
evaluate this in DEIR.
c) The costs irrvolved in $Uch a massive, long-term and. in mony ways, disruptive need
to be Idmtified These costs 1uwe not belln mUllioned much less ulimatedon any
capilal imprOlTBme1IIs plan or any'general plan. Nor htu there. been DI9' plan or
commitmllnt agrllBment over specifiCJlspects of lhe North Lake betwem the City, thlt
San BeT1Ull'tlino Valley Mamicipal Walll' Distrlcl (MUNI), a'9' CountylStalelFedNal
.Agency, or a'9' ,mate deve/opmllnl group. The DElR must tell tire public what lhis
project actuDlly entalls, how II will proceed, who is responsible for the various goals
imQglMd in lhe inlliol study?
Further, in none of Ihll d'lScusslD1l8 of the "1aIrB," projecl over the lasl """" years
hDs the issue offunds raised through the 6_ ofwater from the project. MUNI hDs
never provided IUrJl indication ofshDring bmeji/S, even thougA the city Will yield in
perpetuity severa/street rights-of-lWlY which belong to the ciliuns of this Clty.1f (I
"Slalllment of Overriding Considerations" is being planned/or wtimatll acceptQllCe
of this E1R and proJecl, there musl be "sunlight" brought into the i88ue qfmonelary
benefits, and how Ihe public of Son Bernardino will fiscally benefil from ceding
possllSsion of its public property 10 MUN/.
d) Regarding the 'pollution plumes" (p. 8, paragraph 2) the Fedllral Environmental
Prolecllon Agency hDs spenl millions of doUars on appro:rimalelya dozen barrier
wells Ihat will hQlt Ihe advance of contaminaled plumes, the DElR must address how
Ihe proposed project will: a) interface with the e:ristent EP A. barrier system; tIIIfi b)
improve on the EP A. system, Qndhow much imprOlTBment thll City will realiu bJl
"-allowing the 1I0rthl.(rke project 10 proceed
26
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
." pageTbrce
.', MEMO: Comments North Lake Project
October 22, 2004
e) Pumping 1<<11111' from underground protlucu a "depression cone" In lhe ltGtIr' tablB;
Ih, inilialstudy giftS 1M impressIo" that (I wll will unformly lowu 1M lWIIe, table
across the tlI'UJ -lIke opening lhe drain 0" a bathtub. In 0I'fhr 10 diM a IDwring 5.7
oftM \WllfII'lIIble and (lchIsve lhe elimination ofliqulfQCliolr" DElR ~
must irulicaIe how 1IItIIfY will an to be placed and whIre. Thsr. "". be a lJIICiJIc
analylis in 1M DEIR ofwater lable hydrology and effects of pumping in onW fM .
the pIIblfc 10 det,rmine if the pt'OpoIal is worth lhe sizabl, CO$U, Le. fucal, penorIIIl,
social, il e1lkli1.r.
2) ProceIl.res ng,,,,Ii., C/I"'",,,ilultd brow'4flelds iIr Nodule pto}<<I -: .'
Nowhere ill the dOClllllenl is the lerm "browrjield" mentioned. Yet t"" in .mting
QJlto reptJir facililia and gasoline stalions along BaleIIM A"'; othttn liAzly
"Wed in the past. And any .rolwnts used in Qulo repalrfacililie.r ~ rtIII off onto the
ground. All U1tdNground go.roline slorage tana prior to 1980 1u.M failBd. thereby 5.8
leaving dtmgerous toxI1I8 .rcanered Ihroughorlllhe aretL Also, ~nonS would oflm
disposed oftlls used oil turd othr lI1IWtUIted 1IIIllerial.r by digging a hole in lheir yards
and bUl'J'ing tu. Farms localed In project area prior 10 II1'btmizati01lliJ:ely
posse.rsedIMgu, with soils being conllllllIIfDIed by them. There mull be a deIIIIled
explanDtion ofhow soil taling will be conducled before all)' soilfrom area is mnowtl
In tM DEIR.
o
3) Prtwisio" 01874 "nits of lIJ10rddle housing:
Document p. 10. paragrllph 4, states that North LaJr. site pos&U$U 437 dwelling
units, while p. 46. paragraph 1. North lAke will elim/lUlle an &stimat.d 365 dwelling
units. 17we is II 72 lIIIil discreptmCj:-Regardlus. ber:ouse new,qffordllble unit.r wiU
haw to be buill outside the ana (this tU,a is buill-o"'), tMII 2X thB1UIIIIber oflosJ
unils must be pro~ided. LfJ. 874 or 730. Nowhere dou to documfJ"tprovide:
responsibility for replacing lost housing; wh,re this housIng wiU be located; DT how U
will befintl1l&llll.. Th, DElR must be sptlCific in the replac,ment of qffortlt1blB hOUSing.
4) . LOClltioll oj'projed "".",lIIlvu:
Document p. 20, paragraph 1, $fates that the DEIR will only consider two pro/let
alternotINS: no projfJct; or a smollfJrlduper reServoir. 71Ifl DElR ",un fJ'Kilriate other,
1'$$ intrusiVtJ 10cari01l8 for the North Lake. For emmplB, west along Basellite u t.
Lytl, Cre,k Wash. which is already public property, thus lIIrllItIUy nO di.rplocemfJ1ll, . 5.10
and lower costs. The Baseline /fled" ezlsts lhere already, and tlIO' u,fra.rtrllCtiue buill .
to connect wlls to the wash localion would be minimal col7lfXlJYd to property
purchase. But the major Issue is di~acement of moslly lo~r income, mostly minority
households and how 10 eliminate this intrusion into an established residentIal
neighborhood.
o
S) Disrllption oj II predomlllllntly lower income, minority neighborhood:
Document p. 40. paragraph 2 implies lhat "further analysis" will be required to
_ determine the significance ofNorlh Lake's impacts on this predomintJlltly lower
. income, minority neighborhood. 17re wrilers already llJ1PflaT 10 be minimillng the
obviously significant impact by disrupting lhe lilIe..r of over 1000 persons, many
27
5.9
5.11
..... .
Q-
MEMO: CommcDls North Lake Project
October 22, 2004
chlIrchel, tmd commercial businuses. And this disruption is belngjusJV',.d wilh ",.
~ most implausible considerations. Citizens arc gutlTtmludfrccdomfrom
rmnasonable $l!lftlrl! of their property.
On Document p. 45, paragraph 4 cites the SBCUSD ar using 0.5 ,tudent, per dwelling
,mit in this area -Ihis is.fXlTf_ly lowl The standord UHd b1 pltmnus in Stm
Bemardino Is 2. 7 p<<r801IS per dwening IInil. Given lhe inco.lm18 in this
neighborhood it's lilrB1,y the 1III1Itbu of persons per UIflt is higher than thai. FIlI1hcI',
there arc likely tI1f Dhow tnreI'tIge 1fInIIlHIr of lingle hIads ojhollfeholds likely nraimg
the number of chiltlnn even higher. There must be fWd 6ID'lIqS to estGbIish the proJIR
. number of children being tdfected by this project ill Order to provide a proper
evaluation of imptJct In the DElL
] 5.11
. (cant)
5.12
o
6) Seiche IrtlZllrt!,:
Docwn",t p.' 39, paragraph 2 statu thai "No signiflCallt WDI.r feature, have bun
identified in (h. projed area. 'There/ore, no impacts QI'B anticiptlted in this regtll'd "
This statement certainly raises questions regording the documenl author ~
tpIIJlifications bectnISB the ~al is a water fealllrel A. IIieke u a tidal wave on a
I.: iI'S Ihe ,am8 problem tU crossing a room balancing a prmcJi bowl witMIII
spilling the contents. Except this "J1II1ICh bolfli" ho.r Q 8U1foce area IOOs of ftet in .
width, with Q IS 'depth. It wollld be like walking and balancing a bakmg panfilled
with water. The reservoir will contain ~ billion gallons of water. IA1'thqrulta in
excus 0/7.0 J11'OdIIt:s "ground rolU" simIt. to flipping tbtst from a blimJr6L .
Geologists anticiptlte a qu. oj ponlbly 8.D.1leIir San Bernardlno. ThiI area islllll
"relatively /lilt" ar slfIIed in ths documenl, p. 33, paragrapJr 6. The sur/acel8 on a 4-
5% slope, indeed lhe land dropI QPJ1I'ozimately 40' betMall Bartllne Avenue and "H"
Street, tmd V' and "E" Struts. With downtown San Bernlll'tlino located withinjiw
bLoeb 0/ North Laa, .t wollld be theejJiCI of even a Ilight tipping ojthe ruervoir
during Q crowded evenl such as "Rollle 66 Rendezvoll8?" The DEIR must give this
issue Q filii evalllation.
A.dditionolly,p. 46,poratraplt 3 refenlo "(...Rupons.l1.16(b)). n No "RuponSe
11.16" exists in the document. 17re document author talra this project's threat to
public safety so lightly, they haven't bothered to check such references.
5.13
o
7) lUsk o/promoting blight due to nontlltllinmenl 01 project gOIlIs:
Development goa13/or the North Laa area are simply poorly formed generalities
bClSed on achiev""ent of a truly "bul cClSe" scenario. This;s a crucial weabJu.rof
the plan - no developmenl altemalivu buidu absolute economic trant'orfllDlion at
some unspecified future date are suggesled Th4 wording of goals In not only wzgue. it
is wry deceptive; For eJClImple, the documenl p. J 6. paragraph 4 stalu, "Band on 1M
May, _~OO3 Marat and Financial Feasibility A.nalysis (The Natelson Company, p. 4),
the moifviable product type based on mQl'ket dellUJlllifor new bOllling u anticipated
to befor singJe-lamily lIomu ranging in lot lizsfrom 3,SOl} to 17, 200 (sic) Iflltft
feet. " Th4 Natelson re~t ~ 5) .rtQte~ that Ihis prediction is valid anI} If the /Qnd is
sold to developers at $2. 7S-$4.00 per sqllare foat; this after lhe cost lor land tII#mbly
5.14
28
.
o
o
c.,c,
Page Five
MEMO: Comments North Lake Project
October 22, 2004
October 22, 2004 and clearance is SI3. 00 J1B1' sqUll7'I. In olher words, some public
e",til)l would have to absOl'b a 10$$ oj$9. {)()..$I 1.25 J1B1' StJfIlI'8foot "'fOl'l the priwJIe
marlr.el would colUidcr ris1r:lng housing developmsnl- a virIfIallantl*n aMnI. .. The
doCll1fle1ft errors in two wilys regarding the Natelson ,tudy: Jint, 1M _ Ji'o1II whJdr
the iT(ortlUlllon WI drawn il three yetl1'l old and IIDtfrom Jlqy, 2003; tmd. ~
the 6eCOIJIlfigrn quol_ by the inUlal ~ tI.ocrRnent is in m'OI'i tM Natebon report
(p. 4) cites lot. rangefrom 3,$00-7,200 ItpItIrBfeet. .'
Sueh a land "p away" i.r highly unlikllly to be tlCCeptable given lotltzy'I eCDIfDIIIIc
cirCIIIIUIanCes. J'roject prrRtIOItr8 often l'e/er 10 land ckt1tranca t.luring,. 1951b 118
justifying ,. presentNorlh Lake pt'OpO$Ill. FiIcaltl$ wll III public IIIpJIOrl f. such
clBIITtmCUIID longered#s.lnthe 19506, the 1949Housing.Act~fortl2131
'cinnpenstllion/rOm the F..rtil govemmentlO a localjruisdicliollfor any Iou
encountered by tI reneWal project -the program lID longer uill,. Untiltlte 19708, the
Federal government.fimded up to ~ oflrlllUporltllion andwter infrtutructure
costs incurred by local jruisdicti0n8 - again, the,. program no longer exist. 17M
ending o/those programs is the rellSOPr wiry pre#nI rHeNlopment adiPitia across
urban A.merica depend so heavily on public-privaW parlFlUShip6. But there is lID
indlcaIion thDt tin)' $UCh parI1IUship tauts in this project. So, whUe the San
B,mardino Yalley Municiptll Water Di,trict (MUNI) may be able to jiwmce
construction of'h billion ,Dllon rnerl10ir cONring 44.5 IICI'Ysof the 82.4 acre Nortlt
/.aU project aretl, who wUl fund the economic dnelopment propostil, /01' the 38 ar:ru
surrounding the reservoir? MDre illJJlDrtantlv. .t would be the "'ect on the
surround"mg neighborhotid if tJJl. sut:CCssfiil....,opIM1rI occurred around tltis huge
body of water! The project would at best become a large S.&combe I..a8 ....re most
people/ear to wnture due 10 perceiied crime and lack ofsafel)l. The blight 10 be
incurred by Ihis tillernative needs to be clO&ely uamined in tM DEIR.
5.14
(cant.)
5.15
On p. 9, paragraph 4, the documUll jU$l!l1U lhe Norlh Lake projects ,imply because II
" ...providu additional oppot'IUIIIIia for nMtalizaIitm by cnating additiOlftll
commercial ptUls and additional raltJentiallots.H Fint, the project area tilmuly
possesses empty 1018, which should tIwn8el11es p1'O'Iltle opporllDllliu for apptOpriate 5.16
"inft11" rkvelopIM1II - if only tM city would ",. realistic goals for IM'-
neighborhood. Ulffortrmately, when distributing rehabilltation,/ilntb 'ONl" lhe post 40
years, the city Jw ignored this neighborhood. }low the City Wants 10 condemnJhe
DreQ became it u blighted Second, WlCiIilt lots surround Seccombe Lake, thea offer
simUar opportunities for residential and commercial d~opment, yet linle has taken
place in the two decades since Seccombe Lake was renewed .
Past experience has thus ,howrr that little developmsnt should be upectMllo. be
at/N!.CIed to. this project mea, Lt. ,imUar predicted development was fONCOSt twenty
years ago. for QTetIS lU1Toamdin, &ceombe J:.izk And 110 intere,t 1uu been:Mown fro",
the pril10te )eclor, except rmder conditio", where the land will be virtUally gi1Ien
- -._away. Thal's,hardly the course San Benrard'11IO ,hould be plo.tting at this time.
') ECOllomic and lr4/fic effects on downlo.wn San Bernardino. CIIUSed b"",,, of project
related _upIU",:
5.17
5.18
29
o
()
o
Page Six
MEMO: Comments North Lake Project
October 22, 2004
No mention i, made in 1M inlJiIll sludy to Ihe years of dimlption the c.lf/er ofStm
BIr'IIDI'tlino will bear os the reservoir is ~ tmtJ several kq sIrUU will be
'it"" closed, or wlllluM ,..ducId trqfftt: jlow& .4, J1f'OPOS'Il, "F." "0." arrtl"/r 5
Streels will be pmntI1'Ient/y clostul. In additiorr, BakflInlA\le1f,. and "EM St1wt will (~~t.)
be the nqrlMrn and eostembtnurdariu, rapectiwIy. WhalwiU be 1M impact 011
dOWlflOWtl tlCliviliu du, '0.'. dimlptiOIl that Ihis project UllaIlS? Thil.InCr'tft .
d"l$11Iplion of accuslbi/ity will pt'OlIIDIe juri".,. blight int'" dottintown commercial
district os wil as In tllilsplcljit: "elghbOrhood. 1111, _",. ".. to be spiIc;jktllly
tlIldrused III the DE1R.
The Norlh Lake project as described in.thU inilial study worJd be UNlCt:lpltlblein progrusiW!
communities. .41though it rtporll thai tatetUtle i-mtfzlizatioft will. DCCrII' through 1M lake. 110 ratlOlltll .
jtlstifu:ation exirtst4iSrippdrt lliis. Indeed, thl'OugJullltsmenl8 mtJtle by t~projects propoMIIII CWII'tM past
seven yeors. tile key objective is to elimi"tit, a blighted rwighborhOod and dI$p1'1t% ~ /o'rHrrt:DJM, nrostly
minority population.. MUNI claims it must haH tM proj,ct he,.. because the .Bosefirw .Feeder l1frostnlelUn
islocaled h.... The Baseline Feeder infrastructure II also loc:tlled along 1M Lytle Qoeet Wash, which II
public property, and wmdd not be os inlrusiye OJ an uta~ COlllllumity Q8 ,.proposed locatloll. .4lso, 1
DI1I pe1'sol'lDlly angered by the obvioUl misrepresentation oj the procB8I by answering an)' serious public
concem about the project by slaling.the proposed project is only a "concept. II T1r1l "concept" 1IlII been
moving tOWtll'dr realifY wilh few clrDnges in Us 1Mgallw impacts/or seWII yean. The cohtinual refmnce 10
it being a "concept" is clearly Q dsceptiN plOy. SiIIIilarly, on tIot:rnMnI po 9. paragraph 2. it indicates t1tat
the consu/lanb IuJw il'lcluded lechnical reporU thot specJfl~llylltl4rusu "community IlJI1uL "TIre DE1Jl
mllSt il'lClude tMl coltlmllllilY i",ut because il cerlainly Un', in the initial shuly. Citize~ tue proiectedftom
Ulfreosonable seizures Q/ propmy.
5.19
30
o
o
o
~~, . ~o, " _
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.5
Please note that Comment Letter #5 does not include any comments that are specific to the
adequacy of the Draft EIR, as the commenter has resubmitted a response to the Notice of
Preparation. However, an effort has been made to provide a response to the issues identified
(see responses below).
Responses to resubmitted Notice of Preparation comment letter.
5.1 Comment noted. In addition, the comment appears to focus on project impacts to police
services and the City's MBeat Program." As stated in the Draft EIR, based on input from
the City Police and Fire Departments, the North Lake Area project would not result in
significant impacts to City emergency services. In fact, the North Lake Area project is
anticipated to result in a net benefit/reduction relative to demand on City services.
5.2 The proposed water treatment plant would allow the treatment of water for potable use.
However, raw water from the North Lake reservoir could be conveyed from tI:le North
Lake reservoir via the Base Line Feeder, a raw water conveyance line, or via the H
Street Storm Drain. Neither conveyance method would require treatment by the
proposed water treatment plant.
5.3 Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description. As stated on page 3.0-15, the change in
elevation across the site of 40 feet translates to a slope of 1.41 percent.
5.4 Please see page 3.0-17, which states that the .slope at lake edge [would be] no steeper
than 4H: 1V (4 feet of run to 1 foot of rise)." This slope would be very shallow, resulting
in a change of elevation of only one fogt!or every four feet of horizontal change.
5.5 . Comment noted. Who will pay for a project is not a CECA issue and does not need to be
considered as part of the EIR. As the proposed reservoir is a SBVMWO project, it is
reasonable to expect that SBVMWD will be responSible for funding relocation activities.
Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, for additional information of project
objectives, project phasing, and the agencies responsible for implementing the North
Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects. Funding issues will be considered by the
, decision-making bodies when considering project approval.
5.6 Comment noted. The proposed North Lake Area project entails the. construction of a
regulating reservoir and proposed redevelopment activities adjacent to the reservoir. No
new pumps or pumping activities are proposed as part of this project. The proposed
project is a regulating reservoir that would receive water from existing pumping
operations that have already undergone environmental review under CEQA.
5.7 Comment noted. Please refer to Response 5.6. For additional information on hydrology,
please refer to Section 4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality.
5.8 Please see Section 4.10, Public Safety and Risk of Upset, for a discussion of impacts
and mitig~tion measures related to contaminated soils onsite.
5.9 Please see Section 4.9, Population and Housing, for additional information on this topic.
This section identifies that the City of San Bernardino currently has a vacancy rate of
City o~ San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
31
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.5
11.05 percent, which is much greater than .the ideal vacancy rate of 4.0 percent. New
housing would not have to be built to accommodate the persons displaced by
implementation of the proposed project.
5.10 Comment noted. Please see Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Action. This
section contains an analysis of alternatives to the North Lake Area project that include a
no project alternative, a larger lake alternative, a smaller lake alternative, a storage tanks.
alternative, alternative sites, and the Vision 20120 plan.
5.11 Comment noted. Please see Section 4.9, Population and Housing, for a discussion of
displacement of persons and businesses assOciated with the implementation of the
proposed project and a discussion of the potential burden of the proposed project on
low-income families, seniors, arid minority populations. No population would suffer
disproportionate impacts as a result of project imptementation.
5.12 Please see Section 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, for a' discussion of impacts to
schools and the number of students that would be generated by the proposed project
based upon the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Implementation of the
proposed project would result in a net reduction of approximately 228 students.
5.13 Please see Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant. for a discussion on the risk
of seiche associated with implementation of the proposed project.
5.14 Comment noted. The financial feasibility of implementing a project is not a CEQA issue
and does not need to be considered a~. eart of the environmental review process.
5.15' Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Ught- and Glare, for a discussion of the impacts of
undeveloped land. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 c requires undeveloped areas to be
stabilized with landscaping and maintenance of those areas until development occurs.
5.16 Comment noted.
5.17 Comment noted.
5.18 Please see Section 4.12, Traffic and Circulation, for a discussion of the impacts and
mitigation :Tlea$ures associated with construction traffic and street vacation.
5.19 Comment noted. Also, please see Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Action. This
section contains an analysis of alternatives to the North Lake Area project that include a
no project alternative, a larger lake altemative, a smaller lake alternative, a storage tanks
alternative. alternative sites. the Vision 20120 plan.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
32
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
" ~..
-~"~~
EXHIBIT 6
Correspondence received since the March 8, 2005 City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting
6-A Louis E. Goebel (04/18/05)
~., ....
G
EXHIBIT 6-A
LAW OFFICES OF LOUISE. GOEBEL
Telephone 6191239.2611
110 West "A" Street, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92101
~ECEJVED-.CIT'f CLERK
Fax 6191239-4269
000
'05 APR 18 P1:59
April 15, 2005
Mayor Judith Valles
and Members of the City Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Response of Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams, Ph.D..
to tlieDraft EIR for the North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
as currently presented
Hearing Date: Apri125, 2005
o Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
This firm is the attorney for Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams, Ph.D., the owner of the
property on which the former Stephens & B'obbitt Mortuary resides. The following
contains her response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") regarding .
the proposed project and her site particularly. For your convenience, her prior written
objections to the project and the DEIR and her comments in open session before the
Council are incorporated herein by this reference.
o
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. As currently presented, the Draft EIR, as to the treatment of the historic
Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary (now, "Victory Chafel, located at 1156 North "P" Street,
San Bernardino CA), is woefully inadequate and wit never pass muster hi the Superior
Court or the appellate courts. _
2. . Dr. Adams demands that this well-preserved pillar of the early history of
downtown San Bernardino be preserved on site. The Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary
meets all the requirements to be on the California Historical Register and will very soon
be so named. Your own EIR on the Uptown/Central North Redevelopment Project Area
confirms the same at Page 4.3.6.
3. The Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary is in the middle of the North Lake Area
Project, and thttEIR as submitted utterly fails to deal adequately with its future. Left as is,
the EIR and the entire North Lake Project will be stalled in the courts for months or years,
1
o
o
o
~~O"
4. The only prudent choice for the Council is to continue this hearing and after
careful study, provide an amendment to the Draft EIR which properly and precisely deals
with the future of the historic Stephen.s & Bobbitt Mortuary property in connection with
this project, and re-circulate the amendment for a 45-day public review.
THE PHYSICAL MAKE-UP OF THE STEPHENS & BOBBITT MORTUARY
5. The Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary was constructed in 1928. This one and two
story 9,393 square foot Spanish Colonial Revival s!}'le mortuary building is located on a
.91 acre lot on the west SIde of North F Street and faces east. It is one-half block south of
Base Line Street, a heavily trafficked commercial street, within a residential neighborhood.
The mortuary was constructed in 1928; a new chapel was added to the north elevation in
1938. The building is irregular in plan and sits on a concrete foundation. The reinforced
brick masonry structure is sheathed with smooth stucco. While the majority of the roof is
flat, the front portion features low front and side gables capped with decorative barrel clay
tile. Below the roof line, at the sides and rear elevations, the building walls are l'unctuated
with small square vents with wood slats. The fenestration pattern appears to bemtact
although some wood frame windows have been replaced with alummum sliding windows,
particularly at the south side elevation.
6. The facade features an arcaded entrance that terminates into the 1938 chapel
addition at the north end. The six arched openings are flanked on either side by a wmdow
sized arched opening. The northernmost arch and adjacent smaller opening have been filled
in to provide wall space for an interior office (ca. 1967). However, the filled in area is
recessed behind the wall plane so that the ar.ches still read as part of the arcade. The main
public entrance to the building is via a pair .0rWOOd paneled doors from within the arcade.
The doors enter into the reception area anddi~tly to the west is the original chapel. The
rooms to the left of the reception area originally served as offices. At the south end of the
arcade a wood staircase leads to the second story that housed a casket display room and the
undertak~r's five-room apartment; the al'artment ser es as housing for the cW'!ent owner.
FenestratIon on the second store facade mcludes three arched, wood frame wmdows that
were recently replaced (2004) based on historic photographs. North of the arcade, the
chapel is entered via a pair of paneled wood doors set with an arched opening that is
sheltered by a small gable roof porch extension. Small rectangular windows With decorative
wrought iron grills are located on either side of the entrance. A simple de<;:orative reliefis
located below the roof gable. The north side elevation features a one-stoiy shed roof
extension sheathed with clay tiles and adjacent one-story flat roofed portion to the west.
Along the walls of both are tall rectangular opaque fixed glass windows with simple sills.
The east wall of the flat roofed portion features a door that provided private access .to the
chapel's family rooms. The door has been replaced (date unknown). Directly behind the
chapel a one-story portion at the northwest corner was used as storage. A one-story garage,
whIch housed the mortuary's six vehicles, is located directly to the west of the original
1928 building and spans the entire original rear elevation. No vehicle doors or openings
remain on the garage (alteration date unknown). Within the building interior, the area east
of the garage is where the body preparation took place.
2
-"" ,,','
o
o
o
~,
...~
7. At the south side elevation all of the original door and window openings remain
intact although most of the wood frame windows have been replaced with aluminum sliding
windows. Doors on this elevation appear to have Qeen replaced (date unknown) and the
transoms have been,boarded. Historic photographs and Sanborn maps indicate that a small
gable roof porte cochere was located above the westernmost door on this side for discreet
access to tlie "slumber rooms" for private viewing of the deceased. A handicap access ramp
has been added to this entrance (date unknown).
8. Consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood, the property
features a turfed front yard with a concrete sidewalk and parkway strip. Two mature palm
trees are located in the front yard and small shrubs are located at the front and along the
south side elevation, The front yard was enclosed with a wood picket fence in 2000. Two
lattice entrance per~olas and a decorative fountain were added in 2004. The remainin~
property is paved WIth asphalt to provide vehicle access and parking, and the property IS
secured with a painted concrete block wall (1940). Concrete driveways are located both to
the north and south of the building. Concrete walkways providing-access to the building
from the sidewalk and parking areas aJ'pear to date from the time of construction. The
building is now the home of Victory Cliapel, a location for weddings, baptisms and other
celebrations The "Victory Chapel:" sign was added to the building in 1990 in the same
location as the original "Stephens & Bobbitt Funeral Directors' signage.
THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STEPHENS & BOBBITT MORTUARY
9. The Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary building is eligible for the California
Register of Historical Resources under Cri~rion 1 of the local level of significance for its
association with the history and developmenfofthe mortuary business in the City of
San Bernardino, and under Criterion 3 as a ~oGd example of a mortuary as a property type.
The period of significance for the property IS 1928 to 1964, the years during WhICh
Stephens & Bobbitt operated their mortuary at this location. The building is one of the only
remaining historic mortuaries in the city and retains a good level of integrity
10. The significance of mortuary buildings to the social infrastructure of a
community is generally not considered in traditional local histories. Furthermore, little
secondary source information is available on the mortuary, or funeral home as it is also
called, as a building type. At'the end of the nineteenth century, most Am~c8n,communities
had undertakers who would go to the home of the deceased and take care of activities, such
as funeral arrangements, casket selection, andcoordinatin~ the burial site with the local
graveyard. By the turn of the century, a variety of institutIOnal and cultural changes
contributed to the removal of the dead from the home. In his work, Rest in Peace author
Gary Laderman discusses changes in home design and domestic space, including the
disappearance of the parlor where funerals typically took place, as well as the
stanoardization of embalming in the preparatIon of the dead for disposal. From the
beginning of the twentieth century, embalming was the lifeblood of the American funeral
industry and the job of funeral directors became viewed as a profession. Between 1900 and
1920, schools devoted to training embalmers appeared in cities throughout the United States,
including Los-Angeles. However, as Laderman states: "... for the public to full relinquish
control ove~ the dead body; lose traditional familiarity with it in everyday life,
3
o
()
o
c,~
and embrace the entire range of services offered by the funeral director another mortuary
innovation would have to appear; the American Funeral home. The rise of funeral homes in
communities throughout the nation created a new social space for preparing, displaying. and
community with the dead. The introduction of the automobile, expansion of telephone lines,
and advances in public sanitation all contributed to the viability and efficiency of separate
funeral homes that cared for the dead."
11. In both interior layout and facilities, the funeral home provided a domesticated
space to care for the deceased and help meet the mourners' need for closeness with the body.
The buildings featured private rooms (not seen by the public where chemical embalming
and body preparation took place, casket display rooms, viewing rooms or "slumber rooms",
a chapel, living quarters for the undertaker and his family, and a garage for the business'
hearses. By the 1920;s funeral homes became the primary place for carrying out the
responsibihties associated with burial and were conveniently located within the communities
they served.
12. In the City of San Bernardino, the mortuary business has always been relatively
small. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from 1894 shows an undertaking business at
544 3rd Street. City directories form 1902 list three undertakers, all of which were located
within a block of each other on 3rd Street between C and # Streets -- W.O. Aldridge
(444 3rd Street), Barton & Catick (544-546 3rd Street, and McDonald Brothers (372-374 3rd
Street). All three undertaking businesses were in the heart of San Bernardino's downtown
commercial core located within the original townsite found~d in 1854. This mile squar~
area was bounded by present day lOth Street to the north, Rialto Avenue to the south, SIerra
Way to the east, and I Street to the west.
13. The next available directory in t906 shows that George Stephens was now in
business with W.O. Aldridge as Aldridge & Ste.phens. Just one year later, the firm became
Aldridge, Stephens & Dean, relocated to 410-420 E Street. Barton & Catick moved across
the street to 579 3rd Street. By 1911, Stephens & Son are listed as undertakers at 420 E
Street and were no longer in partnership with Aldridge & Dean. Barton & Catick became
J.W. Barton & Company located at 457 4th Street. The new firm of Mark B. Shaw appeared
at 496 5th Street. By 1913, McDonald Brothers is listed at J.D. McDonald Undertakmg
Company at 455 4th Street. .
14. In 1920, only the firms of Stephens & Son, still at 420 E Street, and
Mark B. Shaw, now at 468 5th Street, remain listed as undertakers. The 1926 directory
indicates that J.W. Woodhouse & Gompany was in business at 597 4th Street and George
Stephens went into business with James D. Bobbitt to form Stephens & Bobbitt. By 1928,
the firm relocated to a new Spanish Colonial Revival style building at 1156 North F Street,
several blocks north of the downtown area where mortuary businesses had been located
since the turn of the century. At the same time, J.W. Woodhouse & Company built a new
Spanish Colonial Revival style building at 1354 Mt. Vernon Avenue, almost directly west
of the Stephens & Bobbitt building. Shaw's business remained at 468 5th Street. By 1942,
Tillies Funeral Home opened at 551 Mt. Vernon, and by 1944, lW. Woodhouse & Company
became Kremer Funeral Home. In 1948, the Colonial Revival style Harrison-Ross Funeral
Home was cons.tructed on E. Highland Avenue ~22nd Street), signaling the beginning of the
move of mortuary businesses outside of the city s historic core. The company remains in
4
--"""",'
o
o
o
,.
""'.,'",
, '''' ""^','" '_"', "~V"'.' '." " "".",~" ",,>,,,,'
"'"""O~_
business today. In 1955, the long-time Mark B. Shaw Mortuary building at 468 5th Street
was demolished to make way for a new furniture store. The chapel was remodeled and
leased as cOf!lII1er~ial space, but is no longer.e~ant. The same year, the company moved
to a new Cahfortua Ranch style mortuary bUlldmg at 1525 N. Waterman Avenue, only a
few blocks from E. Highland Avenue, and continues to operate tody at this location.
Tillies Funeral Home as demolished some time after 12951. in 1964, the new Bobbitt
Memorial Chapel opened at 1299 E. Highland Avenue. Today, there are four mortuary
businesses located on E'. Highland, all of which are in the proximity of Mt. View Cemetery
(established 1907).
15. Of the various locations used for San Bernardino undertaking businesses before
1948, only the buildings at 1156 North F Street and 1354 Mt. Vernon Avenue remain.
The Kremer Funeral Home on Mt. V ernon Avenue is currently used as a Baptist Church.
The Spanish Colonial Revival style building has had some alterations since Its construction,
including the removal of the original clay tile roof and covered walkway to the facade
entrance. The integrity of setting has also been diminished by surrounding commercial
development. The Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary has had only minor alterations over time.
With the exception of the replacement of some windows with aluminum frame windows,
and removal of the porte cochere on the south side elevation, the building remains
remarkably intact, including the interior floor plan, site design, and overall setting.
16. Geor~e M. Stephens was born in New Haven, Connecticut, and came to
San Bernardino VIa Canada in the late nineteenth century. As indicated above, he
became involved in the undertaking business in San Bernardino in 1906, joining the
firm ofW.D. Aldridge to form Aldridge & Stephens. Stephens & Son was in business
independently following the partnership with Aldridge, from about 1911 to 1923.
At that time, Stephens went mto business with James D. Bobbitt and formed Stephens &
Bobbitt. James Bobbitt and family came to San Bernardino from Lynchburg, Ollio,
in 1923. Descendants continue to operate the funeral home in San Bernardino on
E. Highland A venue. The Bobbitt Memorial Chapel is one of the oldest continuously owned
and operated businesses in the San Bernardino County area. It is also one of the only
family-owned funeral homes businesses remaining in the San Bernardino County area.
17. Stephens & Bobbitt built a new funeral home for the business in 1928 on land
that George and ~athryn Stel'hens.purchased in a residential neighborhood on the west side
of North F Street Just below Baselme Road. The Stephens purchased the property from
Geor~e N . Voss, a local developer and contractor who designed and built ,the mortuary
buildmg. The mortuary is a good example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, popular
throughout Southern California in the early decades of the twentieth century and in '
particular the 1920's and 1930's. In San Bernardino, the style was favored for civic and
commercial buildings as well as apartments and single-family residences. The Stephens &
Bobbitt Mortuary building is highly utilitarian on the side and rear elevations with the
facade reflecting elements of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in its use of arched
openings, entrance arcade, clay tile roofin~, and wrou2l1t iron details. The building may be
one of the first mortuaries in San Bernardmo designed and built specifically for that purpose
as it was common for existing buildings to be converted to funeral homes in the early
decades of~e ~entieth century.
5
o
o
o
-
". _c,_
~""'-' "~'r."W"W''''"''''*T''''''''''''''?'''''.'""""""""'~, '::_"'!!
18. The public opening of the new mortuary building was on Sunday, October 14,
1928. The event spurred an almost entire page of articles and illustrations in the
San Bernardino Dailv Sun newspaper. As stated in on article: "Virtually in the center of the
city's pOI>ulation and in a district that is separated from the hustle and noises of the
congested business zone in the new funeral home of Stephens & Bobbitt. . . . The modem
work of a funeral director is to comfort a well as to bury and with these ends in view
George M. Stephens and J.D. Bobbitt. . . have embodied in their new building an
atmosphere of home rather than an office or business building."
19. As the article suggests, the mortuary was sited in a residential neighborhood,
in contrast to the commercial setting of earlier funeral homes. As San Bernaraino
experienced the growth of th~ boom of ~e, 1920's, the commercial ~ore no doubt be~ame
less than conduCive to the qUIet domesticated atmosphere then reqUired of the funeral
business. By this time, the former farm lots that surrounded the original townsite had been
subdivided for residential and commercial use and the urbanized area of the city expended
to 16th Street to the north, Waterman to the east, Mill Street to the south, and beyond
Mt. Vernon to the west. The chosen site for the new cemetery was' within a neighborhood
that included turn of the century Victorian era cottages, as well as numerous Craftsman
bungalows built during the Arts and Crafts period and into the 1920's. The mortuary
building like other puolic buildings within the neighborhood, was designed to complement
the overall scale, settins. and setbacks of the area. The interior of the building reflected all
the conveniences associated with a new funeral home during the first quarter of the
twentieth century. Characteristics of the property type it featured a second flood apartment
for the undertaker's family, three slumber rooms, ollices, casket display room, and chapel.
Private entrance to the slumber rooms and chapel was provided from Side entrances. The
bo~y preparation area was secluded from pubhc view and accessed from the rear of the
buddmg. -'"
20. George Stephens died in August 1935, but his wife Kathryn continued as owner
of the mortuary that carried the family name. In 1937, James and Lulu Bobbitt bought
1/2 interest in the property on North F Street from Kathryn, and a new chapel was built at
the north end ofilie mortuary building. The old chapel then served as a new casket display
room. By 1964, the Bobbitt family renamed the busmess, dropping the long-time reference
to George Stephens, and the new Bobbitt Memorial Chapel opened on East HiJdlland .
Avenue. The old mortuary building was sold to the San 'Bernardino Lodge of the Odd
F eHows for use as a meeting hall. According to Gary Bobbitt, grandson of James, the Odd
Fellows enclosed one. of the arches on the 8!cade to provide a wal~ f<,>r an interior office, and
the pews were removed from the chapel. Smce the 1980's, the buddmg has been used as a .
non-denominational church owned and operated by Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams.
WIDE-SPREAD PUBLIC CONCURRENCE THAT THE
STEPHENS & BOBBITT MORTUARY IS
"AN HISTORICAL RESOURCE"
21. Under contract from the City, CRM Tech, after extensive review, concluded that
the property at 1156 North F Street, the Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary, was an historical
resource. DEIR, Appendix 10.9, Page ii, Page 20. .
6
.
o
o
~ -_""0_"
~ ~~ '""~""~',,'""ry~""'"~"'''~",'"''''"r~.',," r
22. The EIR for the Uptown/Center City North Redevelo~ment Project Area
concluded that the propert~ at 1156 North F Street meets the City s criteria for determination
of "historical significance' . EIR, Page 4.3.6.
23. Janet Hansen, a highly regarded historic resources consultant, concluded that the
Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary is an historic resource and provided detailed back-up,
much of which is paraphrased m Paragraphs 5 through 20, above.
mE DEIR IS WOEFULLY INADEQUATE
IN ITS RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE OF
THE STEPHENS & BOBBITT MORTUARY
24. The final report on the environmental analysis in regard to this property is vague
and wishy-washy, leavin~ the public and the }lroperty owner with no assurance that the "
CEQA guidelines are $omg to be complied with, or whether all or only part of the so-called
recommended mitigatIOn is practically feasible and whether all or part, or none ofthe
recommended mitigation will ultimately actually be completed by the project.
25. We do know that, if the project remains as proposed, the Stephens & Bobbitt
Mortuary cannot remain on its current site. The unknown is whether it will be fairly
relocated or demolished.
" 26. San Bernardino has preserved very few precious historical resources.
The public and the property owner fervently hope that this precious historical treasure
will not be lost to the bulldozer in the crass manner as the Atwood Adobe was lost in 1975,
it then being San Bernardino's oldest structure. (Charles Palmer, Historic Preservation and
Urban Cultural Georgraphy in Southern California, pp. 69-70].
-.......
" 27. In conclusion, the DEIR, as prepared and as related to the historic Stephens &
Bobbitt Mortuary, is woefully inadequate. Your hearing on A}lril 25, 2005 should be "
continued, and the DEIR returned to tlie authors for amendment in accordance with
" Dr. Adams' numerous comments,'and the amendment be re-circulated for a 45-day
public review." "
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS E. GOEBEL
~ th .J.1 "", .-
Louis E. q~I\
Attorney for Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams, Ph.D.
cc:
James F. Penman, Esq., City Attorney
Rachel Clark, City Clerk "
San Bernardino Water Resources Joint Powers Authority
Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams, Ph.D.
Janet Hansen, Historic Resources Consultant
California Register of Historical Resources
7
o
o
o
""~"'__"'~.~m"'""".",.~~ ,.._",
MEMORANDUM
From: Dunna Adams, Ph.D.
1156 North F St. San Bernardino, Ca. 92410
Victory Chapel.909.884.6105 web-site: www.victorychapelweddinl5.com
e-mail: deannahelenaOeanhlink.net
To: Property ownen, businesses and churches (Mayor and Coundl)
Re: "Protect your freeaom ana constitutionaC rightS. If you ao not
fiBht this project you teach the authority to steaC from Jl (you) to
eive to'B (them) without consequences ana shame. :May your inner
spirit revoft aeainst this injustice ana your nature transform with
quaCities of ~een instaht, focus. strenetfi, ana aetermination ".
":May this eive you an opportunity to Ci6erate 60unaaries set forth
6y your oppressor to reaCize your rights written in the
Constitution". -Veanna Mams.
Dear Friend:
The purpose of my memorandum is to inform that you need leaal
representation for your riahU and protection from psycholOlkal,
inteDectuaI, and flnandal warfare. Youl'_war has bepn and the only
Interest this project basis an Interest In takln, your property with "fair
compensadon" and live k to another because of an Increued value of an
enhanced tax revenue. ,The term "falr compensadon" is an opinion of
what they consider "falr" and, "falmess", is not what reality is aD about.
Humanity and Loyalty Is on the table and tossed out without due
consideration rewardlna"B" for "A" suppordna the City In dm.,..-Of
need. .
This project tarptS an area who the City finds offense because the
area does not sadsfy the lmap embraced by Mayor Valles. Because of
extensive media, about Eminent Domain and case loads of lawsuits, I
believe you have a pod chance to win. You have nothln, to lose but ,aln
because ReaL Estate escalate each day, and' a Law Suit wDl live you
leverap and slow down the unholy alliance of the City with Munl and
developen. Those profits should be youn and not In the pockets of told-
dlaen u~nl the Law of Eminent Domain. Since Eminent DomaIn Is a
serious IssUe. believe your odcls Is pod.
Pap 1 .
o
o
o
'IT1'N~""""""'"
You can see that a ,oocI. ponlon of the project is not a reservoir and Is
classified as "prlvate use" opposed to .publc use". The reservoir Is
difficult to araue because of the Ilpubllc use" clause, however,. the
ponlon of the Non- Lake Area. as mention above Is an excellent araumenc
for "private use". The non ponlon part of che lake Is for 72 sI....e family
homes and 12 commercial pads Is a private pin for a developer; thereby,
a view noc favorable by Che courts. Because of.dds view, the dde Is In
our favor; ddes should noc assume a role as a Real Estate broker dearina
land for developen. In addition, .1 founcl slanlftcanc flaws pertalnlna to
che Draft Environmental Impact Repon, and can be chaIIeapd In a coun
of law. The Draft Is out elaced since many. chanps transpired In five yean.
Fine, the area Is low Income and residents are minorities
predominately Mexican-American who Is tarpted because of
lanpap, Sodal, and poUdc:aI dlsadvaataaes. The mayor has pointed out
that It Is dme for "new business and new people", and from read.... the
people's comments In che DEli the aim Is taqetI.., che low Income. I do
not believe che. City would tarpt an upscale area because of the affluence
and. educational level. The Norch Lake area tarpts 2185 people and from
those people, women are the head of the household with children.. Why Is
a reservoir In che middle of an Inner or central city thac Is fully populated
when chere Is so much vacant land avallablel Some of chat I wDI discuss
later. (DEIR reports 3.3 penons per household which Is Incorrect - che
reality Is 5.1 + penons per householel1437 x 5 . 2185 people)
. Second, the project does not promise an Increase of jobs to stimulate
San Bernardino's economy. A matter oifacc the Jobs lost Is 658 opposed
to 466 Jobs pined accordllll to the DEIR. this certainly points to a
project that tarpts the low Income and has a .... to replace It with
people who the city finds better. The Draft Environmental Impact Report
Is flawed In chelr statically analysis. pertaIaJftI to the populadon stock In
the proposed project. Slace the DEIR Is flawed, I believe chat the Job loss
Is peater than 658. The'Jobs lost Is based on the usumpdon of.
populadon Stock and the stoc.k Is 5.1 + penons per household opposed to
3.3 penons per householel. I believe the jobs lost exceeds 1000
calculadna the 5.1 + penons per household rado.
third, the project cannot promise the dtlzens of San Bernardino
success because the areas around the project Is similar to che one tarpted.
Upscale homes and businesses does not fit In che surroundln, areas.
The City believes that once. they have taqetecl this area, other seven
areas are to easier to folow. The Mayor's concept of her 20/20 VIsion. Is
the theorY OJ coll4uerln, areas Inch by Inch usln, the "public use" clause,
that is, "'water" as a lcapeaoat to accomplish her means. I do not beneve
Pap 2
o
o
o
:.
that her Vision of 20/20 wiD be successful because of the dty's tainted
Reputation and known use of a "wreckln, ball" destroyln, historical
roots, slrnmcant affordable housln, shortap and populldon boom.
Fourth, the redevelopment project Is based on "Hope" opposed to
"Facts". The experts of other related projects promised success; however,
projects In the North Lake area and other areas faDed. (I.e. Seccombe
Lake, Central City Mall. project, Th-.ter, Ball pme park, . etc.) All of the
experts predicted . people would flock to the City once the wreaIdnr ball
Is In place. Now, the experts predict success for the North Lake Project
but history will point out failure upon failure. We should correct our
failures and work to chaare those faDares. Let us start with the Great
WhIte Elephant "Central CIty. MaD" known IS "Carousal MaD". Carousal
Maills a Ghost MaD and such a failure that the rovernment Is their
present anchor tenant. The Cty 'believe that If the Lake works out well,
Carousal Mall previous anchor tenants.O.C. Penney, Harris, etc) will
return. UnDkely, because the Carousal MaD faDed and people are
condldoned. to ro to Inland Central Mill Instead. .
fifth, The project claims ........ business In the North Lake Area;
however, businesses and churches are thrlvl.... The business owner Is .
basically family operated. but nevertheless the business pnentes revenue.
How can a business be ""'DI If the jobs lost Is........ than the Jobs
,alned. (Draft Environmental Impact Report). If jobs were ""'111 In this
area, than the Jobs pined. would ..u($IpIy die jobs . lost. In this case, the
loss Is areater than the pin; tHerefore; another lie by the Mayor
perwnl... to her .....n' business conCept. this concept Is a repeat abuse
for the low Income people and there Is no parantee that there wID be
466 new jobs.
Sixth, The City claims the area b.....t. The City failed to provide
federal funds distributed for the area. Accordlnr.to the public comments
section In the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Dr James Mulvllle
Indicated that the CIty.....ectefI this area for 40 years. Dr. MuMile
further felt that the only reason this area Is tarpted Is to. let the minority
oud (DEIR) Since the Cty liqlected this area and used the money for
other areas, It seems evident that environmental InJustice beteD those of
low Income. Now, this area must face another doWnfall to step aside for
the more affluent. The Issue of bOpt Is borus and. can be resolved If the
City face their responslblUdes and wofk with the ddzens. Most of the
homes In question need a coat of paint and some lawn work. That Is aUI
The two. parcels owned by the CIty (Boys and GIrls dub) Is an classic
example of paint and landscaping; thereby, an Issue very simple to resolve
in this area. These235 homes are unique and connect to our historic roots.
Pap 3
C)
o
o
. . ...
, -,,- , - "..... -
- -." .,.....,'~
Seven, The DEIR Is flawed penalnin, to the historical data, seismic data,
etc. The DIEI was approved by the Planni.... Commission on 03/08/05;
however, those meIDben are not qualified to Interpret the experts. The
memben of the Planninr Commission are volunteen who are appointed by
'council memben and the mayor. How can a business owner or. lawyer
examine the contents of the DEIRrelatinr to a project of this mapltudel
One of the Plannen, a lawyer, aqued that he must rely on experts. How
can you rely on experts If the DEIR Is written for the proposed project
and pared towards meednr the requirements for the project reprdless.
AD comments were rejected by the Plunin, CommIssIon and further
Invesdradon or COIIIDIent by other experts was denied. I found that the
PIannIna Commission Is that similar of a.1Canaaroo Court and that. of .
Mayor Valles desires. I found that the whole matter was stapd except
Mn. Brown who told that all of the expertS from prior projects became
doomed and failed even thou'" those project were suppose to be
successful.
EI"'t, the proposed North Lake area consist of 221 (DEIR) survMn,
historic-era homes constructed datin, from mid 1910's to 1949. The
project selected only one handful to be moved accordl.... to the DEIR.
Who qualifies the historical ~and how can one hOuse be selected and
another notl My property 11!6 North Fls one of the five selected that
met the Clty's criteria; however, the DEIR pointed out the Chapel does
not qualify State or National ~~n. The DEIR Is flawed because the
property Is ellrlble for deslrnadon CO the Callfomla Repter of Historical
Resources. The property was found qualified by a certified historian and
the Chapel Is up.for nomlnadon. Further, the only two parcels saved' In
the project Is owned by the City and another parcel of the .handful Is
Owned by the City Redevelopment ArencY. (2 parcels - boys and rlrIs
dub) It Is rather colnddental that the property owned by the, City
Redevelopment Apnq was purchased In the year 2000.
The craftsmanship of those historical properdes Is Irre~le and
to replace the beauty with square blr box homes Is another crime aplnst
history and the people. PersOnally, I pfeter a historic home opPosed to a
new home because each home Is deslrned creadvely and different. I view
the square box homes sterile, a lack of creativity; because new homes
look alike. Most of aD, our roots of history Is the sum of time and
historical events. Cities of' popularity are all endowed with
historical homes and landmarks. Compare Pasadena with San Bemardlno
or San Antonio. Than, why Is San Bemardlno Interested In destroyln,
hlstorlcal-lic.mes and '-dmarks~ The City Is Immensely destructive that
In 1989'Mayor Holcomb had to declare an emerpncy historical
Pare 4
o
o
o
--~-~"'= ',---' -- -.-" - '-,--,-,~---""-~,-~----",~-~--,,,-,'- - -""---"'\'~
preservadon act. Unbelievable!
Nine, The mean price of each property Is $275K In the proposed
project. The Real Estate value of duplexes, trl-plexes, and apartments
exceeds $275K - $450K., The avera,. home In the area Is between'
$200K-$250K; therefore, I esdmated an ave... value of $275 for each
unit reprdless. The esdmate value for the 72 upscale homes project sales
- of $250K - $400K. In oreler to Increase the tax base the upscale home
wiD have to Increase triple fold conslderlnr future sales for the homes
estabUshed In the nelahborhood. The tax base Is Increased when a
property Is sold, and the aver. American moves once every seven years.
I do not believe the upscale homes wID ever exceed $4OOK; therefore, the
present. nelahborhood has more potential to boost the. tax rev.ue. It will
take years to Improve the ...... of San Bernardino to meet a value
exceedlnr $4OOK In the Central City .......borhoods. The proposed project
upscale homes has to compete - and most Ukely wID fall because of other
desirable cities. As I mentioned above with a clap of paint and -
landscaplnr, each historical home has more potential for profit In the lon,
run. People are attracted to historical homes, and cities treasured with
historical homes are more resourceful and successful. In summary, our
established historical nellhborhf)ocl offen far more economic potential
opposed to a nelahborhood of 72 upscale homes In an area centered
amoDltow Income peoples. I was disturbed In quesdonllll the status
pertalnlnr to the availabiiity of affor,,-houslnr when there Is an
Increase In population. In the DEIR k States deuty that JObs wUI exceeds
the houslna market. Why eliminate 437 homes for people when the
potential Job market exceeds the housllll market In the ...... future. Upon
examlnllll all. evidence this project Is really the IIGreat. WhIte Elephant".
The elected 0fflclais Is Dot only betraylnr our natural herltap "water";
(cklzens of San Bdno does not benefit from the 'sale of the water
estimated at $120 mDUon per year) (loss of tax revenue from the use of
our land because pwernment cannot tax pwernment) (no ~
statement to proof profit for San Bdno's citizens) but, Inhlbldnr the Job
market because of the affordable houslnr shoRap. The dtlzens of this
City can also expect an Increase In water - bUls. (4O.6% popula~n Increase
in fifteen yean.) To conclude, San Bernardino shonap of houslnals
foreseen If we eliminate an entire affordable and historical nel",borhood
What Is nextl You mlaht wonder why this extensive letter and what wUI I
,.t out of thlsll _ compelled to write because lostlll your Constkudonal
rlahts has an profound effect Oil; all of us. In other words, your freedom Is
Important because when your freedom Is at risk, my freedom Is In
questloli~ No bome, business, and church Is safe.
Pa,. 5
o
o
o
__c"ow _"O~_~,~, c="C""", ",,"'" """',C',,~_
TIme Is an Important factor, and Is essential for you to create a
canopy to protect you from severe blows. WIthout an attorney
representl.., you, the attack Is severe and can hann you with lifetime
InJurtes. Please refrain from dol.., your own nepdatln, since you do not
have the lepl expertise and lack the shrewdness to shield younelf from
the attack. Investlpte the quallflcatloas of your Eminent DomaIn attorney
that be or she Is not In alliance with the City and or Water Department.
The people spearheadlna this project hallmarks deception, prejudice and
envlronmentallnJusdce towards the minority. In case you feel uneasy In
retalnlnl an attorney you may contact my attomey who exclusively
represents the property and/or business owner. Victory's Chapel attorney
Is not a dual apnt repnsendn, the IOve.......t ... property owiIers.
Each client wID have the opportunity to be heard by her or his fellow
peen, and compensation awarded for the Injustice and suffertna. (Jury
trial) Most of you have been faithful and loyal citizens for yean, and a
dlsrupdon of neI...borhood ties and plan Is somethin, that should not be
taken IlahdY. You wID pay no up front fee to the attomeyand each case
will have the opportunity for a trial. You wiD feel uplifted challe....1II the
oppressor and perhaps life wID retum to nomal after the expertence of
the "putbetrayal".
5Ummartzlna the' North Lake project and the despotic use of Eminent
DomaIn~
ades may seek wealthy residents and hJaher taxes but they
cannot do so at the expense of your -constltudonal rt...ts.
11M condemnations of the project lack 'any reasonable foreseeable use for
the non-pordon part of the North Lake area. The project must secure the
citizens of San Bernardino a realized benefit and not speculadon. The
North Lake project Is based on a redevelopment of "HOPE". ' Accordl..,
to the Press Enterprise the City seeks an atmosphere In the heart of San
Bernardino similar to the San Antonio RIver walk. this development of
hope Is land use unforeseeable. The requirement of a reasonable. ,-
foreseeable use Is an established doctrine within eminent domain law. A
palntlnl on canvas and a wrecldn, ball plus a dream hoplna that people
come to a destination because of a body of water. Is not a realized benefit.
Let us review the comparison of the San Antonio RIver Walk vs. San
Bernardino's Reservoir.
First, San Antonio makes the RIver walk, because The RIver walk
(1531) Is a history of almost 500 yean. WIthout time and history of
events the rtver walk Is simply a body of water. Therefore, San Antonio
makes tbefamous RIv~r walk. Tbe San Antonio rtver Is a source of a South
Texas treasure and a IlfeDne of many generations for centurtes past. San
Page 6
~ -..~_..
o
o
o
"~.
_..,-
,,~~
" . --~~v~'-j,,,.,,,,,,,,,",,,,.m,,,~,\,""
Antonio is a metropolitan city that offen numerous historical sipificance.
To name.a few: The Alamo (1836) , Casa Navarro State Historical Park,
Kin, William Historic Area, La VIIIita, Mission Trails, etc. The Imap of
San Antonio Is a city with an outcome of history unlike San Bernardino.
San Bernardino can not be compared to the historical San Antonio. The
enrichment of history from 1531 Is what. Invites people to the RIver
waik, Alamo, etc. What does San Bernardino offer but a wreakina ball
and a uHOPE" that people are Inspired to come.
Second, San Bernardino does not have major luaues or cultural
events as SIn Antonio. Culturally speaIcIq San Bernardino's symphony
orchestra is In need 01 funds to stay In tune. What maJor leapes cIoes SaIl
Bernardino havel San Antonio has the NBA uSPURS" basketball team,
San Antonio Rampap (Central Hockey Leape)
San Bernardino reports that extensive revitalization will occur
throuah the water (Lake); however, no ndonal Jusdftcadon exists to
support this. Further, comparison of the' sI....cance between the two
cities relatina in cIIltural and the arts Is like a Swan and a Duck.
The Lake Is In reality II Munl'slteservolr" and this water Is sold
To other coundes and cities for $300 -$450 per acre foot. (300,000 per
household) (300,000 x $400 . $120,000, 000) The citizens 01 San
Bernardino wit NOT REALIZE A PENNY of the wholesale business in
selli.., water. Our natunI heritap UWATER" Is up forarabs and we
should look forward payIna an Inc...... when the demand exceeds the
supply. M.11s able to finance construction of 1J. bIIIIonlallon reservoir
coverina441/2 acres of the 82.4 acre 'North Lake project area, but who
will fund the economic developm.t proposals for the 38 acres
surround.... the reservolrl Massive public subslclles would be required
and ..-radna future rev.ues from tax in~t and sales tax to repay
the massive public ,subsidy of redevelopment funds In a reasonable period
of time would be arossIY incapable. Thus, massive pubUc su~Jn the
North Lake project co....es an unfair proportion of the Clty's.resource.
The Water Is considered pubUc use, however, I question the use. Since
the reservoir does not support' destination is there an alternative for the
water to be soIdl Yes, in the DEIR there are alternatives, however, Muni
claims k must have the project here because the' BaselIne Feeder
infrastructure Is located there. The Baseline Feeder Infrastructure Is also
located alona the Lytle Creek Wash, which Is public property, and not be
as intrusive of an established historical community. All alternatives have
been rejected because the water Is necessary for the destination. What
destlnadon1' The concept of the Qty's Idea of IIwater" has no foreseeable
use and 'the surroundln, nelahborhoods similar to the nelahborhood In
Pap 7
.
o
o
.
. - ,~~,-lJl.!!l; ~
the proposed project equals the support . of unforeseeable use. I do not
believe that the body of water (Lake) will contribute to the enhancement
of a surrounded bllallted area. The risk of promod.... bllallt due to no
attainment of project aoaIs sets the Stap for Ha vlnualland" "live
away". Such a land "live away" Is hlahIJ to be acceptablealven
today's economk drculllStances. tile economkallnjusdce for the people
who were forced out equals die Injustice for the citizens of San
Bernardino. The development aoaIs for the North Lake area an simply
poorly' fonned speCulations. TIIe.cky sutfen not only the loss of the land
used fortbe reservoir In. reprds to sales and property tax but does not
reap the Benelk's the reservoir makes. So, the reservoir Is a full blown
money machine and the Cky's promise f~r success Is a development of
"hope" dnamlaa a San Antonio -RIver walk".
The non-lake ponlon of the North Lake area. asCIIIIteJ that the dared
land would be sold at a future point hi time toa private partner that
would develop 72 new sInaIe family homes and 12 commercial space. The
City has no fonseeDle developer for the project and assume a role as
a Real Estate Broker hopIna to find a private partner. The Institute of
Justice aqued on 02/22/2005 at the US Supreme Court that
munldjtalldes should not,be Involved hi speculative real estate ventures
with private enterprise. "Speadaaye development projects are the.
province of private enterPrIse, DOt aovernment".
If the JOVernment can take your home simply because k .aoln, to
,enerace mor tax revenue, that's wrina. Then. nobody's home, business,
and church Is safe. Most of all, a constitutional protecdon has been
erased. (nodce: six churches eliminated and not one. church replaced In
the project) (church does Increase the tax base) .
.No other objections at this time. ThIs memo Is the end for the.
aovernment naden.
Slncenly,
Deanna Adams, Ph.D.
r--~
-,
Pap 8' '..
· The followln, above Is my obJecdons conduslve In simple letter form
To the Mayor and Condl Memben.
A
.,
o
o
,..""",.
EXHIBIT 7
1
2
3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING mE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
5 ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJEC:r AND THE soum LAKE AREA
6 PROJECT, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06, AND
7 TABLING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07.
8
9
10
4
SECTION!. RECITALS
(a) WHERfS:)e
BemanIino ("City'~ ~
ommUJriP the City of San
fu J; by 4.>1ution No. 89-159 on
11
12
13
June 2,1989; and
(b) WHEREAS, the City and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
14 District ("SBVMWD'') prepared an Initial Study dated March 14, 2003, which was
15 circulated for public comment between March 14, 2003, and April 14, 2003, for the
16 proposed North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project, and following the
17
18
19
end of the comment period for the March 14, 2003, environmental study, the City in
consultation with the SBVMWD updated and redistributed for public comment and
review a revised and Expanded Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse,
20
21
responsible agencies and interested persons for a second 30-day comment period for the
22 Program Environmental Impact Report between the dates of December 24, 2003 to
23 January 28, 2004; and
24 (c) WHEREAS, an Expanded Notice of Preparation for a Program
25 Environmental Impact Report for the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South
26
27
28
Lake Area Project was prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible
agencies and other interested persons in December, 2003, and published in The San
Bernardino County Sun on December 22, 2003; and
1
G
o
o
~ - -.
- --- _...~ -- '<-\c.;.eX'""",,,,?t'!
1
2
Preparation was December 23, 2003 through January 28, 2004; and
3
4
5 on January 15,2004, to give the public the opportunity to provide comments as related
6 to the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project and the issues
7 the p.ublic would like addressed in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
8 ("EIR"); and
9
10
11 September 7, 2004,
12 October 22,2004; and
13 (g) WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, a public workshop was conducted
14 relating to the Draft Program EIR; aIld
15
16
17
18
19 public review period and written responses were provided on March I, 2005 and the
20 specific responses to the written comments are in the Final Program EIR; and
(d)
WHEREAS, the public comment period. for the Expanded Notice of
(e)
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held at the Feldheym Library
(f)
~TPubliC review on
p . ..L. ~e f period ending on
(h)
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2004 a public workshop was conducted
relating to the Draft Program EIR which was presented in the Spanish language; and
(i)
WHEREAS, six (6) comment letters were received before the close of the
21 (j) WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of
22 San Bernardino held a noticed public hearing on the North Lake Area Project and South
23
Lake Area Project in order to receive public testimony and written and oral comments
24
25
26 compliance with City requirements; and
relating to the Draft Program EIR and proposed amendments to the City General Plan in
27
28
2
- ----,---
.-~-
- -"----=~'2=
o
1
2
Services Department Staff Report on March 8, 2005, which addresses the Draft Program
3
4
(k)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Development
EIR and the proposed amendments to the General Plan; and
5
(I)
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a
o
6 resolution recommending that the Mayor and Common Council certify the Final
7 Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2oo3121150), adopt the Mitigation
8
9 =n):e~ p~ and ~tGen~ p[:f~ 2:::
10 No. 05-07 (Land Use tiI clion of construction
11
12 of the regulating reservoir in the fonn of an at-surface lake; and
13 (m) WHEREAS, on April 14, 2005, a public workshop was held at the
14 Feldheym Library to answer questions about the acquisition/relocation process for the
15 North Lake Area Project; and
16
17
Common Council and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of
18
19 Directors conducted a noticed joint public hearing to consider certification of the Final
20 Program EIR for the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, adoption of
21 the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration, adoption of the
(n)
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City of San Bernardino Mayor and
22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and, in the case of the City, adoption of
23
General Plan Amendment No. 05-06; and
24
25
26
0 27
28
(0) WHEREAS, the North Lake Area Project site includes approximately
82.4 acres located in the central portion of the City of San Bernardino, immediately
north of downtown San Bernardino. The North Lake Area Project is bounded by
Baseline Street on the north, 9th Street on the south, "E" Street on the east, and "H"
3
">' ">"
",W" """"~)l)l
o
Street on the west. Portions of the North Lake Area Project site located along Baseline
Street and "E" Street are within the City's Uptown Redevelopment Plan Project Area;
and
o
o
4
o
o
o
..__~".- . n_"~
. """". .'" ... . ,w. T-'wT 'W
-',;.,.-,-",-;o,,;,,~-:<~
1
2
public access would be interspersed along all four sides of the North Lake Area Project,
3
of approximately 12 acres of commercial areas. As amenities to the lake, open space and
4 providing public access to the new lake; and
5
(r)
WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes approximately 53.7
6 acres of land bounded by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way on the
7 north.(south of Rial to Avenue), Mill Street on the south, "G" Street on the east, and the
8
Interstate 215 on the west. The Lytle Creek Flood Control Channel and the Interstate
1: 21sn:undW:~ ~ *r~::j: ~.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
approximately 57 percent of the total South Lake Area Project, includes vacant land and
much of this vacant land is presently owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of San Bernardino. Nonconforming industrial land uses encompass approximately 19
percent of the total South Lake Area and include an estimated 251,621 square feet of
floor space. Commercial uses encompass approximately seven percent of the total South
Lake Area and include an estimated 116,802 square feet of floor space. Residential uses
within the South Lake Area Project account for approximately one percent of the total
area; and
21
(t)
WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes the assembly of land
22 by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino and redevelopment
23
assistance to eliminate blight on this site and reuse and redevelopment for up to 450,000
24
25
26
square feet of office development with 31,500 square feet of supporting retail, together
with all necessary parking and landscaped areas. The South Lake Area.Project will also
27 include an approximately 5-acre wetlands area, or other water body feature on an
28 approximately 13-acre triangular parcel intended to incorporate additional landscaping
5
"P ~ c~~~_ """ , T' , ,,~~" '.' T""" '''''''~"'~~'''~'''~C
".c-,7"r"":":,,,,,,'-;<r1:':~'!"~
o
and open space components, and/or other community gateway element, which would
o
The facts and information contained in the Recitals section are true and
o
6
o
o
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0 27
28
" """,,,,,w~,,,,"'<'_~"_
1
2
been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final
3
4 Program EIR, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and all the
5 evidence and infonnation contained therein are on file with the City Clerk's Office and
6 are incorporated herein by reference. The Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
7 Con&i,deration are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.
8
9
10
11
12
13 of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project, and an amendment to
14 the City's General Plan to change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Area
15 Pro' t
~ec .
D. Although the Final Program EIR identifies certain significant
environmental effects that would result if the development of the North Lake Area
Project and the South Lake Area Project occurs, all significant effects that can feasibly be
avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation of the mitigation
measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Final
Program EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and all infonnation
contained therein is included in the Final Program EIR and incorporated herein by
reference.
Street from the General Plan Circulation Element as desi8J'lIted secondary arterials) have
C.
The Final Program EIR has identified all significant environmental effects
E. Potential mitigation measures and other project alternatives not
incorporated into or adopted as part of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake
Area Project or amendment to the City's General Plan to change the circulation element
7
G
o
o
I r 1/~CC-CC"",~~">'"C"""'C""~"">,,,.~~
1
2
within the North Lake Area Project by removing "G" Street between 9th Street and
Baseline Street and 1 Oth Street between "E" Street and "H" Street from the General Plan
3
4 Circulation Element, were rejected as infeasible, based on specific economic, social, or
5 other considerations as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
6
7
Consideration.
. F.
The Mayor and Common Council have given great weight to the
8
environmental impacts. The Mayor and Common
dabl .. enE' XearlY outweighed by
fi orth Je Area Project and the
significant unavoidable adverse
:; ~~c::fi
12
13
South Lake Area Project, and the amendment to the City's General Plan to change the
circulation element within the North Lake Area Project which removes "G" Street
14 between 9th Street and Baseline Street and I Oth Street between "E" Street and "H" Street
15
from the General Plan Circulation Element, as set forth in the Facts, Findings and
16
17
18
Statement of Overriding Consideration.
G. The findings contained in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
19 Consideration with respect to the significant impacts identified in the Final Program EIR
20 are true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the record, including
21 documents comprising the Final Program EIR.
22
H.
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring
23
SECTION m. FINDINGS
27 A. The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of San
28 Bernardino General Plan is consistent with the General Plan in that Goal 6A states:
8
o
o
o
27
28
~"~~_.~V""'."..'~T.'.'"" ~r:"r'"~--
1
2
"Achieve an integrated, balanced, safe and efficient transportation system that
accommodates the demand for movement of people, goods and services throughout the
3
4
City..." The Program EIR evaluated the deletion of "G" Street between 9th Street and
5 Baseline Street and 1 Oth Street between "E" Street and "H" Street as secondary arterials
6
7
from the General Plan Circulation Element and evaluated the vacation of all streets
withip the North Lake Area Project to determine whether any of these actions would
8
negatively affect the overall distribution of people, goods and services throughout the
of:,f::::::
9
10
City. The Program E
Circulation Element
11
12 impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Therefore, this
13
amendment is not in conflict with the General Plan.
14
B.
The deletion of the street segments from the Circulation Element, and
15 ultimate vacation of all streets within the project area, would not be detrimental to the
16
17
18
19
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Through the public
review process for the Draft Program EIR., City departments (including but not limited to,
Police, Fire, and Public Services) and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies
20 had the opportunity to review and comment. No comments were received that identified
21
22
23
land uses within the City.
24
impacts.
C.
The amendment to the Circulation Element does not affect the balance of
D. The amendment to the Circulation Element does not affect the General
25
26 Plan Land Use Map.
9
o
o
o
1
2
3
4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
5 Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that the Final Program
6 Environmental Impact Report (SCH2003121150) is hereby certified, the Facts, Findings
7 and Statement of Overriding Consideration are hereby adopted, and that the Mitigation
8
1: & ~IsmB=-ro
11
12 change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Are Project by removing "G"
13 Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 1 Oth Street between "E" Street and "H"
14 Street from the General Plan Circulation Element as secondary arterials is hereby
15 adopted.
16
B.
17
18
19
20 C. The amendment designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 is
21 hereby tabled.
22
23
24
hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino
25
26 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California
27 Environmental Quality Act in preparing and adopting the Final Program Environmental
28 Impact Report, Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration and
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION OF THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The amendment designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 shall
take effect upon adoption of this resolution by the Mayor and Common Council as
provided herein.
SECTION VI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is
10
o
o
o
W" O'U
",r'"'O-
"C.--"",'':'''.''''~:D!'
t
2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. A copy of the Notice ofDetennination will be
forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
3
4
5
6
7
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE
The certification of the Final Program EIR and the adoption of the amendment
designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 shall not be effective, and a Notice of
Detetmination shall not be filed, until SBVMWD has separately certified the Final
8
Program EIR through its independent official action of its elected officials constituting its
9 government body and .: f:;:"'g and Roporting
:: Program and/or FactS;' 'ding 'ideration as a part of
12 such Final Program EIR and the implementation thereof.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
o
o
o
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
2 FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
3 ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA
4 PROJECT, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06, AND
5 TABLING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07.
6
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
7
8 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held
9 on the
10 Council Members:
,2 5'bl...e~0I:rl . . tetowit:
. Abs Absent
. ..
11 ESTRADA
12
13
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
14
15 DERRY
16
17
KELLEY
JOHNSON
18 MC CAMMACK
19
20
21
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
22 2005.
23
24
25 Approved as to form and Legal Content:
26 By:
27
28
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
day of
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
James F. Penman
City Attorney
12
o
o
o
- ~----
to: ~il~~.; r u<
- --
EXHIBIT '-D
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REpORT FOR THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003121150)
, <
C..: ~,l(-j;l 1:'_ ~,'
o
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REpORT FOR THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003121150)
o
1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................
2.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................
2:1 Project Description......... .... ..... ....... ......... .... ........... ......... ...... ...... ........ .....
2.2 Project Objectives ... ..... ........... ..... ....................... ............... ....... ...............
3.0 Environmental Review and Public Participation .................................................
3.1 Independent JudgeDlent Finding..............................................................
3.2 Findings on the Final Progrant EIR. .........................................................
3.3 General Finding on Mitigation Measures ................................................
3.4 Environmental Impacts and Findings ......................................................
3.5 Impacts Identified in the Final Program EIR. as Less Than Significant
R .. N Miti' ti'
eqwnng 0 ga on............. ........... ............ ..... .......... .......................
. Aesthetics, Light and Glare................................................................
. Air Quality ... .................... ..... ........... ................................. .......... .......
. Biological Resources ............ ....... ........................ ..... .............. ...........
. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ..........................................................
. Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................
. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................
. Land Use and Relevant Planning.......................................................
. Population and Housing.....................................................................
. Public Safety and Risk of Upset ........................................................
. Public Services and Utilities ..............................................................
. Traffic and Circulation..... ....... ...................... ......... ......... ......... ..........
3.6 Potentially Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated Below a Level
of Significance With Mitigation Measures.............................................. 18
. Aesthetics, Light and Glare................................................................ 18
. Biological Resources ......................................................................... 19
. Geology, Soils and Seismicity ................................................._....... 20
. Historical and Cultural Resources ..................................................... 21
. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................ 22
. Land Use and Relevant Planning....................................................... 23
. Noise ........................ .<........................... .............................................. 23
. Population and Housing..................................................................... 25
. Public Safety and Risk of Upset ........................................................ 25
. Public Services and Utilities .............................................................. 26
. Traffic and Circulation....................................................................... 27
o
i
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
~,.
o
o
o
.' ~(_::: Ll;
... ..~
3.7 hnpacts Analyzed in the Final Program EIR and Determined to be
Significant and Unavoidable. ................. ........................ .... ........... ........... 27
. Air Quality ... ...... ......... ............. ....................... ............. ............... ....... 28
. Land Use ... ......... ................ ............. .................. ................. ................ 29
. Population and Housing..................................................................... 29
. Public Services and Utilities .............................................................. 30
3.8 Project Alternatives and Analysis............................................................ 31
North Lake Area Project Alternatives...................................................... 31
South Lake Area Project Alternatives...................................................... 43
3.9 Project Benefits ......... ..... ....... ....... ....... ...................... ......... ........ .............. 52
North Lake Area Project .......................................................................... 52
South Lake Area Project .......................................................................... 52
3.10 Statement Of Overriding Considerations ................................................ 53
. Air Quality ......................................................................................... 53
. Land Use ............................................................................................ 53
. Noise........ ....... ..... ....... ....... ........................ ....... ...... .......................... 53
. Population and Housing .................................................................... 53
. Public Services and Utilities .............................................................. 53
3.11 Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the
CEQU Mitigation Measures ...........................................................:.:....... 53
"F
ii
o
o
o
~~--,-,,-
.~-
,-, ',,--0'
j:ir.,p it..
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REpORT FOR THE NORTH
LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE No. 2003121150)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Mayor and Common Cowcil of the City of San Bernardino (City) and the San Bernardino Valley
MWlicipal Water District (SBVWMD) in approving the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final
EIR") for the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project by their separate official actions
as Co-Lead Agencies have been presented with the relevant facts and through their separate official
actions make the fmdings described below and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations
presented at the end of these Facts and Findings~ The "Project" under consideration for purposes of the
discretionary actions of both the City and the SBVMWD as descnbed in Section 2.0.
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project are each a Series of public facility
projects and community redevelopment projects affecting lands to be acquired for the North Lake Area
Project and the South Lake Area Project, as applicable by the SBVMWD, the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of San Bernardino ("Redevelopment Agency"), and the City.
The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project are proposed to be undertaken in two distinct,
nearby but non-contiguous planning areas, which fall within the boundaries of the City of San
Bernardino, and can be found on the U.S. Geological Survey's San Bernardino North and San Bernardino
South, California Quadrangle (refer to Exhibit 3-1, Regional Map, and Exhibit 3-2, Vicinity Map of the
Draft EIR). The City is located in the western-most portion of San Bernardino County, approximately 59
miles east of Los Angeles and 110 miles north of San Diego. Located at the base of the San Bernardino
Mountains, the City and its sphere of influenec cover approximately 64 square miles, and share the
Southern California region with the adjacent cities of Colton, Highland, Redlands, Rialto, and Lorna
Linda.
Collectively, the potential environmental effects of the elements of the proposed public facilities,
redevelopment, and related activities for the purposes of the indicated analysis under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), is described herein and in the appropriate Resolutions of the City
and SBVMWD as the "Project."
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes the following elements:
NORTH LAKE AREA
. Mixed-use development including lake, residential, commercial and park uses;
. Camp Fire Boys and Girls facility would remain;
. 44.5-acre lake (approximately 660 acre-feet of water storage);
. Planned Residential Development 72 detached-wits;
. Three commercial pads (approx. 12 acres total); and
. 8-MGD Water Treatment Plant.
City of San BeJ'lW'dino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Apri125, 2005
SCHNa.203121150
o
o
o
~~""~
,'p".
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final ElK
Findings
SOUTH LAKE AREA
. 481,500 SF redeveloped With commercial mail and office space; and
. 13 acres of open spacellandscaping enhancements, including a 5-acre water feature (i.e.,
lake or wetland).
The Project affects two (2) areas located in the cen1ra1 portion of the City. The site of the North Lake
Area Project includes 82.4 acres located in the central portion of the City, innnediately north of
downtown San Bernardino. The North Lake Area is boWlded by Base Line Street on the north, 9'" Street
on the south, "E" Street on the east, and "H" Street on the west. Portions of the site located along
Baseline Street and "E" Street are Within the City's Uptown Redevelopment Project Area, while the
remainder of the project site is Within the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) Redevelopment
Project Area,.The site of the South Lake Area Project includes approximately 53.7 acres boWlded by the
BNSF Railroad right-of-way on the north (south of Rialto Avenue), Mill Street on the south, "0" Street
on the east, and Interstate 215 (I-215) on the west. The Lytle Creek Flood Control Chamlel and the 1-215
northbound on-ramp 1raverse the southern portion of the South Lake Area Project.
2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The general objectives of the Projects are to facilitate redevelopment, promote economic development for
the City, and provide new water storage facilities Within the City. The individual objectives of each
Project are described below:
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
1) Provide SBVMWD With sufficient surface storage capacity to meet its near term goal of 347
acre-feet near existing infrastructure including the Base Line feeder and SBVMWD and
USEP A groWldwater pumping operations;
2) Create a surface storage reservoir in proximity to current water production facilities (to limit
pipeline length) and upstream of water transmission facilities and future water service
recipients (including the "H" Street Storm Drain and the Santa Ana River).
3) Utilize surplus land SurrOWlding the proposed North Lake Area Project to facilitate new
development and focus reinvestment in the community;
4) In the North Lake Area Project, to create a new public park and lake, which would be the
focus for the existing and newly developed residential community;
4) Construct new commercial developments along sections of the proposed lakeshore; and
5) Limit the spread of blight in the North Lake Area Project through the development of a new,
aesthetically pleasing water body.
Soum LAKE AREA PROJECT
1) Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area Project through the development ofa new,
aesthetically pleasing water body, which would be the focus for the existing and newly developed
commercial district, providing both an aesthetic amenity and opportunity of wetlands mitigation
and/or recreation;
2) Construct new commercial developments, including office, restaurant, and retailing, Within the
City's core business district, provide employment opportunities, and, through the use of a water
feature, create an at1ractive gateway entrance for the City off of the 1-215 consistent With the
City's Cen1ral City South Redevelopment Plan.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Munieipal Water District
April 15, ZOOS
CH No. 2003121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
.aJEIR
Findings
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
o
The City and SBVMWD conducted environmental review of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake
Area Project as follows:
. The City and the SBVMWD prepared an Initial Study, which was reviewed by the City's
Development/Environmental Review Committee, who concurred that a Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR.) would be required.
. The Initial Study /Notice of Preparation of an EIR. was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and
responsible agencies and circulated for a 30-day public comment period between March 13, 2003
and April 14, 2003. The Initial StudylNotice of Preparation of an EIR. was published in the San
Bernardino County Sun on
. Subsequent to the close of the comment period on April 14, 2003, the City and the SBVMWD
refined the original Initial Study and redistributed an updated and revised Expanded Notice of
Preparation to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and interested persons for a second
30-day comment period for the environmental impact report from December 24, 2003 to 1anuary
28,2004. The Initial StudylNotice of Preparation ofan EIR. was published in the San Bernardino
County Sun on December 22, 2003. This document was also posted on the City and SBVMWD
web pages.
. A public scoping meeting was held at the Feldheym Library on 1anuary 15, 2004, to give the
public the opportunity to provide comments as related to the proposed North Lake Area Project
and South Lake Area Project and the issues the public would like addressed in the Draft Program
o Environmental Impact Report.
. The Draft Program EIR. was distributed for public review on September 7, 2004, for the 45-day
review period with the review period ending on October 22, 2004. Six comment letters were
received before the close of the public review period. Responses to Comments were distributed
on March 1,2005, and are included in the Final Program EIR.. These documents were also posted
on the City and SBVMWD web pages.
. On September 14,2004, a public workshop relating to the Draft Program EIR. was held in the
Council Chambers of City Hall.
. On October 14, 2004, a public workshop relating to the Draft Program EIR. was held in the
Council Chambers of City Hall. This workshop was presented in Spanish.
. On February 25, 2005, the City published a display notice of the City of San Bernardino Planning
Commission to be held on March 8, 2005 hearing related to the Draft Program EIR., General Plan
Amendment No. 05-06, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 in The San Bernardino County
Sun, and mailed notices of this hearing to all property owners within the North Lake Area Project
and South Lake Area Project, and all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of both
area projects.
o
. On March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino held a noticed public
hearing on the North Lake Area Project, the South Lake Area Project, General Plan Amendment
No. 05-06, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-07. The Planning Commission staff report was
also posted on the City web page.
City or San Bernarilino
San Bernardino VaDeyMunicipal Water Distriet
AprD 15, 1005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FbW EIR
Findings
. On April 14, 2005, a public workshop relating to the acquisition/relocation process was held at
the Feldheym Library.
. On April 14,2005, the City and SBVMWD published in The San Bernardino County Sun, a
display notice of the joint public hearing of the City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common
Council and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of Directors joint public
hearing scheduled for April 25, 2005 related to the Draft Program EIR. The display notice also
included the City's consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, and General Plan
Amendment No. 05-07. The City mailed notices of this hearing to all property owners within the
North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, and all property owners within 500 feet of
the boundaries of both area projects.
. On April 25, 2005, the City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council and the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of Directors conducted a noticed joint public
hearing to consider certification of the Final Program EIR for the North Lake Area Project and
South Lake Area Project. The Mayor and Common Council also considered General Plan
Amendment No. 05-06, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-07.
3.1 INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT FINDING
The San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority (JPA) retained RBF Consulting to assist with
the preparation of the Draft Program EIR, the Final Program EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan. The Draft Program EIR, the Final Program EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan were prepared under the direction and supervision of the City and the SBVMWD. The
Final EIR includes the documents, reports, technical appendices, correspondence, and related materials
described in Final Program EIR. The Final Program EIR is on file with the City Clerk of the City of San
Bernardino and the Secretary to the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD and is available for inspection
and copying as a public record of the City by interested persons during the regular business hours of the
City and the Secretary to the Board of Directors during the regular business hours of the SBVMWD.
Finding: The Final Program EIR reflects the City's and SBVMWD's independent judgment and analysis
of both the City and the SBVMWD. The Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of
Directors of the SBVMWD have considered the contents of the Final Program EIR prior to the approval
of the Project. Furthermore, the Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of
the SBVMWD have independently reviewed, analyzed and exercised judgement in making their
respective determinations, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3).
3.2 FINDINGS ON THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR
Finding: The Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD have
declared through their separate official actions that the Final Program EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects which may occur as a result of the North Lake Area Project and the South ~ Area
Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final Program EIR, these
effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant as set forth in Section 3.6 of these Findings.
However, there are certain other significant effects which either cannot be fully mitigated or for which no
feasible or practical mitigation currently exist, and these unavoidable significant impacts are discussed in
Section 3.7 of these Findings.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water DIstrict
April 15, 1005
CH No.-20031211S0
~
o
o
o
""."
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FIDal Em
Findings
3.3 GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES
The Mayor and Common Council and the Board of Directors have reviewed the mitigation measures
applicable to the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project through their separate official
actions and review processes applicable to each as the Co-Lead Agencies.
In the event that the descrjption of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final
Program EIR, in each such instance, the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the reconunended mitigation measures in the
Final Program EIR. Any minor revisions were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better
defme the intended purpose.
Findings: The Mayor and Common Council and the Board of Directors adopted Findings to the effect
that the mitigation measures summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan will reduce all
potential significant impacts of the Project to a level of less than significant, except as set forth in Section
3.7 of these Findings. The Mayor and Common Council and the Board of Directors have duly adopted all
mitigation measures recommended in the Final Program EIR. The Mayor and Common Council and the
Board of Directors have further adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the North Lake
Area Project and South Lake Area Project in the form as submitted to the Mayor and Common Council
and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD at the joint public hearing when the Final Program EIR was
considered.
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'fS AND FINDINGS
The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the
Project, the Responses to Conunents, and any revisions or omissions to the Draft Program EIR are
presented in the Final Program EIR.
The Final Program EIR evaluated twelve (il) major environmental categories (aesthetics, air quality,
biological resources, geological resources and hazards, historic and cultural resources, hydrology and
water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public safety and risk of upset, public services and
utilities, and traffic) for potential significant unavoidable impacts, including cumulative impacts. Both
project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these 12 environmental categories, the
Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD have concurred
with the conclusions in the Final Program EIR that, with exception to the issues considered in Section 3.7
of these Findings, all of the other issues and sub-issues discussed in these Findings can be mitigated
below a significant impact threshold. For those issues which cannot be mitigated below a level of
significance (See Section 3.7 of these Findings), overriding considerations exist which make the impacts
acceptable. In addition to the twelve (12) major environmental categories addressed in the Final Program
EIR, four (4) other major categories were found to be non-significant in the Initial Study prepared for the
Project. The Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD have
concurred through their respective official actions with the conclusions on these categories as outlined in
the Initial Study (Appendix 10.1 of the Draft Program EIR) and have found that no significant impacts
have been identified as to those categories identified in the Initial Study and no further analysis is
required.
3.5 IMPACTS IDENTU'IED IN THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR AS LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT REQUIRING NO MITIGATION
Certain effects for the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project were found not to be
significant and were identified as such in the Initial Study for the North Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project. The basis on which the effects of the Project found to be less than potentially
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 1_
CH No. 2003121150
o
G
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
i1DIlI Em.
Findings
significant were set forth in each section of the Final Program EIR.. These impacts were found to be less
than potentially significant for the reasons set forth in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, of
the Final Program EIR.
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study (Appendix 10.l of the Draft Program EIR) as
having the potential to cause significant impact and were carried forward to the Final Program EIR for
detailed evaluation. These issues were found, either on the basis of further analysis in the Final Program
EIR or because the identified impacts have been fully mitigated, as having no potential to cause
significant impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. Each such resource issue is
identified in these Findings and the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is discussed
below:
AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE
Cumulative ImDacts
Implementation of the proposed Projects, combined with cumulative projects, could increase impacts to
aesthetics, light, and glare.
Potential future development facilitated by the applicable redevelopment plans may change the aesthetic
character of the vicinity of the respective Project areas through temporary demolition, remediation, and
construction, as well as long-term operation of future uses. Potential future uses include
recreational/public facilities, residential, and commercial uses as allowed by the City of San Bernardino
General Plan designations for the Project areas and as set forth in the herein described General PIan
amendment. All such potential uses would comply with City of San Bernardino General Plan
designations, as well as all City of San Bernardino Development Code standards with regards to building
height, densities, and landscaping. Onsite lighting associated with potential future development would be
similar in character"to areas surrounding the project. The proposed Projects are expected to facilitate
improvements that would enhance the overall aesthetic character of the Project areas. Therefore, the
proposed Projects are not anticipated to be cwnulatively significant with other projects within the City.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
AIR QUALITY
Toxic Air Contaminants
Temporary construction-related toxic air contaminants (TACs) would result from site grading and soil
haul/fill operations.
During development of the proposed reservoir in the North Lake Area Project, heavy trucks may travel as
far as 60 miles in order to dispose of soils and obtain clay. Generally, trucks associated with heavy
hauling are diesel-powered. Diesel exhausts include over 40 substances previously identified by
California Air Resources Board as T ACs.
Sensitive receptors in the North Lake Area Project, including residential uses and an elementary school
(located north of Baseline Street, between "G" Street and "H" Street) are located along the proposed truck
haul routes. According to Table 4.2-8 of the Final Program EIR, import/export operations would exceed
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) criteria pollutant thresholds, thus inferring
corresponding TAC levels. However, the increase would be relatively minor compared to existing traffic
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaUey Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
fPiDafZIR -
Findings
and the Project-related increase would be limited to a few years (as opposed to more substantial
prolonged TAC emissions from major commerciaVindustrial projects). The time span of importJexport
operations compared to the 70-year lifetime exposure threshold also indicates that the impact, as related to
time of exposure, would be negligible. Considering the relatively slight increase and short duration of
construction-related Project truck traffic, a less than significant impact would occur related to T ACs.
Localized Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Project implementation could result in impacts from localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions.
An impact is potentially significant if the Project produces emission levels that exceed the State or
Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from
vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically
demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the
potential to create ''pockets'' of CO called "hot spots". These pockets have the potential to exceed the
State I-hour standard of 20.0 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard to 9.0 ppm.
Using a worst-case scenario, projected traffic volumes were then modeled using the CALINE4 dispersion
model. The resultant values were then added to an ambient concentration. For the purposes of this
analysis, the ambient concentrations are taken as the highest I-hour CO measurement in the past five
years of monitoring data nearest monitoring station. Future ambient concentrations would be far lower
than present levels based upon expected trends and advancing technologies. Maximum Year 2015 I-hour
CO concentration with the Project is 7.4 ppm, which is well below the State and Federal standards of 20
ppm and 35 ppm respectively. The proposed Project would not result in adverse CO emissions.
Additionally, the maximum Year 2015 eight-hour CO concentration with the Project is 4.4 ppm, which is
well below the State and Federal standard of 9 ppm. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in
adverse CO emissions.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the applOptiate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed. .
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Section 4.3 of the Final Program EIR addresses the potential impacts related to biological resources in the
North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project. The Final Program EIR addresses six topics, three
of which are addressed in this section and two of which are addressed in Section 4.0 of these Findings.
Ve2etation
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could significantly impact onsite
vegetation.
The disturbed, ornamental and developed areas vegetation types present on the Project sites would be
removed with Project implementation. These vegetation types are not considered important biological
resources. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.
Vegetation does not occur on the channel bottoms of the two channels, which traverse the South Lake
Area Project site. Therefore, from a plant and vegetation type perspective, any impacts to these channels
would not be considered significant, although the South Lake Area Project does not propose to modify or
alter these existing channels. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant
impact.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
.~
o
o
o
.~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
!t'laaUl:1R
Findings
Wildlife
The proposed Projects would potentially disturb onsite wildlife.
The vegetation and habitat types on the Project sites provide low quality habitat for native wildlife. The
North Lake Area Project site is predominately developed. The South Lake Area Project site contains areas
of disturbed, undeveloped land, in addition to large commercial buildings. No sigriificant wildlife species
were observed. Development of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project sites would
result in less than significant impacts on wildlife species.
The sites do not function as wildlife movement corridors, nor do they provide any resources that would
support mi~ting wildlife species. No impact would occur in this regard.
Cumulative Imoacts
Implementation of the proposed Projects, combined with cumulative projects could increase impacts to
sensitive biological resources.
The proposed Project areas are developed and do not contain any viable natural habitat. Nearby creek
channels are concrete-lined and do not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat. Construction of
cumulative projects could impact nesting raptors. Development in each Project area would be evaluated
for biological resource impacts individually to ensure that impacts to biological resources would be
mitigated to a less than significant level whenever possible. Additionally, although the City of San
Bernardino General Plan EIR (1989) identified continuing impacts to biological resources due to
development, implementation of this project is not expected to result in a net biotic loss in conj1D1ction
with other projects as the project areas are currently developed or disturbed.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the apptopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
T0002raohv
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may result in
impacts to unique topography or result in earth movement on slopes of 15 percent or more.
The majority of the existing North Lake Area Project is developed, including the three potential water
treatment plant sites, and contain no 1D1ique geological or physical features. The South Lake Area Project
contains more vacant land, but similar to the North Lake Area Project, has no 1D1ique geological or
physical features. A significant amo1D1t of grading would occur in order to develop the proposed lakes and
building pads. As the Project areas are relatively flat with no significant landforms, a less than significant
impact with relation to the site topography would occur.
GeolO2V/Soils
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not result in
development on expansive soils creating substantial risks to life or property.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not result in
development on expansive soils. The soils onsite, including the three possible water treatment plant sites,
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
..'
o
"
"~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FJul EIR
Findings
do not exhibit expansive qualities. The soils on the site are alluvial soils and are not listed as Prime
Fannland Soils. The soils are granular, poorly condensed, and primarily consisting of sands and silts with
only traces of clay content. The soils d() not exhibit qualities that would indicate that they are expansive,
nor are they classified according to the UBC as expansive soils. The sites are nearly flat, located in a
highly urbanized area, and absent of any significant landforms or geologic features. Impacts with regards
to geology and soils are considered to be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Project could result in cumulative, short-term impacts to earth resources.
Impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the enforcement of proper erosion
protection measures during construction.
Cumulative effects related to earth resources resulting from potential future development facilitated by
the proposed Project and development in the vicinity include short-term increases in erosion due to
excavation, backfilling, and grading activities. These impacts are anticipated to be mitigated by enforcing
proper erosion protection measures during potential remediation, demolition, and construction of potential
future projects, and will be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. In addition, sites with unsuitable
development conditions such as liquefaction and seismic hazards are best mitigated on an individual
basis. The proposed Project will comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and all erosion control
measures established by the City. The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant
cumulative impacts of the area with regards to geology and soils.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the aJlJlloflriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
C) HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical Resources - South Lake Area.Proiect
o
Implementation of the proposed South Lake Area Project could cause a significant impact to a historical
resource Within the South Lake Area boundaries.
Based on the results of the CRM Tech field inspection and the historical research, none of the buildings
identified on the South Lake Area Project site meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or the City of San Bernardino's Criteria for Determination ofHistorica1 Significance
(see site records for further details). Therefore, none of them qualifies as a "historical resource,"
according to CEQA definition. Implementation of the South Lake Area Project would result in a less than
significant impact in this regard.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development may adversely affect cultural resources. Resources are evaluated and mitigated
on a project-by-project basis. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable
city, state, and federal regulations.
Potential impacts would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would be conducted on a
project-by-project basis. Each incremental development would be required to comply with all applicable
City, State, and Federal regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. In
consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would not be
considered significant.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
AprU 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
""l
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
F1na1 EIR
Findings
o
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measmes to ensme that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Draina2e and Runoff
The proposed Projects would alter drainage patterns, which could result in increased runoff amounts.
The proposed watershed for the North Lake Area Project would follow the historical drainage patterns for
the area, which follow the natural topography, north to south with flows outleting onto Warm Creek and
Lytle Creek. Flows from redevelopment of the South Lake Area Project would follow the same drainage
patterns as in ~e existing condition. All flows from this site would drain directly into Lytle Creek.
o
With the proposed development, South Lake Area Project drainage patterns would not change. The
watershed delineation would change in the North Lake Area Project from the existing condition, due to
grading, changing of land use and changes of impervious areas. Drainage paths would be altered in the
North Lake Area Project for the proposed condition. In the existing condition, approximately 162-acres
drain into the Towncreek storm drain, which travels diagonally through the North Lake Area Project.
However, with the proposed development, Towncreek would be rerouted and only 50.2 acres would drain
into this system. In the existing condition, approximately 30-acres drains into the 61h Street storm drain.
However, with the proposed development, only 4.7-acres drain into the 61h Street storm drain. Currently,
none of the North Lake Area Project site drains to the "H" Street storm drain. With the proposed
development, 15.6-acres would be tributary to the "H" Street storm drain. The remaining 44.5 acres of the
North Lake Area Project site would be comprised of the lake, which would capture only rain falling
directly on it and its shores. Water draining from the lake would be managed and controlled by
SBVMWD through controlled, gravity flows into the ''H'' Street storm drain. As the design of the lake,
including the two-foot freeboard and five-foot berm, would allow the lake to capture at least 311
additional acre-feet, the capacity of the lake could only be exceeded during a rare emergency. If the lake's
capacity were exceeded and drainage via the "H" Street storm drain was unavailable, the lake would
overflow into 9th Street and flows would be controlled by the existing City storm drain system.
In most cases, the proposed flow rate would be less than the existing flow rate (refer to Table 4.6-8 of the
Final Program EIR, Comparison Table). However, the changes in grading and land use would increase
the flows entering "H" Street because the proposed residential writs on the North Lake site would drain
away from the lake. These areas currently drain into the ~ Street storm drain. Due to the proposed
commercial development in the South Lake Area Project, flows entering Lytle Creek would be higher at
Node 213 and lower at Node 222. However, the overall flow into Lytle Creek would be less with the
proposed development than under existing conditions. Additionally, although the proposed development
does not impact any mapped flood plains, if new storm drain connections are made into Lytle Creek with
the development of the South Lake Area Project, a conditional Letter of Map Revision or Letter of Map
Amendment would need to be processed through FEMA.
o
Compared to the existing condition, additional flows at the North Lake Area Project site would be routed
into "H" Street storm drain in a 9.0-foot by 11.2-foot reinforced concrete pipe. Based on information
outlined in Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No.7, the "H" Street storm drain is designed to convey the
25-year flows. Based on Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No.7, the maximum flow within the ''H''
Street storm drain at Lytle Creek is 1,911 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed residential area would
contribute approximately 55.5 cfs in the 25-year storm event. Thus, based on the normal depth analysis,
the "H" Street storm drain would be capable of handling the 3% increase in peak flow. In addition, flows
from the lake would only drain when peak flows are not present in the "H" Street storm drain.
City of San Benaardioo
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 200s
CH No. 2003121150
,"-'
..,~- .
.,= -,--
"'-'~.c-'>'-;,""~n':'''"-'-T'-''--''-
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
PiDaI.EDt
Findings
Cumulative Imoacts
o
The proposed Projects along with other fUture development may result in incre(l$ed hydrology and
drainage impacts in the area. Impacts are evaluated on a project-by-project basis in order to mitigate
impacts to a less than significant level.
The basis for the cumulative analysis is presented in Section 2.4, Cumulative Impacts of the Final
Program EIR. For pmposes of drainage and water quality analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for
projects in the same watershed as the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project. The Projects
listed in Section 2.4 would result in an increase the impervious area in the watershed. As these cumulative
projects drain into the Santa Ana River and are required to comply with the standards of the Santa Ana
Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pennit
requirements. The cumulative increase in developed areas would result in cumulative increases to
impervious aieas and an increased need for Best Management Practices (BMP's). Projects would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis and mitigation would be developed as appIOpliate. There are no
cumulative impacts associated with the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING
Conflicts With Aoolicable Land Use Plans. Redevelooment Plans. and Policies - North
Lake Area Proiect
o
The proposed North Lake Area Project could potentially conflict with the City of San Bernardino General
Plan.
The North Lake Area Project meets a number of goals outlined in the City of San Bernardino General
Plan including: preserving historically significant resources, correcting fragmented land use patterns,
promoting the replacement of aesthetically unappealing land uses, upgrading deteriorating residential
neighborhoods, balancing commercial and residential land uses, and enhancing neighborhood-serving
commercial areas. However, proposed redevelopment following completion of the reservoir is not
consistent with the underlying land use designations. The North Lake Area Project includes General Plan
Amendment (OPA) No. 05-07, which would change the land use designations to be consistent with the
proposed redevelopment as addressed in the Final Program EIR. The Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino have tabled this G~A, and intend to reconsider the appropriate land use
designations upon completion of the reservoir. Therefore, the proposed North Lake Area Project would
result in a less than significant impact with respect to the City of San Bernardino General Plan.
o
The North Lake Area Project proposes development of an approximately 44.5-acre reservoir within the
CO-I, CO-2, RU-2, and RM districts. According to Table 4.01 of the City of San Bernardino
Development Code, Permitted. Development Permitted, and Conditionally Permitted Uses, a reservoir
(i.e., PrivatelPublic Utility Facilities) is a permitted use within the RU-2 and RM districts. According to
Table 6.01 of the city of San Bernardino Development Code, Commercial Districts List of Permitted
Uses, a reservoir (i.e., Public Utility Uses) is also a permitted use within the CO-I and CO-2 districts.
Thus, the proposed reservoir would be consistent with the City of San Bernardino Development Code,
although, as the facility of a separate government agency, the reservoir would not be subject to the City of
San Bernardino zoning and building ordinances as specified in Section 53090 of the State Government
Code. However, the SBVMWD, in consideration of the existing surrounding land uses, will comply with
City requirements related to Code-required barriers, setbacks, and landscape treatments. Therefore, the
proposed North Lake Area Project would not result in significant land use impacts to adjacent residential
uses (i.e., west of"H" Street and south of9lb Street).
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
AprU %5, 1005 -
CHNo.2oo3121150
.......,."",...~"",,",..,.,,.,
-~
North Lake Area aud South Lake Area Projects
Fiul EIR
Findings
o
The boundaries of the North Lake Area Project are within the bolUldaries of two redevelopment plans: the
City's Uptown Redevelopment Plan and the Inland Valley Redevelopment Plan. The objectives of the
North Lake Area Project are consistent with the economic and development objectives of each of the
respective redevelopment plans. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Conflicts With Applicable Land Use Plans. Redevelopment Plans. and Policies - South
Lake Area Proiect
The South Lake Area Project meets a number of goals outlined in the City General Plan including:
providing employment opportunities and promoting development of new office and retail in the Central
City South Overlay District area. Overall, the analysis bas concluded that the proposed South Lake Area
Project complies with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore, the proposed South Lake Area
Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to the City of San Bernardino General
Plan.
o
The South Lake Area Project proposes development of an approximately 5.0-acre lake/wetland within the
CCS-2 district. Accon;ting to Table 06.01 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, Commercial
Districts List of Permitted Uses, a lake/wetland (i.e., Public Utility uses) is a permitted use within the
CCS-2 district. Thus, the proposed lakeIwet1and is consistent with the City of San Bernardino
Development Code. Commercial uses and a lake are proposed within the Freeway Corridor (Fe) Overlay
District. The siting and design of non-residential structures within the FC district would be subject to City
of San Bernardino review through the Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit application
processes and would be analyzed to ensure that future uses are consistent .with the development standards
regarding landscape buffers, setbacks, service/loadinglequipment storage areas, building ~ade,
mechanical equipment, and signage. These standards would be applied in addition to those standards of
the underlying land use district. The existing City of San Bernardino development review process would
ensure that impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
The boundaries of the South Lake Area Project are with the bolUldaries of the Central City South
Redevelopment Plan. The objectives of the South Lake Area Project are consistent with the economic and
development objectives of this redevelopment plan. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Population Growth - North Lake Area Proiect
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project could result in a decrease in the City's population.
o
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project would result in the removal of 437 housing
units and approximately 388,045 square feet of commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.
Additionally, the Project would result in the development of approximately 72 single-family dwelling
units and 233,151 SF of commercial uses. Overall, Project implementation would result in a net decrease
of 365 dwelling units and a net decrease of 154,894 SF of commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.
As outlined in Table 4.9-2 of the Final Program EIR., Net Project Employment North Lake Area, Project
implementation would result in a net decrease of approximately 192 jobs. Based on an estimate of 3.3
persons per household (State of California Department of Finance), 365 fewer dwelling lUlits within the
North Lake Area Project would decrease the City's population by approximately 1,205 persons. This
would represent a less than one percent decrease in the City's 2003 population estimate of 194,120
persons. Due to the lUlcertainty that exists with regard to the number of new employees that may choose
to relocate to the City, a more conservative analysis of impacts associated with the City's permanent
population is assumed for purposes of evaluating potential impacts. For analysis purposes, if
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April Z5. ZOOS
CH No. 2003121150
""
o
o
o
p,'
- 7
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FIUlIillR!
FiDdinp
approximately 25% of the Project's 466 new employees (approximately 117 persons) would decide to
relocate to the City, a demand for 117 housing units could be created and as a result, the City's population
could increase by approximately 386 persons (based on an tstimate of 3.3 persons per household).
However, even with this current assumption, Project implementation could result in a direct decrease in
the City's population of approximately 819 persons. This estimate assumes a population decrease of
1,205 persons from housing removal and a population increase of 386 persons from future employees
potentially relocating to the City to fill the new positions. As this change would represent a less than one
percent decrease in population over existing conditions, implementation of the North Lake Area Project
would not result in a significant impact in this regard.
Pooulation Growth - South Lake Area Proiect
Implementati?n of the South Lake Area Project could result in a decrease in the City's population.
Implementation of the proposed South Lake Area Project would result in the removal of four (4) housing
units and approximately 368,423 SF of commercial and industrial uses. Additionally, the Project would
result in the development of approximately 481,500 SF of commercial uses. Overall, Project
implementation would result in a decrease of four dwelling units and an increase of 131,577 SF of
commercial uses. As outlined in Table 4.9-6 of the Final Program EIR, Estimated Employment - South
Lake Area, commercial uses proposed by the South Lake Area Project would result in a net increase of
approximately 543 jobs. Based on an estimate of 3.3 persons per household (State of California
Department of Finance), four fewer dwelling units within the South Lake Area Project area would
decrease the City's population by approximately 14 persons. This would represent a negligIble decrease
in the City's 2003 population estimate of 194,120 persons. Employment generated by the South Lake
Area Project could result in direct growth in the City's population since the potential exists that "future
employees" (and their families) may decide to relocate to the City. For analysis purposes, if
approximately 25% of the South Lake Area Project's 1,000 new employees (approximately 250 persons)
would choose to relocate to the City, a demand for 250 housing units could be created and as a result, the -
City's population could increase by approximately 825 persons (based on an estimate of 3.3 persons per
household). Overall, the South Lake Area Project implementation could result in a direct net increase in
the City's population of approximately 811 persons. This estimate assumes a population decrease of 14
persons from housing removal and a population increase of 825 persons from future employees
potentially relocating to the City to fill the new positions. As this change would represent a less than one
percent increase in population over existing conditions, the South Lake Area Project implementation
would not result in a significant impact in this regard.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND RISK OF UPSET
Ooerational Hazards
The proposed Project could involve the handling of hazardous materials.
The proposed Project would involve development of general commercial, residential and recreational
uses, one lake and one wetland, and a water treatment facility. These types of activities would Dot involve
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, secondary activities that would
occur on-site (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) would involve the use of hazardous matcrlals.
On-site use of hazardous materials would include cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides
and other materials used in the regular maintenance of buildings and landscaping. With proper use and
disposal, building and landscape maintenance chemicals are not expected to result in hazardous or
unhealthful conditions. Measures required by the City, County, and State include standards and
regulations regarding the storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials. The future use and
transport of hazardous materials associated with the Projects, although not considered significant, would
be subject to City, State, and Federal regulatory requirements and the guidelines developed by the City for-
City of San Bel'lW'dino
San Bernardino VaDey Municipal Water District
AprU 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
~.
o
o
o
"'......~..".~1-T":~",.,!','''!',.'''''~'''' ,,,""".""~
. .... "'T ....
"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FbldIllR
Findings
the proper disposal of wastes. hnpacts associated with the routine use of hazardous materials are
considered less than significant following compliance with City, State, and Federal regulatory
requirements.
Emel"2encv Manal!ement Plan
Implementation. of the proposed Projects could impair or physically interfere with an adopted response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The proposed Projects would involve development of general commercial, residential and recreational
uses, a lake and a wetland, and a water treatment facility. As stated above, these uses would not involve
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Fwther, although implementation of the
proposed North Lake Area Project would result in the vacation of streets, all of the streets proposed for
vacation prin1arlly serve the uses adjacent to the streets. Therefore, no significant impacts that would
impair or physically interfere with the emergency management plan would occur.
Cumulative Imoacts
The proposed Projects, in combination with other cumulative Projects, could increase public to exposure
of hazardous substances. Compliance with Federal, State, and local requirements would occur on a
project-by-project basis. Impacts would be less than significant following compliance with local, state,
and federal regulations.
Compliance with local, State, and Federal regulations would ensme that potential contamination or
exposure to hazardous substances is avoided or controlled to minimize the risk to the public on a case-by-
case basis, as the cumulative Projects are constructed.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Schools
Project implementation may result in significant physical impacts to existing school facilities.
Students residing in the North Lake Area Project site are within the service area of Riley Elementary
School, Arrowview Middle School, and San Bernardino High School. Students residing in the South Lake
Area Project site are within the service area of Lytle Creek Elementary, King Middle School, and Pacific
High School.
As proposed, the North Lake Area Project will include 72 single-family residential dwelling units. Based
on the San Bernardino City Unified School District's (SBCUSD) student generation factor, this equates to
approximately 6S new students within the school district. Implementation of the North Lake Area Project
will actually provide a net reduction of approximately 228 students to the SBCUSD, if the fiunilies
relocate to another city or school district hnpacts of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area
Project would be reduced to less than significant level through payment of SBCUSD's school facilities
impact fees. Project implementation would not warrant the construction of additional classrooms, as
implementation of the proposed Project would result in the net reduction of households. Potential impacts
to SBCUSD would be less than significant.
Librarv
The proposed Projects may increase the demand for library facilities and may contribute to an existing
need for construction of new facilities or alteration of existingfacilities.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Munieipal Water Distriet
April 15, ZOOS
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
- '.,--""
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
RbIaI:EIK,
Findinp
The Projects propose a net decrease of 365 housing wits. The City library system anticipates an
increasing demand for library services associated with this Project, as more people would be drawn to the
downtown area. However, the potential decrease in population associated with the net reduction of
housing wits proposed by these Projects (described in Section 4.9 of the Final Program EIR, Population
and Housing) would offset any additional demand for library services.
Recreation
Implementation of the Projects would result in the construction of a park facility and may increase the
use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
There are currently no park facilities located within the North Lake Area Project or South Lake Area
Project. Project implementation would result in construction of approximately 18 acres of open space,
wetland features, and public trails. The South Lake Area Project is proposed to include approximately 13
acres of open spaCe, which includes a 5-acre wetland/water feature. The North Lake Area Project is
proposed to include a 44.5-acre lake and approximately 5 acres of open space and trails. These facilities
would be open for public use, providing useable open space areas to nearby residents.
These Projects will result in the net decrease of housing wits within the City. This reduction in
households coupled with the introduction of more than 18 new acres of open space and public trails will
effectively improve the overall ratio of citizens to acres' of recreational space. Therefore, implementation
of these Projects is not anticipated to cause any impacts to recreational facilities.
Natural Gas
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in an increase
in the demand for natural gas service beyond existing conditions and may require expansion of the
existing gas system.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may result in an
increased demand for natural gas service to the Project areas. The SoUthern California Gas Company
(SCG) did not identify any existing service deficiencies at the present capacity, including the Projects and
adjacent areas.
Currently, the Project sites contain a total of 771,804 sq. ft. of commercial floor space and 441 dwelling
units. Implementation of the Projects would result in a 7.5 percent decrease in the total commercial floor
space (58,247 sq. ft. less), a 83.7 percent decrease in the total number of dwelling Wlits (369 dwelling
Wlits less), and a new water treatment plant. The total natural gas demanded from the Project areas would
decrease in accordance with the reduction in the intensity ofland uses.
The Project pipelines would be installed in '~oint-trench" with other dry utilities. Easements would be
required for gas mains extended into the North Lake Are Project and South Lake Area Project. SCG does
not anticipate any Project related or cumulative impacts to the natural gas provisions or gas facilities in
the service areas. In addition, SCG does not anticipate any construction-related impacts to the service area
as a result of implementation of either project. Implementation of the proposed Projects would not result
in a significant impact with respect to natural gas services, as it would not significantly impact SCG's
system capacity or ability to provide service.
Further, as previously discussed, the North Lake Area Project proposes to vacate sections of Orange
Street, 11 th Street, Olive Street, 10th Street, Crescent Street, "G" Street, Temple Street, "F' Street, Acacia
Avenue, Valley Street, Walkinshaw Street, and Congress Street. The existing gas mains currently located
in the right-of-ways of the streets that are proposed to be vacated would have to be relocated.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CHNo.2oo3121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FbW DR
Findinp
Electricitv
o
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in an increase
in the demand for electrical service beyond existing conditions and may require expansion of the existing
electrical system in order to maintain adequate levels of service.
Implementation of the proposed Projects may result in an increased demand for electricity service to the
Project area. Although total system demand is expected to increase armually, the net population reduction
associated with these Projects would reduce the electrical demands of the Project sites. Currently, the
Project sites contain a total of 771,804 sq. ft. of counnercial floor space and 441 dwelling units.
Implementation of the Projects would result in a 7.5 percent decrease in the total commercial floor space
(58,247 sq. ft. less), a 83.7 percent decrease in the total number of dwelling units (369 dwelling units
less), and a new water treatment plant. The total electricity demanded from the Project areas would
decrease in accordance with the reduction in the intensity of land uses.
Although SeE anticipates short-term, construction related impacts, significant impacts regarding
electrical service are not anticipated.
Telephone
Development of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not result in the need
for additional telephone service beyond existing conditions.
o
The demand for telephone service attributed to the Project areas would decrease with implementation of
the proposed Project. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the construction of a new
water treatment plant and the net reduction of residences (369 dwelling units less) and commercial space
(58,247 sq. ft. less), thus resulting in a net decrease of demand for telephone service.
Soil Disposal/Clav Borrow Sites
Soil disposal/clay borrow site grading may require temporary utility relocations.
Excavation of the North Lake Area Project reservoir would result in the need for a substantial quantity of
soil to be exported offsite. Additionally, in order to obtain clay for the lake liner, offsite areas must be
excavated and the clay would be imported to the project site. Although currently not confirmed, two
potential borrow sites have been identified: the Sunrise Ranch Borrow Pit in Mentone and the Perris
Reservoir Dam Borrow Pit in Perris. However, due to market conditions, the final borrow and disposal
sites could be anywhere in the region and could be located as far as 60 miles from the North Lake Area
Project site. Since the soil disposaVclay borrow site operations are short-term, construction-related, there
would not be any impacts related to long-term regional utility planning or emergency response operations.
However, short-term impacts such as temporary re-routing of electrical lines, communication lines, sewer
and water lines may be necessary. Based on the fact that the soil disposaVclay borrow site(s) are yet to be
configured, analysis of impacts of the borrow site(s) is not contained within this Final Program EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
o
Cumulative development would result in an increase in the demand for public services and an increase in
the consumption rates for public utilities, potentially requiring expansions of the existing utility systems.
Analysis has concluded that cumulative development is subject to standards and requirements of
reviewing agencies and no additional mitigation is required.
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not cumulatively contribute to
an increased demand for fire, schools, library, water, sewer, solid waste and energy utilities.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
"~-<-- .~<-
-,
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
..... EIR
Findings
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in a net
decrease of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses, effectively reducing the City's
population. The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, along with other are projects,
would add to the cumulative demand for public services through the introduction of new residents and
patrons of the proposed facilities. The Projects are located in areas that are served by all utilities (i.e.
water, sewer, and stom drains) and other public services (i.e., police, fire, and solid waste). All of these
existing facilities can readily serve the proposed Projects. No additional governmental services or
activities would be cumulatively impacted by the proposed Projects. Since the proposed Projects result in
a net decrease of population and as the respective providers of such services and facilities have indicated
that the Projects' incremental impacts are sufficiently mitigated, cumulative impacts on public services
and utilities anticipated to result from this development are not considered to be significant.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Coneestion Manaeement Proeram Analvsis
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not exceed standards
established by the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
The purpose of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to develop a coordinated approach to
managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use and air quality
planning programs throughout the County. The CMP requires review of significant individual projects,
which meet the thresholds contained in the program, which could impact the CMP transportation system.
Since the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project have been forecasted to
generate less than 250 two-way peak hour trips (1,000 two-way trips for retail land uses), a CMP Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) does not need to be prepared in accordance with CMP requirements. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not exceed standards established by the CMP and a less than significant
impact would occur in this regard.
Cumulative ImDacts
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could cause a cumulatively
significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and may exceed
an established LOS standard.
Based on the City of San Bernardino threshold of significance, the addition of North Lake Area Project-
generated trips is forecast to result in'a significant impact at the "H" StreetlBaseline Street intersection for
forecast year 2015 with Project conditions. Although the level of service at these intersections would
remain deficient, no traffic mitigation measures are required for the proposed North Lake Area Project
based on City of San Bernardino thresholds of significance since the proposed North Lake Area Project
would have to mitigate the Project-related impacts. In addition, as proposed the North Lake Area Projectewill generate less traffic than is currently generated by existing uses and a net decrease in traffic
generation would result. Therefore, based on City of San Bernardino established thresholds of
significance and CMP requirements, Project implementation would not cause any significant cumulative
traffic impacts to occur.
It should be noted that the City is currently updating the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Although no major change of classification is anticipated for study area roads and intersections, it is
possible that such a change could occur to study area roads and intersections, with the most likely result
being a need for additional right-of-way for additional turn lanes. As each component of both the North
Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project is developed, it would be required to go through the City
development review process. Should the Circulation Element update result in any change in
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CHNo.2oo3121150
o
o
o
North Lake Area aDd South Lake Area Projects
FiBal Em
Findings
classifications to study area roads and intersections that would require additional right-of-way, the
existing development review process would ensure that right-of-way for additional travel1anes or turning
lanes would be implemented where appropriate.
3.6 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED BELOW A
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an environmental impact report has been completed, which identifies one or more significant
effects, unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: . .....
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District find that all potentially significant impacts listed below can
and wilfbe mitigated, reduced, or avoided by imposition of the mitigation measures set forth in the Final
Program EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Specific findings for each category of
such impacts are set forth in detail below:
The Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD hereby find,
pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) that the following potential
environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the
implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the Final Program EIR:
AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE
Potential Impacts
Construction of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would temporarily
alter the visual appearance of the site and introduce new short-term sources of light and glare.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would adversely
impact scenic resources, scenic vistas and the visual character of the site and its su"oundings.
The proposed North Lake Area Project would introduce additional light and glare on-site which may
affect the surrounding residents.
Borrow site grading will result in construction-related aesthetic. light and glare impacts.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
AprU 25, 200s
CHNo.2oo3121150
'"
.. 'ce',m.., ,,> ........,..
North Lake Area aud South Lake Area Projects
I1DaI :DR
Findings
o
Potential aesthetics, light, and glare impacts from construction-related activities have been eliminated or
substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the
mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project.
Mitigation measures such as construction screening and other standard construction practices would be
required and employed in order to reduce aesthetic impacts associated with construction activities to a
less than significant level.
Further, noise mitigation measures include structural enhancements to the residential uses located across
from the North Lake Area Project site along "H" and 9lb Streets. More specifically, the recommended
enhancement measures would involve landscaping, soundproofing (i.e., windows), and garden walls
(refer to the Final Program EIR, Section 4.7, Land Use and Relevant Planning. Section 4.8, Noise. and
Section 4.12, Traffic and Circulation). These structural enhancements would improve the visual appeal
of the area during construction, helping to mitigate short-term impacts. Light associated with the
undetermined commercial uses that are anticipated to be developed on the pads that would be created
would be of a different nature and intensity than that of residential lighting. This would potentially result
in a significant adverse impact to the planned residential uses on-site and the adjacent off-site uses.
However, proper design of outdoor lighting, including such characteristics as the selection of appropriate
light intensity, direction, and shielding, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Excavation
and disposal will likely create the same short-term aesthetic impacts regardless of the location. This
includes exposed surfaces, construction debris, and views of equipment and truck traffic. Implementation
of standard construction-related mitigation measures would reduce construction related aesthetic impacts
to a less than significant level.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
o BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
The proposed North Lake Area Project could significantly impact Special Status Species and/or Habitat
existing onsite.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would result in indirect impacts to onsite biological
resources.
OfJ-site borrow site grading and excavated soil disposal activities may impact sensitive biological
resources.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the North Lake Area Project, which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
o
Potential biological resources impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level ofless
than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in the
Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. Raptor species and a variety of migratory
birds have the potential to nest in large ornamental trees that exist throughout the both Project sites.
Should there be exi~g nests, or a raptor or migratory bird establishes a nest prior to construction,
activities having the potential to disturb active raptor nests are prohibited by California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) regulations. Once nesting activity is completed, the CDFG protection typically
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
N
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
rtaalEJa
Findincs
ceases. The nesting season typically runs from February 1 to JWle 30. Impacts to nesting raptor species
and migratory birds would be considered significant Wlless mitigated. With implementation of the
mitigation, potential impacts to raptor species would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation
measures will be developed for impacts to biological resources from the clay borrow/disposal site once
the site( s) is selected.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the applopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would have the
potential to result in wind and water erosion impacts.
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would expose people and structures
to seismically related hazards.
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would occur on sites recognized as
having high potential of liquefaction in the event of strong seismic ground shaking.
Off-site borrow site grading and soil disposal activities will result in temporary erosion and may require
remedial gradingfor steep slopes or landslides.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the North Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential geology, soils, and seismicity impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level
of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the Projects. Water erosion associated with
construction activities can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Best
Management Practices and compliance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) as
required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Projects that disturb 1.0 or more acres of
soil must obtain a Construction General Permit under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing,
grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation.
All future development will be subject to building plan review in accordance with the seismic safety
requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and applicable CGS publications. The SBVMWD
shall submit all grading and building plans to City of San Bernardino for review and approval, in the case
of the North Lake Area Project. Although nearly all of the existing structures would be removed, retrofit
of the Campfire Boys and Girls Daycare would be necessary in order to reduce groWld shaking hazards
and potential collapse of the building. Impacts in this regard are expected to be less than significant with
implementation of the mitigation measures developed as part of required site-specific geotechnical
investigations.
As dewatering activities are already being conducted by SBVMWD in the form of a pilot program, the
final effect on liquefaction hazards is unknown. However, the pilot dewatering program will likely reduce
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
",,-..;>.
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Fiaal EIR
Fiadiags
liquefaction hazards in at least parts of the City. Therefore, the mitigation measures for reducing
liquefaction hazards within the proposed Project areas recommend focusing on changing the existing
characteristics of the loose, Wlconsolidated soils fOWld onsite. The excavation and recompaction of soils
fOWld onsite, coupled with the SBVMWD's current dewatering activities, would reduce liquefaction
potential to a less than significant level. Standard construction measures and Final Program EIR
mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Based on the fact
that the clay borrow sites and soil disposal sites are yet to be confirmed, analysis of soils and geology
impacts of the fill soil borrow site(s) is not contained within this Final Program EIR.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project could cause a significant impact to historical
resources within the North Lake Area boundaries.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Are Project could cause a
significant impact to as-yet unrecorded archaeological/paleontological resources on-site.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may disturb
unknown locations of human remains.
Off-site borrow site grading may disturb cultural resources.
. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Snpport of Findings
Potential historic and cultural resoW'ces impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level
of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the Projects. At 1156 North "F' Street. 690/692
West lOth Street, 640 West 11th Street, and 996 North "F" Street, the North Lake Area Project requires
removal of the buildings from their present sites, which would constitute a "substantial adverse change."
As these properties are also attn"buted a local level of significance due to their architectural merits, the
North Lake Area Project's potential effect can be mitigated through relocation within the commwtity
and/or a detailed recordation effort prior to demolition, as outlined below. Under the statutory and
regulatory, demolition of these buildings clearly constitutes an adverse effect on a "historical resource."
To avoid or lessen the North Lake Area Project's anticipated adverse effect on these resources, mitigation
requires that they be rehabilitated or relocated (possibly to the vacant property located near 8th, 9th, and
"H" Streets) and that historical and architect1U'a1 data about these buildings be recorded.
The development of the North Lake Area Project, including the water treatment facility, and the South
Lake Area Project could potentially distW'b or destroy Wldocumented archaeological and/or
paleontological resoW'ces. Following implementation of the recommended mitigation requiring the
cessation of work and retention of a qualified archaeologist in the event resources are discovered,
potential impacts in this regard would be reduced to a less than significant level. Human remains in a
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2905
CH No. 2003121150
o
e
o
~,~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FIDaI ElK
Findings
previously unknown burial site could potentially be encountered during construction activities at the
North Lake Area Project or South Lake Area Project sites, and the alternative water treatment facility
sites. Any alterations to human remains would be considered a significant adverse impact. However,
implementation of the recommended mitigation, which details the appropriate mandated actions necessary
in the event humim. remains are encountered, would reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant
level. The potential exists that cultural resources may be unearthed during grading and disposal/borrow
activities at the respective sites. Following implementation of the mitigation requiring retention of a
qualified archaeologist and cessation of work in the event resources are discovered, potential impacts in
this regard would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potential Impacts
Grading, excavation, and construe,tion activities associated with the proposed North Lake Area Project
and South Lake Area Project could impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and
subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. Impacts would be less than
significant through compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations and
mitigation.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could result in
long-term impacts to the quality of storm water and urban runoff, subsequently impacting water quality.
Impacts would be less than significant through compliance with Regulatory Frameworlc, City
Development Code requirements, and mitigation.
Off-site borrow site grading will result in temporary construction-related water quality impacts.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential hydrology and water quality impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of
less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. As part of the its compliance the
NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would need to be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of
California General Permit. Prior to construction, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
would be required for the construction activities at the North Lake Area Project site, the South Lake Area
Project site, and water treatment plant sites. Implementation of recommended mitigation (i.e., compliance
with the NPDES requirements) would reduce construction-related impacts to water quality to a less than
significant level. The proposed Project is required to conform to the Municipal and ConstructionNPDES
permits outlined above. These permits are required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to
control storm water runoff quality. One of the requirements of the Municipal Permit is the development of
a Water Quality Management Plan (wQMP) containing both structural and non-structural Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
City of San BemardiDO
SaD Bernardino VaUeyMuoidpal Water District
April 25, 2_
CH No. 2003121150
. North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
I'tJud Rill.
Findings
o
Borrow site and disposal site grading would have to comply with the same NPDES requirements
identified for Project grading, including appropriate BMP measures. Depending on the location, borrow
site and disposal site grading may require temporary dewatering, which would be subject to separate
discretionary review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Borrow site and
disposal site grading within drainage courses would also require discretionary review and approval by the
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game. The borrow site(s) and
disposal site(s) would require revegetation to minimize the potential for ongoing sedimentation following
completion of grading activities. Implementation of standard construction-related measures and
revegetation would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant levels.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the apl>lopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
LAND USE" AND RELEVANT PLANNING
Potential Impact
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, combined with other future
development, could result in additional barrier land uses. Projects are evaluated on a project-by-project
basis in accordance with the criteria set forth in City of San Bernardino requirements.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
o Facts in Support of Findings
Potential land use impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than
significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in the Final
Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. Development of the North Lake Area Project
and South Lake Area Project as proposed would result in a cumulative significant land use impact as
other projects are developed in the area. The North Lake Area Project would introduce a barrier land use
that would obstruct circulation throughout the area and physically divide an established community.
These impacts, when combined with the impacts from the proposed /-215 widening and other ongoing
development/redevelopment projects within the City could result in a cumulatively significant impact.
Each proposed project would undergo the same project review process as the proposed Projects in order
to lessen and avoid potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. Each project
would be analyzed independent of other land uses, as well as within the context of existing and planned
developments to ensure that the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan are consistently
upheld.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the applopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
NOISE.
Potential Impacts
o
Short-term grading and construction within the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project
would result in temporary noise and/or vibration impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors.
City of San BernanIino
San Bernardino VaDey Municipal Water District
AprH ~ %005
CHNo.2oo3121150
o
C)
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
..... ua
Findings
Development of the North Lake Area Project requires export of soil and import of clay, which may
require substantial truck haul operations on local roadways.
Project generated traffic may contribute to existing traffic noise levels that exceed the City's established
standards.
Operations associated with the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would
result in the generation of on-site noise from stationary sources.
Grading at the Soil Disposal/Clay Borrow Site(s) may impact adjacent uses.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, combined with cumulative
projects. would increase the ambient noise levels in the site vicinities.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential noise impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level ofless than significant by
virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measure identified in the Final Program EIR.
and have been incorporated into the projects. Construction noise would. occur during the duration of
construction, although it would be most noticeable during the initial months of site-intensive grading and
building construction. These impacts, however, would be short-term. and would. conclude upon
completion of grading/construction. Compliance with San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC) Section
8.54.020, Acts Declared Loud, Unnecessary, and Excessive Noises, Section 9.48.020, UnlawfUl Noises,
and Section 19.20.030(15), General Standards -Noise, and the recommended mitigation measures (i.e.,
muffling/placement of construction equipment, stockpiling/staging of construction vehicles, and structural
enhancements to existing uses) would lessen construction-related noise impacts. In order to lessen
Project-related noise impacts to the sensitive receptors located near the North Lake Area Project, haul
trucks shall serve the Project site using 1-215 via the Baseline Street off-ramps and the Orange Street and
10lb Street on-ramps. This haul route would reduce truck traffic on local streets to an absolute minimum,
D'Iinimi7.ing the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, importIexport haul operations would
be restricted to operate between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., pursuant to Section 8.54.020(1) of the SBMC.
Therefore, mitigation has been included to ensure that exterior living spaces (i.e. yards, balconies and
patios) along proposed truck haul routes and adjacent to construction areas are reduced to 65 dBA and
interior living spaces are reduced to 45 dBA CNEL. More specifically, the mitigation would require that a
noise assessment be prepared, as needed, for future development projects which demonstrates that
adequate noise mitigation is provided to meet the City of San BemardinoNoise Standards. Future
commercial activities will be evaluated by the City, through the project level environmental review
process, to ensure that noise levels do not exceed allowable limits. Compliance with SBMC, as outlined
above, would lessen noise impacts from mechanical equipment and operational activities. As previously
stated, the future redevelopment activities in the North Lake Area Project, as well as cumulative
development projects, would be individually required to reduce noise impacts to below City noise
standards and demonstrate adherence to SBMC requirements.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
. April 25, ZOO5
CH No. 20031211 SO
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FlDaI EIR
FlDdinp
POPULATION AND HOUSING
o Potential Impact
Implementation of the South Lake Area Project would displace people, housing and businesses. Impacts
would be reduced to less than significant following compliance with California Community Relocation
Law and the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Project.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the South Lake Area Project, which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
-
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential population and housing impacts in the South Lake Area Project have been eliminated or
substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the
mitigation meas\ll'Cs identified in the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. The
preparation ofa relocation plan in accordance with the Health and Safety Code ~ 33413.5 and ~ 33413 <a>
and the provisions of relocation assistance to persons and businesses displaced by implementation of the
South Lake Area Project would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensUre that the appIopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
o
PUBLIC SAFETY AND RISK OF UPSET
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could create
significant hazards to the public or the environment through conditions involving hazardous materials.
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could create significant hazards to
the public or the environment through the release of asbestos containing materials into the environment.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could create significant
hazards to the public or the environment through the release of lead-based paints into the environment.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
o
Potential public safety and risk of upset impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level
of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. Following implementation of the
recommended mitigations regarding soil sampling, visual inspections of building interiors, testing of
hazardous materials if encountered, removaVdisposal of stained concrete/soils, and required measures in
the event unknown wastes/suspect materials are discovered, potentiaJ. impacts would be reduced to less
than significant levels. If Asbestos Containing Material is found, abatement of asbestos would be required
City of San Bernardino
San BernardiDO.VaDey Municipal Water District
April Z5, 2005
CHNo.2003121150
~
o
o
o
co, c.
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
...... DR
Findings
prior to any demolition activities. Compliance with the recommended mitigations regarding the
requirement for an asbestos survey and asbestos abatement, as wen as compliance with SCAQMD Rule
1403, would reduce potential impacts toa less than sighificant level. Compliance with mitigation
requiring an independent evaluation and paint abatement, as well as compliance with California Code of
Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, potential impacts related to the chemical or physical separation of
paint from structures during demolition would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Potential I~pacts
The proposed North Lake Area Project could result in significant physical impacts with respect to fire
protection.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project could result in significant physical impacts with respect to
police protection.
The increased usage of area roadways in the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may
result in increased maintenance requirements.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could generate additional
wastewater beyond current conditions and may require an incremental expansion of the existing
sewerage system and expansion of the water treatment facility. W"lth payment of appropriate connection
fees, impacts to wastewater systems and facilities would be considered less than significant.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could increase the demand
for water beyond current conditions requiring the expansion of existing faCilities. With payment of
appropriate connection fees, impacts to water systems and facilities would be considered less than
significant.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential public services and utilities impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of
less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and bas been incorporated into the project. TbeSan Bernardino Fire ~JHI1tme4t
would be provided with the necessary equipment and training to respond to water-related emergencies. In
response to concerns regarding security for critical facilities (Le., potable water supplies), the proposed
North Lake reservoir would be provided with 24-hour security and/or restricted access. Access would be
restricted or controlled by the placement of a fence around the Project site. Further restricting or
eliminating access during nighttime hours would further mitigate impacts to the San Bernardino Police
Department, and reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
The establishment of a truck route would help minimize road damage throughout the area by limiting
truck traffic to a few streets. The City charges a connection fee in accordance with City of San Bernardino
Resolution No. 95-102 for connection to the local sewer system. These fees, which all new development
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaBey Municipal Water District
AprD 15, 1005
CHNo.20031211S0
o
o
o
....",..".",."'---~".._.,
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
would have to pay, are considered to offset any impacts to the City of San Bernardino Water Department
related to the new connections of the proposed development. The City of San Bernardino Water
Department would continue to provide water service to the Project area. New pipelines of adequate size
must be installed around the perimeter of the proposed North Lake Area Project to maintain the existing
hydraulic capacity within the 1249' pressure zone.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Potential Impacts
North Lake Area Project construction-related traffic could cause a significant increase in traffic when
compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and could exceed an established level of service
(LOS) standard.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project could cause a significant increase in traffic when
compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and could exceed an established LOSstandard.
The proposed North Lake Area Project could conflict with existing transit routes.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential traffic and circulation impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less
than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in the
Final Program EIR. and have been incorporated into the project. To reduce impacts related to construction
traffic, haul trucks that serve the North Lake Area Project shall use the 1-215 via the Baseline Street off-
ramps and the Orange Street and 10111 Street on-ramps. Based on the City of San Bernardino threshold of
significance, the addition of North Lake Area Project-generated trips is forecast to result in significant
impacts at the intersection of "H" Street and Baseline Street. With implementation of the recommended
mitigation measure, the LOS of the intersection would be improved from E to D, and a less than
significant impact would occur in this regard. OmniTrans Routes 10 and 11 would need to be re-routed
due to proposed street closures. Implementation of the recommended mitigation would ensure continued
access to transit service, ensuring a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
3.7 IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures outlined in the Final Program
EIR., the following adverse impacts of the proposed Projects stated below are considered to be significant
and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively, based upon information in the Final Program EIR.,
in the record, and based upon testimony provided during the public hearings on these Projects. These
City of San BernarcUao
San Bernardino VaDey Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
,. -
o
o
o
. ._-"-~..
_. _.~.^,~~"~~"_".._'U
" -
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
lbal&IR
Findings
impacts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation measures which are imposed
and which will reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
Both short-term construction-related impacts and long-term vehicular air quality impacts have been
identified as significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.
AIR QUALITY
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during site preparation and
North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project construction. Impacts would be significant and
unavoidable with mitigation.
.
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur as a result of import/export
activities related to the North Lake Area Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with
mitigation.
The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in an overall increase in the local
and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from
electricity and natural gas consumption. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may conflict with the Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP). Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project. in combination with other cumulative projects
may decrease the ambient air quality in the area. Impacts would be significant with mitigation for
reactive organic gases (ROG). nitrogen oxides (NO,). carbon monoxide (CO). and particulate matter
(PM/oJ, emissions.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Snpport of Finding
As detailed within the Final Program EIR, despite the implementation of stated mitigation measures
within Section 4.2, Air Quality, significant and unavoidable impacts from construction emissions on-site
and at the soil disposal/clay borrow site, inconsistency with the Air Quality Management Plan, and
cumulative impacts remain. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section 3.10 below). There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid
this significant impact, as set forth in the following Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. The
proposed project is anticipated to cause an increase in emissions of dust from construction activities and
local and regional pollutant load from operational activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented,
but these measures are unable to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, air quality impacts
in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the North Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FIuI Em
Findings
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measmesto ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
LAND USE
Unavoidable Significant Impact
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would potentially result in the physical division of an
established community. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Findings
Changes or aiterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As detailed within the Final Program EIR, despite the implementation of stated mitigation measures
within Section 4.7, Land Use, significant and unavoidable impacts from the physical division of an
established community remain. This impact is overridden by the North Lake Area Project benefits as set
forth in the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. There are no feasible alternatives that
could avoid this significant impact, as set forth in the following Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.
The proposed project is anticipated to physically divide an established community with a 44-acre lake on
land that is currently a residential neighborhood. Mitigation measures as referenced in Section 4.7, Land
Use, will be implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Thus, land use impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the North Lake
Area Project.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Unavoidable Significant Impacts .
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would displace a substantial number of people, housing
and businesses. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable following compliance with California
Relocation Law.
Cumulative development may incrementally induce population growth and may displace existing housing
or people.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Munidpal Water District
April ZS, ZOOS
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
o.._..-'t-",:,;v>_~"N'Pf""".,!,,,,,,,,,,~,,_--
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FilIal Em
Findings
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As detailed within the Final Program EIR, despite the implementation of stated mitigation measures
within Section 4.9, Population and Housing, significant and unavoidable impacts from displacement and
cumulative impacts remain. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the following
Statement of Overriding Considerations. There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid this
significant impact, as set forth in the following Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. The North Lake
Area Project is anticipated to displace hundreds of residents and may induce population growth that
further displaces existing housing and people. Mitigation measures as referenced in Section 4.9,
Population and Housing, will be implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce impacts to a less
than significant level. Thus, population and housing impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable
significant impact of the North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Unavoidable Significant Impact
Development of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in increased solid
waste generation.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As detailed within the Final Program EIR, despite the implementation of stated mitigation measures
within Section 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, significant and unavoidable impacts from solid waste
remain. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section 3.10). There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid this significant impact,
as set forth in the Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. Demolition activities in the North Lake Area
Project and South Lake Area Project are anticipated to generate significant quantities of solid waste from
demolition in the. Mitigation measures as referenced in Section 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, will be
implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Thus,
public services and utilities impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
" ~ ~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
.~ ';FiUI.DR
FindiDp
3.8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Nine (9) project alternatives are discussed in Section 6.0 of the Final Program EIR and the potential
significance for all of the alternatives is also analyzed in this section. The following discussion
summarizes each alternative considered, and compares the impacts of each alternative with the impacts of
the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project. A conclusion is provided for each
impact as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: (1) reduction or elimination of the
impact; (2) a greater impact than the project; (3) the same impact as the project; or (4) a new impact in
addition to the proposed project impacts. Table 6.A of the Final Program EIR compares the impacts of the
alternatives with those of the proposed project.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District have considered these alternatives for the development of the
Project and niake the following findings:
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1: No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
As stated previously, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that the alternatives
discussion include an analysis of the "No Project Alternative." Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project
Alternative refers to the analysis of existing conditions (i.e., implementation of current plans) and what
would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project was not approved. In the
case of the North Lake Area Project, if the Project is not approved, it is reasonable to expect that, as
economic conditions permit, existing vacant parcels will be improved and existing obsolete, deteriorating,
and nonconforming uses will be demolished and reused and that the North Lake Area Project would
continue to be developed in conformance with the current General Plan designations of RM, Residential
Medium, RU-2, Residential Urban, CG-I, Commercial General, and CG-2, Commercial General 2.
Currently, existing uses consist of single-family residential, multi-family residential, various commercial
uses, institutional, industrial, public right-of-way, and vacant land (see the Final Program EIR, Exhibit
4.1-1, Existing Land Use - North Lake Area, and Exhibit 4.1-2, Existing Zoning Districts - North Lake
Area).
This alternative does not satisfy any of the North Lake Project Area goals. Since this alternative does not
involve the construction of a lake, a park will not be created in this portion of the City and there will not
be any opportunity to develop commercial properties along the lakeshore. In addition, this alternative will
not assist the City in reinvesting back into the surrounding community and limit the spread of blight
within this portion of the City.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. Unlike with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in the
physical division of an existing community. However, like the proposed Project, new development in this
area would likely need development permits and would likely be consistent with the policies of the
Uptown Redevelopment Plan.
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative is representative of existing conditions for the study area.
As discussed in Section 4.12 of the Final Program EIR, Traffic and Circulation, a peak hour intersection
analysis was conducted for this alternative (existing traffic scenario), as well as a year 2015 forecast of
existing conditions. Study area intersections all currently operate at acceptable levels of service during the
morning and afternoon peak hours and are expected to continue operating at acceptable levels of service
into the year 2015. No streets would be vacated and remove under this alternative.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
"'0 ''''''N,''~'T-'_''''", ,.
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
o 'Fi1iaI,EIR
Findings
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that very little new development would occur with this alternative
and that all new development would be similar in nature to existing uses, views across the Project site
from off-site vantage points would not differ from existing conditions. However, views of the blighted
conditions of the Project site may persist longer than with the proposed Project, in which deteriorating
buildings and blighted conditions would be removed. Short-term construction impacts associated with the
proposed Project would not occur. Although it can be expected that construction will still occur with this
alternative, it would likely be on a parcel-by-parcel basis. This limited scale construction would have
fewer impacts than the extensive lake construction would create. With this alternative, light and glare
sources would not change, preventing a reduction in light and glare that would be associated with the
removal of residential and commercial properties as projected by the proposed Project.
Hydrology. This alternative would not result in short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since development of the proposed Project would not
occur. AdditiOnally, storm water flows into Lytle Creek would not be reduced as they would if the Project
was implemented.
Biological Resources. Construction-related impacts to special status vegetation types and plant and
wildlife species would be reduced with this alternative, as any construction within the Project area would
be on a limited, parcel-by-parcel basis. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any
significant long-term impacts.
Geology, SoUs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
would be reduced with this alternative as any construction within the Project area would be on a limited,
parcel-by-parcel basis. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term
erosion impacts, there would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic
features. However, because this alternative would result in additional development within the area rather
than a reduction in population in the North Lake Area, implementation of this alternative would not
reduce the number of people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Short-term, construction-related noise impacts would be reduced with the implementation of this
alternative, as any construction within the Project area would be on a limited, parcel-by-parcel basis. This
alternative would not result in any potentially significant construction-related noise impacts as would
occur with the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would
not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts would be far less with this alternative than with the
proposed Project as any construction and grading within the Project area would be on a far smaller scale
than that of the proposed Project. Further, this alternative would not require any additional offsite grading
and would not generate nearly the number of construction-related trips that the proposed Project would
generate. Long-term impacts to air quality due to automobile trips generated at the Project site would be
greater with this alternative as a greater number of residents and a larger amount of commercial area
would remain.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in reduced impacts to
public safety and a reduced risk of upset. Unlike the proposed Project, large-scale demolition would not
occur with this alternative. Although it can be expected that construction and demolition would still
occur, it would not be of the same degree and, thus, there would be less risk of emitting asbestos or lead-
based paint into the air in the vicinity of the Project site. However, because this alternative would result in
many existing uses persisting, there would be less opportunity to remediate some of the possible soil
contamination associated with the Recognized Environmental Conditions and prolonged exposure to the
o hazardous materials that are likely to occur within the structures within the Project area.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 100s
CHNo.2oo3121150
o
o
o
. ~ <'0"<< ,'"0,""='<'_'
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
,I'iDalEIR
Findings
PubUc Services and UtiUties. Implementation of this alternative would prevent any impacts to public
services and utilities. Specifically, no utilities would have to be vacated or removed, there would be no
security concerns assOciated with protecting il potable water soW'Ce, and the Fire Department would not
have to develop water rescue capabilities. However, implementation of this alternative would also prevent
existing public services and utilities from realizing the benefits of reduced demand for services.
Specifically, demands on water production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service,
electricity, parks and recreation, the Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced
with the accompanied reduction in population of the proposed Project The unavoidable significant
impact resulting from demolition debris generated that would occur with implementation of the proposed
Project would not occur with this alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. No onsite cultural resoW'Ces, including paleontological,
archaeological, or historical, would be potentially disturbed with this alternative, as demolition,
excavation, ahd construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not occur. Although
development of the proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant impact on historical
resources, with mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Population and Housing. Implementation of this alternative would not result in a decrease in the City's
population or the reduction of the City's housing stock. It is expected that, with time, the Project area will
develop to be consistent with the General Plan land use designations and that 28 additional housing units
and 92 people will be added to the Project area.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy any of the Project objectives. It fails to provide a
significant new public park and lake, which would be the focus for the existing and newly developed
residential community. It also fails to revitalize existing, adjacent neighborhoods with new lakeside
residential development, construct new commercial developments along sections of the new Lakeside
Drive, and plan for construction management practices, which minimize disruption to areas directly
adjacent to the Project site.
As this alternative represents the continuance of existing conditions onsite, its present state has been used
as the baseline for all environmental evaluation. Although this alternative reduces or avoids many of the
environmental impacts that would be caused by the proposed Project, it has been rejected for
consideration because of its inability to satisfy Project objectives.
ALTERNATIVE 2: LARGER NORm LAKE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that a larger, 55.4-acre lake would be constructed. replacing the 10.9 acres of
residential area of the proposed project. As with the proposed North Lake Area Project, this alternative
would include lakeside trails, parks and open space, parking and public access areas, preservation of the
Campfire Boys and Girls Daycare site, three commercial areas totaling 12 acres, and the need for an 8
MGD water treatment plant. Although this alternative satisfies the North Lake Area Project goal to
provide sufficient storage capacity in proximity to current water production facilities, it fails to provide
opportunities for development of the proposed residential community.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. When compared to proposed Project, this alternative would result in a greater number of units
removed from the City's housing stock. Instead of a reduction of 365 units, the City's housing stock
would be reduced by 437 units Also, implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the
policies of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan. Like the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative
would result in the physical division of an existing community.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
n .'~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
;FIa8lDR
Findings
o
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative would be less than that generated by the proposed Project.
As all of the residential uses that would be eliminated are replaced with the reservoir and park and
recreational uses, trips generated by this alternative would be significantly lower than the trips generated
by the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the vacation of
streets with the Project area.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that this alternative would result in a very similar project to that of
the proposed Project, aesthetic and light and glare impacts would be very similar to those of the proposed
Project. This alternative would result in short-term, construction related impacts that would be very
similar to the proposed Project. Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative
would result in the removal of deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting
in an improvement of the visual character of the Project area.
This alternative would result in less light and glare impacts than the proposed Project. With this
alternative there would not be any residential uses or any associated security, landscaping, and automobile
sources oflight and glare. However, there would still be light and glare generated by the commercial uses
onsite and the water treatment plant.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in the same short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since development of the proposed Project would be very
similar in nature. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, storm water flows into Lytle Creek would be
reduced.
o
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any significant long-term
impacts.
Geology, SoUs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be very similar to the proposed Project as the only difference is the final land use.
It is reasonable to expect that because this alternative proposes an increase in the size of the lake that
excavation would be much more extensive than that of the proposed Project and there would be a need for
a greater quantity of clay. Therefore, short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts would likely
be much greater with this alternative.
Due to the change in elevation across the North Lake Area Project site, a levee would have to be built
along the southern boundary of the lake. It is conceivable, that a seismic event could cause the levee to
fail. As there are no active faults in the immediate vicinity of the lake, the likelihood of any type of failure
of the earthen levee is highly unlikely. Adherence to existing requirements such as compliance with the
California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams and standard engineering practices
would ensure impacts in this regard would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes a reduction in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be onsite, resulting in
fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
o
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts from this Project would be greater than those of the
proposed Project as construction of the lake would require a significant amount of additional excavation
at both the Project sites and the soil disposaVclay borrow sites and a greater number of truck trips for
hauling the extra excavation material and the additional clay. The entire site would be cleared with this
alternative, as with the proposed Project, resulting in the same demolition-related noise impacts and the
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino vaUey Municipal Water District
April :zs, :Z005
CH No. 2003121150
~'n
o
o
o
.~.,,,. .,.....
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
ifinalEIR .
Findings
same quantity of trips for hauling away the demolition debris. As with the proposed Project,
implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts from this Project would be greater than those of the
proposed Project as construction of the lake would require a significant amount of additional excavation
and a greater number of truck trips for hauling the extra excavation material and the additional clay.
Further, this alternative would require more off site grading than the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, this Project would result in an \D1avoidable significant impact to air quality. Because the
region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations, any new emissions
generated by the Project would be significant impacts. As with the proposed Project, the same amo\D1t of
demolition would take place, resulting in the same impacts to air quality and the need for the same
number of trips to haul the material away. However, the reduced land use intensity would generate a
lower number of trips and thus long-term impacts would be lower than those of the proposed Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, large-scale demolition would occur
with this alternative and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into the air in
the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized Environmental
Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts to
public services and utilities and result in the same benefits as the proposed Project. As with the proposed
Project, this alternative would result in vacating and removing utilities, would create security concerns
associated with protecting a potable water source, and the Fire Department would have to develop water
rescue capabilities. However, implementation of this alternative would result in existing public services
and utilities realizing the benefits of reduced demand for services. Specifically, demands on water
production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and recreation, the
Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied reduction in
population. The unavoidable significant impact resulting from the generation of solid waste by the
proposed Project would still occur with this alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. This alternative would have the same impacts to cultural resources,
including paleontological, archaeological, or historical, as with the proposed Project, the entire Project
site would have to be demolished and cleared. However, like the proposed Project, with mitigation,
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Population and Housing. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result
in a decrease in the City's population and the reduction of the City's housing stock, but to a greater degree
than that of the proposed Project. This alternative would result in a net reduction of 437 housing units,
rather than the reduction of 365 housing units of the proposed Project. Thus, this Project would result in
the City's population decreasing by 1442 people, or 238 people more than the proposed Project. As with
the proposed Project, every person currently residing on site would have to be relocated, as the entire site
would be demolished.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy all of the Project objectives. It fails to provide for new
lakeside residential development. However, this alternative satisfies the following objectives:
. To create a significant new public park and lake;
. Construct new commercial developments along sections of the new lakeside drive;
. To revitalized existing and newly developed residential comm\D1ity; and
. To plan for construction management practices which minimize disruption to areas directly
adjacent to the Project site.
City or San Bernardino
San Bernardino Vaney Munidpal Water District
April %5, ZOI5
CHNo.2oo3121150
--'",-
1
, '
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FiDal ElK
Findings
o
Although this alternative satisfies several of the Project's goals, it fails to provide for new residential and
commercial development along the lake and results in greater environmental impacts as the proposed
Project. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
ALTERNATIVE 3: SMALLER NORTH LAKE ALTERNATIVE
With this alternative, the North Lake Area Project site would be reduced, bounded by Baseline Street on
the north, "E" Street on the east, 9th Street on the south, and "0" Street on the west. Like the proposed
Project, land uses for the remnant land under a smaller project alternative would include commercial uses,
single-family residential, the Campfire Boys and Girls, the lake, and trails and open space. As the project
site is smaller than that of the proposed Project, each use would have smaller footprints. This alternative
would provide for approximately 4.4 acres of commercial, 65 single-family homes on approximately 9.8
acres, 2.2 acres of institutional uses consisting of the Campfire Boys and Girls, an 8-MOD water
treatment plant, and a 34.3-acre lake. Because this alternative covers a smaller area than the proposed
Project, it allows for the preservation of more of the existing neighborhood. Under this alternative the
Holy Land Church of God in Christ would not be displaced and 111 fewer dwelling units would be
demolished, and 36,296 square feet of existing commercial space would remain. As shown in the
Table 1.0-1 of the Final Program EIR, this alternative would result in less impacts or reduced impacts and,
accordingly, has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative for the North Lake Area
Project. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to provide sufficient storage capacity in
proximity to current water production facilities, it fails to provide sufficient opportunities for
redevelopment and reinvestment into the existing community and partially fails in limiting the spread of
blight in the North Lake Area. In addition, this alternative will not create a smaller public park and lake
for the existing and proposed community, as well as less commercial development along the lakeshore.
This alternative will also leave a portion of the existing neighborhood to the west of "0" Street intact.
o
ANALYSIS
Land Use. When compared to the proposed Project, this alternative would provide for a reduction in the
number of units removed from the City's housing stock. Instead of a reduction of 365 units, the City's
housing stock would only be reduced by 261 units. Unlike the proposed Project, this alternative would be
consistent with the City's General Plan. However, like the proposed Project, would need a General Plan
Amendment and zone change from Residential Medium or Commercial General to Public Facilities.
Implementation of this alternative would likely be consistent with the policies of the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan. Like with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in
the physical division of an existing community.
Traffic. Because this Project has a smaller footprint and proposes less development, traffic generated by
this alternative would be less than that generated by the proposed Project. The reduced number of single-
family residential units will result in 9<<'10 fewer residential trips and the smaller commercial component
will result in 37% fewer commercial trips. However, because this alternative leaves a greater portion of
the existing neighborhood. there is very little difference in net traffic generation between the alternative
and the proposed Project; both result in a net reduction of trips generated from the Project area. As with
the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the vacation of streets with the Project area.
However, "0" Street and North Crescent, as well as segments of Orange, 11th, Olive Street, and 10th
Streets between "II" Street and "0" Street would not be vacated with this alternative.
o
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that less new development would occur with this alternative,
aesthetics, light and glare impacts and benefits would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project.
This alternative would result in short-term, construction related impacts that would be very similar to the
proposed Project, but on a slightly smaller scale. This alternative would result in less light and glare
impacts than the proposed Project as the commercial developments would be reduced in size and
therefore introduce fewer sources of new lighting. As with the proposed Project, a water treatment plant ,
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 1~ 1005
CH No. 2003121150
-,"
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FlaaliEIR.:n.
FiDeliags
would still be constructed creating light and glare impacts similar to those of the proposed Project.
Additionally, this alternative proposes fewer residential units and would therefore generate less onsite
lighting and less automobile-generated lighting.
Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in the removal of
deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting in an improvement of the
visual character of the Project area. However, as this alternative would leave a greater portion of the
existing neighborhood in place, fewer deteriorating structures, and therefore less blight, would be
removed.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in similar short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since development of the proposed Project, although these
impacts would be reduced due to the reduced size of the Project.
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project, but of a smaller scale. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any
significant long-term impacts.
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this project would be very similar to the proposed Project but of a smaller scale, resulting in a
reduction in short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts compared to the proposed Project. With
this alternative, there would be less excavation, less clay imported, and less construction.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Compared to the
proposed Project, this alternative would result in less reduction of seismic risks as a greater number of
people would remain onsite and fewer substandard structures would be removed.
Additionally, as this alternative proposes a reduction in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be
onsite, resulting in fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards. However, fewer structures would
be removed.
Noise. Construction-re1ated generated noise impacts, including these potentially significant noise impacts
related to activities at the soil disposal/clay borrow site, from this project would be less than those of the
proposed Project. Unlike the proposed Project, less of the site would be cleared with this alternative,
resulting in the reduced demolition-related noise impacts and reduced trips for hauling away the
demolition debris. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in
any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be less than
those of the proposed Project as.a smaller lake would require less demolition, excavation, and grading.
Further, this alternative would also require additional offsite grading, but would gCI'lCIa:tc fewer
construction-related trips that the proposed Project would generate. As with the proposed Proj~ this
Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air quality. Because the region's air quality is
currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations, any new emissions generated by the
Project would be significant impacts. However, as this alternative would generate a greater number of
trips, long-term impacts would be greater than those of the proposed Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, large-scale demolition would occur
with this alternative and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into the air in.;;"
City of SaD Benaardino
SaD Bernardino vaUey MuDicipal Water District
April 25, 200s
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
-,,,, ,,-
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects Findings
FiDalrEDl Ii .
the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized Environmental
Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would result in relatively the same
impacts to public services and utilities and result in the same benefits as the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, this alternative would result in vacating and removing utilities, would create secwity
concerns associated with protecting a potable water source, and the Fire Department would have to
develop water rescue capabilities. However, implementation of this alternative would result in existing
public services and utilities realizing the benefits of reduced demand for services. Specifically, demands
on water production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and
recreation, the Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied
reduction in population. The unavoidable significant impact of demolition debris generation that would
occur with implementation of the proposed project would be reduced with this alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. This alternative would have the same impacts to cultural resources,
including paleontological, archaeological, and historical, as with the proposed Project. All of the
properties identified as eligible under City criteria would still be within the area proposed for construction
of this alternative and, thus, have to be removed or demolished. Like the proposed Project, with
mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Population and Housing. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result
in a decrease in the City's population and the reduction of the City's housing stock, but to a lesser degree
than that of the proposed Project. This alternative would result in a net reduction of 261 housing units,
rather than the reduction of 365 housing units of the proposed Project. Thus, this Project would result in
the City's population decreasing by only 861 people. As with the proposed Project, every person currently
residing on site would have to be relocated, as the entire site would be demolished.
Conclnsion. This alternative would satisfy all of the Project objectives, but not to the same degree as the
proposed Project. It does create a significant new public park and lake, which would be the focus for the
existing and newly developed residential community, but the lake and park would be smaller than those
of the proposed Project. It would help revitalize the existing and newly developed residential
communities, but provide less new housing. It does provide for new commercial developments along
sections of the new Lakeside Drive, but does not provide as much as the proposed Project. Additionally,
this alternative could provide for construction management practices, which minimize disruption to areas
directly adjacent to the Project site just as the proposed Project does. Because this alternative reduces
disruption to the community and reduces construction-related impacts including noise, air quality, and
traffic, it has been identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goals, it does not satisfy these goals as successfully as the
proposed Project and, more importantly, it does not provide the SBVMWD with the same water storage
capacity that the proposed Project provides. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
Alternative 4: North Lake Area Storage Tanks Alternative
This alternative proposes that storage tanks be constructed to store water in the North Lake Area Project
site in lieu of the proposed reservoir. There are several different types of water storage tanks available.
which are defined by their construction method including bolted steel tanks, welded steel tanks,
prestressed concrete tanks, and east-in-place tanks. Each type of tank has different merits and upper limits
of storage capacity. Prestressed concrete tanks and cast-in-place tanks typically offer the greatest storage
capacity, able to hold up to approximately 10 million gallons.
The proposed reservoir has a capacity of 660 acre-feet of water, or 214.5 million gallons. Twenty-two 10-
million-gallon tanks would be needed to provide SBVMWD with the same storage capacity as the North
City of San BernardiDo
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 2~ ",
CR No. 2003121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Fibal EIB "
Findings
o
Lake. A 10-miilion-gallon prestressed concrete reservoir would have a diameter of approximately 231
feet and be approximately 30 feet tall. Each tank has a footprint of nearly one acre and, when including
appurtenant facilities such as pump stations lmd access roads, can easily occupy 1.5 acres. Replacing the
proposed Project with tanks such as these would require a 33-acre tank farm.
This alternative would be located within the southwestern comer of the North Lake Area Project site in
order to take advantage of nearby existing and planned SBVMWD facilities. It would be bounded by "H"
Street on the west, Orange Street on the north, "F' Street on the east, and 91b Street on the south. Not
including public rights~f-way, this area totals approximately 36 acres. As with the proposed Project, an
8-MGD water treatment plant would still be constructed in one of the three identified locations.
Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to provide sufficient storage capacity in proximity to
current water production facilities, it fails to provide opportunities for redevelopment and reinvestment
into the existing community. In addition, this alternative will not create a new public park and lake for the
existing and proposed community, as well as commercial developments along the lakeshore.
ANALYSIS
This alternative proposes that storage tanks be constructed to store water in lieu of the proposed reservoir.
There are several different types of water storage tanks available, which are defined by their construction
method including bolted steel tanks, welded steel tanks, prestressed concrete tanks. and cast-in-p1ace
tanks. Each type of tank has different merits and upper limits of storage capacity. Prestressed concrete
tanks and cast-in-place tanks typically offer the greatest storage capacity, able to hold up to approximately
10 million gallons.
C)
The proposed reservoir has a capacity of 660 acre-feet of water, or 214.5 million gallons. Twenty-two 10-
million-gallon tanks would be needed to provide SBVWMD with the same storage capacity as the North
Lake. A 10-miilion-gallon prestressed concrete reservoir would have a diameter of approximately 231
feet and be approximately 30 feet taIl. Each tank has a footprint of nearly 1 acre and, when including
appurtenant facilities such as pump stations lind access roads, can easily occupy 1.5 acres. Replacing the
proposed Project with tanks such as these would require a 33-acre tank farm.
This alternative would be located within the southwestern comer of the Project area as the proposed
Project in order to take advantage of nearby SBVMWD existing and planned facilities. It would be
bounded by "H" Street on the west, Orange Street on the north, "F" Street on the east, and 91b Street on
the south. Not including public right~f-ways, this area totals approximately 36 acres. As with the
proposed Project, an 8-MGD water treatment plant would still be constructed in one of the three identified
locations.
Land Use. Unlike the proposed Project, this alternative is not consistent with the plans, policies, or
objectives of the City of San Bernardino's General Plan, the City of San Bernardino's Development
Code, or the Uptown Redevelopment plan. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in
the division of an existing community.
Traffic. This alternative would generate more traffic than the proposed Project. As this alternative
proposes the use of 36 acres of the existing Project area which includes 322 housing units and the Holy
Land Church of God in Christ, but leaves all of the existing commercial and 115 housing units, there
would be a smaller net reduction in overall traffic. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would not
result in any long-term impacts. Unlike the proposed Project, this alternative would not require vacating
and removing streets.
o
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. This alternative would have greater impacts to aesthetics, light, and glare
than the proposed Project would. Views from and across the Project site would be affected, as the tanks
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April Z5, ZOOS
CHNo.2oo3121150
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FIiuII EDI;,
Findings
would be much larger than any of the existing structures. Views of blighted conditions would likely
become worse as this alternative would not be compatible with surroWlding uses and would encourage
disinvestment in surrounding areas. Light and glare impacts would be worse with this alternative because
the storage tanks would have security lighting which would me much more intense than. the moderate
lighting surrounding the proposed lake. As with the proposed Project, the water treatment plant would
generate new sources of light and glare.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in reduced short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since construction activities would not be as extensive as
with the proposed Project. Additionally, storm water flows into Lytle Creek would not be reduced as they
would if the Project was implemented.
Biological Resources. Construction-related impacts to special status vegetation types and plant and
wildlife species would be reduced with this alternative as construction and grading activities associated
with this alternative would not be as extensive as those of the proposed Project. As with the proposed
Project, this alternative would not have any significant long-term impacts.
Geology, SoUs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
would be reduced with this alternative as construction and grading activities associated with this
alternative would not be as extensive as those of the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this
alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, and there would not be any impacts to
topography or any impacts to unique geologic features. However, because this alternative would allow a
greater number of people to remain in the area, implementation of this alternative would not reduce the
number of people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Short-term, construction-related noise impacts would be reduced with the implementation of this
alternative as demolition, excavation, clay import, construction, and grading activities, as well as the trips
generated by these activities, would not be as extensive as those of the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Additionally, implementation of this alternative would eliminate the potentially significant construction-
related noise impact at the soil disposal/clay borrow site.
Air Quality. Demolition, excavation, clay import, construction, and grading activities, as well as the trips
generated by these activities would be far less with this alternative than with the proposed Project as any
construction and grading within the Project area would be on a smaller scale than that of the proposed
Project. Further, this alternative would not require any additional offsite grading and would not generate
nearly the number of construction-related trips that the proposed Project would generate. As with the
proposed Project, this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air quality. Because the
region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations, any new emissions
generated by the Project would be significant impacts. However, as this alternative would generate a
greater number of trips, long-term impacts would be greater than those of the proposed Project.
PubUc Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in reduced impacts to
public safety and a reduced risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, demolition would still occur with this
alternative, but only cover 36 acres. Although it can be expected that construction and demolition would
still occur, it would not be of the same degree and, thus, there would be a reduced risk of emitting
asbestos or lead-based paint into the air in the vicinity of the Project site. However, because this
alternative would result in many existing uses persisting, there would be less opportunity to remediate
some of the possible soil contamination associated with the Recognized Environmental Conditions. .
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would prevent any impacts to public
services and utilities. Specifically, no utilities would have to be vacated or removed, there would be no
security concerns associated with protecting a potable water source, and the Fire Department would not
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Aprll25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FbiaI.EIa-:
Findings
o
have to develop water rescue capabilities. Implementation of this alternative would also result in a
reduction in demand on existing public services and utilities due to the reduction in population. The
unavoidable significant impact of demolition debris generation that would occur with the proposed
Project would be reduced with this alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. As with the proposed Project, cultural resources, including
paleontological, archaeological, or historical, would be disturbed with this alternative, as demolition,
excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed Project would still occur. This
alternative would result in a reduced impact to historical resources, as only four of the five City-eligible
historic structures would be impacted. Although development of the proposed Project has the potential to
result in a significant impact on historical resources, with mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Population and Housing. Implementation of this alternative would result in a decrease in the City's
population by 1062 people and the reduction of the City's housing stock by 322 dwelling units. This
alternative would therefore result in less of an impact to the City's housing stock and reduce the City's
population by less than the proposed Project.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy all of the Project objectives. It fails to provide for new
lakeside residential development, it fails to create a significant new public park and lake, and it fails to
revitalize existing and newly developed residential communities. However, this alternative would likely
satisfy the objective to plan for construction management practices, which minimize disruption to areas
directly adjacent to the Project site.
o
Although this alternative results in reducing some impacts, it fails to satisfy almost all of the objectives
set forth for the proposed Project. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
ALTERNATIVE 5: ALTERNATIVE PROJEer SITES AND THE VISION 20/20 PLAN
In December 1999, the San Bernardino Regio1Ja1 Water Resources Authority completed the Vision 20/20
plan after six months of focused effort consulting with key stakeholders and the public. This plan
presented for consideration by stakeholders, a series of lakes and streams surrounding the downtown City
core that served to solve several problems facing the City. The Vision 20/20 plan integrated surface water
storage needs of SBVMWD, provided an operationally effective means of placing the NewmarklMuscoy
treated groundwater into beneficial use as part of the SBVMWD's municipal supply system, lowered the
"Areas of Historic High Groundwater" by up to 30 feet to reduce seismic liquefaction potential and
related hazards, and created opportunities for substantial economic revitalization of the City.
The Vision 20/20 plan identified seven districts throughout the City that would eventually have a lake, a
stream, or both. Several sites were identified for lake construction including the area south of Slh Street,
west of Mount Vernon Avenue, and north of Lytle Creek; the area south of Baseline Street, west of
Interstate 21S, north of 9lh Street, and east of Mt. Vernon Avenue; the proposed Project site; the area
south of Baseline Street, east of Waterman Avenue, north of 9lh Street, and east of "E" Street; the area
south of Rialto Avenue, east of"E" Street, North of Mill Street, and east of Interstate 21S, and the area
north of S. Street, east of Sterling Avenue, and south and west of the City limits. The streams were
envisioned by the plan to run between these water bodies as well as into some of the natural waterways in
the area.
Within the Vision 20/20 plan, the reconunended sites for development included the proposed North Lake
Area Project site and the South Lake Area Project site.
o
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Vaney Municipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CH No. 2003121150
--~ ~
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final Em'
Findings
ANALYSIS
In December 1999, the Vision 20/20 plan was completed by the San Bernardino Regional Water
Resources Authority after six months of concerted effort working with key stakeholders and the public.
This plan presented a series of lakes and streams surrounding the downtown City core that served to solve
several problems facing the City. It meets the surface storage need for the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, provides an operationally effective means of integrating the NewmarkIMuscoy
treated groundwater into the District's municipal supply system, lowers the Areas of Historic High
Groundwater by up to 30 feet to reduce seismic liquefaction potential and related hazards, and creates
opportunities for substantial revitalization of the City.
The Vision 20/20 plan identified seven districts throughout the City that would eventually have a lake, a
stream, or both. Several sites were identified for lake construction including the .area south of Sib Street,
west of MoU1\t Vernon, and north of Lytle Creek; the area south of Baseline, west ofI-2lS, north of91b
Street, and east of Mt. Vernon; the proposed Project site; the area south of Baseline, east of Waterman
Street, North of 91b Street, and east of E Street; the area south of Rialto Avenue, east of E Street, North of
Mill Street, and east ofI-2lS, and the area north of Sib Street, east of Sterling Avenue, and south and west
of the City limits. The streams were envisioned by the plan to run between these water bodies as well as
into some of the natural waterways in the area.
The initial analysis was confined to two phases, which were best suited for the proposed construction of
new lakes and streams. The primary site ~hase AI proposed Project) located south of Base Line, west of
H Street, east of E Street, and North of 9 Street. The V'zsion 20/20 plan recommended development of
phase A (the proposed Project site) so that a maximum number of the Vision 20/20 plan's objectives
could be addressed from the beginning1. Primarily, the following four specific characteristics of the site
were identified that made it the only site that could successfully commence the V'zsion 20/20 plan:
1. This is the highest elevation within the Project area that will allow gravity flow to carry water to
all other areas within the Project.
2. This area contains a significant amount of vacant and underutilized land, which is suitable for
redevelopment.
3. The existing water distribution facilities are near this area for easy access.
4. This area has a high probability of helping to stabilize the surrounding areas and the Central
Business District.
An additional plan (phase B) was proposed as an additional plan to Phase A. This alternative expanded to
the east and south, with reservoirs east of E Street connected by streams to the Seccombe Lake Park and
on to another new reservoir near the Norton Air Force Base (San Bernardino International Airport). Phase
B would not address the V'zsion 20/20 objectives without Phase A being constructed first. In response the
reservoir east of E Street was dropped as a primary Project. In addition, the reservoir site identified north
of San Bernardino International Airport was not considered viable due to the potential water fowl hazard
that could affect airport flight operations. In addition, the lack of proximity to the necessary infrastructure
also made this alternative unfavorable.
Additionally, the San Bernardino Municipal Water District has identified the current Project site as the
preferred initial phase of the V'zsion 20/20 plan implementation because of its proximity to planned and
existing facilities as well as its proximity to the Newmark and Muscoy plumes. These objectives coupled
with the above Vision 20/20 objectives eliminate all but the proposed Project site as the initial phase of
the Vision 20/20 plan.
1 Vision 20/20 San Bernardino, pg. Xll-2.The Urban Spaces Team. December 13, 1999.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaUeyMunieipal Water District
April 15, 1005
ClINo.2oo3121150
o
o
o
,Cc'
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
:. RoaI BIR
Findinp
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Overall, North Lake Alternative 4 has been determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative
aside from Alternative 1. It should be noted that none of the alternatives that involve development
(Alternatives 2~) are substantially superior to the proposed Project from an environmental pcrspcctive.
Impacts to aesthetics; air quality; hydrology and water quality; noise; public services and utilities; and
traffic would all be reduced relative to the proposed project under this alternative.
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1: No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
As stated above, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that the alternatives discussion
include an aDalysis of the "No Project Alternative." PW'suant to CEQA, the No Project Alternative refers
to the analysis of existing conditions (i.e., implementation of CUITCllt plans) and what would reasonably be
expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project was not approved. In the case of the South Lake
Area Project, if the project was not approved, it is reasonable to expect that the 53.7-acrc Project area
would eventually be developed in conformance with the current General Plan designations of the Central
City South Overlay District. Currently, existing uses consist of single-family residential, various
commercial and industrial uses, and vacant land. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to
limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area and will provide for development of commercial uses, it
fails to provide a water feature within the South Lake Area that can provide both an attractive gateway
into the City as well as an opportunity for wetlands mitigation and/or recreation.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. Compared to the proposed Project, this alternative is very similar. As with the proposed
Project, this alternative would not conflict with the land use plan, goals, or strategies of the City of San
Bernardino General Plan, the City of San Bernardino Development Code, or the relevant policies of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Redevelopment Project.
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative would be greater than that generated by the proposed
Project. As the "No Build" Project, this alternative assumes the continuance of existing planS, and thus,
assumes that the final development for this area would reflect the allowed General Plan land use
designation. The purpose of the Central City South Overlay District is to provide for research and
development, limited retail, and entertainment uses. At build out per the allowed 0.7 floor area ratio, this
area would provide over 1.4 million square feet of commercial space, more than twice as intense a
development as the proposed Project. This would result in a far greater amount of trips generated by the
Project site. Although the proposed Project would not cause any traffic or circulation related significant
impacts, it is not clear whether or not this alternative would cause any traffic or circulation related
impacts.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that more new development would occur with this alternative,
aesthetic and light and glare impacts would be increased as compared to the proposed Project. This
alternative would result in short-term, construction related impacts that would be very similar to the
proposed Project. This alternative would result in more light ,and glare impacts than the proposed Project
as the commercial development would be greater in size and therefore introduce more sources of new
lighting.
Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in the removal of
deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting in an improvement of the
visual character of the Project area.
City of San Bemardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CHNo.2003121150
o
o
o
~y- -,
~~" ~,~-~- -
North Lake Arca and South Lake Arca Projects
, mulEIR.
Findings
Hydrology. This alternative would result in greater short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since it would result in a larger development than the
proposed Project.
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be somewhat greater than those
of the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any significant
long-term impacts.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be very similar to the proposed Project but of a greater scale, resulting in an
increase in short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts compared to the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes an increase in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be onsite, resulting in
fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts from this Project would be greater than those of the
proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in any
long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be greater
than those of the proposed Project as a larger commercial development would require more excavation
and grading. As with the proposed Project, this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact
to air quality. Because the region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal
regulations, any new emissions generated by the Project would be significant impacts. However, as this
alternative would generate a greater number of trips, long-term impacts would be greater than those of the
proposed Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing, non-conforming
onsite structures would have to be demolished and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-
based paint into the air in the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the
Recognized Environmental Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the
onsite uses would be removed.
Public Services and UtiUties. Implementation of this alternative would prevent any impacts to public
services and utilities. Specifically, no utilities would have to be vacated or removed. However,
implementation of this alternative would also prevent existing public services and utilities from realizing
the benefits of reduced demand for services. Specifically, demands on water production, wastewater
treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and recreation, the Police Department, and the
Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied reduction in population and land use
intensity of the proposed Project. The unavoidable significant impact of the proposed Project causes by
solid waste generation would not occur with this altemative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. The South Lake Project Area does not have any known historical,
paleontological, or archaeological resources. Therefore, this alternative, as with the proposed Project,
would not cause any impacts to historical or cultural resources.
Population and Housing. As discussed in Section 4.9 of the Final Program EIR, Population and
Housing, the new employment opportunities associated with the South Lake Area Project commercial
development could contribute to the growth of the City's population. As discussed in Section 4.12 of the
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaHey Municipal Water District
April Z5, ZOO5
CHNo.2oo3121150
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
.i'iaaI.IUR
Findings
Final Program EIR, the proposed Project could result in the net growth of 825 people. Based on the same
methodology, this alternative could result in the net growth of the City's population by 2257 people.
Although the proposed Project would result in a less than one percent change of the City's population,
this alternative would result in a 1.16% change in the City's population. This would not be considered
significant.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative proposes the demolition of all onsite uses, including four
existing single-family residences. As with the proposed Project, every person currently residing onsite
would have to be relocated.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy any of the Project objectives. It fails to provide
development opportunities for commercial developments within the City's core business district. In
addition, this alternative does not provide the proposed water feature that is .intended to provide, an
aesthetic amehity to this part of the city, create an opportunity for wetlands mitigation and! or recreation,
and help limit the spread of blight in this area of the city through development of new, aesthetically
pleasing water bodies.
As this alternative represents the continuance of existing conditions onsite, its present state has been used
as the baseline for all environmental evaluation. Although in it's current state this alternative avoids many
of the environmental impacts that would be caused by the proposed Project, at completion of build out,
the impacts exceed the proposed Projects impacts and for this it has been rejected for consideration.
ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
With this alternative, the density of the proposed South Lake Area Project would be reduced. This
alternative is based on conversations with City staff that identified that due to a number of considerations,
commercial projects within the City are rarely built to allowed density. In fact, according to City staff, the
average commercial development within the City is built at about 25% of the allowed density. Based on
this trend, the intensity of the site has been reduced by 75%, resulting in a commercial development of
120,375 square feet. Although this alternative Satisfies the Project's goal to limit the spread of blight in
the South Lake Area Project, it fails to provide for new commercial development along the lake, it fails to
provide a sufficient amount of commercial development to effectively provide new employment
opportunities within the City's core business district.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. Compared to the proposed Project, this alternative is very similar. As with the proposed
Project, this alternative would not conflict with the land use plan, goals, or strategies of the City of San
Bernardino General Plan, the City of San Bernardino Development Code, or the relevant policies of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Redevelopment Project. Like the proposed Project, this
alternative would include a five-acre wetland feature and require a General. Plan amendment to vacate
streets within the Project area.
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative would be less than that generated by the proposed Project.
Assuming the same mix of commercial uses would be developed with this alternative as with the
proposed Project, but at reduced density, this alternative would result in 5,182 fewer trips than the
proposed Project. As the proposed Project would not cause any traffic or circulation related significant
impacts, this alternative would not cause any traffic or circulation related impacts. And like the proposed
Project, this alternative would result in the vacation of streets within the Project area.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that less new development would occur with this alternative,
aesthetics, light and glare impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project. This alternative
would result in short-term, construction related impacts that would be very similar to the proposed
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CH No. 2003121150 !
-. ~~
o
o
o
""""'~""-'-' .,
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
tl'ilWElR
Findings
Project. This alternative would result in less light and glare impacts than the proposed Project, as the
commercial development would be reduced in size and therefore introduce fewer sources of new lighting.
Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in the removal of
deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting in an improvement of the
visual character of the Project area.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in similar short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities, although these impacts would be reduced due to the
reduced size of the Project.
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project, but on a smaller scale. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any
significant long-term impacts.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be very similar to the proposed Project but of a smaller scale, resulting in a
reduction in short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts compared to the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-teim erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes a reduction in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be onsite, resulting in
fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Construction generated noise impacts from this Project would be less than those of the proposed
Project. However, as with the proposed Project, the entire site would be cleared, resulting in the same
demolition activities and the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition debris. As with the
proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be less than
those of the proposed Project, as a smaller commercial development would require less excavation, and
grading. Further, just as with the proposed Project, this alternative would also require additional offsite
grading in order to provide fill for the wetland feature. Additionally, the entire site would be cleared,
resulting in the same demolition activities and the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition
debris. As with the proposed Project, this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air
quality. Because the region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations,
any new emissions generated by the Project would be significant impacts. However, as this alternative
would generate a lower number of trips, long-term impacts would be lower than those of the proposed
Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing onsite structures
would have to be demolished and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into
the air in the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized
Environmental Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would
be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would reduce impacts to public services
and utilities. Utilities would still have to be vacated or removed. However, implementation of this
alternative would result in reduced demand for utilities and on public services. Specifically, demands on
water production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and recreation,
the Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied reduction in
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CHNo.2oo3121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
~ J'iUlltIR
Findings
o
population and land use intensity of the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, unavoidable
significant impacts would still occur with this alternative as a result of demolition debris generation.
Historic: and Cultural Resourc:es. The South Lake Project Area does not have any known historical,
paleontological, or archaeological resources. Therefore, this alternative, as with the proposed Project,
would not cause any impacts to historical or cultural resources.
Population and Housing. As discussed in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, the new employment
opportunities associated with the South Lake Area conunercial development could contribute to the
growth of the City's population. As discussed in Section 4.9, the proposed Project could result in the net
growth of 825 people. Based on the same methodology, this alternative could result in the net growth of
the City's population by 192 people. As with the proposed Project, this change would result in a less than
one percent change of the City's population and would not be considered significant.
.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative proposes the demolition of all onsite uses, including four
existing single-family residences. As with the proposed Project, every person currently residing onsite
would have to be relocated.
Condusion. This alternative would partially or totally satisfy all of the following Project objectives:
o
.
.
Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area through the development of new, aesthetically
pleasing water bodies;
In the South Lake Area, create a new water feature, which would be the focus for the existing and
newly developed commercial district, providing both an aesthetic amenity and opportunity of
wetlands mitigation and/or recreation;
Construct a new commercial development near the proposed South Lake Area water feature.
In the South Lake Area, construction of new commercial developments, including office,
restaurant, and retailing, within the City's core business district, provide employment
opportunities, and, through the use of a water feature, create an attractive gateway entrance for
the City off of the 1-215 consistent with the Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
.
.
Based on conversations with the City, this alternative was proposed to illustrate how current trends within
this portion of the city would look overlaid onto the South Lake Project. By reducing the density of this
alternative by 75%, the impacts associated with this alternative will be greatly reduced. However, this
alternative will not provide the city with the adequate amount of conunercial opportunities, which will
provide necessary jobs close to the Central Business District. For these reasons, this alternative has been
rejected.
ALTERNATIVE 3: YOUTH SPORTS FIELDS ALTERNATIVE
o
This alternative proposes the implementation of eight youth, day-use only softball fields as proposed in
the San Bernardino Revitalization Plan - Vision 20/20. With this alternative, the South Lake
waterbody/wetland feature would still be built south of Lytle Creek, but softball fields would be built on
the areas north of Lytle Creek. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to limit the spread of
blight in the South Lake Area, it fails to provide for new conunercial development along the lake, it fails
to provide for new lakeside conunercial development and it fails to provide new employment
opportunities. As shown in the Table 1.0-2 of the Final Program EIR, Comparison of Alternatives - South
Lake without North Lake Development, this alternative would result in less impacts or reduced impacts
and, accordingly, has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative for the South Lake Area
Project.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino ValleyMUDieipal Water District
April 2S, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
"'" .~
o
o
o
"0. ,.
"
...
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FiDaI EIR
Findings
ANALYSIS
Land Use. As with the proposed Project. this alternative would not conflict with the land use pIan. goals,
or strategies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. A Specific Plan could be developed for a
recreation facility in this area. This alternative does not conflict with the City of San Bernardino
Development Code, but is not entirely in the spirit of the relevant policies of the Redevelopment Plan for
Central City South.
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative would be less than that generated by the proposed Project.
The sports fields would not receive regular use as a commercial development would and, thus, would not
generate regular traffic. Because this alternative would result in reduction in the intensity of land use, it is
expected that this alternative would not cause any traffic or circulation related significant impacts.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the vacation of streets within the Project
area.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. This alternative would result in short-term, construction related impacts
that would be very similar to the proposed Project. However, this alternative would result in greatly
reduced light and glare impacts, as there would be very minimal onsite lighting.
Further, as with the proposed Project. implementation of this alternative would result in the removal of
deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting in an improvement of the
visual character of the Project area.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in greatly reduced short-term impacts to water quality
associated with grading, excavation, and construction activities as implementation and construction of this
Project would require much less grading and construction.
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant ahd wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project, but on a smaller scale. As with the proposed Project. this alternative would not have any
significant long-term impacts.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be very similar to the proposed Project but of a smaller scale, resulting in a
reduction in short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts compared to the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project. this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes a reduction in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be onsite, resulting in
fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts from this Project would be less than those of the
proposed Project. However, as with the proposed Project. the entire site would be cleared, resulting in the
same demolition activities and the same trips.generated for hauling away the demolition debris. As with
the proposed Project. implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be less than
those of the proposed Project as a smaller co~ial development would require less excavation, and
grading. Further, just as with the proposed Project. this alternative would also require additional offsite
grading in order to provide fill for the wetland feature. Additionally, the entire site would be cleared,
resulting in the same demolition activities and the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition
debris. As with the proposed Project. this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April %5, %005
CH No. 2003121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
FiDdiDgs
o
quality. Because the region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations,
any new emissions generated by the Project would be significant impacts. However, as this alternative
would generate a lower number of trips, long-term impacts would be lower than those of the proposed
Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing onsite structures
would have to be demolished and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into
the air in the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized
Environmental Conditions would still have to be investigated andinanaged as all of the onsite uses would
be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would reduce impacts to public services
and utilities. Utilities would still have to be vacated orrcmoved. However, implementation of this
alternative would result in reduced demand for utilities and on public services. Specifically, demands on
water production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and recreation,
the Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied reduction in
population and land use intensity of the proposed Project. As with the proposed project, the same
unavoidable significant impacts associated with the generation of demolition debris would occur with this
alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. The South Lake Project Area does not have any mown historical,
paleontological, or archaeological resources. Therefore, this alternative, as with the proposed Project,
would not cause any impacts to historical or cultural resources.
C)
Population and Housing. As discussed in Section 4.9 of the Final Program EIR, Population and
Housing, the new employment opportunities associated with the South Lake Area commercial
development could contribute to the growth of the City's population. This alternative does not propose
any new employment-generating uses and, thus, would not result in any net growth of the City's
population.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative proposes the demolition of all onsite uses, including four
existing single-family residences. As with the proposed Project, every person currently residing onsite
would have to be relocated.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy all of the Project objectives. It fails to provide for new
lakeside commercial developments. However, this alternative satisfies the following objective:
. Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area through the development of new, aesthetically
pleasing water bodies;
Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area, it
fails to provide for new lakeside commercial development and it fails to provide new employment
opportunities. Although it provides fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project, the lack of
satisfying the objectives for the South Lake Area is very significant.
o
The largest unavoidable significant impact associated with this alternative is the impact to land use within
the city. Currently the Project area is designated for commercial uses and the proposed Project will
provide opportunities to continue those types of uses. However, this alternative proposes a transformation
of the Project area into parks that does not conflict with the City's General Plan, however this proposal
does conflict with the rationale and policies that were adopted within the Central City South
Redevelopment Plans. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
City of SaD BemanliDo
SaD BemardiDO Valley MuDieipal Water District
April 25, 2_
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
.~,.
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final Em
Findings
ALTERNATIVE 4: LARGER SOUTH LAKE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative proposes that a larger, deeper lake would be constructed on the northern side of Lytle
Creek per the V"zsion 20/20 plan instead of the wetland feature on the southern side of Lytle Creek. In this
case, the area designated for commercial development north of Lytle Creek uses would be reduced, but
additional area would become available for development south of Lytle Creek. Like the proposed Project,
this alternative still includes a commercial component of 450,000 square feet of office space and 31,500
square feet of retail commercial. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to limit the spread of
blight in the South Lake Area Project, it fails to provide for an attractive gateway for the City off of the 1-
215 that is consistent with the Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. AS with the proposed Project, this alternative would not conflict with the land use plan, goals,
or strategies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the City of San Bernardino Development Code,
or the relevant policies of the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Redevelopment Project.
Trame. As this alternative proposes the same mix of land uses as the proposed Project, it would generate
the same traffic as the proposed Project. As the proposed Project does not create any traffic-related
impacts, this alternative would not create any traffic related impacts.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Implementation of this alternative would result in greater short-term
aesthetic, light, and glare impacts, as it would entail more excavation, grading, and construction than the
proposed Project. However, long-term impacts of the alternative would be the same as those of the
proposed Project as the land development scenario is the same.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in greater short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since development of alternative would require
significantly more grading and excavation. As with the proposed Project, storm water flows into Lytle
Creek would be reduced and there would not be any long term impacts to hydrology or water quality.
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any significant long-term
impacts.
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be greater because of the additional excavation and grading that would be
required to construct the larger water feature. 1berefore, short-term wind and water generated erosion
impacts would likely be much greater with this alternative.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes the same total land use, onsite liquefaction hazards would be the same as the
proposed Project.
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts from this Project would be greater than those of the
proposed Project as construction of the lake would require a significant amount of additional excavation
and a greater number of truck trips for banling the extra excavation material and the additional clay. As
with the proposed Project, the entire site would be cleared, resulting in the same demolition activities and
the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition debris. As with the proposed Project,
implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
City of San BernanUllo
San Bernardino VaHey Municipal Water District
April 15, 200s'
CH No. 2003121150
o
C)
o
'-
North Lake Area.l!Jld South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
Air QuaDty. Constniction-related air quality impacts from this Project would be greater than the those of
the proposed Project as construction of the lake would require a significant amount of additional
excavation and a greater number of truck trips for hauling the extra excavation material and the additional
clay. Further, this alternative would require more offsite grading than the proposed Project. Additionally,
the entire site would be cleared, resulting in the same demolition activities and the same trips generated
for hauling away the demolition debris. As with the proposed Project, this Project would result in an
unavoidable significant impact to air quality. Because the region's air quality is currently in non-
attainment with State and Federal regulations, any new emissions generated by the Project would be
significant impacts. As this alternative would generate the same number of trips, long-term impacts would
be equal to those
of the proposed Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety'and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, large-scale demolition would ocCW'
with this alternative and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into the air in
the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized Environmental
Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts to
public services and utilities. Utilities would still have to be vacated or removed. However,
implementation of this alternative would result in the same demand for utilities and on public services as
the same land use intensity and mix is proposed. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this
alternative would result in the same unavoidable significant impacts due to the generation of demolition
debris.
Historic and Cultural Resources. The South Lake Project Area does not have any known historical,
paleontological, or archaeological resources. Therefore, this alternative, as with the proposed Project,
would not cause any impacts to historical or cultural resources. .
Population and Housing. This alternative would create the same number of new jobs and would require
the demolition of the same structW'es as the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative would have the
same impacts to population and housing as the proposed Project.
Conclusion. This alternative satisfies a majority of the Project objectives for the South Lake Area Project,
due to the commonality it shares with the proposed Project. The main difference is how this alternative's
land uses are oriented compared to the proposed Project. This alternative moves the water feature to the
north of the Lytle Creek. By re-arranging the site in this manner, this alternative will not provide a water
feature as part of the attractive gateway entrance for the city.
Although this alternative satisfies several of the Project's goals, it will also create greater short-term
impacts associated with air quality, noise, and hydrology from construction of the larger 1a1ce. For these
reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
South Lake Alternative 3 has been determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Note that
none of the alternatives that involve new development are substantially superior to the proposed Project
from an environmental perspective. Impacts to aesthetics; air quality; geology, soils, and seismicity;
hydrology and water quality; noise; public services and utilities; and traffic would all be reduced relative
to the proposed Project under this alternative.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaDey Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
3.9 PROJECT BENEFITS
o
The following benefits will occur as a result of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project
implementation:
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECf
1) Provide SBVMWD with sufficient surface storage capacity to meet its near term goal of 347
acre-feet near existing infrastructure including the Base Line feeder and SBVMWD and USEP A
groundwater pumping operations;
2) Create a surface storage reservoir in proximity to current water production facilities (to limit
pipeline length) and upstream of water transmission facilities and future water service recipients
(including the "H" Street Stonn Drain and the Santa Ana River).
3) Utiliie surplus land surrounding the proposed North Lake to facilitate new development and
focus reinvestment in the conununity;
4) Create a new public park and lake, which would be the focus for the existing and newly
developed residential conununity;
5) Construct new conunercial developments along sections of the proposed lakeshore; and
6) Limit the spread of blight through the development of a new, aesthetically pleasing water body.
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECf
o
1) Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area through the development ofa new, aesthetically
pleasing water body;
2) Create a new water feature, which would be the. focus for the existing and newly developed
conunercial district, providing both an aesthetic amenity and opportunity of wetlands mitigation
and/or recreation;
3) Construct new conunercial development near the proposed South Lake Area water feature.
4) Construct new conunercial developments, including office, restaurant, and retailing, within the
City's core business district, provide employment opportunities, and, through the use of a water
feature, create an attractive gateway entrance for the City off of the 1-215 consistent with the
Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
Development of the proposed Project will provide a logical extension of convenient and aesthetically
compatible uses, which will strengthen the economic viability of the City.
3.10 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Mayor and Conunon Council of the City of San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations with
respect to the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR.
The following significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project after
implementation of all project-specific mitigation measures identified in Section 1.0 of the Final Program
EIR, Executive Summary:
AIR QUALITY
o
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during site preparation and
Project construction. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur as a result of import/export
activities. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April Z5, ZOOS
CHNo.2oo3121150
."
o
o
o
."",, ""'~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
The Project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct
impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption.
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
The Project may conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Impacts would be significant
and unavoidable with mitigation. Cumulative impacts for construction emissions and long-term
operational emissions would also be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
LAND USE
Development of the proposed North Lake Area Project reservoir would introduce a barrier land use that
would obstruct traffic circulation throughout the vicinity and physically divide an established comollmity.
While compliance with mandatory site development standards and design guidelines would lessen
potential impacts in this regard, this impact is considered significant and WUlvoidable. No additional
unavoidable significant impacts related to land use and relevant planning have been identified.
NOISE
Due to the requirement for a large volume of import material from, and export material to, the Soil
Disposal/Clay Borrow Site and the extended period of time import/excavationlgrading activities would
take place at that site, the project's temporary construction-related noise impact at the off site Soil
Disposal IClay Borrow Sites is considered an WUlvoidable significant impact.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would displace a substantial number of people, housing
and businesses. Additionally, cumulative impacts would occur due to displacement caused by cumulative
projects in the vicinity. Notwithstanding compliance with California Codes, and the development of the
72 new housing units, this impact for the North Lake Area Project is considered significant and
unavoidable due to the number of persons, housing units and businesses being displaced.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Due to the large quantities of deconstruction and demolition debris generated from the implementation of
the proposed project, an WUlvoidable significant impact would occur relative to area-wide solid waste
disposal capacities and the City's compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act.
3.11 ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE
CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires the City adopt a monitoring or reporting program
regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid significant
effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan included in the Final Program
EIR is hereby adopted by the Mayor and Common COWlcil of the City of San Bernardino and the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the Mayor and Common COWlcil and the Board of
Directors hereby find that such plan satisfies CEQA's mitigation monitoring requirements:
1. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the
project and mitigation measures imposed on the project dwing project iri1plementation; and
Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements or other measures.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25. 2005
CH No. 2003121150
_~ "0
o
G
o
N_
EXHIBIT 8
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN
BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING
THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION, CERTIFYING THE . FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE
NORTH Ln.. 1< cr FTAKE AREA
PROJECT .. ..
--RECIT ALS--
(a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
("City") adopted the General Plan for the City by Resolution No. 89-1 S9 on June 2, 1989; and
(b) WHEREAS, the City and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
("SBVMWD") prepared an initial study dated March 14, 2003, which was circulated for public
comment between March 14, 2003, and April 14, 2003, for the proposed North Lake Area
Project and the South Lake Area Project, and following the end of the comment period for the
March 14,2003, environmental study, the City in consultation with the SBVMWD updated and
redistributed for public comment and review a revised and Expanded Notice of Preparation to
the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and interested persons for a second 3o-day
comment period for the environmental impact report between the dates of December 24, 2003 to
January 28, 2004; and
(c) WHEREAS, an Expanded Notice of Preparation for a Program Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project was
prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and other interested
4811-2098-3808.1
1
o
G
o
-r.
persons in December, 2003, and published in The San Bernardino County Sun on December 22,
2003; and
(d) WHEREAS, the public comment period for the Expanded Notice of Preparation
was December 23, 2003 through January 28, 2004; and
(e) WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held at the Feldheym Library on
January 15,,2004, to 'ty~~ents as related to the
proposed North Lake r Projrd the issues the public
would like addressed in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and
(t) WHEREAS, a Draft Program EIR was distributed for public review on
September 7, 2004, for the 45-day review period with the review period ending on October 22,
2004; and
(g) WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, a public workshop was conducted relating
to the Draft Program EIR; and
(b) WHEREAS, on October 14, 2004 a public workshop was conducted relating to
the Draft Program EIR which was presented in the Spanish language; and
(i) WHEREAS, four (4) comment letters were received before the close of the
public review period and written responses were provided on March 1, 2005 and the specific
responses to the written comments are in the Final Program EIR; and
G) WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of San
Bernardino held a noticed public hearing on the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area
Project in order to receive public testimony and written and oral comments relating to the Draft
Program EIR and proposed amendments to the City General Plan in compliance with City
requirements; and
4811-2098-3808.1
2
o
e
o
(k)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Development Services
Department Staff Report on March 8, 2005, which addresses the Draft Program EIR and the
proposed amendments to the General Plan; and
(1) WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending that the Mayor and Common Council certify the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report (SCH 2 .tigati~~ Reporting Plan, and
adopt General Plan ircrn). I. Planning Commission
recommended that General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 (Land Use) be deferred for any further
action until completion of construction of the regulating reservoir in the form of an at-surface
lake; and
(m) WHEREAS, on April 14,2005, a public workshop was held at the Feldheym
Library to answer questions about the acquisition/relocation process for the North Lake Area
Project; and
(n) WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common
Council and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of Directors conducted
a noticed joint public hearing to consider certification of the Final Program EIR for the North
Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, adoption of the Facts, Findings and Statement
of Overrlding Consideration, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and, in
the case of the City, adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 05-06; and
(0) WHEREAS, the North Lake Area Project site includes approximately 82.4 acres
located in the central portion of the City of San Bernardino, immediately north of downtown
San Bernardino. The North Lake Area Project is bounded by Baseline Street on the north, 9th
Street on the south, "E" Street on the east, and "H" Street on the west. Portions of the North
4811-2098-3808.1
3
o
o
o
Lake Area Project site located along Baseline Street and "E" Street are within the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan Project Area; and
(P) WHEREAS, the predominant land use within the North Lake Area Project
boundaries is residential, which accounts for approximately 47 percent of the total land area A
total of 437 dwelling units exist within the North Lake Area Project, including 173 single and
es, and apartments).
Lake Area Project and
percent of the total North Lake Area Project and involve an estimated 114,703 square feet of
floor space. Approximately seven percent of the North Lake Area Project consists of vacant
parcels of land, many of which were developed or improved with structures and have since been
demolished. Approximately nineteen percent of the North Lake Area Project site consists of
public streets or other public right-of-way areas; and
(q) WHEREAS, the North Lake Area Project is primarily a public facilities project
which would result in the construction of 44.S-acre (660 acre-foot) open regulating reservoir.
Following the completion of the lake and related water reservoir regulating facilities by
SBVMWD, certain remnant lands may be transferred by the SBVMWD to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of San Bernardino for reuse as redevelopment, and thereafter, general
commercial uses may be developed along the south side of Baseline Street and west side of "E"
Street, and single-family residential dwelling units may be constructed along the east side of"H"
Street. The current North Lake Area Project concept provides for the potential of planned
residential development of approximately 12 acres of commercial areas. As amenities to the lake,
4811-2098-3808.1
4
o
o
o
open space and public access would be interspersed along all four sides of the North Lake Area
Project, providing public access to the new lake; and
(r) WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes approximately 53.7 acreS of
land bounded by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way on the north (south of
Rialto Avenue), West Mill Street on the south, South "G" Street on the east, and the Interstate
215 on the west. The te 215 northbound on-
ramp traverse the south
(s) WHEREAS, the majority of the South Lake Area Project site, approximately 57
percent of the total South Lake Area Project, includes vacant land and much of this vacant land is
presently owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino. Nonconforming
industrial land uses encompass approximately 19 percent of the total South Lake Area and
include an estimated 251,621 square feet of floor space. Commercial uses encompass
approximately seven percent of the total South Lake Area and include an estimated 116,802
square feet of floor space. Residential uses within the South Lake Area Project account for
approximately one percent of the total area; and
(t) WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes the assembly of land by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino and redevelopment assistance to eliminate
blight on this site and reuse and redevelopment for up to 450,000 square feet of office
development with 31,500 square feet of supporting retail, together with all necessary parking and
landscaped areas. The South Lake Area Project will also include an approximately 5-acre
wetlands area, or other water body feature on an approximately 13-acre triangular parcel
intended to incorporate additional landscaping and open space components, and/or other
4811-2098-3808.1
5
-
o
G
o
community gateway element, which would complement both the new development and this
important section of the City along the 1-215 corridor; and
(u) WHEREAS, the City and SBVMWD previously entered into a Co-Lead Agency
Agreement whereby the parties agreed to act as Co-Lead Agencies with respect to the
preparation, review and certification of the EIR, as permitted by the CEQA Guidelines Section
15051<::lmW ~C' Ii X ~e ~~ Agarey
Agreement that each entity shall individually review and determine whether to certify the EIR
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 and that the certification of the EIR shall not be
effective, and a Notice of Determination shall not be filed, until both entities have separately
certified the EIR through their independent official actions of the elected officials constituting
their governing bodies and approve any required mitigation monitoring program and/or
statements of overriding consideration as a part of such EIR and the implementation thereof.
SECTION I. PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND
ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEREBY CERTIFY:
A. The facts and information contained in the Recitals are true and correct. The
Program Environmental Impact Report for the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area
Project, has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The
Final Program EIR, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and all the
evidence and information contained therein are on file with the City Clerk's Office and are
incorporated herein by reference. The Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Consideration are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.
4811-2098-3808.1
6
_0
o
o
o
B.
The Final Program EIR was presented to the Board of Directors who have
reviewed and considered the information in the Final Program EIR prior to its certification.
C. The Final Program EIR bas identified all significant environmental effects of the
North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project.
D. Although the Final Program EIR identifies certain significant environmental
effects that would result if the development of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake
Area Project occurs, al f:lit\~ed or mitigated will be
avoided or mitigated b ~ation.&ores as set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Final Program EIR. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan and all information contained therein is included in the Final
Program EIR and incorporated herein by reference.
E. Potential mitigation measures and other project alternatives not incorporated into
or adopted as part of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project. were rejected
as infeasible, based on specific economic, social, or other considerations as set forth in the Facts,
Findings and Statements of Overriding Consideration.
F. The Board of Directors have given great weight to the significant unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts. The Board of Director finds that the significant unavoidable
adverse impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, cultural and other benefits of the
North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project, as set forth in the Facts, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Consideration.
G. The findings contained in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Consideration with respect to the significant impacts identified in the Final Program EIR are true
and correct. and are based upon substantial evidence in the record, including documents
comprising the Final Program EIR..
4811-2098-3808.1
7
~,
'I
o
o
o
"~-,
, -.
f' ::; ,! !~.1.
H.
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, and the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration reflect the
independent review, analysis and judgment of the Board of Directors.
SECTION ll. CERTIFICATION OF THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED
by the Boan! of Direct all~ District that the Final
Program Environment t..I}1is heI1 certified and the Facts,
Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration are hereby adopted, and that the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan is hereby adopted.
SECTION m. FILING OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICES
In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the staff of the San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination and any and
alL other appropriate environmental notices with the appropriate County and State agencies
relative to the actions of the Board of Directors in adopting this resolution.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
The certification of the EIR shall not be effective, and a Notice of Determination shall not
be filed, until the City has separately certified the EIR through its independent official action of
its elected officials constituting its government body and has approved any required mitigation
monitoring program and/or facts, findings, and statement of overriding consideration as a part of
such EIR and the implementation thereof.
4811-2098-3808.1
8
_"
o
o
o
,",h.,i r.H.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING THE FAcrS, FINDINGS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE NORTH LAKE .
AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
ENACTED:
D......'..
,"
President
ATTEST:
Secretary .
(SEAL)
481 t-2098-3808.\
9
-, p,
o
o
o
, "">"'-~'.,'~,."
"
>.--' - - -, .~.
~. i.~ '''''. I~
EXHIBIT 8-D
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REpORT FOR THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1003121150)
!K"'~
'. '
!>j"..1 t,l R.
o
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REpORT FOR THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003121150)
o
1.0 Introduction .... ..... ... ....... ....... ..... ............... ............. .... .... ...... ...... ....... ...... ..............
2.0 Project Summary............... ..... ....... .......... ......... ........... ... ................ ......................
2.1 Project Description....... ............... ............. ...... ............ ................. ......... ....
2.2 Project Objectives ..... .......... ..... ........... .................................. .... ...... ..... ....
3.0 Environmental Review and Public Participation .................................................
3.1 Independent Judgement Finding ..............................................................
3.2 Findings on the Final Program EIR .........................................................
3.3 General Finding on Mitigation Measures ................................................
3.4 Environmental Impacts and Findings ......................................................
3.5 Impacts Identified in the Final Program EIR as Less Than Significant
Req .. N Mitt' ii'
wong 0 ga on..........................................................................
. Aesthetics, Light and Glare................................................................
. Air Quality ....... .............. ....... ................. ................. ......... ..................
. Biological Resources.... ................ ............................... .......... ............
. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ..........................................................
. Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................
. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................
. Land Use and Relevant Planning.......................................................
. Population and Housing.....................................................................
. Public Safety and Risk of Upset ........................................................
. Public Services and Utilities ..............................................................
. Traffic and Circulation.......................................................................
3.6 Potentially Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated Below a Level
of Significance With Mitigation Measures ..............................................
. Aesthetics, Light and Glare................................................................
. Biological Resources .........................................................................
. Geology, Soils and Seismicity ...........................................................
. Historical and Cultural Resources .....................................................
. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................
. Land Use and Relevant Planning.......................................................
. Noise ..................................................................................................
. Population and Housing.....................................................................
. Public Safety and Risk of Upset ........................................................
. Public Services and Utilities ..............................................................
. Traffic and Circulation.......................................................................
o
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
25
25
26
27
'f
o
o
o
V~rl;
3.7 Impacts Analyzed in the Final Program EIR and Determined to be
Significant and Unavoidable ............. ...... ................... .............................. 27
. Air Quality . ....... ................ ............. ................ .............. ..... ................. 28
. Land Use ........... ......... .............. ..................... ..................... .......... ...... 29
. Population and Housing..................................................................... 29
. Public Services and Utilities .............................................................. 30
3.8 Project Alternatives and Analysis............................................................ 31
North Lake Area Project Alternatives...................................................... 31
South Lake Area Project Alternatives...................................................... 43
3.9 Project Benefits... ......... .............. ................ ....................... ........ ........ ....... 52
North Lake Area Project .......................................................................... 52
South Lake Area Project .......................................................................... 52
3.10 Statement Of Overriding Considerations ................................................ 53
. Air Quality ......................................................................................... 53
. Land Use .................... ........................................................................ 53
. Noise................... ..................... ................................. ........................ 53
. Population and Housing .................................................................... 53
. Public Services and Utilities .............................................................. 53
3.11 Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the
CEQU Mitigation Measures .................................................................... S3
11
~
1'... 1 ;..nt
o
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REpORT FOR THE NORTH
LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE No. 2003121150)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino (City) and the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District (SBVWMD) in approving the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final
EIR") for the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project by their separate official actions
as Co-Lead Agencies have been presented with the relevant facts and through their separate official
actions make the findings described below and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations
presented at the end of these Facts and Findings. The "Project" under consideration for purposes of the
discretionary actions of both the City and the SBVMWD as described in Section 2.0.
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
o
'The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project are each a series of public facility
projects and community redevelopment projects affecting lands to be acquired for the North Lake Area
Project and the South Lake Area Project, as applicable by the SBVMWD, the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of San Bernardino ("Redevelopment Agency"), and the City.
The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project are proposed to be undertaken in two distinct,
nearby but non-contiguous planning areas, which fall within the boundaries of the City of San
Bernardino, and can be found on the U.S. Geological Survey's San 'Bernardino North and San Bernardino
South, California Quadrangle (refer to Exhibit 3-1, Regional Map, and Exlubit 3-2, Vicinity Map of the
Draft EIR). The City is located in the western-most portion of San Bernardino County, approximately S9
miles east of Los Angeles and 110 miles north of San Diego. Located at the base of the San Bernardino
Mountains, the City and its sphere of influence cover approximately 64 square miles, and share the
Southern California region with the adjacent cities of Colton, Highland, Redlands, Rialto, and Lorna
Linda.
Collectively, the potential environmental effects of the elements of the proposed public facilities,
redevelopment, and related activities for the purposes of the indicated analysis under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), is described herein and in the appropriate Resolutions of the City
and SBVMWD as the "Project."
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes the following elements:
NORTH LAKE AREA
o
. Mixed-use development including lake, residential, commercial and park uses;
. Camp Fire Boys and Girls facility would remain;
. 44.5-acre lake (approximately 660 acre-feet of water storage);
. Planned Residential Development 72 detached-units;
. Three commercial pads (approx. 12 acres total); and
. 8-MGD Water Treatment Plant.
City of SaD Bernardino
SaD BerDardino VaHey Munidpal Water District
April 25, 2005
8CH No. 203121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FilIal J:.IR
Findings
SOUTH LAKE AREA
o
. 481,500 SF redeveloped with commercial retail and office space; and
. 13 acres of open space/landscaping enhancements, including a 5-acre water feature (Le.,
lake or wetland).
The Project affects two (2) areas located in the central portion of the City. The site of the North Lake
Area Project includes 82.4 acres located in the central portion of the City, immediately north of
downtown San Bernardino. The North Lake Area is bOlmded by Base Line Street on the north, 9111 Street
on the south, "E" Street on the east, and "H" Street on the west. Portions of the site located along
Baseline Street and "E" Street are within the City's Uptown Redevelopment Project Area, while the
remainder of the project site is within the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) Redevelopment
Project Area.]'he site of the South Lake Area Project includes approximately 53.7 acres bounded by the
BNSF Railroad right-of-way on the north (south of Rial to Avenue), Mill Street on the south, "G" Street
on the east, and Interstate 215 (I-215) on the west. The Lytle Creek Flood Control Channel and the 1-215
northbound on-ramp traverse the southern portion of the South Lake Area Project.
2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The general objectives of the Projects are to facilitate redevelopment, promote economic development for
the City, and provide new water storage facilities within the City. The individual objectives of each
Project are described below:
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
o
1) Provide SBVMWD with sufficient surface storage capacity to meet its near term goal of 347
acre-feet near existing infrastructure including the Base Line feeder and SBVMWD and
USEP A groundwater pwnping operations;
2) Create a surface storage reservoir in proximity to current water production facilities (to limit
pipeline length) and upstream of water transmission facilities and future water service
recipients (including the ''H'' Street Storm Drain and the Santa Ana River).
3) Utilize surplus land surrounding the proposed North Lake Area Project to facilitate new
development and focus reinvestment in the community;
4) In the North Lake Area Project, to create a new public park and lake, which would be the
focus for the existing and newly developed residential community;
4) Construct new commercial developments along sections of the proposed lakeshore; and
5) Limit the spread of blight in the North Lake Area Project through the development ofa new,
aesthetically pleasing water body.
SoUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
1) Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area Project through the development of a new,
aesthetically pleasing water body, which would be the focus for the existing and newly developed
commercial district, providing both an aesthetic amenity and opportunity of wetlands mitigation
and/or recreation;
2) Construct new commercial developments, including office, restaurant, and retailing, within the
City's core business district, provide employment opportunities, and, through the use of a water
feature, create an attractive gateway entrance for the City off of the 1-215 consistent with the
City's Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
o
City of San BeJ'lW'dino
San Bernardino VaHey Municipal Water District
AprU 25, ZOO5
CHNo.2003121150
~
..
..
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FiB" EIR
FiBdiags
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
o
The City and SBVMWD conducted environmental review of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake
Area Project as follows:
. The City and the SBVMWD prepared an Initial Study, which was reviewed by the City's
Development/Environmental Review Committee, who concurred that a Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR.) would be required.
. The Initial Study/Notice of Preparation of an EIR. was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and
responsible agencies and circulated for a 30-day public comment period between March 13, 2003
and April 14, 2003. The Initial Study/Notice of Preparation of an EIR. was published in the San
Bernardino County Sun on
. Subsequent to the close of the comment period on April 14, 2003, the City and the SBVMWD
refined the original Initial Study and redistributed an updated and revised Expanded Notice of
Preparation to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and interested persons for a second
30-day comment period for the environmental impact report from December 24, 2003 to January
28,2004. The Initial Study/Notice of Preparation of an EIR. was published in the San Bernardino
County Sun on December 22,2003. This document was also posted on the City and SBVMWD
web pages.
o
. A public scoping meeting was held at the Feldheym Library on January 15, 2004, to give the
public the opportunity to provide comments as related to the proposed North Lake Area Project
and South Lake Area Project and the issues the public would like addressed in the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report.
. The Draft Program EIR. was distributed for public review on September 7, 2004, for the 45-day
review period with the review period ending on October 22, 2004. Six comment letters were
received before the close of the public review period. Responses to Comments were distnbuted
on March 1,2005, and are included in the Final Program EIR.. These documents were also posted
on the City and SBVMWD web pages.
. On September 14, 2004, a public workshop relating to the Draft Program EIR. was held in the
Council Chambers of City Hall.
. On October 14, 2004, a public workshop relating to the Draft Program EIR. was held in the
Council Chambers of City Hall. This workshop was presented in Spanish.
. On February 25, 2005, the City published a display notice of the City of San Bernardino Planning
Commission to be held on March 8, 200~ hearing related to the Draft Program EIR., General Plan
Amendment No. 05-06, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 in The San Bernardino County
Sun, and mailed notices of this hearing to all property owners within the North Lake Area Project
and South Lake Area Project, and all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of both
area projects. .
o
. On March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino held a noticed public
hearing on the North Lake Area Project, the South Lake Area Project, General Plan Amendment
No. 05-06, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-07. The Planning Commission staff report was
also posted on the City web page.
City of SaB BenuInliBo
San BerBardiBo Valley MuBidpal Water District
AprIl 25, 2005
CHNo.2oo3121150
-..
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
o
. On April 14, 2005, a public workshop relating to the acquisition/relocation process was held at
the Feldheym Library.
. On April 14, 2005, the City and SBVMWD published in The San Bernardino County Sun, a
display notice of the joint public hearing of the City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common
Council and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of Directors joint public
hearing scheduled for April 25, 2005 related to the Draft Program EIR. The display notice also
included the City's consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, and General Plan
Amendment No. 05-07. The City mailed notices of this hearing to all property owners within the
North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, and all property owners within 500 feet of
the boundaries of both area projects.
. On April 25, 2005, the City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council and the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of Directors conducted a noticed joint public
hearing to consider certification of the Final Program EIR for the North Lake Area Project and
South Lake Area Project. The Mayor and Common Council also considered General Plan
Amendment No. 05-06, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-07.
3.1 INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT FINDING
o
The San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority (JPA) retained RBF Consulting to assist with
the preparation of the Draft Program EIR, the Final Program EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan. The Draft Program EIR, the Final Program EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan were prepared under the direction and supervision of the City and the SBVMWD. The
Final EIR includes the docwnents, reports, technical appendices, correspondence, and related materials
described in Final Program EIR. The Final Program EIR is on file with the City Clerk of the City of San
Bernardino and the Secretary to the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD and is available for inspection
and copying as a public record of the City by interested persons during the regular business hours of the
City and the Secretary to the Board of Directors during the regular business hours of the SBVMWD.
Finding: The Final Program EIR reflects the City's and SBVMWD's independent judgment and analysis
of both the City and the SBVMWD. The Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of
Directors of the SBVMWD have considered the contents of the Final Program EIR prior to the approval
of the Project. Furthermore, the Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of
the SBVMWD have independently reviewed, analyzed and exercised judgement in making their
respective determinations, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082. 1 (c)(3).
3.2 FINDINGS ON THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR
Finding: The Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD have
declared through their separate official actions that the Final Program EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects which "may occur as a result of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area
Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final Program EIR, these
effects can be mitigated to a. level of less than significant as set forth in Section 3.6 of these Findings.
However, there are certain other significant effects which either cannot be fully mitigated or for which no
feasible or practical mitigation currently exist, and these unavoidable significant impacts are discussed in
Section 3.7 of these Findings.
o
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley MUDicipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CHNo.20031211S0
- - ... -~~...
-,~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FiIaaI Em
Findings
3.3 GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES
o
The Mayor and Common Council and the Board of Directors have reviewed the mitigation measures
applicable to the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project through their separate official
actions and review processes applicable to each as the Co-Lead Agencies.
In the event that the description of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recOmmended in the Final
Program EIR, in each such instance, the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measures in the
Final Program EIR. Any minor revisions were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better
defme the intended purpose.
Findings: Tlie Mayor and Common Council and the Board of Directors adopted Findings to the effect
that the mitigation measures summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan will reduce all
potential significant impacts of the Project to a level of less than significant, except as set forth in Section
3.7 of these Findings. The Mayor and Common Council and the Board of Directors have duly adopted all
mitigation measures recommended in the Final Program EIR. The Mayor and Common Council and the
Board of Directors have further adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the North Lake
Area Project and South Lake Area Project in the form as submitted to the Mayor and Common Council
and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD at the joint public hearing when the Final Program EIR was
considered.
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
o
The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the
Project, the Responses to Comments, and any revisions or omissions to the Draft Program EIR are
presented in the Final Program EIR.
The Final Program EIR evaluated twelve (12) major environmental categories (aesthetics, air quality,
biological resources, geological resourc.es and hazards, historic and cultural resources, hydrology and
water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public safety and risk of upset, public services and
utilities, and traffic) for potential significant unavoidable impacts, including cumulative impacts. Both
project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these 12 environmental categories, the
Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD have concmred
with the conclusions in the Final Program EIR that, with exception to the issues considered in Section 3.7
of these Findings, all of the other issues and sub-issues discussed in these Findings can be mitigated
below a significant impact threshold. For those issues which cannot be mitigated below a level of
significance (See Section 3.7 of these Findings), overriding considerations exist which make the~
acceptable. In addition to the twelve (12) major environmental categories addressed in the Final Program .
EIR, four (4) other major categories were found to be non-significant in the Initial Study prepared for the
Project. The Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD have
concurred through their respective official actions with the conclusions on these categories as outlined in
the Initial Study (Appendix 10.1 of the Draft Program EIR) and have found that no significant impacts
have been identified as to those categories identified in the Initial Study and no further analysis is
required.
3.5 IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR AS LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT REQUIRING NO MITIGATION
o
Certain effects for the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project were found not to be
significant and were identified as such in the Initial Study for the ~orth Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project. The basis on which the effects of the Project found to be less tharipotentially,
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Mwdcipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CHNo.2003121150
~n...
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
n..I DR
Findings
significant were set forth in each section of the Final Program EIR. These impacts were fOood to be less
than potentially significant for the reasons set forth in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, of
o the Final Program EIR..
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study (Appendix 10.1 of the Draft Program EIR) as
having the potential to cause significant impact and were carried forward to the Final Program EIR for
detailed evaluation. These issues were fOOOd, either on the basis of further analysis in the Final Program
EIR or because the identified impacts have been fully mitigated, as having no potential to cause
significant impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. Each such resource issue is
identified in these Findings and the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is discussed
below:
AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE
Cumulative Imoaets
Implementation of the proposed Projects, combined with cumulative projects, could increase impacts to
aesthetics, light, and glare.
o
Potential future development facilitated by the applicable redevelopment plans may change the aesthetic
character of the vicinity of the respective Project areas through temporary demolition, remediation, and
construction, as well as long-term operation of future uses. Potential future uses include
recreational/public facilities, residential, and commercial uses as allowed by the City of San Bernardino
General Plan designations for the Project areas and as set forth in the herein descn"bed General Plan
amendment. All such potential uses would comply with City of San Bernardino General Plan
designations, as well as all City of San Bernardino Development Code standards with regards to building
height, densities, and landscaping. Onsite lighting associated with potential future development would be
similar in character to areas surroooding the project. The proposed Projects are expected to facilitate
improvements that would enhance the overall aesthetic character of the Project areas. Therefore, the
proposed Projects are not anticipated to be cumulatively significant with other projects within the City.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
AIR QUALITY
Toxie Air Contaminants
Temporary construction-related toxic air contaminants (TACs) would result from site grading and soil
haul/fill operations.
During development of the proposed reservoir in the North Lake Area Project, heavy trucks may travel as
far as 60 miles in order to dispose of soils and obtain clay. Generally, trucks associated with heavy
hauling are diesel-powered. Diesel exhausts include over 40 substances previously identified by
California Air Resources Board as TACs.
o
Sensitive receptors in the North Lake Area Project, including residential uses and an elementary school
(located north of Baseline Street, between "0" Street and "H" Street) are located along the proposed truck
haul routes. According to Table 4.2-8 of the Final Program EIR, import/export operations would exceed
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) criteria pollutant thresholds, thus inferring
corresponding TAC levels. However, the increase would be relatively minor compared to existing traffic
City or San Bemardiao
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CH No. 2003121150
!lli.:.c>
North Lake Area aud South Lake Area Projects
FiB.. DR
Findings
o
and the Project-related increase would be limited to a few years (as opposed to more substantial
prolonged TAC emissions from major commerciaVindustrial projects). The time span of import/export
operations compared to the 70-year lifetime expoSlU'C threshold also indicates that the impact, as related to
time of exposW'C, would be negligible. Considering the relatively slight increase and short duration of
construction-related Project truck traffic, a less than significant impact would occur related to TACs.
Localized Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Project implementation could result in impacts from localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions.
An impact is potentially significant if the Project produces emission levels that exceed the State or
Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from
vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically
demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the
potential to create "pockets" of CO called "hot spots". These pockets have the potential to exceed the
State I-hour standard of 20.0 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard to 9.0 ppm.
o
Using a worst-case scenario, projected traffic volumes were then modeled using the CALINE4 dispersion
model. The resultant values were then added to an ambient concentration. For the pUlpOses of this
analysis, the ambient concentrations are taken as the highest I-hour CO measurement in the past five
years of monitoring data nearest monitoring station. FutlU'C ambient concentrations would be far lower
than present levels based upon expected trends and advancing technologies. Maximum Year 20 I 5 l-hour
CO concentration with the Project is 7.4 ppm, which is well below the State and Federal standards of 20
ppm and 35 ppm respectively. The proposed Project would not result in adverse CO emissions.
Additionally, the maximum Year 2015 eight-hour CO concentration with the Project is 4.4 ppm, which is
well below the State and Federal standard of 9 ppm. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in
adverse CO emissions.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measW'CS to ensW'C that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Section 4.3 of the Final Program EIR addresses the potential impacts related to biological resources in the
North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project. The Final Program EIR addresses six topics, three
of which are addressed in this section and two of which are addressed in Section 4.0 of these Findings.
Ve2etation
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could significantly impact onsite
vegetation.
o
The disturbed, ornamental and developed areas vegetation types present on the Project sites would be
removed with Projectimplcmentation. These vegetation types are not considered important biological
resources. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.
Vegetation does not occur on the channel bottOms of the two channels, which traverse the South Lake
Area Project site. Therefore, from a plant and vegetation type perspective, any impacts to these channels
would not be considered significant, although the South Lake Area Project does not propose to modify or
alter these existing channels. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant
impact.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Vdey Municipal Water Distriet
AprU 15,1005
CH No. 20031211S0
!l;Il;'"
o
o
o
"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
"JliaafDll
Findings
Wildlife
The proposed Projects would potentially disturb onsite wildlife.
The vegetation and habitat types on the Project sites provide low quality habitat for native wildlife. The
North Lake Area Project site is predominately developed. The South Lake Area Project site contains areas
of disturbed, Wldeveloped land, in addition to large connnercial buildings. No significant wildlife species
were observed. Development of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project sites would
result in less than significant impacts on wildlife species.
The sites do not function as wildlife movement corridors, nor do they provide any resoW'Ces that would
support mi~ting wildlife species. No impact would occur in this regard.
Cumulative Imoacts
Implementation of the proposed Projects, combined with cumulative projects could increase impacts to
sensitive biological resources.
The proposed Project areas are developed and do not contain any viable natural habitat. Nearby creek
channels are concrete-lined and do not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat. Construction of
cumulative projects could impact nesting raptors. Development in each Project area would be evaluated
for biological resoW'Ce impacts individually to ensure that impacts to biological resoW'Ces would be
mitigated to a less than significant level whenever possible. Additionally, although the City of San
Bernardino General Plan EIR (1989) identified continuing impacts to biological resoW'Ces due to
development, implementation of this project is not expected to result in a net biotic loss in ConjWlction
with other projects as the project areas are currently developed or disturbed.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series ofmeasmes to ensure that the apptopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
T0002raohv
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may result in
impacts to unique topography or result in earth movement on slopes of 15 percent or more.
The majority of the existing North Lake Area Project is developed, including the three potential water
treatment plant sites, and contain no unique geological or physical features. The South Lake Area Project
contains more vacant land, but similar to the North Lake Area Project, has no unique geological or
physical featlD'es. A significant amoWlt of grading would occm in order to develop the proposed lakes and
building pads. As the Project areas are relatively flat with no significant landforms, a less than significant
impact with relation to the site topography would occur.
GeoI02V/SoUs
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not result in
development on expansive soils creating substantial rislcs to life or property.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not result in
development on expansive soils. The soils onsite, including the three possible water treatment plant sites,
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
".
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
\ i'iDu EIR
Findings
o
do not exhibit expansive qualities. The soils on the site are alluvial soils and are not listed as Prime
Fannland Soils. The soils are granular, poorly condensed, and primarily consisting of sands and silts with
only traces of clay content. The soils do not exhibit qualities that would indicate that they are expansive,
nor are they classified according to the UBC as expansive soils. The sites are nearly flat, located in a
highly urbanized area, and absent of any significant landforms or geologic features. Impacts with regards
to geology and soils are considered to be less than significant.
Cumulative Imoacts
Implementation of the proposed Project could result in cumulative, short-term impacts to earth resources.
Impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the enforcement of proper erosion
protection measures during construction.
Cumulative effects related to earth resources resulting from potential future development facilitated by
the proposed Project and development in the vicinity include short-term increases in erosion due to
excavation, backfilling, and grading activities. These impacts are anticipated to be mitigated by enforcing
proper erosion protection measures during potential remediation, demolition, and construction of potential
future projects, and will be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. In addition, sites with unsuitable
development conditions such as liquefaction and seismic hazards are best mitigated on an individual
basis. The proposed Project will comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and all erosion control
measures established by the City. The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant
cumulative impacts of the area with regards to geology and soils.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the applopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
o HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical Resources - South Lake Area Proiect
Implementation of the proposed South Lake Area Project could cause a significant impact to a historical
resource within the South Lake Area boundaries.
Based on the results of the CRM Tech field inspection and the historical research, none of the buildings
identified on the South Lake Area Project site meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or the City of San Bernardino's Criteria for Determination ofHistorica1 Significance
(see site records for further details). Therefore, none of them qualifies as a "historical resource,"
according to CEQA definition. Implementation of the South Lake Area Project would result in a less than
significant impact in this regard.
Cumulative Imoacts
Cumulative development may adversely affect cultural resources. Resources are evaluated and mitigated
on a project-by-project basis. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable
city, state, and federal regulations.
o
Potential impacts would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would be conducted on a
project-by-project basis. Each incremental development would be required to comply with all applicable
City, State, and Federal regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. In
consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would not be
considered significant.
City of San BerDardiDo
San Bernardino VaHey Munieipal Water District
AprD 15, 100s
CH No. 2003121150
lU.;..."
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
PlmdDR
Findings
o
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Drainae:e and RUDOff
The proposed Projects would alter drainage patterns, which could result in increased runoff amounts.
o
The proposed watershed for the North Lake Area Project would follow the historical drainage patterns for
the area, which follow the natural topography, north to south with flows outleting onto Warm Creek and
Lytle Creek. Flows from redevelopment of the South Lake Area Project would follow the same drainage
patterns as in ,the existing condition. All flows from this site would drain directly into Lytle Creek.
With the proposed development, South Lake Area Project drainage patterns would not change. The
watershed delineation would change in the North Lake Area Project from the existing condition, due to
grading, changing of land use and changes of impervious areas. Drainage paths would be altered in the
North Lake Area Project for the proposed condition. In the existing condition, approximately 162-acres
drain into the Towncreek storm drain, which travels diagonally through the North Lake Area Project.
However, with the proposed development, Towncreek would be rerouted and only 50.2 acres would drain
into this system. In the existing condition, approximately 30-acres drains into the 6th Street storm drain.
However, with the proposed development, only 4.7-acres drain into the 6th Street storm drain. Currently,
none of the North Lake Area Project site drains to the "H" Street storm drain. With the proposed
development, 15.6-acres would be tributary to the "H" Street storm drain. The remaining 44.5 acres of the
North Lake Area Project site would be comprised of the lake, which would capture only rain falling
directly on it and its shores. Water draining from the lake would be managed and controlled by
SBVMWD through controlled, gravity flows into the "H" Street storm drain. As the design of the lake,
including the two-foot freeboard and five-foot benn, would allow the lake to capture at least 311
additional acre-feet, the capacity of the lake could only be exceeded during a rare emergency. If the lake's
capacity were exceeded and drainage via the "H" Street storm drain was unavailable, the lake would
overflow into 9th Street and flows would be controlled by the existing City storm drain system.
In most cases, the proposed flow rate would be less than the existing flow rate (refer to Table 4.6-8 of the
Final Program EIR, Comparison Table). However, the changes in grading and land use would increase
the flows entering "H" Street because the proposed residential units on the North Lake site would drain
away from the lake. These areas currently drain into the 6th Street storm drain. Due to the proposed
commercial development in the South Lake Area Project, flows entering Lytle Creek would be higher at
Node 213 and lower at Node 222. However, the overall flow into Lytle Creek would be less with the
proposed development than under existing conditions. Additionally, although the proposed development
does not impact any mapped flood plains, if new storm drain connections are made into Lytle Creek with
the development of the South Lake Area Project, a conditional Letter of Map Revision or Letter of Map
Amendment would need to be processed through FEMA.
o
Compared to the existing condition, additional flows at the North Lake Area Project site would be routed
into "H" Street storm drain in a 9.0-foot by 11.2-foot reinforced concrete pipe. Based on information
outlined in Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No.7, the "H" Street storm drain is designed to convey the
25-year flows. Based on Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No.7, the maximum flow within the "H"
Street storm drain at Lytle Creek is 1,911 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed residential area would
contribute approximately 55.5 cfs in the 25-year storm event. Thus, based on the normal depth analysis,
the "H" Street storm drain would be capable of handling the 3% increase in peak flow. In addition, flows
from the lake would only drain when peak flows are not present in the "If' Street storm drain.
City or San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaDey MUDieipal Water District
April Z5, Z005
CH No. 2003121150
""f"
r I" ',~,,' "'~~'~" ^' " '",",."-"""",,,-,
, ~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
JliIaII EIR
Findings
Cumulative Imoacts
o
The proposed Projects along with other future development may result in increased hydrology and
drainage impacts in the area. Impacts are evaluated on a project-by-project basis in order to mitigate
impacts to a less than significant level.
The basis for the cumulative analysis is presented in Section 2.4, Cumulative Impacts of the Final
Program EIR. For purposes of drainage and water quality analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for
projects in the same watershed as the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project. The Projects
listed in Section 2.4 would result in an increase the impervious area in the watershed. As these cumulative
projects drain into the Santa Ana River and are required to comply with the standards of the Santa Ana
Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant r>ischarge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
requirements. The cumulative increase in developed areas would result in cumulative increases to
impervious areas and an increased need for Best Management Practices (BMP's). Projects would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis and mitigation would be developed as ap})lopriate. There are no
cumulative impacts associated with the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appIOpriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING
CouOicts With Aoolicable Land Use Plans. Redevelooment Plans. and Policies - North
Lake Area Proiect
o
The proposed North Lake Area Project could potentially conflict with the City of San Bernardino General
Plan.
The North Lake Area Project meets a number of goals outlined in the City of San Bernardino General
Plan including: preserving historically significant resources, correcting fragmented land use patterns,
promoting the replacement of aesthetically unappealing land uses, upgrading deteriorating residential
neighborhoods, balancing commercial and residential land uses, and enhancing neighborhood-serving
commercial areas. However, proposed redevelopment following completion of the reservoir is not
consistent with the underlying land use designations. The North Lake Area Project includes General Plan
Amendment (GPA) No. 05-07, which would change the land use designations to be consistent with the
proposed redevelopment as addressed in the Final Program EIR. The Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino have tabled this GP A, and intend to reconsider the apptopriate land use
designations upon completion of the reservoir. Therefore, the proposed North Lake Area Project would
result in a less than significant impact with respect to the City of San Bernardino General Plan.
o
The North Lake Area Project proposes development of an approximately 44.5-acre reservoir within the
CG-1, CG-2, RU-2, and RM districts. According to Table 4.01 of the City of San Bernardino
Development Code, Permitted, Development Permitted, and Conditionally Permitted Uses, a reservoir
(i.e., PrivatelPublic Utility Facilities) is a permitted use within the RU-2 and RM districts. According to
Table 6.01 of the city of San Bernardino Development Code, Commercial Districts List of Permitted
Uses, a reservoir (i.e., Public Utility Uses) is also a permitted use within the CG-1 and CG-2 districts.
Thus, the proposed reservoir would be consistent with the City of San Bernardino Development Code,
although, as the facility of a separate government agency, the reservoir would not be subject to the City of
San Bernardino zoning and building ordinances as specified in Section 53090 of the State Government
Code. However, the SBVMWD, in consideration of the existing surrounding land uses, will comply with
City requirements related to Code-required barriers, setbacks, and landscape treatments. Therefore, the
proposed North Lake Area Project would not result in significant land use impacts to adjacent residential
uses (i.e., west of "H" Street and south of 9th Street).
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Vallev MuniciDal Water District
April 25, 2005
CHNo.2oo3121150
~O,'
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
PiMI EIR
Findings
o
The boundaries of the North Lake Area Project are within the boundaries of two redevelopment plans: the
City's Uptown Redevelopment Plan and the Inland Valley Redevelopment Plan. The objectives of the
North Lake Area Project are consistent with the economic and development objectives of each of the
respective redevelopment plans. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Conffiets With ADDBeable Land Use Plans. RedeveloDment Plans. and PoBeies - South
Lake Area Proiect
The South Lake Area Project meets a number of goals outlined in the City General Plan including:
providing employment opportunities and promoting development of new office and retail in the Central
City South Overlay Districtarea. Overall, the analysis has concluded that the proposed South Lake Area
Project complies with the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore, the proposed South Lake Area
Project would'result in a less than significant impact with respect to the City of San Bernardino General
Plan.
o
The South Lake Area Project proposes development of an approximately 5.0-acre lake/wetland within the
CCS-2 district. According to Table 06.01 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, Commercial
Districts List of Permitted Uses, a lake/wetland (i.e., Public Utility uses) is a permitted use within the
CCS-2 district. Thus, the proposed lake/wetland is consistent with the City of San Bernardino
Development Code. Commercial uses and a lake are proposed within the Freeway Corridor (Fe) Overlay
District. The siting and design of non-residential structures within the FC district would be subject to City
of San Bernardino review through the Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit application
processes and would be analyzed to ensure that future uses are consistent with the development standards
regarding landscape buffers, setbacks, service/loading/equipment storage areas, building fayade,
mechanical equipment, and signage. These standards would be applied in addition to those standards of
the underlying land use district. The existing City of San Bernardino development review process would
ensure that impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
The boundaries of the South Lake Area Project are with the boundaries of the Central City South
Redevelopment Plan. The objectives of the South Lake Area Project are consistent with the economic and
development objectives of this redevelopment plan. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PODuladon Growth - North Lake Area Proiect
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project could result in a decrease in the City's population.
o
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project would result in the removal of 437 housing
units and approximately 388,045 square feet of commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.
Additionally, the Project would result in the development of approximately 72 single-family dwelling
units and 233,151 SF of commercial uses. Overall, Project implementation would result in a net decrease
of 365 dwelling units and a net decrease of 154,894 SF of commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.
As outlined in Table 4.9-2 of the Final Program EIR, Net Project Employment North Lake Area, Project
implementation would result in a net decrease of approximately 192 jobs. Based on an estimate of 3.3
persons per household (State of California Department of Finance), 365 fewer dwelling units within the
North Lake Area Project would decrease the City's population by approximately 1,205 persons. This
would represent a less than one percent decrease in the City's 2003 population estimate of 194,120
persons. Due to the uncertainty that exists with regard to the number of new employees that may choose
to relocate to the City, a more conservative analysis of impacts associated with the City's permanent
population is assumed for purposes of evaluating potential impacts. For analysis purposes, if
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, l00s
CH No. 2003121150
~y~ ...... Yr
o
o
o
..
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
approximately 25% of the Project's 466 new employees (approximately 117 persons) would decide to
relocate to the City, a demand for 117 housing units could be created and as a result, the City's population
could increase by approximately 386 persons (based on an estimate of 3.3 persons per household).
However, even with this current assumption, Project implementation could result in a direct decrease in
the City's population of approximately 819 persons. This estimate assumes a population decrease of
1,205 persons from housing removal and a population increase of 386 persons from future employees
potentially relocating to the City to fill the new positions. As this change would represent a less than one
percent decrease in population over existing conditions, implementation of the North Lake Area Project
would not result in a significant impact in this regard.
Population Growth - South Lake Area Proiect
Implementation of the South Lake Area Project could result in a decrease in the City's population.
.
Implementation of the proposed South Lake Area Project would result in the removal offoW' (4) housing
units and approximately 368,423 SF of commercial and industrial uses. Additionally, the Project would
result in the development of approximately 481,500 SF of commercial uses. Overall, Project
implementation would result in a decrease of four dwelling units and an increase of 131,577 SF of
commercial uses. As outlined in Table 4.9-6 of the Final Program EIR, Estimated Employment - South
Lake Area, commercial uses proposed by the South Lake Area Project would result in a net increase of
approximately 543 jobs. Based on an estimate of 3.3 persons per household (State of California
Department of Finance), foW' fewer dwelling units within the South Lake Area Project area would
decrease the City's population by approximately 14 persons. This would represent a negligible decrease
in the City's 2003 population estimate of 194,120 persons. Employment generated by the South Lake
Area Project could result in direct growth in the City's population since the potential exists that "future
employees" (and their families) may decide to relocate to the City. For analysis purposes, if
approximately 25% of the South Lake Area Project's 1,000 new employees (approximately 250 persons)
would choose to relocate to the City, a demand for 250 housing units could be created and as a result, the
City's population could increase by approximately 825 persons (based on an estimate of 3.3 persons per
household). Overall, the South Lake Area Project implementation could result in a direct net increase in
the City's population of approximately 811 persons. This estimate assumes a population decrease of 14
persons from housing removal and a population increase of 825 persons from future employees
potentially relocating to the City to fill the new positions. As this change would represent a less than one
percent increase in population over existing conditions, the South Lake Area Project implementation
would not result in a significant impact in this regard.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND RISK OF UPSET
Operational Hazards
The proposed Project could involve the handling of hazardous materials.
The proposed Project would involve development of general commercial, residential and recreational
uses, one lake and one wetland, and a water treatment facility. These types of activities would not involve
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, secondary activities that would
occur on-site (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) would involve the use of hazardous materials.
On-site use of hazardous materials would include cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides
and other materials used in the regular maintenance of buildings and landscaping. With proper use and
disposal, building and landscape maintenance chemicals are not expected to result in hazardous or
unhealthful conditions. Measures required by the City, County, and State include standards and
regulations regarding the storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials. The future use and
transport of hazardous materials associated with the Projects, although not considered significant, would
be subject to City, State, and Federal regulatory requirements and the guidelines developed by the City for
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April Z5, ZOOS
CH No. 2003121150
"""fl-
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Flnal'Em'
Findings
the proper disposal of wastes. Impacts associated with the routine use of hazardous materials are
considered less than significant following compliance with City, State, and Federal regulatory
requirements.
Emel1!encv Manaeement Plan
Implementation of the proposed Projects could impair or physically interfere with an adopted response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The proposed Projects would involve development of general commercial, residential and recreational
uses, a lake and a wetland, and a water treatment facility. Ai; stated above, these uses would not involve
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, although implementation of the
proposed North Lake Area Project would result in the vacation of streets, all of the streets proposed for
vacation priniarily serve the uses adjacent to the streets. Therefore, no significant impacts that would
impair or physically interfere with the emergency management plan would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Projects, in combination with other cumulative Projects, could increase public to exposure
of hazardous substances. Compliance with Federal, State, and local requirements would occur on a
project-by-project basis. Impacts would be less than significant following compliance with local, state,
and federal regulations.
Compliance with local, State, and Federal regulations would ensure that potential contamination or
exposure to hazardous substances is avoided or controlled to minimize the risk to the public on a case-by-
case basis, as the cumulative Projects are constructed.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Schools
Project implementation may result in significant physical impacts to existing school facilities.
Students residing in the. North Lake Area Project site are within the service area of Riley Elementary
School, Arrowview Middle School, and San Bernardino High School. Students residing in the South Lake
Area Project site are within the service area of Lytle Creek Elementary, King Middle School, and Pacific
High School.
As proposed, the North Lake Area Project will include 72 single-family residential dwelling units. Based
on the San Bernardino City Unified School District's (SBCUSD) student generation factor, this equates to
approximately 65 new students within the school district. Implementation of the North Lake Area Project
will actually provide a net reduction of approximately 228 students to the SBCUSD, if the families
relocate to another city or sc~ool district. Impacts of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area
Project would be reduced to less than significant level through payment of SBCUSD's school facilities
impact fees. Project implementation would not warrant the construction of additional classrooms, as
implementation of the proposed Project would result in the net reduction of households. Potential impacts
to SBCUSD would be less than significant.
Librarv
The proposed Projects may increase the demand for library facilities and may contribute to an existing
need for construction of new facilities or alteration of existingfacilities.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
liiRit,j".'
o
o
o
1
'" """
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FIDI DIll
Findings
The Projects propose a net decrease of 365 housing units. The City library system anticipates an
increasing demand for library services associated with this Project, as more people would be drawn to the
downtown area. However, the potential decrease in population associated with the net reduction of
housing units proposed by these Projects (described in Section 4.9 of the Final Program EIR, Population
and Housing) would offset any additional demand for library services.
Recreation
Implementation of the Projects would result in the construction of a park facility and may increase the
use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
There are currently no park facilities located within the North Lake Area Project or South Lake Area
Project. Project implementation would result in cons1ruction of approximately 18 acres of open space,
wetland features, and public trails. The South Lake Area Project is proposed to include approximately 13
acres of open space, which includes a 5-acre wetland/water feature. The North Lake Area Project is
proposed to include a 44.5-acre lake and approximately 5 acres of open space and trails. These facilities
would be open for public use, providing useable open space areas to nearby residents.
These Projects will result in the net decrease of housing units within the City. This reduction in
households coupled with the introduction of more than 18 new acres of open space and public trails will
effectively improve the overall ratio of citizens to acres of recreational space. Therefore, implementation
of these Projects is not anticipated to cause any impacts to recreational facilities.
Natural Gas
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in an increase
in the demand for natural gas service beyond existing conditions and may require expansion of the
existing gas system.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may result in an
increased demand for natural gas service to the Project areas. The Southern California Gas Company
(SCG) did not identify any existing service deficiencies at the present capacity, including the Projects and
adjacent areas.
Currently, the Project sites contain a total of 771,804 sq. ft. of commercial floor space and 441 dwelling
units. Implementation of the Projects would result in a 7.5 percent decrease in the total commercial floor
space (58,247 sq. ft. less), a 83.7 percent decrease in the total number of dwelling units (369 dwelling
units less), and a new water treatment plant. The total natural gas demanded from the Project areas would
decrease in accordance with the reduction in the intensity of land uses.
The Project pipelines would be installed in '~oint-trench" with other dry utilities. Easements would be
required for gas mains extended into the North Lake Are Project and South Lake Area Project. SCG does
not anticipate any Project related or cumulative impacts to the natural gas provisions or gas facilities in
the service areas. In addition, SCG does not anticipate any construction-related impacts to the service area
as a result of implementation of either project. Implementation of the proposed Projects would not result
in a significant impact with respect to natural gas services, as it would not significantly impact SCG's
system capacity or ability to provide service.
Further, as previously discussed, the North Lake Area Project proposes to vacate sections of Orange
Street, 11 th Street, Olive Street, lOth Street, Crescent Street, "G" Street, Temple Street, "F" Street, Acacia
Avenue, Valley Street, Walkinshaw Street, and Congress Street. The existing gas mains currently located
in the right-of-ways of the streets that are proposed to be vacated would have to be relocated.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaHey Municipal Water District
April 15, l00s
CH No. 2003121150
..
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Ftaet I1IR<.
Findings
Electricitv
o
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in an increase
in the demand for electrical service beyond existing conditions and may require expansion of the existing
electrical system in order to maintain adequate levels of service.
Implementation of the proposed Projects may result in an increased demand for electricity service to the
Project area. Although total system demand is expected to increase annually, the net population reduction
associated with these Projects would reduce the electrical demands of the Project sites. Currently, the
Project sites contain a total of 771,804 sq. ft. of commercial floor space and 441 dwelling units.
Implementation of the Projects would result in a 7.5 percent decrease in the total commercial floor space
(58,247 sq. ft. less), a 83.7 percent decrease in the total number of dwelling units (369 dwelling units
less), and a new water treatment plant. The total electricity demanded from the Project areas would
decrease in accordance with the reduction in the intensity ofland uses.
Although SeE anticipates short-term, construction related impacts, significant impacts regarding
electrical service are not anticipated.
Teleohone
Development of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not result in the need
for additional telephone service beyond existing conditions.
o
The demand for telephone service attributed to the Project areas would decrease with implementation of
the proposed Project. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the construction of a new
water treatment plant and the net reduction of residences (369 dwelling units less) and CClIlwercial space
(58,247 sq. ft. less), thus resulting in a net decrease of demand for telephone service.
Soil DisoosaVClav Borrow Sites
Soil disposal/clay bon-ow site grading may require temporary utility relocations.
Excavation of the North Lake Area Project reservoir would result in the need for a substantial quantity of
soil to be exported offsite. Additionally, in order to obtain clay for the lake liner, offsite areas must be
excavated and the clay would be imported to the project site. Although currently not confirmed, two
potential borrow sites have been identified: the Sunrise Ranch Borrow Pit in Mentone and the Perris
Reservoir Dam Borrow Pit in Perris. However, due to market conditions, the final borrow and disposal
sites could be anywhere in the region and could be located as far as 60 miles from the North Lake Area
Project site. Since the soil disposaVclay borrow site operations are short-term, construction-related, there
would not be any impacts related to long-term regional utility planning or emergency response operations.
However, short-term impacts such as temporary re-routing of electrical lines, communication lines, sewer
and water lines may be necessary. Based on the fact that the soil disposaVclay borrow site(s) are yet to be
configured, analysis of impacts of the borrow site(s) is not contained within this Final Program EIR.
Cumulative Imoacts
o
Cumulative development would result in an increase in the demand for public services and an increase in
the consumption rates for public utilities. potentially requiring expansions of the existing utility systems.
Analysis has concluded that cumulative delleJopment is subject to standards and requirements of
reviewing agencies and no additional mitigation is required.
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not cumulatively contribute to
an increased demand for fire, schools, library, water, sewer, solid waste and energy utilities.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaUey Munidpal Water District
April 15, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
~""
o
o
o
",
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
ll'IDal:JWl
Findings
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in a net
decrease of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses, effectively reducing the City's
population. The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, along with other are projects,
would add to the cumulative demand for public services through the introduction of new residents and
patrons of the proposed facilities. The Projects are located in areas that are served by all utilities (i.e.
water, sewer, and storm drains) and other public services (i.e., police, fire, and solid waste). All of these
existing facilities can readily serve the proposed Projects. No additional governmental services or
activities would be cumulatively impacted by the proposed Projects. Since the proposed Projects result in
a net decrease of population and as the respective providers of such services and facilities have indicated
that the Projects' incremental impacts are sufficiently mitigated, cumulative impacts on public services
and utilities anticipated to result from this development are not considered to be significant.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Conl!estion Manal!ement Prol!ram Analvsis
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would not exceed standards
established by the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
The purpose of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to develop a coordinated approach to
managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use and air quality
planning programs throughout the County. The CMP requires review of significant individual projects,
which meet the thresholds contained in the program, which could impact the CMP transportation system.
Since the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project have been forecasted to
generate less than 250 two-way peak hour trips (1,000 two-way trips for retail land uses), a CMP Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) does not need to be prepared in accordance with CMP requirements. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not exceed standards established by the CMP and a less than significant
impact would occur in this regard.
Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could cause a cumulatively
significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and may exceed
an established LOS standard.
Based on the City of San Bernardino threshold of significance, the addition of North Lake Area Project-
generated trips is forecast to result in a significant'impact at the "H" Street/Baseline Street intersection for
forecast year 2015 with Project conditions. Although the level of service at these intersections would
remain deficient, no traffic mitigation measures are required for the proposed North Lake Area Project
based on City of San Bernardino thresholds of significance since the proposed North Lake Area Project
would have to mitigate the Project-related impacts. In addition, as proposed the North Lake Area Project
will generate less traffic than is currently generated by existing uses and a net decrease in traffic
generation would result. Therefore, based on City of San Bernardino established thresholds of
significance and CMP requirements, Project implementation would not cause any significant cumulative
traffic impacts to occur.
It should be noted that the City is currently updating the Circulation Element of the Genera1Plan.
Although no major change of classification is anticipated for study area roads and intersections, it is
possible that such a change could occur to study area roads and intersections, with the most likely result
being a need for additional right-of-way for additional turn lanes. As each component of both the North
Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project is developed, it would be required to go through the City
development review process. Should the Circulation Element update result in any change in
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
",,'T
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
P'Iaal DR
Findings
classifications to study area roads and intersections that would require additional right-of-way, the
existing development review process would ensme that right-of-way for additional travel lanes or turning
lanes would be implemented where appropriate.
3.6 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACfS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED BELOW A
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an environmental impact report has been completed, which identifies one or more significant
effects, unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District find that all potentially significant impacts listed below can
and will be mitigated, reduced, or avoided by imposition of the mitigation measures set forth in the Final
Program EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Specific findings for each category of
such impacts are set forth in detail below: '
The Mayor and Common Council of the City and the Board of Directors of the SBVMWD hereby find,
pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) that the following potential
environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the
implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the Final Program EIR:
AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE
Potential Impacts
Construction of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would temporarily
alter the visual appearance of the site and introduce new short-term sources of light and glare.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would adversely
impact scenic resources, scenic vistas and the visual character of the site and its surroundings.
The proposed North Lake Area Project would introduce additional light and glare on-site which may
affect the su"ounding residents.
Bo"ow site grading will result in construction-related aesthetic, light and glare impacts.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Mulapal Water District
April 25, 180S
CH No. 2003121150
~i.>r"~'
"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
J'iaalEIR
Findings
o
Potential aesthetics, light, and glare impacts from constnJction-related activities have been eliminated or
substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the
mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project.
Mitigation measures such as construction screening and other standard construction practices would be
required and employed in order to reduce aesthetic impacts associated with constnJction activities to a
less than significant level.
Further, noise mitigation measures include structural enhancements to the residential uses located across
from the North Lake Area Project site along "H" and 9111 Streets. More specifically, the recommended
enhancement measures would involve landscaping, soundproofing (i.e., windows), and garden walls
(refer to the Final Program EIR, Section 4.7, Land Use and Relevant Planning, Section 4.8, Noise, and
Section 4.12, Traffic and Circulation). These structural enhancements would improve the visual appeal
of the area during construction, helping to mitigate short-term impacts. Light associated with the
undetermined' commercial uses that are anticipated to be developed on the pads that would be created
would be of a different nature and intensity than that of residential lighting. This would potentially result
in a significant adverse impact to the planned residential uses on-site and the adjacent off-site uses.
However, proper design of outdoor lighting, including such characteristics as the selection of appropriate
light intensity, direction, and shielding, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Excavation
and disposal will likely create the same short-term aesthetic impacts regardless of the location. This
includes exposed surfaces, construction debris, and views of equipment and tnJck traffic. Implementation
of standard constnJction-related mitigation measures would reduce constnJction related aesthetic impacts
to a less than significant level.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the applopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
o
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
. Potential Impacts
The proposed North Lake Area Project could significantly impact Special Status Species and/or Habitat
existing onsite.
Implementation of the North Lake A.rea Project would result in indirect impacts to onsite biological
resources.
OjJ-site borrow site grading and excavated soil disposal activities may impact sensitive biological
resources.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the North Lake Area Project, which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
o
Potential biological resoW'Ces impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level ofless
than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in the
Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. Raptor species and a variety of migratory
birds have the potential to nest in large ornamental trees that exist throughout the both Project sites.
Should there be existing nests, or a raptor or migratory bird establishes a nest prior to construction,
activities having the potential to disturb active raptor nests are prohibited by California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) regulations. Once nesting activity is completed, the CDFG protection typically
City of San Bemardiao
San Bernardiao Valley Munidpal Water District
April Z5, ZOOS
CH No. 2003121150
~W""
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FiuI EIR.
Findings
ceases. The nesting season typically runs from February 1 to Jwe 30. Impacts to nesting raptor species
and migratory birds would be considered significant wIess mitigated. With implementation of the
mitigation, potential impacts to raptor species would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigati!lJl
measures will be developed for impacts to biological resources from the clay borrow/disposal site once
the site( s) is selected.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed North lAke Area Project and South lAke Area Project would have the
potential to result in wind and water erosion impacts.
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would expose people and structures
to seismically related hazards.
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would occur on sites recognized as
having high potential of liquefaction in the event of strong seismic ground shaking. '
OjJ-site borrow site grading and soil disposal activities will result in temporary erosion and may require
remedial gradingfor steep slopes or landslides.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the North Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential geology, soils, and seismicity impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level
of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the Projects. Water erosion associated with
construction activities can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Best
Management Practices and compliance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) as
required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Projects that disturb 1.0 or more acres of
soil must obtain a Construction General Permit wder the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing,
grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation.
All future development will be subject to building plan review in accordance with the seismic safety
requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and applicable CGS publications. The SBVMWD
shall submit all grading and building plans to City of San Bernardino for review and approval, in the case
of the North Lake Area Project. Although nearly all of the existing structures would be removed, retrofit
of the Campfire Boys and Girls Daycare would be necessary in order to reduce growd shaking hazards
and potential collapse of the building. Impacts in this regard are expected to be less than significant with
implementation of the mitigation measures developed as part of required site-specific geotechnical
investigations.
As dewatering activities are already being conducted by SBVMWD in the form of a pilot program,' the
final effect on liquefaction hazards is unlmown. However, the pilot dewatering program will likely reduce
City of SlID BernanliDo
SlID Bernardino Valley MUDidpal Water District
April 15, 1005
CH No. 2003121150
-,~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
...... ER
Findings
o
liquefaction hazards in at least parts of the City. Therefore, the mitigation measures for reducing
liquefaction hazards within the proposed Project areas recommend focusing on changing the existing
characteristics of the loose, Wlconsolidated soils fOWld onsite. The excavation and recompaction of soils
fOWld onsite, coupled with the SBVMWD's cWTent dewatering activities, would reduce liquefaction
potential to a less than significant level. Standard construction measures and Final Program EIR
mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Based on the fact
that the clay borrow sites and soil disposal sites are yet to be confirmed, analysis of soils and geology
impacts of the fill soil borrow site(s) is not contained within this Final Program EIR.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project could cause a significant impact to historical
resources within the North Lake Area boundaries.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Are Project could cause a
significant impact to as-yet unrecorded archaeological/paleontological resources on-site.
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may disturb
unknown locations of human remains.
o
Off-site bo"ow site grading may disturb cultural resources.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential historic and cultural resources impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level
of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the Projects. At 1156 North "F" Street, 690/692
West lOth Street, 640 West 11th Street, and 996 North "F" Street, the North Lake Area Project requires
removal of the buildings from their present sites, which would constitute a "substantial adverse change."
As these properties are also attributed a local level of significance due to their architectural merits, the
North Lake Area Project's potential effect can be mitigated through relocation within the connnunity
and/or a detailed recordation effort prior to demolition, as outlined below. Under the statutory and
regulatory, demolition of these buildings clearly constitutes an adverse effect on a "historical reSource."
To avoid or lessen the North Lake Area Project's anticipated adverse effect on these resources, mitigation
requires that they be rehabilitated or relocated (possibly to the vacant property located near 8th, 9th, and
"H" Streets) and that historical and architectural data about these buildings be recorded.
o
The development of the North Lake Area Project, including the water treatment facility, and the South
Lake Area Project could potentially disturb or destroy Wldocumented archaeological and/or
paleontological resources. Following implementation of the reconnnended mitigation requiring the
cessation of work and retention of a qualified archaeologist in the event resources are discovered,
potential impacts in this regard would be reduced to a less than significant level. Human remains in a
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
---- "'.. -~..:'.,
April 15, l00s
CH No. 2003121150
-"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FIDaI ElK
Findings
o
previously unknown burial site could potentially be encoWltered during construction activities at the
North Lake Area Project or South Lake Area Project sites, and the alternative water treatment facility
sites. Any alterations to human remains would be considered a significant adverse impact. However,
implementation of the recommended mitigation, which details the appropriate mandated actions necessary
in the event human remains are encoWltered, would reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant
level. The potential exists that cultural resources may be Wlearthed during grading and disposallborrow
activities at the respective sites. Following implementation of the mitigation requiring retention of a
qualified archaeologist and cessation of work in the event resources are discovered, potential impacts in
this regard would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potential Impacts
Grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed North lAke Area Project
and South Lake Area Project could impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and
subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. Impacts would be less than
significant through compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations and
mitigation.
o
Implementation of the proposed North Lake Area Project and South lAke Area Project could result in
long-term impacts to the quality of storm water and urban runoff, subsequently impacting water quality.
Impacts would be less than significant through compliance with Regulatory Framework. City
Development Code requirements, and mitigation.
Off-site borrow site grading will result in temporary construction-related water quality impacts.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Snpport of Findings.
o
Potential hydrology and water quality impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of
less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. As part of the its compliance the
NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would need to be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of
California General Permit. Prior to construction, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
would be required for the construction activities at the North Lake Area Project site, the South Lake Area
Project site, and water treatment plant sites. Implementation of recommended mitigation (i.e., compliance
with the NPDES requirements) would reduce construction-related impacts to water quality to a less than
significant level. The proposed Project is required to conform to the MWlicipal and Construction NPDES
permits outlined above. These permits are required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to
control storm water rWloff quality. One of the requirements of the MWlicipal Permit is the development of
a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) containing both structural and non-structuraI Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
City or San Bemardlno
San Bernardino VaHey Municipal Water District
April%!, 200s
CH No. 2003121150
-,,,,71
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FiaaI EIR
Findings
o
Borrow site and disposal site grading would have to comply with the same NPDES requirements
i!lentified for Project grading, including appropriate BMP mea8W'eS. Depending on the location, borrow
site and disposal site grading may require temporary dewatering, which would be subject to separate
discretionary review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Borrow site and
disposal site grading within drainage courses would also require discretionary review and approval by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game. The borrow site(s) and
disposal site(s) would require revegetation to minimize the potential for ongoing sedimentation following
completion of grading activities. Implementation of standard construction-related measures and
revegetation would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant levels.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan setS out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
LAND USE' AND RELEVANT PLANNING
Potential Impact
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, combined with other future
development. could result in additional barrier land uses. Projects are evaluated on a project-by-project
basis in accordance with the criteria setforth in City of San Bernardino requirements.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
o Facts in Support of Findings
Potential land use impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than
significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in the Final
Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. Development of the North Lake Area Project
and South Lake Area Project as proposed would result in a cumulative significant land use impact as
other projects are developed in the area. The North Lake Area Project would introduce a barrier land use
that would obstruct circulation throughout the area and physically divide an established community.
These impacts, when combined with the impacts from the proposed /-215 widening and other ongoing
development/redevelopment projects within the City could result in a cumulatively significant impact.
Each proposed project would undergo the same project review process as the proposed Projects in order
to lessen and avoid potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. Each project
would be analyzed independent of other land uses, as well as within the context of existing and planned
developments to ensure that the goals, objectives. and policies of the General Plan are consistently
upheld.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the applopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
NOISE
Potential Impacts
o
Short-term grading and construction within the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project
would result in temporary noise and/or vibration impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
AprU 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
-- .
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects Findings
i'iuI :ot
Development of the North Lake Area Project requires export of soil and import of clay, which may
require substantial truck haul operations on local roadways.
Project generated traffic may contribute to existing traffic noise levels that exceed the City's established
standards.
Operations associated with the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would
result in the generation of on-site noise from stationary sources.
Grading at the Soil Disposal/Clay Borrow Site(s) may impact adjacent uses.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, combined with cumulative
projects, would increase the ambient noise levels in the site vicinities.
,
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Snpport of Findings
Potential noise impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by
virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measure identified in the Final Program EIR
and have been incorporated into the projects. Construction noise would occur during the duration of
construction, although it would be most noticeable during the initial months of site-intensive grading and
building construction. These impacts, however, would be short-term, and would conclude upon
completion of grading/construction. Compliance with San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC) Section
8.54.020, Acts Declared Loud, Unnecessary, and Excessive Noises, Section 9.48.020, UnlawfUl Noises,
and Section 19.20.030(15), General Standards -Noise, and the recommended mitigation measures (i.e.,
muffling/placement of construction equipment, stockpiling/staging of construction vehicles, and structural
enhancements to existing uses) would lessen construction-related noise impacts. In order to lessen
Project-related noise impacts to the sensitive receptors located near the North Lake Area Project, haul
trucks shall serve the Project site using 1-215 via the Baseline Street off-ramps and the Orange Street and
lOth Street on-ramps. This haul route would reduce truck traffic on local streets to an absolute minimum,
minimizing the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, import/export haul operations would
be restricted to operate between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., pursuant to Section 8.54.020(1) of the SBMC.
Therefore, mitigation has been included to ensure that exterior living spaces (i.e. yards, balconies and
patios) along proposed truck haul routes and adjacent to construction areas are reduced to 65 dBA and
interior living spaces are reduced to 45 dBA CNEL. More specifically, the mitigation would require that a
noise assessment be prepared, as needed, for future development projects which demonstrates that
adequate noise mitigation is provided to meet the City of San Bernardino Noise Standards. Future
commercial activities will be evaluated by the City, through the project level environmental review
process, to ensure that noise levels do not exceed allowable limits. Compliance with SBMC, as outlined
above, would lessen noise impacts from mechanical equipment and operational activities. As previously
stated, the future redevelopment activities in the North Lake Area Project, as well as cumulative
development projects, would be individually required to reduce noise impacts to below City noise
standards and demonstrate adherence to SBMC requirements.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Munidpal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
~"
"
-,,' " "
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Pial EIR
Findings
POPULATION AND HOUSING
o Potential Impact
Implementation of the South Lake Area Project would displace people, housing and businesses. Impacts
would be reduced to less than significant following compliance with California Community Relocation
Law and the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Project.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the South Lake Area Project, which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential population and housing impacts in the South Lake Area Project have been eliminated or
substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the
mitigation measures identified in the Final'Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. The
preparation ofa relocation plan in accordance with the Health and Safety Code ~ 33413.5 and ~ 33413 (a)
and the provisions of relocation assistance to persons and businesses displaced by implementation of the
South Lake Area Project would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the applopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
o
PUBLIC SAFETY AND RISK OF UPSET
Potential Impacts
Implementation oj the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could create
significant hazards to the public or the environment through conditions involving hazardous materials.
The proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could create significant hazards to
the public or the environment through the release of asbestos containing materials into the environment.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could create significant
hazards to the public or the environment through the release of lead-based paints into the environment.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
o
Potential public safety and risk of upset impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level
of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. Following implementation of the
recommended mitigations regarding soil sampling, visual inspections of building interiors, testing of
hazardous materials if encountered, removaVdisposal of stained concrete/soils, and required measures in
the event unknown wastes/suspect materials are discovered, potential impacts would be reduced to less
than significant levels. If Asbestos Containing Material is found, abatement of asbestos would be required
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaBey Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
~,.. wi'
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
.J.l'imIl'EJR
Findings
prior to any demolition activities. Compliance with the recommended mitigations regarding the
requirement for an asbestos survey and asbestos abatement, as well as compliance with SCAQMD Rule
1403, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Compliance with mitigation
requiring an independent evaluation and paint abatement, as well as compliance with California Code of
Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, potential impacts related to the chemical or physical separation of
paint from structures during demolition would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Potential IlI!pacts
The proposed North Lake Area Project could result in significant physical impacts with respect to fire
protection.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project could result in significant physical impacts with respect to
police protection.
The increased usage of area roadways in the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may
result in increased maintenance requirements.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could generate additional
wastewater beyond current conditions and may require an incremental expansion of the existing
sewerage system and expansion of the water treatment facility. With payment of appropriate connection
fees, impacts to wastewater systems andfacilities would be considered less than significant.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project could increase the demand
for water beyond current conditions requiring the expansion of existing facilities. With payment of
appropriate connection fees. impacts to water systems and facilities would be considered less than
significant.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential public services and utilities impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of
less than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in
the Final Program EIR and has been incorporated into the project. The San Bernardino Fire Department
would be provided with the necessary equipment and training to respond to water-related emergencies. In
response to concerns regarding security for critical facilities (i.e., potable water supplies), the proposed
North Lake reservoir would be provided with 24-hour security and/or restricted access. Access would be
restricted or controlled by the placement of a fence around the Project site. Further restricting or
eliminating access during nighttime hours would further mitigate impacts to the San Bernardino Police
Department, and reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
The establishment of a truck route would help minimize road damage throughout the area by limiting
truck traffic to a few streets. The City charges a connection fee in accordance with City of San Bernardino
Resolution No. 95-102 for connection to the local sewer system. These fees, which all new development
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
AprD 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
~<';T';;/,'-;--
o
o
o
n"
North Lake Area aDd South Lake Area Projects
iHbud:EJR
Findings
would have to pay, are considered to offset any impacts to the City of San Bernardino Water Department
related to the new connections of the proposed development. The City of San Bernardino Water
Department would continue to provide water service to the Project area. New pipelines of adequate size
must be installed around the perimeter of the proposed North Lake Area Project to maintain the existing
hydraulic capacity within the 1249' pressure zone.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appJopriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Potential Impacts
North Lake Area Project construction-related traffic could cause a significant increase in traffic when
compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and could exceed an established level of service
(LOS) standard.
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project could cause a significant increase in traffic when
compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and could exceed an established LOS standard.
The proposed North Lake Area Project could conflict with existing transit routes.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
Potential traffic and circulation impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less
than significant by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures identified in the
Final Program EIR and have been incorporated into the project. To reduce impacts related to construction
traffic, haul trucks that serve the North Lake Area Project shall use the 1-215 via the Baseline Street off-
ramps and the Orange Street and 10th Street on-ramps. Based on the City of San Bernardino threshold of
significance, the addition of North Lake Area Project-generated trips is forecast to result in significant
impacts at the intersection of "H" Street and Baseline Street. With implementation of the recommended
mitigation measure, the LOS of the intersection would be improved from E to D, and a less than
significant impact would occur in this regard. OmniTrans Routes 10 and l}O would need to be re-routed
due to proposed street closures. Implementation of the recommended mitigation would ensure continued
access to transit service, ensuring a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
3.7 IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures outlined in the Final Program
EIR, the following adverse impacts of the proposed Projects stated below are considered to be significant
and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively, based upon information in the Final Program EIR,
in the record, and based upon testimony provided during the public hearings on these Projects. These
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
-"TIit
o
o
o
.,
"'~c..~">?~~,,
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FtmiI DR
Findings
impacts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation measures which are imposed
and which will reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
Both short-term construction-related impacts and long-term vehicular air quality impacts have been
identified as significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.
AIR QUALITY
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during site preparation and
North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project construction. Impacts would be significant and
unavoidable l}/ith mitigation.
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur as a result of import/export
activities related to the North Lake Area Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with
mitigation.
The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in an overall increase in the local
and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from
electricity and natural gas consumption. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project may conflict with the Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP). Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
The North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, in combination with other cumulative projects
may decrease the ambient air quality in the area. Impacts would be significant with mitigation for
reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOJ, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter
(PMJ(J, emissions.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As detailed within the Final Program EIR, despite the implementation of stated mitigation measures
within Section 4.2, Air Quality, significant and unavoidable impacts from construction emissions on-site
and at the soil disposaVclay borrow site, inconsistency with the Air Quality Management Plan, and
cumulative impacts remain. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section 3.10 below). There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid
this significant impact, as set forth in the following Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. The
proposed project is anticipated to cause an increase in emissions of dust from construction activities and
local and regional pollutant load from operational activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented,
but these measures are unable to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, air quality impacts
in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the North Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley MUDieipal Water District
April 25, 2_
CH No. 2003121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FiuI EIR
Findings
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
o mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
LAND USE
Unavoidable Significant Impact
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would potentially result in the physical division of an
established community. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Findings
Changes or aiterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
o
As detailed within the Final Program EIR, despite the implementation of stated mitigation measures
within Section 4.7, Land Use, significant and Wlavoidable impacts from the physical division of an
established commWlity remain. This impact is overridden by the North Lake Area Project benefits as.set
forth in the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. There are no feasible alternatives that
could avoid this significant impact, as set forth in the following Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.
The proposed project is anticipated to physically divide an established commWlity with a 44-acre lake on
land that is currently a residential neighborhood. Mitigation measures as referenced in Section 4.7, Land
Use, will be implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Thus, land use impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the North Lake
Area Project.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would displace a substantial number of people, housing
and businesses. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable following compliance with California
Relocation Law.
Cumulative development may incrementally induce population growth and may displace existing housing
or people.
Findings
o
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
City or San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2105
CH No. 2003121150
-,""
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Fblal ElK
Findings
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As detailed within the Final Program EIR, despite the implementation of stated mitigation measures
within Section 4.9, Population and Housing, significant and unavoidable impacts from displacement and
cumulative impacts remain. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the following
Statement of Overriding Considerations. There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid this
significant impact, as set forth in the following Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. The North Lake
Area Project is anticipated to displace hundreds of residents and may induce population growth that
further displaces existing housing and people. Mitigation measures as referenced in Section 4.9,
Population and Housing, will be implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce impacts to a less
than significant level. Thus, population and housing impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable
significant impact of the North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Unavoidable Significant Impact
Development of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project would result in increased solid
waste generation.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding
As detailed within the Final Program EIR, despite the implementation of stated mitigation measures
within Section 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, significant and unavoidable impacts from solid waste
remain. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section 3.10). There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid this significant impact,
as set forth in the Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. Demolition activities in the North Lake Area
Project and South Lake Area Project are anticipated to generate significant quantities of solid waste from
demolition in the. Mitigation measures as referenced in Section 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, will be
implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Thus,
public services and utilities impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that the appropriate
mitigation will be implemented as the Projects proceed.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley MUDicipal Water District
April 15, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
~~,.;.,..-..
o
o
o
,., ,
_. - -'~.">C ~~n"","'~l:"f"~ "~'-"",","".." -
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
3.8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Nine (9) project alternatives are discussed in Section 6.0 of the Final Program EIR and the potential
significance for all of the alternatives is also analyzed in this section. The following discussion
summarizes each alternative considered, and compares the impacts of each alternative with the impacts of
the proposed North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project. A conclusion is provided for each
impact as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: (1) reduction or elimination of the
impact; (2) a greater impact than the project; (3) the same impact as the project; or (4) a new impact in
addition to the proposed project impacts. Table 6.A of the Final Program EIR compares the impacts of the
alternatives with those of the proposed project.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District have considered these alternatives for the development of the
Project and niake the following findings:
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1: No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
As stated previously, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that the alternatives
discussion include an analysis of the ''No Project Alternative." Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project
Alternative refers to the analysis of existing conditions (i.e., implementation of CUITellt plans) and what
would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable futme if the Project was not approved. In the
case of the North Lake Area Project, if the Project is not approved, it is reasonable to expect that, as
economic conditions permit, existing vacant parcels will be improved and existing obsolete, deteriorating,
and nonconforming uses will be demolished and reused and that the North Lake Area Project would
continue to be developed in conformance with the CUITellt General Plan designations of RM, Residential
Medium, RU-2, Residential Urban, CG-l, Commercial General, and CG-2, Commercial General 2.
Currently, existing uses consist of single-family residential, multi-family residential, various commercial
uses, institutional, industrial, public right-of-way, and vacant land (see the Final Program EIR, Exhibit
4.1-1, Existing Land Use - North Lake Area, and Exhibit 4.1-2, Existing Zoning Districts - North lAke
Area).
This alternative does not satisfy any of the North Lake Project Area goals. Since this alternative does not
involve the construction of a lake, a park will not be created in this portion of the City and there will not
be any opportunity to develop commercial properties along the lakeshore. In addition, this alternative will
not assist the City in reinvesting back into the surrounding community and limit the spread of blight
within this portion of the City.
ANALYSIS
LlUld Use. Unlike with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in the
physical division of an existing community. However, like the proposed Project, new development in this
area would likely need development permits and would likely be consistent with the policies of the
Uptown Redevelopment Plan.
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative is representative of existing conditions for the study area.
As discussed in Section 4.12 of the Final Program EIR, Traffic and Circulation, a peak hour intersection
analysis was conducted for this alternative (existing traffic scenario), as well as a year 2015 forecast of
existing conditions. Study area intersections all cwu;;dtly operate at acceptable levels of service during the
morning and afternoon peak hours and are expected to continue operating at acceptable levels of service
into the year 2015. No streets would be vacated and mnove under this alternative.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Munidpal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
J'faaI DR
Findings
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that very little new development would occur with this alternative
and that all new development would be similar in nature to existing uses, views across the Project site
from off-site vantage points would not differ from existing conditions. However, views of the blighted
conditions of the Project site may persist longer than with the proposed Project, in which deteriorating
buildings and blighted conditions would be removed. Short-term construction impacts associated with the
proposed Project would not occur. Although it can be expected that construction will still occur with this
alternative, it would likely be on a parcel-by-parcel basis. This limited scale construction would have .
fewer impacts than the extensive lake construction would create. With this alternative, light and glare
sources would not change, preventing a reduction in light and glare that would be associated with the
removal of residential and commercial properties as projected by the proposed Project.
Hydrology. This alternative would not result in short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since development of the proposed Project would not
occur. Additi6nally, storm water flows into Lytle Creek would not be reduced as they would if the Project
was implemented.
Biological Resources. Construction-related impacts to special status vegetation types and plant and
wildlife species would be reduced with this alternative, as any construction within the Project area would
be on a limited, parcel-by-parcel basis. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any
significant long-term impacts.
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
would be reduced with this alternative as any construction within the Project area would be on a limited,
parcel-by-parcel basis. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term
erosion impacts, there would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic
features. However, because this alternative would result in additional development within the area rather
than a reduction in population in the North Lake Area, implementation of this alternative would not
reduce the number of people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Short-term, construction-related noise impacts would be reduced with the implementation of this
alternative, as any construction within the Project area would be on a limited, parcel-by-parcel basis. This
alternative would not result in any potentially significant construction-re1ated noise impacts as would
occur with the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would
not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts would be far less with this alternative than with the
proposed Project as any construction and grading within the Project area would be on a far smaller scale
than that of the proposed Project. Further, this alternative would not req~ any additional offsite grading
and would not generate nearly the number of construction-related trips that the proposed Project would
generate. Long-term impacts to air quality due to automobile trips generated at the Project site would be
greater with this alternative as a greater number of residents and a larger amount of cOmIDCrCial area
would remain.
Pub6c Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in reduced impacts to
public safety and a reduced risk of upset. Unlike the proposed Project, large-scale demolition would not
occur with this alternative. Although it can be expected that construction and demolition would still
occur, it would not be of the same degree and, thus, there would be less risk of emitting asbestos or lead-
based paint into the air in the vicinity of the Project site. However, because this alternative would result in
many existing uses persisting, there would be less opportunity to remediate some of the possible soil
contamination associated with the Recognized EnVllUUlllel1ta1 Conditions and prolonged exposure to the
hazardous materials that are likely to occur within the structures within the Project area.
City of SIUI BerDardino
SIUI Bernardino VaHey Munidpal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
re~~:~~:-:::'~~~:,__
o
o
o
"
11
~. .
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FIuI EIR
Findings
PubUc Services and UtiUties. Implementation of this. alternative would prevent any impacts to public
services and utilities. Specifically, no utilities would have to be vacated or removed, there would be no
security concerns associated with protecting a potable water source, and the Fire Department would not
have to develop water rescue capabilities. However, implementation of this alternative would also prevent
existing public services and utilities from realizing the benefits of reduced demand for services.
Specifically, demands on water production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service,
electricity, parks and recreation, the Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced
with the accompanied reduction in population of the proposed Project. The unavoidable significant
impact resulting from demolition debris generated that would occur with implementation of the proposed
Project would not occur with this alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. No onsite cultural resources, including paleontological,
archaeological, or historical, would be potentially disturbed with this alternative, as demolition,
excavation, aDd construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not occur. Although
development of the proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant impact on historical
resources, with mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Population and Housing. Implementation of this alternative would not result in a decrease in the City's
population or the reduction of the City's housing stock. It is expected that, with time, the Project area will
develop to be consistent with the General Plan land use designations and that 28 additional housing units
and 92 people will be added to the Project area.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy any of the Project objectives. It fails to provide a
significant new public park and lake, which would be the focus for the existing and newly developed
residential community. It also fails to revitalize existing, adjacent neighborhoods with new lakeside
residential development, construct new commercial developments along sections of the new Lakeside
Drive, and plan for construction management practices, which minimi7'.e disruption to areas directly
adjacent to the Project site.
As this alternative represents the continuance of existing conditions onsite, its present state has been used
as the baseline. for all environmental evaluation. Although this alternative reduces or avoids many of the
environmental impacts that would be caused by the proposed Project, it has been rejected for
consideration because of its inability to satisfy Project objectives.
ALTERNATIVE 2: LARGER NORTH LAKE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that a larger, 55.4-acre lake would be constructed. replacing the 10.9 acres of
residential area of the proposed project. As with the proposed North Lake Area Project, this alternative
would include lakeside trails, parks and open space, parking and public access areas, preservation of the
Campfire Boys and Girls Daycare site, three commercial areas totaling 12 acres, and the need for an 8
MOD water treatment plant. Although this alternative satisfies the North Lake Area Project goal to
provide sufficient storage capacity in proximity to current water production facilities, it fails to provide
opportunities for development of the proposed residential community.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. When compared to proposed Project, this alternative would result in a greater number of units
removed from the City's housing stock. Instead of a reduction of 365 units, the City's housing stock
would be reduced by 437 units Also, implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the
policies of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan. Like the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative
would result in the physical division of an existing community.
City or San Beraardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
~I~"~'.
o
o
o
. "'
...
...'.....0'.
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
J'iMI aa
Findings
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative would be less than that generated by the proposed Project.
As all of the residential uses that would be eliminated are replaced with the reservoir and park and
recreational uses, trips generated by this alternative would be Significantly lower than the trips generated
by the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the vacation of
streets with the Project area.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that this alternative would result in a very similar project to that of
the proposed Project, aesthetic and light and glare impacts would be very similar to those of the proposed
Project. This alternative would result in short-term, construction related impacts that would be very
similar to the proposed Project. Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative
would result in the removal of deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting
in an improvement of the visual character of the Project area.
This alternative would result in less light and glare impacts than the proposed Project. With this
alternative there would not be any residential uses or any associated secmity, landscaping, and automobile
sources oflight and glare. However, there would still be light and glare generated by the commercial uses
onsite and the water treatment plant.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in the same short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since development of the proposed Project would be very
similar in nature. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, storm water flows into Lytle Creek would be
reduced.
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any significant long-term
impacts.
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be very similar to the proposed Project as the only difference is the final land use.
It is reasonable to expect that because this alternative proposes an increase in the size of the lake that
excavation would be much more extensive than that of the proposed Project and there would be a need for
a greater quantity of clay. Therefore, short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts would likely
be much greater with this alternative.
Due to the change in elevation across the North Lake Area Project site, a levee would have to be built
along the southern boundary of the lake. It is conceivable, that a seismic event could cause the levee to
fail. As there are no active faults in the immediate vicinity of the lake, the likelihood of any type of failure
of the earthen levee is highly unlikely. Adherence to existing requirements such as compliance with the
California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams and standard engineering practices
would ensure impacts in this regard would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes a reduction in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be onsite, resulting in
fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts from this Project would be greater than those of the
proposed Project as construction of the lake would require a significant amount of additional excavation
at both the Project sites and the soil disposaVclay borrow sites and a greater number of truck trips for
hauling the extra excavation material and the additional clay. The entire site would be cleared with this
alternative, as with the proposed Project, resulting in the same demolition-related noise impacts and the
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CH No. 2003121150
~p.'."-'
o
o
o
"0
PC
-
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
same quantity of trips for hauling away the demolition debris. As with the proposed Project,
implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts from this Project would be greater than those of the
proposed Project as construction of the lake would require a significant amount of additional excavation
and a greater number of truck trips for hauling the extra excavation material and the additional clay.
Further, this alternative would require more offsite grading than the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air quality. Because the
region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations, any new emissions
generated by the Project would be significant impacts. As with the proposed Project, the same amount of
demolition would take place, resulting in the same impacts to air quality and the need for the same
number of trips to haul the material away. However, the reduced land use intensity would generate a
lower number of trips and thus long-term impacts would be lower than those of the proposed Project.
.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, large-scale demolition would occur
with this alternative and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into the air in
the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized Environmental
Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts to
public services and utilities and result in the same benefits as the proposed Project. As with the proposed
Project, this alternative would result in vacating and removing utilities, would create security concerns
associated with protecting a potable water source, and the Fire Department would have to develop water
rescue capabilities. However, implementation of this alternative would result in existing public services
and utilities realizing the benefits of reduced demand for services. Specifically, demands on water
production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and recreation, the
Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied reduction in
population. The unavoidable significant impact resulting from the generation of solid waste by the
proposed Project would still occur with this alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. This alternative would have the same impacts to cultural reso1D'Ces,
including paleontological, archaeological, or historical, as with the proposed Project, the entire Project
site would have to be demolished and cleared. However, like the proposed Project, with mitigation,
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Population and Honsing. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result
in a decrease in the City's population and the reduction of the City's housing stock, but to a greater degree
than that of the proposed Project. This alternative would result in a net reduction of 437 housing units,
rather than the reduction of 365 housing units of the proposed Project. Thus, this Project would result in
the City's population decreasing by 1442 people, or 238 people more than the proposed Project. As with
the proposed Project, every person currently residing on site would have to be relocated, as the entire site
would be demolished.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfY all of the Project objectives. It fails to provide for new
lakeside residential development. However, this alternative satisfies the following objectives:
. To create a significant new public park and lake;
. Construct new commercial developments along sections of the new lakeside drive;
. To revitalized existing and newly developed residential community; and
. To plan for construction management practices which minimize disruption to areas directly
adjacent to the Project site.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 200s
CH No. 2003121150
~1.
"'
,.,
"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
Although this alternative satisfies several of the Project's goals, it fails to provide for new residential and
commercial development along the lake and results in greater environmental impacts as the proposed
o Project. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
ALTERNATIVE 3: SMALLER NORTH LAKE ALTERNATIVE
With this alternative, the North Lake Area Project site would be reduced, bounded by Baseline Street on
the north, "E" Street on the east, 9d1 Street on the south, and "0" Street on the west. Like the proposed
Project, land uses for the remnant land under a smaller project alternative would include commercial uses,
single-family residential, the Campfire Boys and Girls, the lake, and trails and open space. As the project
site is smaller than that of the proposed Project, each use would have smaller footprints. This alternative
would provide for approximately 4.4 acres of commercial, 65 single-family homes on approximately 9.8
acres, 2.2 acres of institutional uses consisting of the Campfire Boys and Girls, an 8-MGD water
treatment plaht, and a 34.3-acre lake. Because this alternative covers a smaller area than the proposed
Project, it allows for the preservation of more of the existing neighborhood. Under this alternative the
Holy Land Church of God in Christ would not be displaced and 111 fewer dwelling units would be
demolished, and 36,296 square feet of existing commercial space would remain. As shown in the
Table1.0-l of the Final Program EIR, this alternative would result in less impacts or reduced impacts and,
accordingly, has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative for the North Lake Area
Project. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to provide sufficient storage capacity in
proximity to current water production facilities, it fails to provide sufficient opportunities for
redevelopment and reinvestment into the existing community and partially fails in limiting the spread of
blight in the North Lake Area. In addition, this alternative will not create a smaller public park and lake
for the existing and proposed community, as well as less commercial development along the lakeshore.
This alternative will also leave a portion of the existing neighborhood to the west of"G" Street intact.
o
ANALYSIS
Land Use. When compared to the proposed Project, this alternative would provide for a reduction in the
number of units removed from the City's housing stock. Instead of a reduction of 365 units, the City's
housing stock would only be reduced by 261 units. Unlike the proposed Project, this alternative would be
consistent with the City's General Plan. However, like the proposed Project, would need a General Plan
Amendment and zone change from Residential Medium or Commercial General to Public Facilities.
Implementation of this alternative would likely be consistent with the policies of the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan. Like with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in
the physical division of an existing community.
Traffic. Because this Project has a smaller footprint and proposes less development, traffic generated by
this alternative would be less than that generated by the proposed Project. The reduced number of single-
family residential units will result in 94'.4 fewer residential trips and the smaller commercial component
will result in 37% fewer commercial trips. However, because this alternative leaves a greater portion of
the existing neighborhood, there is very little difference in net traffic generation between the alternative
and the proposed Project; both result in a net reduction of trips generated from the Project area.. As with
the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the vacation of streets with the Project area.
However, ''0'' Street and North Crescent, as well as segments of Orange, ndl, Olive Street, and IOdl
Streets between "H" Street and "G" Street would not be vacated with this alternative.
o
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that less new development would occur with this alternative,
aesthetics, light and glare impacts and benefits would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project.
This alternative would result in short-term, construction related impacts that would be very similar to the
proposed Project, but on a slightly smaller scale. This alternative would result in less light and glare
impacts than the proposed Project as the commercial developments would be reduced in size and
therefore introduce fewer sources of new lighting. As with the proposed Project, a water treatment plant
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 15, l00s
CH No. 2003121150
--'1 1
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
FinalEIR
Findings
would still be constructed creating light and glare impacts similar to those of the proposed Project.
Additionally, this alternative proposes fewer residential units and would therefore generate less onsite
o lighting and less automobile-generated lighting.
Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in the removal of
deteriorating bqildings and the cmrent blighted conditions onsite, resulting in an improvement of the
visual character of the Project area. However, as this alternative would leave a greater portion of the
existing neighborhood in place, fewer deteriorating structures, and therefore less blight, would be
removed.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in similar short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since development of the proposed Project, although these
impacts would be reduced due to the reduced size of the Project.
.
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project, but of a smaller scale. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any
significant long-term impacts.
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this project would be very similar to the proposed Project but of a smaller scale, resulting in a
reduction in short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts compared to the proposed Project. With
this alternative, there would be less excavation, less clay imported, and less construction.
o
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Compared to the
proposed Project, this alternative would result in less reduction of seismic risks as a greater number of
people would remain onsite and fewer substandard structures would be removed.
Additionally, as this alternative proposes a reduction in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be
onsite, resulting in fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards. However, fewer structures would
be removed.
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts, including these potentially significant noise impacts
related to activities at the soil disposal/clay borrow site, from this project would be less than those of the
proposed Project. Unlike the proposed Project, less of the site would be cleared with this alternative,
resulting in the reduced demolition-related noise impacts and reduced trips for hauling away the
demolition debris. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in
any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be less than
those of the proposed Project as a smaller lake would require less demolition, excavation, and grading.
Further, this alternative would also require additional offsite grading, but would generate fewer
construction-related trips that the proposed Project would generate. As with the proposed Project, this
Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air quality. Because the region's air quality is
currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations, any new emissions generated by the
Project would be significant impacts. However, as this alternative would generate a greater number of
trips, long-term impacts would be greater than those of the proposed Project.
o
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, large-scale demolition would occur
with this alternative and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into the air in
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Munidpal Water District
April 25, 1005
CH No. 2003121150
_."c """""",,,_c,.,'c. '
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects Findings
FInal EIR
the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized Environmental
Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would result in relatively the same
impacts to public services and utilities and result in the same benefits as the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, this alternative would result in vacating and removing utilities, would create security
concerns associated with protecting a potable water source, and the Fire Department would have to
develop water rescue capabilities. However, implementation of this alternative would result in existing
public services and utilities realizing the benefits of reduced demand for services. Specifically, demands
on water production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and
recreation, the Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied
reduction in population. The unavoidable significant impact of demolition debris generation that would
occur with implementation of the proposed project would be reduced with this alternative.
.
Historic and Cultural Resources. This alternative would have the same impacts to cultural resources,
including paleontological, archaeological, and historical, as with the proposed Project. All of the
properties identified as eligible under City criteria would still be within the area proposed for construction
of this alternative and, thus, have to be removed or demolished. Like the proposed Project, with
mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Population and Housing. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result
in a decrease in the City's population and the reduction of the City's housing stock, but to a lesser degree
than that of the proposed Project. This alternative would result in a net reduction of 261 housing units,
rather than the reduction of 365 housing units of the proposed Project. Thus, this Project would result in
the City's population decreasing by only 861 people. As with the proposed Project, every person currently
residing on site would have to be relocated, as the entire site would be demolished.
Conclusion. This alternative would satisfy all of the Project objectives, but not to the same degree as the
proposed Project. It does create a significant new public park and lake, which would be the focus for the
existing and newly developed residential community, but the lake and park would be smaller than those
of the proposed Project. It would help revitalize the existing and newly developed residential
communities, but provide less new housing. It does provide for new commercial developments along
sections of the new Lakeside Drive, but does not provide as much as the proposed Project. Additionally,
this alternative could provide for construction management practices, which minimize disruption to areas
directly adjacent to the Project site just as the proposed Project does. Because this alternative reduces
disruption to the community and reduces construction-related impacts including noise, air quality, and
traffic, it has been identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goals, it does not satisfy these goals as successfully as the
proposed Project and, more importantly, it does not provide the SBVMWD with the same water storage
capacity that the proposed Project provides. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
Alternative 4: North Lake Area Storage Tanks Alternative
This alternative proposes that storage tanks be constructed to store water in the North Lake Area Project
site in lieu of the proposed reservoir. There are several different types of water storage tanks available,
which are defined by their construction method including bolted steel tanks, welded steel tanks,
prestressed concrete tanks, and cast-in-place tanks. Each type of tank has different merits and upper limits
of storage capacity. Prestressed concrete tanks and cast-in-place tanks typically offer the greatest storage
capacity, able to hold up to approximately 10 million gallons.
o The proposed reservoir has a capacity of 660 acre-feet of water, or 214.5 million gallons. Twenty-two 10-
million-gallon tanks would be needed to provide SBVMWD with the same storage capacity as the North
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CHNo.2oo3121150
-'~----V'
o
o
o
I
North Lake Area aDd South Lake Area Projects
Final Em
Findings
Lake. A 10-miilion-gallon prestressed concrete reservoir would have a diameter of approximately 231
feet and be approximately 30 feet tall. Each tank has a footprint of nearly one acre and, when including
appurtenant facilities such as pump stations and access roads, can easily occupy 1.5 acres. Replacing the
proposed Project with tanks such as these would require a 33-acre tank farm.
This alternative would be located within the southwestern comer of the North Lake Area Project site in
order to take advantage of nearby existing and planned SBVMWD facilities. It would be bounded by "H"
Street on the west, Orange Street on the north, "F" Street on the east, and 9th Street on the south. Not
including public rights-of-way, this area totals approximately 36 acres. As with the proposed Project, an
8-MGD water treatment plant would still be constructed in one of the three identified locations.
Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to provide sufficient storage capacity in proximity to
current water production facilities, it fails to provide opportunities for redevelopment and reinvestment
into the existi'ng community. In addition, this alternative will not create a new public park and lake for the
existing and proposed community, as well as commercial developments along the lakeshore.
ANALYSIS
This alternative proposes that storage tanks be constructed to store water in lieu of the proposed reservoir.
There are several different types of water storage tanks available, which are defined by their construction
method including bolted steel tanks, welded steel tanks, prestressed concrete tanks, and cast-in-p1ace
tanks. Each type of tank has different merits and upper limits of storage capacity. Prestressed concrete
tanks and cast-in-p1ace tanks typically offer the greatest storage capacity, able to hold up to approximately
10 million gallons.
The proposed reservoir has a capacity of 660 acre-feet of water, or 214.5 million gallons. Twenty-two 10-
million-gallon tanks would be needed to provide SBVWMD With the same storage capacity as the North
Lake. A 10-miilion-gallon prestressed concrete reservoir would have a diameter of approximately 231
feet and be approximately 30 feet tall. Each tank has a footprint of nearly 1 acre and, when including
appurtenant facilities such as pump stations and access roads, can easily occupy 1.5 acres. Replacing the
proposed Project with tanks such as these would require a 33-acre tank farm.
This alternative would be located within the southwestern comer of the Project area as the proposed
Project in order to take advantage of nearby SBVMWD existing and planned facilities. It would be
bounded by "H" street on the west, Orange Street on the north, "F" Street on the east, and 9th Street on
the south. Not including public right-of-ways, this area totals approximately 36 acres. As with the
proposed Project, an 8-MGD water treatment plant would still be constructed in one of the three identified
locations.
Land Use. Unlike the proposed Project, this alternative is not consistent with the plans, policies, or
objectives of the City of San Bernardino's General Plan, the City of San Bernardino's Development
Code, or the Uptown Redevelopment plan. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in
the division of an existing community.
Traffic. This alternative would generate more traffic than the proposed Project. As this alternative
proposes the use of 36 acres of the existing Project area which includes 322 housing units and the Holy
Land Church of God in Christ, but leaves all of the existing commercial and 115 housing units, there
would be a smaller net reduction in overall traffic. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would not
result in any long-term impacts. Unlike the proposed Project, this alternative would not require vacating
and removing streets.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. This alternative would have greater impacts to aesthetics, light, and glare
than the proposed Project would. Views from and across the Project site would be affected, as the tanks
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Vaney Municipal Water District
AprU 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
would be much larger than any of the existing structures. Views of blighted conditions would likely
become worse as this alternative would not be compatible with surrounding uses and would encourage
disinvestment in surrounding areas. Light and glare impacts would be worse with this alternative because
the storage tanks would have security lighting which would me much more intense than the moderate
lighting surrounding the proposed lake. As with the proposed Project, the water treatment plant would .
generate new sources of light and glare.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in reduced short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since construction activities would not be as extensive as
with the proposed Project. Additionally, storm water flows into Lytle Creek would not be reduced as they
would if the Project was implemented.
Biological Resources. Construction-related impacts to special status vegetation types and plant and
wildlife species would be reduced with this alternative as construction and grading activities associated
with this alternative would not be as extensive as those of the proposed Project. As with the proposed
Project, this alternative would not have any significant long-term impacts.
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
would be reduced with this alternative as construction and grading activities associated with this
alternative would not be as extensive as those of the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this
alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, and there would not be any impacts to
topography or any impacts to unique geologic features. However, because this alternative would allow a
greater number of people to remain in the area, implementation of this alternative would not reduce the
number of people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Short-term, construction-related noise impacts would be reduced with the implementation of this
alternative as demolition, excavation, clay import, construction, and grading activities, as well as the trips
generated by these activities, would not be as extensive as those of the proposed Project. As with the
proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Additionally, implementation of this alternative would eliminate the potentially significant construction-
related noise impact at the soil disposal/clay borrow site.
Air Quality. Demolition, excavation, clay import, construction, and grading activities, as well as the trips
generated by these activities would be far less with this alternative than with the proposed Project as any
construction and grading within the Project area would be on a smaller scale than that of the proposed
Project. Further, this alternative would not require any additional offsite grading and would not generate
nearly the number of construction-related trips that the proposed Project would generate. As with the
proposed Project, this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air quality. Because the
region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations, any new emissions
generated by the Project would be significant impacts. However, as this alternative would generate a
greater number of trips, long-term impacts would be greater than those of the proposed Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in reduced impacts to
public safety and a reduced risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, demolition would still ocCW' with this
alternative, but only cover 36 acres. Although it can be expected that construction and demolition would
still occur, it would not be of the same degree and, thus, there would be a reduced risk of emitting
asbestos or lead-based paint into the air in the vicinity of the Project site. However, because this
alternative would result in many existing uses persisting, there would be less opportunity to remediate
some of the possible soil contamination associated with the Recognized Environmental Conditions.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would prevent any impacts to public
services and utilities. Specifically, no utilities would have to be vacated or removed, there would be no
security concerns associated with protecting a potable water source, and the Fire Department would not
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaUey Municipal Water District
April ZS, ZOOS
CHNo.2oo3121150
'""T' .,
o
~..
o
o
...,.......,-
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
i-F:inal DR
Findings
have to develop water rescue capabilities. Implementation of this alternative would also result in a
reduction in demand on existing public services and utilities due to the reduction in population. The -
unavoidable significant impact of demolition debris generation that would ocCW' with the proposed
Project would be reduced with this alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. As with the proposed Project, cultural resoW'ces, including
paleontological, archaeological, or historical, would be distW'bed with this alternative, as demolition,
excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed Project would still occur. This
alternative would result in a reduced impact to historical resources, as only foW' of the five City-eligible
historic structures would be impacted. Although development of the proposed Project has the potential to
result in a significant impact on historical resources, with mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Population llnd Housing. Implementation of this alternative would result in a decrease in the City's
population by 1062 people and the reduction of the City's housing stock by 322 dwelling units. This
alternative would therefore result in less of an impact to the City's housing stock and reduce the City's
population by less than the proposed Project.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy all of the Project objectives. It fails to provide for new
lakeside residential development, it fails to create a significant new public park and lake, and it fails to
revitalize existing and newly developed residential communities. However, this alternative would likely
satisfy the objective to plan for construction management practices, which minimize disruption to areas
directly adjacent to the Project site.
Although this alternative results in reducing some impacts, it fails to satisfy almost all of the objectives
',set forth for the proposed Project. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
AL#RNATIVE S: AL TERNA TIVE PROJECT SITES AND THE VISION 20120 PLAN
;:t-:";
In Dec~ 1999, the San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority completed the Vision 20/20
plan after six months of focused effort consulting with key stakeholders and the public. This plan
presented for consideration by stakeholders, a series of lakes and streams smrounding the downtown City
core that served to solve several problems facing the City. The V'uion 20/20 plan integrated sW'face water
storage needs of SBVMWD, provided an operationally effective means of placing the NewmarkIMuscoy
treated groundwater into beneficial use as part of the SBVMWD's municipal supply system, lowered the
"Areas of Historic High Groundwater" by up to 30 feet to reduce seismic liquefaction potential and
related hazards, and created opportunities for substantial economic revitalization of the City.
The Vision 20/20 plan identified seven districts throughout the City that would eventually have a lake, a
stream, or both. Several sites were identified for lake construction including the area south of Sib Street,
west of Mount Vernon Avenue, and north of Lytle Creek; the area south of Baseline Street, west of
Interstate 215, north of 91b Street, and east of Mt. Vernon Avenue; the proposed Project site; the area
. south of Baseline Street, east of Waterman Avenue, north of 91b Street, and east of "E" Street; the area
south of Rial to Avenue, east of"E" Street, North of Mill Street, and east of Interstate 215, and the area
north of Sib Street, east of Sterling Avenue, and south and west of the City limits. The streams were
envisioned by the plan to run between these water bodies as well as into some of the natural waterways in
the area.
Within the Vision 20/20 plan, the recommended sites for development included the proposed North Lake
Area Project site and the South Lake Area Project site.
City or San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaHey Municipal Water District
D.........4.1 n.~C;:"1
Aprll25, 2005
CHNo.2oo3121150
_=.o~,..
c
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
i~BlR
Findings
ANALYSIS
In December 1999, the Vision 20/20 plan was completed by the San Bernardino Regional Water
Resources Authority after six months of concerted effort working with key stakeholders and the public.
This plan presented a series of lakes and streams surrounding the downtown City core that served to solve
several problems facing the City. It meets the surface storage need for the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, provides an operationally effective means of integrating the NewmarkIMuscoy
treated groundwater into the District's municipal supply system, lowers the Areas of Historic High
Groundwater by up to 30 feet to reduce seismic liquefaction potential and related hazards, and creates
opportunities for substantial revitalization of the City.
The Vision 20/20 plan identified seven districts throughout the City that would eventually have a lake, a
stream, or both. Several sites were identified for lake construction including the area south of Sth Street,
west of Mount Vernon, and north of Lytle Creek; the area south of Baseline, west ofI-21S, north of 9th
Street, and east of Mt. Vernon; the proposed Project site; the area south of Baseline, east of Waterman
Street, North of9tb Street, and east ofE Street; the area south ofRialto Avenue, east ofE Street, North of
Mill Street, and east ofI-21S, and the area north ofSth Street, east of Sterling Avenue, and south and west
of the City limits. The streams were envisioned by the plan to run between these water bodies as well as
into some of the natural waterways in the area.
The initial analysis was confined to two phases, which were best suited for the proposed construction of
new lakes and streams. The primary site (phase AI proposed Project) located south of Base Line, west of
H Street, east of E Street, and North of 9th Street. The Vision 20/20 plan recommended development of
phase A (the proposed Project site) so that a maximum number of the Vision 20/20 plan's objectives
could be addressed from the beginningl. Primarily, the following four specific characteristics of the site
were identified that made it the only site that could successfully commence the Vision 20/20 plan:
1. This is the highest elevation within the Project area that will allow gravity flow to carry water to
all other areas within the Project.
2. This area contains a significant amount of vacant and underutilized land, which is suitable for
redevelopment.
3. The existing water distribution facilities are near this area for easy access.
4. This area has a high probability of helping to stabilize the surrounding areas and the Central
Business District.
An additional plan (phase B) was proposed as an additional plan to Phase A. This alternative expanded to
the east and south, with reservoirs east of E Street connected by streams to the Seccombe Lake Park and
on to another new reservoir near the Norton Air Force Base (San Bernardino International Airport). Phase
B would not address the Vision 20/20 objectives without Phase A being constructed first. In response the
reservoir east ofE Street was dropped as a primary Project. In addition, the reservoir site identified north
of San Bernardino International Airport was not considered viable due to the potential water fowl hazard
that could affect airport flight operations. In addition, the lack of proximity to the necessary infrastructure
also made this alternative unfavorable.
Additionally, the San Bernardino Municipal Water District has identified the current Project site as the
preferred initial phase of the Vision 20/20 plan implementation because of its proximity to planned and
existing facilities as well as its proximity to the Newmark and Muscoy plumes. These objectives coupled
with the above Vision 20/20 objectives eliminate all but the proposed Project site as the initial phase of
the Vision 20/20 plan.
I Vision 20/20 San Bernardino, pg. Xli-2.The Urban Spaces Team. December 13, 1999.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
--~",..-"--
o
o
o
" .
"m -.-'.-"_"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Il'imII EIIl
Findings
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Overall, North Lake Alternative 4 has been detennined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative
aside from Alternative 1. It should be noted that none of the alternatives that involve development
(Alternatives 2-4) are substantially superior to the proposed Project from an environmental perspective.
Impacts to aesthetics; air quality; hydrology and water quality; noise; public services and utilities; and
traffic would all be reduced relative to the proposed project under this alternative.
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1: No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
As stated above, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(eX2)) require that the alternatives discussion
include an analysis of the "No Project Alternative." Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project Alternative refers
to the analysis of existing conditions (i.e., implementation of current plans) and what would reasonably be
expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project was not approved. In the case of the South Lake
Area Project, if the project was not approved, it is reasonable to expect that the 53.7-acre Project area
would eventually be developed in confonnance with the current General Plan designations of the Central
City South Overlay District. Currently, existing uses consist of single-family residential, various
commercial and industrial uses, and vacant land. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to
limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area and will provide for development of commercial uses, it
fails to provide a water feature within the South Lake Area that can provide both an attractive gateway
into the City as well as an opportunity for wetlands mitigation and/or recreation.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. Compared to the proposed Project, this alternative is very similar. As with the proposed
Project, this alternative would not conflict with the land use plan, goals, or strategies of the City of San
Bernardino General Plan, the City of San Bernardino Development Code, or the relevant policies of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Redevelopment Project.
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative would be greater than that generated by the proposed
Project. As the "No Build" Project, this alternative assumes the continuance of existing plans, and thus,
assumes that the final development for this area would reflect the allowed General Plan land use
designation. The purpose of the Central City South Overlay District is to provide for research and
development, limited retail, and entertainment uses. At build out per the allowed 0.7 floor area ratio, this
area would provide over 1.4 million square feet of commercial space, more than twice as intense a
development as the proposed Project. This would result in a far greater amount of trips generated by the
Project site. Although the proposed Project would not cause any traffic or circulation related significant
impacts, it is not clear whether or not this alternative would cause any traffic or circulation related
impacts.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that more new development would occur with this alternative,
aesthetic and light and glare impacts would be increased as compared to the proposed Project. This
alternative would result in short-tenD, construction related impacts that would be very similar to the
proposed Project. This alternative would result in more light and glare impacts than the proposed Project
as the commercial development would be greater in size and therefore introduce more sources of new
lighting.
Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in the removal of
deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting in an improvement of the
visual character of the Project area.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Munic:ipal Water District
AprU 25, 200s
CH No. 2003121150
--
o
o
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
fi1uI DR
Findings
Hydrology. This alternative would result in greater short-tenn impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since it would result in a larger development than the
proposed Project.
Biological Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be somewhat greater than those
of the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any significant
long-term impacts.
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be very similar to the proposed Project but of a greater scale, resulting in an
increase in short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts compared to the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-tenn erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes an increase in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be onsite, resulting in
fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts from this Project would be greater than those of the
proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in any
long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be greater
than those of the proposed Project as a larger commercial development would require more excavation
and grading. As with the proposed Project, this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact
to air quality. Because the region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal
regulations, any new emissions generated by the Project would be significant impacts. However, as this
alternative would generate a greater number of trips, long-term impacts would be greater than those of the
proposed Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing, non-conforming
onsite structures would have to be demolished and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-
based paint into the air in the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the
Recognized Environmental Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the
onsite uses would be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would prevent any impacts to public
services and utilities. Specifically, no utilities would have to be vacated or removed. However,
implementation of this alternative would also prevent existing public services and utilities from realizing
the benefits of reduced demand for services. Specifically, demands on water production, wastewater
treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and recreation, the Police Department, and the
Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied reduction in population and land use
intensity of the proposed Project. The unavoidable significant impact of the proposed Project causes by
solid waste generation would not occw' with this alternative.
Historic and Cultnral Resources. The South Lake Project Area does not have any known historical,
paleontological, or archaeological resources. Therefore, this alternative, as with the proposed Project,
would not cause any impacts to historical or cultmal resources.
Population and Housing. As discussed in Section 4.9 of the Final Program EIR, Population and
Housing, the new employment opportunities associated with the South Lake Area Project commercial
development could contribute to the growth of the City's pOpulation. As discussed in Section 4.12 of the
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April Z5, ZOOS
CH No. 2003121150
~". 'f
o
o
o
"'
"OU,'_'_,,_, '."""
~.
North Lab Area and South Lab Area Projects
Final.Em:
Findings
Final Program EIR, the proposed Project could result in the net growth of 825 people. Based on the same
methodology, this alternative could result in the net growth of the City's population by 2257 people.
Although the proposed Project would result in a less than one percent change of the City's population,
this alternative would result in a 1.16% change in the City's population. This would not be considered
significant.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative proposes the demolition of all onsite uses, including foW'
existing single-family residences. As with the proposed Project, every person cW'rently residing onsite
would have to be relocated. .
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy any of the Project objectives. It fails to provide
development opportunities for commercial developments within the City's core business district. In
addition, this alternative does not provide the proposed water feature that is intended to provide an
aesthetic amefrity to this part of the city, create an opportunity for wetlands mitigation and! or recreation,
and help limit the spread of blight in this area of the city through development of new, aesthetically
pleasing water bodies.
As this alternative represents the continuance of existing conditions onsite, its present state has been used
as the baseline for all environmental evaluation. Although in it's CW'rent state this alternative avoids many
of the environmental impacts that would be caused by the proposed Project, at completion of build out,
the impacts exceed the proposed Projects impacts and for this it has been rejected for consideration.
ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
With this alternative, the density of the proposed South Lake Area Project would be reduced. This
alternative is based on conversations with City staff that identified that due to a number of considerations,
commercial projects within the City are rarely built to allowed density. In fact, according to City staff, the
average commercial development within the City is built at about 25% of the allowed density. Based on
this trend, the intensity of the site has been reduced by 75%, resulting in a commercial development of
120,375 square feet. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to limit the spread of blight in
the South Lake Area Project, it fails to provide for new commercial development along the lake, it fails to
provide a sufficient amount of commercial development to effectively provide new employment
opportunities within the City's core business district.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. Compared to the proposed Project, this alternative is very similar. As with the proposed
Project, this alternative would not conflict with the land use plan, goals, or strategies of the City of San
Bernardino General Plan, the City of San Bernardino Development Code, or the relevant policies of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Redevelopment Project. Like the proposed Project, this
alternative would include a five-acre wetland feature and require a General Plan amendment to vacate
streets within the Project area.
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative would be less than that generated by the proposed Project.
Assuming the same mix of commercial uses would be developed with this alternative as with the
proposed Project, but at reduced density, this alternative would result in 5,182 fewer trips than the
proposed Project. As the proposed Project would not cause any traffic or circulation related significant
impacts, this alternative would not cause any traffic or circulation related impacts. And like the proposed
Project, this alternative would result in the vacation of streets within the Project area.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Given that less new development would ocCW' with this alternative,
aesthetics, light and glare impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project. This alternative
would result in short-term, construction related impacts that would be very similar to the proposed
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Tt___ A~ _I:~'"
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
PIDaI'BIR
Findings
o
Project. This alternative would result in less light and glare impacts than the proposed Project, as the
commercial development would be reduced in size and therefore introduce fewer sources of new lighting.
Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in the removal of
deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting in an improvement of the
visual character of the Project area.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in similar short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities, although these impacts would be reduced due to the
reduced size of the Project.
Biological Resources. Impiementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project, but on a smaller scale. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any
significant long-term impacts.
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be very similar to the proposed Project but of a smaller scale, resulting in a
reduction in short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts compared to the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes a reduction in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be onsite, resulting in
fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
o
Noise. Construction generated noise impacts from this Project would be less than those of the proposed
Project. However, as with the proposed Project, the entire site would be cleared, resulting in the same
demolition activities and the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition debris. As with the
proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be less than
those of the proposed Project, as a smaller commercial development would require less excavation, and
grading. Further, just as with the proposed Project, this alternative would also require additional offsite
grading in order to provide fill for the wetland feature. Additionally, the entire site would be cleared,
resulting in the same demolition activities and the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition
debris. As with the proposed Project, this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air
quality. Because the region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations,
any new emissions generated by the Project would be significant impacts. However, as this alternative
would generate a lower number of trips, long-term impacts would be lower than those of the proposed
Project.
PubUc Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing onsite structures
would have to be demolished and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into
the air in the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized
Environmental Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would
be removed.
o
PubUc Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would reduce impacts to public services
and utilities. Utilities would still have to be vacated or removed. However, implementation of this
alternative would result in reduced demand for utilities and on public services. Specifically, demands on
water production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and recreation,
the Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied reduction in
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaHey Municipal Water District
April 25, 2_
CH No. 2003121150
___~ AL _~~,.,
'..
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EBt
Findings
o
population and land use intensity of the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, unavoidable
significant impacts would still occur with this alternative as a result of demolition debris generation.
Historic and Cultnral Resources. The South Lake Project Area does not have any known historical,
paleontological, or archaeological resources. Therefore, this alternative, as with the proposed Project,
would not cause any impacts to historical or cultural resources.
Population and Housing. As discussed in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, the new employment
opportunities associated with the South Lake Area CODDl1ercial development could contribute to the
growth of the City's population. As discussed in Section 4.9, the proposed Project could result in the net
growth of 825 people. Based on the same methodology, this alternative could result in the net growth of
the City's population by 192 people. As with the proposed Project, this change would result in a less than
one percent change of the City's population and would not be considered significant.
.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative proposes the demolition of all onsite uses, including four
existing single-family residences. As with the proposed Project, every person currently residing onsite
would have to be relocated.
Conclusion. This alternative would partially or totally satisfy all of the following Project objectives:
.
Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area through the development of new, aesthetically
pleasing water bodies;
In the South Lake Area, create a new water feature, which would be the focus for the existing and
newly developed commercial district, providing both an aesthetic amenity and opportunity of
wetlands mitigation and/or recreation; ,
Construct a new CODDl1ercial development near the proposed South Lake Area water feature.
In the South Lake Area, construction of new commercial developments, including office,
restaurant, and retailing, within the City's core business district, provide employment
opportunities, and, through the use of a water feature, create an attractive gateway entrance for
the City off of the 1-215 consistent with the Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
.
.
o
.
Based on conversations with the City, this alternative was proposed to illustrate how current trends within
this portion of the city would look overlaid onto the South Lake Project. By reducing the density of this
alternative by 75%, the impacts associated with this alternative will be greatly reduced. However, this
alternative will not provide the city with the adequate amount of cODDllercial opportunities, which will
provide necessary jobs close to the Central Business District. For these reasons, this alternative has been
rejected.
ALTERNATIVE 3: YOUTH SPORTS FIELDS ALTERNATIVE
0..
This alternative proposes the implementation of eight youth, day-use only softball fields as proposed in
the San Bernardino Revitalization Plan - VISion 20/20. With this alternative, the South Lake
waterbody/wet1and feature would still be built south of Lytle Creek, but softball fields would be built on
the areas north of Lytle Creek. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to limit the spread of
blight in the South Lake Area, it fails to provide for new commercial development along the lake, it fails
to provide for new lakeside commercial development and it fails to provide new employment
opportunities. As shown in the Table 1.0-2 of the Final Program EIR, Comparison of Alternatives :.... South
Lake without North Lake Development, this alternative would result in less impacts or reduced impacts
and, accordingly, has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative for the South Lake Area
Project.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley MUDicipal Water District
])"0" iJ.7 nf"~
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
o
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
ANALYSIS
Lanel Use. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not conflict with the land use plan, goals,
or strategies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. A Specific Plan could be developed for a
recreation facility in this area. This alternative does not conflict with the City of San Bernardino
Development Code, but is not entirely in the spirit of the relevant policies of the Redevelopment Plan for
Central City South.
Traffic. Traffic associated with this alternative would be less than that generated by the proposed Project.
The sports fields would not receive regular use as a commercial development would and, thus, would not
generate regular traffic. Because this alternative would result in reduction in the intensity of land use, it is
expected that this alternative would not cause any traffic or circulation related significant impacts.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the vacation of streets within the Project
area.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. This alternative would result in short-term, construction related impacts
that would be very similar to the proposed Project. However, this alternative would result in greatly
reduced light and glare impacts, as there would be very minimal onsite lighting.
Further, as with the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would result in the removal of
deteriorating buildings and the current blighted conditions onsite, resulting in an improvement of the
visual character of the Project area.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in greatly reduced short-term impacts to water quality
associated with grading, excavation, and construction activities as implementation and construction of this
o Project would require much less grading and construction.
Biological Resources. Implernentation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types, and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project, but on a smaller scale. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any
significant long-term impacts.
o
Geology, SoDs, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be very similar to the proposed Project but of a smaller scale, resulting in a
reduction in short-term wind and water generated erosion impacts compared to the proposed Project.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic features. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes a reduction in the intensity of land use, fewer people would be onsite, resulting in -
fewer people exposed to onsite liquefaction hazards.
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts from this Project would be less than those of the
proposed Project. However, as with the proposed Project, the entire site would be cleared, resulting in the
. same demolition activities and the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition debris. As with
the proposed Project, implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be less than
those of the proposed Project as a smaller commercial development would require less excavation, and
grading. Further, just as with the proposed Project, this alternative would also require additional offsite
grading in order to provide fill for the wetland feature. Additionally, the entire site would be cleared,
resulting in the same demolition activities and the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition
debris. As with the proposed Project, this Project would result in an unavoidable significant impact to air
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaDey Municipal Water District
'n___ AD _~.c:.,
AprU 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
~"
..
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
o
quality. Because the region's air quality is currently in non-attainment with State and Federal regulations,
any new emissions generated by the Project would be significant impacts. However, as this alternative
would generate a lower number of trips, long-term impacts would be lower than those of the proposed
Project.
PubUc Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing onsite structures
would have to be demolished and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into
the air in the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized
Environmental Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would
be removed.
PubUc Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would reduce impacts to public services
and utilities. Utilities would still have to be vacated or removed. However, implementation of this
alternative would result in reduced demand for utilities and on public services. Specifically, demands on
water production, wastewater treatment, telephone service, gas service, electricity, parks and recreation,
the Police Department, and the Fire Department would all be reduced with the accompanied reduction in
population and land use intensity of the proposed Project. As with the proposed project, the same
unavoidable significant impacts associated with the generation of demolition debris would occur with this
alternative.
Historic and Cultural Resources. The South Lake Project Area does not have any known historical,
paleontological, or archaeological resources. Therefore, this alternative, as with the proposed Project,
would not cause any impacts to historical or cultmal resources.
o
Population and Housing. As discussed in Section 4.9 of the Final Program EIR, Population and
Housing, the new employment opportunities associated with the South Lake Area commercial
development could contribute to the growth of the City's population. This alternative does not propose
any new employment-generating uses and, thus, would not result in any net growth of the City's
population.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative proposes the demolition of all onsite uses, including four
existing single-family residences. As with the proposed Project, every person currently residing onsite
would have to be relocated.
Conclusion. This alternative would not satisfy all of the Project objectives. It fails to provide for new
lakeside commercial developments. However, this alternative satisfies the following objective:
. Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area through the development of new, aesthetically
pleasing water bodies;
Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area, it
fails to provide for new lakeside commercial development and it fails to provide new employment
opportunities. Although it provides fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project, the lack of
satisfying the objectives for the South Lake Area is very significant.
o
The largest unavoidable significant impact associated with this alternative is the impact to land use within
the city. Currently the Project area is designated for commercial uses and the proposed Project will
provide opportunities to continue those types of uses. However, this alternative proposes a transformation
of the Project area into parks that does not conflict with the City's General Plan, however this proposal
does conflict with the rationale and policies that were adopted within the Central City South
Redevelopment Plans. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
Ci~orSanBernardmo
San Bernardino Valley MUDicipal Water District
AprU 15, ZOOS
CHNo.2003121150
~T--
o
o
o
--,
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
ALTERNATIVE 4: LARGER SOUTH LAKE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative proposes that a larger, deeper lake would be constructed on the northern side of Lytle
Creek per the VISion 20/20 plan instead of the wetland featw"e on the southern side of Lytle Creek. In this
case, the area designated for commercial development north of Lytle Creek uses would be reduced, but
additional area would become available for development south of Lytle Creek. Like the proposed Project,
this alternative still includes a commercial component of 450,000 square feet of office space and 31,500
square feet of retail commercial. Although this alternative satisfies the Project's goal to limit the spread of
blight in the South Lake Area Project, it fails to provide for an attractive gateway for the City off of the 1-
215 that is consistent with the Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
ANALYSIS
Land Use. AS with the proposed Project, this alternative would not conflict with the land use plan, goals,
or strategies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the City of San Bernardino Development Code,
or the relevant policies of the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Redevelopment Project.
Traffic. As this alternative proposes the same mix of land uses as the proposed Project, it would generate
the same traffic as the proposed Project. As the proposed Project does not create any traffic-related
impacts, this alternative would not create any traffic related impacts.
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare. Implementation of this alternative would result in greater short-term
aesthetic, light, and glare impacts, as it would entail more excavation, grading, and construction than the
proposed Project. However, long-term impacts of the alternative would be the same as those of the
proposed Project as the land development scenario is the same.
Hydrology. This alternative would result in greater short-term impacts to water quality associated with
grading, excavation, and construction activities since development of alternative would require
significantly more grading and excavation. As with the proposed Project, storm water flows into Lytle
Creek would be reduced and there would not be any long term impacts to hydrology or water quality.
Biological :Resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in construction-related impacts to
special status vegetation types and plant and wildlife species that would be virtually identical to the
proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not have any significant long-term
impacts.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Construction-related wind and water generated erosion impacts to soil
from this Project would be greater because of the additional excavation and grading that would be
required to construct the larger water featw"e. Therefore, short-term wind and water generated erosion
impacts would likely be much greater with this alternative.
As with the proposed Project, this alternative would not result in any long-term erosion impacts, there
would not be any impacts to topography, or any impacts to unique geologic featw"es. Additionally, as this
alternative proposes the same total land use, onsite liquefaction hazards would be the same as the
proposed Project.
Noise. Construction-related generated noise impacts from this Project would be greater than those of the
proposed Project as construction of the lake would require a significant amount of additional excavation
and a greater number of truck trips for hauling the extra excavation material and the additional clay. As
with the proposed Project, the entire site would be cleared, resulting in the same demolition activities and
the same trips generated for hauling away the demolition debris. As with the proposed Project,
implementation of this alternative would not result in any long-term noise impacts.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
____I!^_~I!"'t
AprU 15, ZOOS
CH No. 2003121150
~ ,~.
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final Em
Findings
o
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts from this Project would be greater than the those of
the proposed Project as construction of the lake would require a significant amount of additional
excavation and a greater number of 1ruck trips for hauling the extra excavation material and the additional
clay. Further, this alternative would require more offsite grading than the-proposed Project. Additionally,
the entire site would be cleared, resulting in the same demolition activities and the same trips generated
for hauling away the demolition debris. As with the proposed Project, this Project would result in an
unavoidable significant impact to air quality. Because the region's air quality is currently in non-
attainment with State and Federal regulations, any new emissions generated by the Project would be
significant impacts. As this alternative would generate the same number of trips, long-term impacts would
be equal to those
of the proposed Project.
Public Safety and Risk of Upset. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts to
public safety. and a similar risk of upset. Like the proposed Project, large-scale demolition would occur
with this alternative and, thus, there would be risk of emitting asbestos or lead-based paint into the air in
the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, as with the proposed Project, the Recognized Environmental
Conditions would still have to be investigated and managed as all of the onsite uses would be removed.
Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts to
public services and utilities. Utilities would still have to be vacated or removed. However,
implementation of this alternative would result in the same demand for utilities and on public services as
the same land use intensity and mix is proposed. As with the proposed Project, implementation of this
alternative would result in the same unavoidable significant impacts due to the generation of demolition
debris. -
o
Historic and Cultural Resources. The South Lake Project Area does not have any known historical,
paleontological, or archaeological resources. Therefore, this alternative, as with the proposed Project,
would not cause any impacts to historical or cultural resources.
Population and Housing. This alternative would create the same number of new jobs and would require
the demolition of the same structures as the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative would have the
same impacts to population and housing as the proposed Project.
Conclusion. This alternative satisfies a majority of the Project objectives for the South Lake Area Project,
due to the commonality it shares with the proposed Project. The main difference is how this alternative's
land uses are oriented compared to the proposed Project. This alternative moves the water feature to the
north of the Lytle Creek. By re-arranging the site in this manner, this alternative will not provide a water
feature as part of the attractive gateway entrance for the city.
Although this alternative satisfies several of the Project's goals, it will also create greater short-term
impacts associated with air quality, noise, and hydrology from cons1ruction of the larger lake. For these
reasons, this alternative has been rejected.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
South Lake Alternative 3 has been determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Note that
none of the alternatives that involve new development are substantially superior to the proposed Project
from an environmental perspective. Impacts to aesthetics; air quality; geology, soils, and seismicity;
hydrology and water quality; noise; public services and utilities; and traffic would all be reduced relative
to the proposed Project under this alternative.
o
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaHey Municipal Water District
P"up. ~1 nf~':\
AprD 25, 2805
CH No. 2003121150
C''lf'0'IS
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
3.9 PROJECT BENEFITS
o
The following bene1;its will occur as a result of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project
implementation:
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECf
I) Provide SBVMWD with sufficient surface storage capacity to meet its near term goal of 347
acre-feet near existing infrastructure including the Base Line feeder and SBVMWD and USEP A
groundwater pumping operations;
2) Create a surface storage reservoir in proximity to current water production facilities (to limit
pipeline length) and upstream of water transmission facilities and future water service recipients
(including the "H" Street Storm Drain and the Santa Ana River).
3) Utiliie surplus land surrounding the proposed North Lake to facilitate new development and
focus reinvestment in the community;
4) Create a new public park and lake, which would be the focus for the existing and newly
developed residential community;
5) Construct new commercial developments along sections of the proposed lakeshore; and
6) Limit the spread of blight through the development of a new, aesthetically pleasing water body.
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
1)
2)
0 3)
4)
Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area through the development of a new, aesthetically
pleasing water body;
Create a new water feature, which would be the focus for the existing and newly developed
commercial district, providing both an aesthetic amenity and opportunity of wetlands mitigation
and/or recreation;
Construct new commercial development near the proposed South Lake Area water feature.
Construct new commercial developments, including office, restaurant, and retailing, within the
City's core business district, provide employment opportunities, and, through the use of a water
feature, create an attractive gateway entrance for the City off of the 1-215 consistent with the
Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
Development of the proposed Project will provide a logical extension of convenient and aesthetically
compatible uses, which will strengthen the economic viability of the City.
3.10 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations with
respect to the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR.
The following significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project after
implementation of all project-specific mitigation measures identified in Section 1.0 of the Final Program
EIR, Executive Summary:
AIR QUALITY
o
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during site preparation and
Project construction. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur as a result of import/export
activities. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
n___ co,,", _~~.,
April 25, 200s
CH No. 2003121150
o
o
o
.
~ ,
.'"_';'c""q,'_e~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
The Project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct
impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption.
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
The Project may conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Impacts would be significant
and unavoidable with mitigation. Cumulative impacts for construction emissions and long-term
operational emissions would also be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
LAND USE
Development of the proposed North Lake Area Project reservoir would introduce a barrier land use that
would obstruct traffic circulation throughout the vicinity and physically divide an established conmnmity.
While compnance with mandatory site development standards and design guidelines would lessen
potential impacts in this regard, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. No additional
unavoidable significant impacts related to land use and relevant planning have been identified.
NOISE
Due to the requirement for a large volume of import material from, and export material to, the Soil
DisposaVClay Borrow Site and the extended period of time import/excavationlgrading activities would
take place at that site, the project's temporary construction-related noise impact at the offsite Soil
Disposal/Clay Borrow Sites is considered an unavoidable significant impact.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would displace a substantial number of people, housing
and businesses. Additionally, cumulative impacts would occur due to displacement caused by cumulative
projects in the vicinity. Notwithstanding compliance with California Codes, and the development of the
72 new housing units, this impact for the North Lake Area Project is considered significant and
unavoidable due to the number of persons, housing units and businesses being displaced.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Due to the large quantities of deconstruction and demolition debris generated from the implementation of
the proposed project, an unavoidable significant impact would occur relative to area-wide solid waste
disposal capacities and the City's compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act.
3.11 ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE
CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires the City adopt a monitoring or reporting program
regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid significant
effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan included in the Final Program
EIR is hereby adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino and the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the Mayor and Common Council and the Board of
Directors hereby find that such plan satisfies CEQA's mitigation monitoring requirements:
1. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the
project and mitigation measures imposed on the project during project implementation; and
Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements or other measures.
City of San BernardlDo
San Bernardino Valley Muolclpal Water District
Da...... <'1 ,,1'4;:'1.
April 25, 2005
CHNo.2oo3121150
""',
1,
..
",','
";;"'-":-t""J:'t'::;~,f~;:m'fi''''.\'''';''''' '.
..
'.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department - PlanD...._Q6\,.~ e\.:Ii\K
Memorandum
TO:
16 N'R -6 ~1:28
Mayor and Common Council; James Penman, City Attorney; Rachel
Clark, City Clerk; Fred Wilson, City Administrator
Valerie C. Ro~uty Director/City Planner
,">'
FROM:
SUBJECT: North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project
DATE: April 5, 2005
COPIES: James Funk, Director; Henry Empeiio, Senior Deputy City Attorney
On September 1, 2004, staff distributed the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
for the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project. Attached is the March 8,
2005 Planning Commission staff report, which includes the Comments and Responses
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. All of these documents will be
attachments to the staffreport that will be presented to you on April 25, 2005, but will
not be re-distributed at that ,time. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District staff
will be distributing to its board members also.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
~g'-<-<:""l """""j "".,
. ,< . .Wl II
.- l' .... "("1' I ~ Ii I' f.'
. ".~
..
-.
SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DMSION
CASE:
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
North Lake Area Project and South Lakes Area Project
3
March 8, 2005
2 and 3
[,XJ-H fJI1
7/
APPLICANT:
OWNERS:
San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority ("JP A ")
c/o City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
201 N. "E" Street, Suite 301
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Various
REQUESTILOCATION:
Certification of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the North Lake Area Project and
South Lake Area Project. The North Lake Area Project is bounded by "E" Street and "H" Street, between
9th Street and Baseline Street. The South Lake Area Project is bounded by 1-215 and "G" Street, between
the BNSF Railroad right-of-way (south of Rial to Avenue) and Mill Street.
Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 to remove "G" Street between 9lb Street and Baseline'
Street and 10lb Street between "E" Street and "H" Street as secondary arterials from the General Plan
Circulation Element.
Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 to change the land use designation from RM,
Residential Medium High to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along Olive Street (between IOlb and
11 th Streets, east of "H" Street) and will change the land use designation from CG-2, Commercial General
to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along the north side of Orange Street (north of Illb Street, east of
"H" Street).
CONSTRAINTs/OVERLAYS:
N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
Q Not Applicable
Exempt
Q No Significant Effects
Q Program Environmental Impact Report - Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (SCH 2003121150)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It! Approval
Q Conditions
Q Denial
Q Continuance to:
~..:.:.:.,
J'I"
I'
,"
"j ,~ "
North Lake Area Project &
South Lake Area Project
HeariDg Date: 03/08105
Page 2 or8
REQUEST
The San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority requests that the Planning Commission
recommend certification of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the North Lake
Area Project and South Lake Area Project, approval of General Plan Amendment (GP A) No.05-
06 and General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 (Attachments A and B).
General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 will remove "G" Street between 9th Street and Baseline
Street and 1 Oth Street between "E" Street and "H" Street from the General Plan Circulation
Element. Both are designated as secondary arterials.
General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 will change the land use designation from RM, Residential
Medium High to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along Olive Street (between 10th and 11 th
Streets, east of"H" Street) and will change the land use designation from CG-2, Commercial
General to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along the north side of Orange Street (north of
11th Street, east of"H" Street).
BACKGROUND
The Initial Study and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report contain a thorough discussion
of the background and history related to this project, but a few key items are included here.
August 26, 1998 - the City of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District, and the Inland Valley Development Agency created the San Bernardino Regional Water
Resources Authority, a Joint Powers Authority (Water JP A) to explore potentjal solutions that
could address a variety of complex issues facing the JP A member agencies.
December 1999 - the Water JP A completed the "Vision 20/20" Plan, which included a series of
lakes and streams surrounding the downtown City core. The North Lake Project Site and the
South Lake Project Site are two of such areas that were identified.
October 6, 2003 - the City of San Bernardino and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District (District) entered into a Co-Lead Agency Agreement for purposes of implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA).
March 2003 - the Water JP A retained RBF Consulting and a team of lake design experts to
prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report for the North Lake Area & South Lake Area
projects.
LAND USE AUTHORITY
The City of San Bernardino has land use authority related to both General Plan Amendments in
the North Lake Area Project and all development-related activities in both area projects. The San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District is the project proponent related to construction of
.'
..,",
'-,-, "
North Lake Area Project "
South Lake Area Project
Hearing Date: 03/08/05
Page 3 of8
the regulating reservoir (in the fonn of an at-surface lake) in the North Lake Area Project. As
outlined in Section 53091 of the California Government Code, the District is not subject to local
zoning and building ordinances for the location or construction of facilities for the production,
generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water. Generally speaking, that means the
District can develop a lake/reservoir without any approvals from the City. With this project,
however, the District must rely on the City to vacate the underlying streets before it can proceed
with construction activities. '
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
North Lake Area
The North Lake Area Project site is an 82.4-acre area bounded by Baseline Street on the north,
9th Street on the south, "R" Street on the west, and "E" Street on the east, north of downtown San
Bernardino. The North Lake Area Project will be undertaken by the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District and includes the acquisition of all land necessary for the North Lake
Area Project and construction of a 44.5-acre lake. The District has determined that the full 82+-
acre area is necessary for construction staging activities. Therefore, the District will be
responsible for acquisition and relocation of existing uses/tenants within this area. After
completion of the lake, the remnant lands will be available for development/redevelopment
activities including residential, commercial, and recreational uses.
South Lake Area
The South Lake Area Project site is a 53.7 acres area bounded by the BNSF Railroad rigbt-of-
way on the north, Mill Street on the south, the 1-215- on the west, and "G" Street on the east.
Proposed development/redevelopment activities include acquisition and relocation of existing
uses and development of office, retail, and restaurant uses and water features, along with related
development improvements.
The South Lake Area Project includes the construction of a 5-acre lake/water feature with related
commercial redevelopment of new buildings and improvements on approximately 53.7 acres of
land located to the south of downtown San Bernardino. The Redevelopment Agency of the City
of San Bernardino will undertake the acquisition of property as necessary for the South Lake
Area Project subject to the tenns of one or more redevelopment participation agreements with
third party redevelopers.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Development/Environmental Review Committee (D/ERC) reviewed the Notice of
PreparationlInitial Study (NOPIIS) prepared for the North Lake Area Project & South Lake Area
Project at their December 18, 2003 meeting. The D/ERC concurred that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) would be required, and determined that the NOP/IS adequately outlined the
scope of the Program EIR.
~ ~ ,~
.. -
North Lake AIea Project &
South Lake AIea Project
Hearing Date: 03/08105
Page4of8
The Notice of Preparation and Notice of a Public Scoping Meeting were advertised in the San
Bernardino County Sun on December 22, 2003. The public review period for the NOP started on
December 23, 2003 and ended on January 28, 2004. During that review period, a public scoping
meeting was held on January 15, 2004. Comments were received from public agencies and
members of the public and were considered during preparation of the Draft Program EIR..
Upon completion of the Draft Program EIR., the Notice of Completion was published in the San
Bernardino County Sun. The Draft Program EIR. was made available for public review at the City
of San Bernardino Development Services Department, the Feldheym Central Library, and the
City of San Bernardino web site. It was also distributed to public agencies and made available to
the Development/Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, Mayor and
Common Council, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.
The public review period for the Draft Program EIR. was September 7, 2004 through October 22,
2004. The Draft Program EIR. identified the following significant environmental effects that were
anticipated as a result of the project:
Air Qualitv
Implementation of both the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project will have
temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions impacts, ongoing/operational vehicle
emissions impacts, and indirect impacts from.electrlcity and natural gas consumption. The
Project may conflict with the Air Quality Mana~trlan (AQMP). Impacts would be
significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
T and Use
Impi_tation of the-North Lake,Area,ProjecLwou1d.introdue~a barrier land use tbatwould
obstruct traffic circulation-throughout the-vicinity andphysica1ly divide an established
community. This impact is considered signifiCant-andunavoidable.
Noise
Implementation of the North Lake AreaProject would create a significant unavoidable impact at
the off-site Disposal/ClayBorrow Site(s) due to the requirement for a large volume of
excavation of materials at the Disposal/Clay Borrow Site( s) and the extended period of time
import/excavationlgradinsactivities would take place at that site. This impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
Population and HousinlZ
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would displace a substantial number of people,
housing, and businesses. Additionally, cumulative impacts would occur due to displacement
caused.byetmntJlltiYe:projects.in.the.vicinity. This impact is considered significant and
unavoidable.
At their meeting of December 16,2004, the DIERC reviewed the Comments Received, the
Responses to Comments (Attachment C), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
-T'r"
b'.'
_n.... ...
"
. .
North Lake Area Project &
South Lake Area Project
Hearing Date: 03/08105
Page 5 of8
(Attachment D) and determined that the responses adequately addressed the comments received
during the public review period and that the MMRP correctly identified the parties responsible
for ensuring implementation. The Environmental Review Committee independently reviewed,
analyzed, and exercised judgement in reviewing the Draft Program EIR, comments received,
responses to comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in making its
determination.
After that occurred, staff re-reviewed the Responses to Comments and made changes to clarify or
further explain the earlier responses. As a result of the changes to the Responses to Comments,
that document was scheduled for reconsideration by the D/ERC on February 10, 2005. The
D/ERC confirmed the determinations made at the December 16, 2004 meeting.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06 (Circulation)
1. Is the proposed amendment internally consistent with the General Plan?
Goal6A states: "Achieve an integrated, balanced, safe and efficient transportation system
that accommodates the demand for movement of people, goods and services throughout the
City..." The Program EIR evaluated the deletion of"G" Street between 9th Street and
Baseline Street and 1 Oth Street between "EOY Street and "R" Street as secondary arterials.
from the General Plan Circulation Elementand evaluated the vacation of all streets within
the North Lake Area Project to determine whetheranyoftbese;.actions would negatively
affect the overall distribution of people; goodS'amlsendces.thrmtgJmut the City. 'I'he
Program EIR concluded that the removal of the str~ segments- from the Circulation
Element and the vacation of the streets would.not cr.eat~siwnfi~'m adverse impacts that
could not be mitigated to a level of less. than. significant;c;Thexeforerthis amendment is not
in conflict with the General Plan.
2. Would the proposed amendment be detrimental-to the-publii:intere.st, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City?
As discussed in the previous finding, the deletion of the street segments from the
Circulation Element, and ultimate vacation of all streets within the project area, would
not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the
City. Through the public review process for the Program EIR, City departments
(including but not limited to, Police, Fire. and Public. S.ervices) and governmental and
quasi-governmental agencies had the opportunity to review and comment. No comments
were received that identified impacts.
3. Would the proposed amendment maintain tbeappropriate~baltJnr:eoflanduseswithiw:the'
City?
The amendment to the Circulation Element does not affect the balance ofland uses within
the City.
-"" . ~-
North Lake Area Project &
South Lake Area Project
Hearing Date: 03108/05
Page 60f8
4. In the case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, are the subject parcel(s)
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)?
This finding is not applicable to the amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07 (Land Use)
1. Is the proposed amendment internally consistent with the General Plan?
The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan in that it meets
General Plan Goal 1 G( c) in that it would provide for the revitalization, adaptive reuse,
and upgrade of a deteriorated neighborhood in that it would facilitate redevelopment
efforts in the area upon completion of the regulating reservoir. The proposed amendment
is internally consistent with the General Plan in that it meets General Plan Goall G(n) in
that it would facilitate development that would be compatible with the lake and
surrounding neighborhoods it would help to establish San Bernardino as a unique and
distinctive place in the Inland Empire and southern California region.
2. Would the proposed amendment be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City?
The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City in that any development project would be required to
provide full site improvements as per Development Code requirements, as well as
meeting current Building and Fire Code requirements, that improve the public interest
and welfare.
3. Would the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the
City ?
The proposed amendment 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. There are numerous other areas in the City that
are designated for residential and commercial uses.
4. In the case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, are the subject parcel(s)
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)?
The amendment area consists of many existing lots of record that are not physically
suitable for development under the existing CG-2, Commercial General land use
--~".
h'
, -,,,
"
North Lake Area Project &
South Lake Area Project
Hearing Date: 03/08/05
Page 7 of8
designation because of their relatively small size. They are also too small to accommodate
multiple family development as would be permitted under the RM, Residential Medium
land use designation. It is anticipated that when the District completes the lake, the
remnant areas will be suitable for low to medium density residential development.
However, with the level of development activity in the City, and the emphasis on the
downtown or core area, it may be desirable for the City to reconsider the appropriate land
use designations after the lake has been completed and the actual amount of remnant land
identified.
CONCLUSION
The Final Program EIR. adequately addresses impacts in the North Lake Area Project resulting
from: (i) the construction of the regulating reservoir also described as an at-surface lake on
approximately 82.4 acres, (ii) development/redevelopment activities including residential,
commercial, and recreational uses on remnant land after construction, (Hi) approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 05-06 to change the land use designation the land use designation from
RM, Residential Medium High to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along Olive Street
(between lOth and 11th Streets, east of"Hn Street) and will change the land use designation from
CG-2, Commercial General to RU-2, Residential Urban for parcels along the north side of
Orange Street (north of 11th Street, east of"H" Street), and (iv) approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 05-07 to remove "G" Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 1 Oth
Street between "E" Street and "Hn Street as secondary arterials from the General Plan Circulation
Element in the North Lake Area Project.
The Final Program EIR. adequately addresses impacts in the South Lake Area Project resulting
from the construction of a 5-acre lake/water feature with related commercial redevelopment of
new buildings and improvements on approximately 53.7 acres ofland located to the south of
downtown San Bernardino
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the
Mayor and Common Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2003121150)
adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 05-
06 (Circulation). Staff recommends that General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 be deferred for any
further action by the Planning Commission until completion of construction of the regulating
reservoir in the form of the at-surface lake.
North Lake Area Project &
South Lake Area Project
Hearing Date: 03/08105
Page 8 of8
Respectfully Submitted,
James Funk
Director, Development Services
YwNuCl.~
Valene C. Ross
Deputy Director/City Planner
ATTACHMENTS
A - Location Map
B - Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (distributed under separate cover 09/01/04)
C - Comments and Responses
D - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
E - Resolution
.-
, '
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROJECT: North Lake
PLANNING DIVISION Project Are8
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 3/8/05
Lr
NORTH
:1 ~ ~'~~ '~'. Ih ~ ~t.. ~ '. IUJU~~-
.' I.. ......~ :.tL. J.
:::s . .. n. ,..". ~.... . 11.;11 ~.
:3 [;;] -- -, ur;: . '-~ . . ~ '. 1..;JJ' (
::3C;:]D l.J rr-r t' ~~~ ~ ,,' lru~ :
I..-,y ..I~ \\t~'~ - ll-I;~'! I -."t
I~~~ :iG2,..lld . . .. I rl,. f!' ,~
N Ii 1- . ~ . ..J. .""r ,.. ---
_~.. .._1 .~. . .10. T 11.. ~.rlE .
. ~~'." ... . .~.. ~:I .....~.. ". .~~ Ju'. ~.~ ~it 1 I~~ I ". ~flr
- .. ~.. . t',tflJ' . ,1 ine Street I ~ ,.
. .' .. " ;. I.
: .(. 1-: d -:- . .::~~~";I~~;i ;;.;:: .. ~-t"'.....,' "~
1'" _.. .. .......... ....... \: I . . j!
:;'" :. r:: "..
. tLtvt.- . .:''':'. .::..::::: Gi~ . · -. ..'
J" lA... .......... ......... CI) J I .".,
.. ~VJ. ::.::::::: : ::::::::: :::' ::;.: DJ ! . I · i 'L
. .'" ...... ' -
J . I' .., ....: ......... .... .... 'tLU. . J.rn~'r--r, Jr"
I I i~': ::::: .6':':.':::~::: :::: :::: I UI i l!fM I .
-.. LnJ :: t::: .... :::: :::: Ci I
-== ~ :.:..:: :~: ... :::. :::: jl
. ! 1.1' ....:.. ~;..... ..~ :::: It . .
3:CL- ~ . . ~--It:' I~~- 4f
1:- rRJ -r.::ll 11 ~..a-' ~P- -;1 -
. . ... '. - j Iff; . I. ! ff ~ .
~ .' i ltf I L-
RnmoE; . T J~\r 'p~ ~~M ~
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT: South Lake
Project Area
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DIVISION
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS
LJ
HEARING DATE: 3/8/05
NORTH
~~ "'f':<~;3~rl,G[? .-'
!4............-.;...- i-I L.- . i",,'j~.. _:'....J,i,~~~M.
_ ..f." ',;'U, "--.'
:_~ .......... ""<".; ~.u~
'...,..' . . c"'.. ~'.':L:/
:,
n; -'.. 'f'
,'; .-..-....... .1\--4_ ....-., .....-.-...H;.<,
',-, ......_.-.-f'I,1 ",'. ('L-..:X;' '..'
_liD. UNUU""tL.._T.-~;;rAII.ls::s
:". ......'.. . '.>-"..i';;.,..
',.-. ,- .." ".' .- ',.... , --
'"...."< ,".. ~L <~'~.:_~:'~'::;~~,"~;'
~.. r,.4T~_.. .'"'--..":.'-:'_-'...'--'.,-,.,,;-' ~.', ,J I~~__ .'.' ......~.
~6t1:"'~:.c;~\I,-:!.i':-'" ~
*;1-'."0'" : --" .' ,,'.,(i~'f~~~ ~l;'"
; c.,>,,,, ." '__..:.II.:~ tWo, ";~ ~.
+ ,~,;.ttblI+/;::..i_"l;' e' ~ tN.,
. ~_ ~mr: ,~:.:,~ ,.;_~J:.' J,:','.::,; :r;;::;~;~:,~,;. ,.
r.:i: Ell21 :' ~~T'-":'.~> ~. :;"-"~! ,c'"
. ~.-..'-' .'::,i W""~-' :.:~;,~~'
~ [",' '1eJ' ~ . ~_-.'.?-./;:""'-"
~.-_:..'-~~; -":-'.- -"'-.-' -.. ~1I::_'_r:u.:...;-;,.;j..: ",
, UZ......::: . .' . :~III, - -......\ -
=:s: 11]1-., --'. -'---" ". ._' _ -l-.::'>'~ -,
,~ .,1;[ 're... !'~f ;;;Ij ~
r T~ ~'ST _~~.., ;nAK+.)
I'P'. -.-.~.~"....: ~ :,.=:j~::,.-."~~
t.J ~?tJ!i.:D
. _ ..'., l -' - . I '.' =i~,"~II'; ;"
I ...,:",c"':.'1lie.6. ...'
I~. . ...
'10'" IF'" ..
: ('~t"lIZAH, Sf
;,. '. 4:-
I ,~~....'......'..' .... :".~
I _.,
I
III .
I
[
1r=:J G:
CIrt
.....
.Old 11t-. .
.r-
:A:V"4J~ r
... .. ..... ){ A)([: ~\ll~.
:. 0..' -J~.~_.t t
.'1'- !!: -[I. .
.:' .0.. .. "I'\-rt _
. ~~',
~ I.
'-
0'1--
EJfe .
f'p-. ;, "..-
l
.,.
,
0- cca,.""
v~\
i= Cat ,.
o
....
...~.. .::~ ~
.1:.'.. ..: :::
.: :o~" ..
..
.. 0
"'.. .. .
...
I
.. ,
.. ..
o
.. ....
..
.. .'
.. '" '" '" '" '"
........
.. :::. 0 :: i.;:
...
MDI Street
-
.
..
c_
.
.",
...
I
L.
."A....... ,.
..... ~ "" I: 0' -
~""F .,
. ,
..,
A'ITACHMENT "C"
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ON THE
NORTH LAKE AREA AND SOUTH LAKE AREA
PROJECTS EIR
SCH # 2003121150
LEAD AGENCIES:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO and
SAN BERARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Contact: Mr. John Hoeger, Project Manager
300 North -0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
909.384.5133
CONSULTANT:
RBF CONSULTING
3536 Concours, Suite 220
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: Mr. Kevin Thomas,
Environmental Services Manager
(909) 581-0196
February 28, 2005
IN 65100018
i
., ,
Noeth .lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction... .... ..... ........ ............. .......... ............ ......... .....................................................1
2.0 Topical Responses to Verbal Comments.........................................................................2
3.0 Responses to Written Comments ................ ............... ...................... .............. ................. 5
1. State of California - Terry Roberts.......................................................................6
2. Southern California Association of Governments - Jeffrey Smith ........................9
3. League of Women Voters - Gloria Anderson .....................................................10
4. City of San Bernardino, Office of the Common Council
Susan Lien Longville ............................................. ........ ......................................13
5. California State University, San Bernardino College of Social and
Behavioral Sciences - James L. Mulvihill, AICP ................................................25
6. The Gas Company - Bryan Wilkie, Technical Advisor .......................................33
7 Native American Heritage Commission - Carol Gaubatz, Program Analyst.......35
4.0 Attachment A - Errata ................................................................................................... 39
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Section 15095 and Section 15132 (Final EIR) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of San Bernardino (the City) and the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) have prepared the Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects. The
following is an excerpt form the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132:
UThe Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in
summary
(c) A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the lead Agency."
The Final EIR is comprised of this Comments and Responses document, along with the Draft
EIR and the technical appendices. The Comments and Responses document contains an
Errata section indicating corrections to the Draft EIR, as noted below. The staff reports,
resolutions and minutes from the Planning Commission and the joint City CounciVSBVMWD
Board of Directors hearings will be available for review under separate cover at the City of San
Bernardino Development Services, 300 North D Street, San Bernardino, Ca 92418. It should
also be noted that the project resolution contains a Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings, and
a Statement otOverriding Considerations. as required by CEOA.
In the following Comments section, each comment letter is followed by the corresponding
responses. A response is provided for each comment raising environmental issues, as received
by the City and SBVMWD during the 45-day Draft ElR public review period. Following the
Comments and Responses. section is Attachment A, Errata, where added or modified Draft EIR
text is shown by double underlined text (examole) and deleted text is shown by striking
(exaFRple). It should also be noted that City and District staff initiated a number of miner editorial
corrections, which are also reflected by shading and strikes.
The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period in accordance with CEOA, from
September 1, 2004 to October 15, 2004. Additionally, the Draft EIR was posted to both the City
and SBVMWD's website, providing additional opportunity for public review. The Draft EIR (or
Notice of Availability) was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and over 50 local, regional,
state and federal agencies, and the NOA was posted with the County Clerk, published in the
San Bernardino Sun, and mailed to the Project interest list and radius list. Other than a Uno
comment" letter from SCAG (Southern California Association of G_ovemments), and a Uno
commenr letter from the Native American Heritage Commission, no other regional, state or
federal agencies commented on the Draft EIR. Besides SCAG's -no comment" letter, this
Comments and Responses document responds to the four written comment letters received on
the Draft EIR, as well as verbal comments made at two public meetings.
City of San BernarctincT
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
1
W" .
. r' .,
" .
""
."..
. ,
2.0 TOPICAL RESPONSES TO
VERBAL COMMENTS
Two public meetings were held during the Draft EIR public review period. The first was held on
September 30,2004 and the second, a Spanish meeting, was held on October 14, 2004. The
following persons commented at these meetings:
September 30, 2004
October 14, 2004
Adams, Dean
Alvara, Joanna
Alvly, Salvare
Armanderas, Jesus
Asia, Lucille
Dias, Maria
Flores, Norberto
Flores, Regina
Jean, Rev. Betty
Jimenez, Guadalupe
Longville, Susan
Mejia, Carmen
Pacheco,Carlos
Peterson, Unda
Roach, Irma..
Rofert;. Latl.i&o
RoITIeroj Lucy.-.
Singet'; DOlTorri>ebalCof-hilaBEtAetion
SbriiaQo;..~
Sllthel'la~Und&
Valdez;"~
Velo~St6\lei..
Villareat.Jesua
Adual, Hassam
Hernandez, Rosa
Hemandez, Carlos
Soriano,Juan
Adams, Paul
Diaz, Aristado Roger
Gaona, Maria
Ruano, Angelica
Torres, Blanca
Following.are:.-topic;m,.responsesrstlTcm:t1av8"beert prepared. in response to. theR'lQSt,U,MI.llUtl,
CEaA-re1ate6 comments: presented..atthe: public meetingL In addition ta..thes&-.g.eo&I3L~. it
should be noted thatsome:peoplEr identifiect support for the' proposed project SOJne" people
identified oppusitlm tcr the- ~ project; and SOI118' people- ic:tentIfIett' 8" preference for a
smaller lake-design. Addittona1ly,a1arge number'ofpeople merely askectfor more information
Concem thattb~propl't~ proj~ would dispfa1.:8'people .
The proposed:pRJjeet'would dispJaee.a.largenumber of people, as.discussed in.the Draft EIR.
Impacts and mitigatiorr measures in this regard are identified and discussed. in Seetion 4.9,
Population and Housing. State-law mandates that a. formal relocation plan must be prepared
before any persons:.: living: within the projeclarea.coukI:.J&.askectta mOVEk Property owners
would be paid market value-for their properties. Additionally, provisions must bee made to assist
with movil19 expense&. finding. new housing at comparabla tost,~everl if it means thalSB.VMWD
(for North" Lake) or the: City (fOf South Lake) must subsidize. the rent or pay the. difference in
interest costs'. and- ~i~tiIl9 wittr rest estate bansaction costs. Displaced- persons and the
City o.f saITB~,,_...v
San Bernardino. Valley Municipal. Water District
. February 28, 200&
SCH No. 2003121150
2
""'r~"""""-"
North lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Topical Responses to
Verbal Comments
preparation of a relocation plan are discussed in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, of the
Draft EIR. Additionally, the Draft EIR has identified that significant unavoidable impacts would
occur due to this displacement of a large number of people, even with implementation of
mitigation.
Concern that the displaced persons would not receive fair compensation
for their property
Several safeguards exist that ensure that any person whose property may be acquired for a
public project will be paid fair market value for their property by the public agency which
undertakes the project. State law mandates that before any public agency may acquire
property, which is not listed for sale (e.g., voluntarily offered for sale by the owner on a
negotiated basis) the public agency must first prepare a written appraisal of the fair market
value of the property. In addition, except in the case where the owner of property cannot be
located, the publiC agency must notify the property owner before the publiC agency obtains an
appraisal of the fair market value of the property. Only after the public agency has obtained the
written report of the appraiser, may the public agency submit a written offer to the owner to
purchase the property. The public agency must offer the property owner the full amount of the
public agency's appraisal and the public agency's written offer must also include a written
summary of the appraisal. Such a summary will include comparable market sale infonnation for
similarly zoned and improved property, which has sold, on the open market in recent months.
Such comparable market sale data will generally assist the property owner to oo.lfiuu that ttJe;-
written appraisal information as compiled by the publiC agency accurately compare&the
property estimated fair market value of the property with other lands, which havabaBahntlgl'tt
and sold in negotiated transactions in recent months.
After the public agency has delivered its written offer to the property owner, the propel'tyOWflEtP' .
may submit appropriat& information which indicates the property owner belleV8Si supports:a.
higher value of the property and the public agency must consider such information: Tl18:pntJIIIr
agency may increas&th&amount of its offer based upon such itlfUlllliition.
If the property owner and the public agency are unable to agree upon the fair market. value. of
the property based" upon the publiC agency's appraisal and the supplemental.jnformatlon:
provided by the property owner, the public agency may conduct a special hearing: to. consider
whether to acquire the. property. by eminent domain. The property ownermast"be-givetTprior
written notice of such a hearing and the property owner may appear before the public- agenc.y at
the time of the hearing and submit any written information for an oral testimony,whictr is
relevant to the public agency's acquisition of the property.
If the public agency adopts a resolution of necessity. to acquire a parcel by eminent domain
proceedings, the issue of determining the fair market value of the property will be refd I ed. Rfa'"
judge, a jury with all the procedural and legal safeguards required by the State and Federal
Constitutions. Owners of a property, which may be acquired for the Project, can be assured
that fair and just compensation will be paid for each parcel of land acquired.
Concern that identified historical resources would not be presfll'Vfl#
Section 4.5, Historical and Cultural Resources, identifies four significant historic structures
within the North Lake Area project site, including the structure at 1156 F Street Mitigation
city of... Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
, ~ M.vl/L.February 28';2005" .
.!) /YYl .' 'i No. 2003.121150
DvvL ~ .A4
1<l...l~A.J~.
3
-,
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Toplc;al Responses to
Verbal Comments
measures have been proposed that would provide for the movement of these strudures to
vacant lots within the City and their rehabilitation if possible. Before these structures can be
moved, or demolished if they are not sound enough to be moved, comprehensive
documentation of the strudures' historical and architectural charaderistics must be completed.
It should also be noted that the North Lake design has retained the feature of preserving the
Campfire Boys and Girls facility, which will not require demolition or relocation.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
February 28. 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
4
-".".i~.".~
.., .
,.", "."'"~_ .. :C_'T._'~"~._. '.'~;"::C/;'''';'-'_''''''_' _.'. .. "-,
3.0 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
City of San &em.rdlno
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
February 28. 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
5
--r-m .
ne"e. "', "1
........
.. ~
.
Comment Letter #1
JH
.'~f1;J;"
(* ~J
.~..
.~.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Govemor's Office of PIaDnma and Research
State Clearinghouse and Plannina Unit
Arnold
~
. Oovemar
lID Bod
Adiaa Dincf,ar
Ocrabcr 18, 2004 .
.jolmHoeae--' .
SID B.....AM" VaIJay Mlmie;.J Wiler Dislriet
. 300 HOlda D Stzeat .
SaD BemmliDo, CA. 92418
Subject: Nonh Lake Area ad Solllh Lab Area Projects
SC2If: 2003121150
R
OCI 2 I iW4 .
GENERAL MANABER'S0FFlCE
Dear John Kaeser:
Ths Slate Clearinpouse IUlunitfed the Ibove JlIIIIed Drd B1R.ID JCIec:ted ate qeDCiea far nmaw. The J
Ieview period closed on Oeulber 15, 2004. UId DO IlatllapDCies 1Ubmi,..... 0( Q 11 -- bydlat date. 1bis 1 1
IcttcT ackDowledJcs that you bave CClJIIp1ied wilh the Slate CkariD8bouse nwi_ roquinmeAts f'or dmft . .
e:nvircmmellla1 doeUlllellls, pursuaDt to the CaJil)mia Em.i&o....~.....l QlIaIity ~
Please can the State ~1M)ase at (916) 445.0613 if you bhe ay cpMliODI ~ the ]
eu.Wim....._1 nMcw procell. If)'Oll JJave a quclliOD about Ibe .boYe-DIIlJId pIOjcct, p1eale te&r 10 tbc 1.2
leD-di.&it siate n_:-......... D1II'IIIIv when cClDlacIiDa this oftIce.
Siaccrely,
.~
'-!::1 .
Diiec:mr, Slate CleariDIhOase
'-.:'"=:!,:-,; , .
Ii.'j I, r:":~'..-:'; "', ..
. '" ..... '. ....
:n\
i.lU
".
:; .,
co .
'.....
..: '.u
.:.' I .
lo&lIOTEN'I1IS'JUET p.o.aox 3014 SAalWIRft'Q,CAUFORNIA t58i2.acN4
TEL(9I6)44SG6U PAX(916)m..1011 -..__
6
,C' "',.,
Document Detds Report
StaI8 ~"arIngh.ouH Data Base
SCHt 2003121110
Project l'lfIe North L8Ica ,....Ind SouIh l.AIU AntI PtajecII
Lead Agency San BeITllRllno V*y MunIcIpal Wettl' DIIIrtct
Tn>> ElK Draft ElK
DI$crIp11on Develapmlllt I rICI8v8IclpIMnt proJIc:lllMllvlng two, cIIeorllIrMlOII....1DtIIIng 13811R1, which
. would Indud8 . .. WIIIInd I __...... ~ ...... ClIIIlIIl8ICiII and aIIice ClIIlIllIlin:Ia
mil. ~ pIl)jId _Include acquIsIIIDn of propady .nd reIocdDn ofltllillng ~
Inlllilullons. and I811dIl1Cl5.
LPd AgencY"Contact"
N"". John Ha.eg.-
Agency . San ho,lIRIIno Valley Munlclpll Wldllr DiSlIIct
Phona l809) 384-6133 Fa
emllll .
Add,... 300 North 0 Slre8t
CIty" San Bernardino . SlIfe CA ZIp 82418
Project Location
County San BemInIlno
crty San Bernardino
Region
CIon S"...
".rnI No.
Township
G Street IIId Bellllne Slmtl G StreIt and MID snet
MlMIple
18"
RMIp 4W
SecffOlJ 6 & 7
Bne SS8&M
Proximity to:
Hr""..ya 30. 215, & 259
A"".. s.n Be/Mldlno Inlllmllllonal
Il1IIIM~ BNSF-
. w...nRya Lyle Cleek'" SInta"" RIVer
SdJoollr sm a..._dlllll VlIIeyCallllge
l.imrtf/aL. .._ ...... ~...~.CaII\mIICIlII,r--"IIldUghtIndullrillI A.., '":-... UdlIn.
RuIdenIIII. MedIUm. CcImrMrdII.GInIIId(CG-11CCN);~ CIlySaulb (CCS-1. CC&2,
and ccs-3) , SplICIIIc Plan. Low DlIlIIIlY ReIlcIInIIII. - (Jc ~ ........... GInImL .
Pra/Kt,...,.. AealhalIcIVIIUa Nr Qualilr, ~ C\ImI~"''' ElfKIs; lnInIgI/t,LMIIJlIIon;
Ecanomk:IIJobI; FIoOf~ Gv,:,~ . y-. GlaWIh'lnduIlIag;.~ NDlIe;
~BIIInc8; Pubic 8Ir4lcll; .......~ ~ .1AJn\.....I;.....
C8p8C:Ily;SoII ErD~ 8aldw..;TII4A~~
VllletlDan; Water Quality; Wilier Supply; WelIandIRIpIrIIn W_
Reviewing Reloun:u Agency; DIlp8I1mIIlt of P" and RIcNIIIDn: NIIMt AnI8IIc8n HaIIlIiglI Cama'lIIIIan:
Ag_r.. ,Oe~ of HuIIh ServlaH: 0lIIce of ElMlgell~Yaamc.: 0...-11I- 01 FiIh ... o.ma. RagIon
6: Daplltm8nt orW* Raoun:eI: CIIIbnIa ....... M'aIi CaIbwW. Dllldl:tl; CIIRna, DIwIIIan of
A8ronaullcl: Stale W* ResourCII Conlnll BoanI. DIuIIIaftoOfWatM RIghII; .. W. ~
Control EIolIRI. DivIsion oIWa\8rQuaIIly; StIta"W_~ConInlI Ba8Id. CIelmW........m
Stattof "-view 0910112004
Ilnd of "-vIfItIr 1011612004
DaliII ReceIWd 0910112004
....._ _........... fiollrlR nISlIltfrom tnsuIIllI8ntlu..... I"J' ...uvIdecI by Ie8d agMICy.
7
---"lr'
"'"'"1' '.' <' . '"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.1
1.1. Comment noted.
1.2. The State Clearinghouse No. 2003101135 will be referred to in any correspondence
when contacting the State Clearinghouse.
City of San Bemardlno
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
February 28. 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
8
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOOATIONof
GOVERNMEIITS
M.m 0l'IIct
8.8 west Seveqlh Stre.t
12th Floor
Los MI.Ils. ~ifomla
900'7-3'35
l(2t)l2,"_
1(2.)1 1,6-thS
-............
---...-
..........,..."..---
---.-...-
--.........-.-
..I'IIIiMIt".... .. ..."""'"..
_~___'-'r.
..-.....
.._~---.
__'iw___
-............-...-.-
-...-.....-.-.
....-....-.----
-.----.-
--.....--.
I.. _ .. ..... . ...., _..
..,.....,..-.-.--.
....,.....-...................-
.... - . ... ...... ........... .
--...-.--
...__.-111(......_._
......-.--...
-....--..,...
crtllllr,. ..... .... . .... ..... 1U
-.---...........-
.........-....--,,-
.........----
--....-.-.,...
__......loIu._....
-...-.-.........-
...,....._-~....
-............-.-.
---..-
....~--..._.
-.......-...--....
--....--.-
---....-.'-
-,.......... . - ....,...
flftlC.........,...............
TllII___
_~-Io....._
_'__IN_'_
"".......--....'-.
_. GIlt _ c_ c......
--
... _ ....... '-' ...... s.
--...--
""-'-~_.-
-.---.-......
Gt.._._.........._.
-........--....
_~....__c.....
r......... ....,.CIII.......... Sift
-....-...-
ar..,. __ -....- ..-"
~-IUp-
-....-- --
---
--.......--..
.........-
e--- ...-
I Comment Letter #2
~... ill! .-
or-: 1 ..f'-'
rd r'.~,,,:,,
September21, 2004
Ms. Valerie C. Ross
Deputy Director/City Planner
CIty of San Bernardino
Development ServIces Oepar1ment
300 N. "Ow Street
San Bernardino, CA 92404
HE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120040588 North Lake Atea end South
Lake Area Projects
~JIY:':-
(;~';.:'. : .:
1.'_". ..... ......
Dear Ms. Ross:
Thank you for submitting the North LIIke Area and South Lake Area Projects
for review and comment As areawide clearinghouse for regionally 8\gn1icant
projects, SCAG reviews the COlI8i8telIey of local plans, projects and programs
with regional plans. This activity 18 bUBCI on SCAG's rnponsibiflties as a
regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal Iaw8 and
regulations. GuidanCe. provided by these reviews is Intended to assist local
agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment
of regional goals and policies.
We have reviewed the North L8ke Area and South Lake Area Projects. and
have determined that the propo.d Project Is not regionaIy sIgnltIcant pet SCAG
IntergovemmentaI RevIew (IGR) Criteria and CalIfornia EnvIronmental 0u8Ity kt
(CEQA) GuideIineI (SecIIon 15206). Therefcre, the propaeed Project dDe& not
warrent c:omrnenI8 at this tIme..1t 18 not n8C9818ry to aencrprOIIide us a coPY of the
final SR for this ProjecI. However, pIelIse prov\de us wIh a Notice ci AveiJabIity
for the Fmal SA. PIeeIe be 8t.I'B that the Nallce Includes a compI8te project
desaipIIon and C\l!..,1IfIl due date. Sho'*I1here be a change in the scope of !he
proposed project, we would appreciate the opportunly to review and conment at
that time.
2.1
2.2
A d~ of the prgposec:I Project was published in seAG's SepIember 1-15,
2004 InIergOV6J .1118ntaI Review Clearinghouse Report for public fur revlew and
convnent.
The project tille and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all
correspondence with SCAG concerning this Prcject. Correspondence should be
sent to the attention of 1I1e Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions,
p1easeCOnlact me at (213) 238-1887. Thank you.
2.3
~nce ,
. ~ L{.t,--I\JL'. . '-,
JE FREYM.SMITH,AI~ #
Senior Regional Planner
IntergovemmentaI Review
9
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.2
2.1. Comment noted.
2.2. Comment noted, indicating that the project is not -regionally significanr. SCAG will be
sent a Notice of Availability for the Final EIR.
2.3. Comment noted.
2.4. SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120040598 will be referred to in any correspondence with
SCAG.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
10
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
. I Comment Letter #3
Page 1 of2
Dortch_U
.---"-'- . ...-.., ..-..-....-........-....-. ---......--....-- "." _.,... ..-. .. ..-..-....-....--.....-... .-.........-
From: Gloria Anderson [glorandOjuno.com)
Sent: Friday, October 22. 2004 4:25 PM
To: Oortch_Li
Subject: Fw: League of Women Voters Comments on DEIR
To: Valerie C.. Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner
From: Gloria Anderson, Vice President
League of Women Voters, San Bernardino
568 N. Mountain View,"lSO, S.B. 92401
The League of Women Voters of San Bernardino bas the following comments after reviewing the Draft
Environmental Impact Report on tile Lakes project.
We are concerned that a number of the significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of tile
project and considered to be unavoidable with mitigation
Air Quality
3.1
. Construction~rdated dust and vehicle emissions
. Overall increase in indirect and direct local and regional pollutant load and cumulative impacts
for construction and long-term operational emissions
. Possible conflict with the AQMP.
LAnd Use
. Impact ofNolth Lakt: reservoir - Creation of a barrier land use obstructing traffic circ:ulatiOl1 and.
physically dividing an established community
}z
Population and HousinJ
This is our biggest c:oncem, primarily beclUSC or the-displacement of a SlJbmIntilll number of people,
housing, and blJSiD.-s in tile North Lakt: Project Area. The overall goal should be to zed~ tile
impact that the relocation would have - at least to make their situation no WOESe, and ideally, to improw 3.3
their situation with as little trauma I. possible. This will require a relocation plan tbal is sensitive to the
needs of the people being relocated. The personnel assigned to this undertaking sbould be trained to
work with the residents to achieve a favorable outcome to what is a very upsetting experience for many
of the peopl&.
The approach outlined in question 7 on page 7 of the MOlt Frequently Asked Relocatlou Questloas
seems to be a very good starting place to ensure that affected households are treated uniformly, fairly,
and equitably. It is also very important that the intent to involve the affected residents in participating 3.4
in preparation orthe relocation plan is c:mied out and that they 8R involved in every step"ofthe
'process. They should have euy access to someone who can answer their questions. This may mean
having a separate phone line and a person to take the calls - no answering machines, please!
1012512004-
11
-..
Pap 2 of2
. .
The public must also have easily accessible infoonation about the prOcell IS well.. an opportuDity to J '3.5
be involved in the preparation or the relocation plan and to monitor the plan's implementation.
One other comment: There is mention or3 options for location of the Water Trcatment Plant which ]
would have different effects on the area, with Option I clisplacins the most people aDd homes.OpIion 2 3.6
affecting Cewer people and homes, and Option 3 displacing 3 businesses. We favor the option which
causes the least distUJbance. .
Finally, please keep us infonned about the project. J 3.7
1012512004--
12
~ ~~"I"" ~~ ~ .. ~~'"'~--""TrrN'.. iT' r ~~ -~ 1 ~ ,~
"
...,.. .
~ , ~,
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments ~
Response No.3
It should be noted that this comment letter primarily identifies areas of concern with the project,
rather than providing specific comments regarding the Draft EIR's analyses.
3.1 Comment noted.
3.2 Comment noted.
3.3 Comment noted. These concerns will be considered by the lead agencies in
discretionary review and implementation of required relocation programs. As stated in
Mitigation Measures 4.9-2a, 4.9-2b, and 4.9-2c, all persons and businesses in the North
Lake Area would be relocated in accordance with State law. A Relocation Plan must be
prepared by SBVMWD (for North Lake) or the City (for South Lake) before any persons
or businesses can be relocated.
3.4 Comment noted.
3.5 Comment noted. See Response 3.4 above. The City and SBVMWD will provide
notification of future public meetings and discretionary actions regarding this project. The
City and SBVMWD will provide notification of future public meetings and discretionary
actions regarding this project.
3.6 Comment noted. This preferenca will be-considered by decision-maker5"during project
deliberations.
3.7 Comment noted.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
13
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
"~"r."'"
'T
Comment Letter #4
....
R :: ,..~.' ;..' ....
. .','. ~ ..... . ~.~.~..,
'. ." 'I.... ~~ ': l" .
'f ~1: .) i""
" I.",')
.,')? f'" .......'-
1I111: Vl.' '-" ..
-",
, ,:':\CES
. ....:... ,..1'"
'ir.~'~:. ltc',:, Oit~~ S 300 Nortb"D" Street" SanBcmardiGo- CA9241a.GOOl
r 0 t09.314.5222" Pa: 909.384JIG5
www.ci.slll-bcnlUdlno.ca...
Oma OFlHE CoMMON COtllaL
SCSAH LIEN LoHGVILLE . CClUICC1LWGIWl, SI:CaIID WAD
October 22, 2004
ow
RESPONSB TO 1'HB DRAJI'T PROGRAM BBVlROlOlBBTAL DlPACT RBPORT
FOR THE KORTH LAKE ARBA AlII) SOUTH J.&1l'R ARBA PROJBCT
I have read all ~,volumes of the above referenced document. While the
north lake reservoir has been adequately addressed for environmental impacts,
the report fails to address any of the impacts associated with redevelopment
activities contained in my attached letter submitted January 27, 2004 to the
Initial Study I Notice of Preparation.
Page 1.0-1 or the report states -certain remnant lands may be transferred to
the Redevelopment Agency for reuse as redevelopment'". As such, it is clear
that the impacts to households and businesses not required for assemblage by
the reservoir is not justified as a redevelopment activity.
I request that the final EIR contain adequate proof that redevelopment
activities can and will occur. If not, this project does not meet its CEQA
obligations.
4.1
}2
}3
"
" ~
c......,..- /~ ...
'-
SUSAN LIEN LONGVILLE
Councilwoman, Second Ward
14
.. -. ,-
Orna OF THE C~ COUNCIL
S\ '5.\1'1 LlIiH I.nNr.VIIJ.E - ClJU'lQLwnMAI'It SICOo'lD WAD
300 NMb "D" $IRlllIO San 8crnmiao 0 CA 92418-0001
"'384 SU2 0 Fa: 909.314.5105
www.ci..IIII~
January 27, 2004
RESPOBSE TO THE IRITJAL STUDY/.onCE 01' PDPARATIOR IfIS LAD
.AREA. PRO.JBCT
I am a City-appointed Director on the Governing Board of the San Bernardino
Regional Water Resources Authority and a City Council Member representing
the Second Ward where the North Lake Project is being evaluated to comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act. I submit this letter to the
IS/NOI and request that the DEm and the Final Em clarify my very serious
concerns.
4.4
1.) REDEVELOPMENT PROJ'BCT II' IfOItTll LAKE AREA
The North Lake Area redevelopment project described in the IS/NOP
includes 72 single-t'amily residential lots and three commcrclal pads. The
DEm/Em should clarify a number or issues that pertain to the
redevelopment activities in the North Lab Area (appraximate1y 26 acrca)
separate from the lake portion of the North Lake Area where the reservoir,
treatment plant, and adjacent open space are located. The justification fqr
this request is t:h;at Director Pat ),fillipn has been st&.tx!:d, at numerous
meetings of the Authority, that Muni is ready to fund "its portion--meaniDg
the acquisition of private propert;y, dcmo1itin~ of pubUc and private 4.5
structures and infrastructure. relocation compensation. and construction
costs of the lake including property noc:easary for construction of the lake.
It has never been clarified whether Muni will fund the acquisition of private
property, demolition of public and private structures and infrastructure.
and relocation compensation for the non-lake portion of the North Lake
Area. The DEIRI EIR should clarify those issues to the public and the City
in the Environmental Impact Study or there is no justification for destroying
a significant portion of an existing neighborhood for redevelopment not
premised on financial feasibility.
The IS/NOI makes the assumption that the cleared land would be sold at a
future point in time to. a private partner that would then develop 72 new
single-family hOmC8thand 12/8CJ'CS of commercial space. As such, it is even 4.6
more critical that e DEJR l!:IR explains the underlying assumptions that
support the acquisition of private property and ceding of public
infrastructure for redevelopment purposes by examining the financial
feasibility of redevelopment itsc1!.
15
Responisc to Initial Study
NIS Lake Project
Januaxy 27. 2004
Page 2
The prinuuy burden of the proposed redevelopment activities and lake will
be bome by low-income persons who awn/rent affordable housing units,
operate small family owned businesses, or attend six churches with a
diverse socioeconomic and ethnic make-up that would be disp1erecl and
given redevelopment assistance as requjred by law. The DEIR/EIR should
examine the -value" of the existing neighborhood to the impacted pII1'ties
who are losing it and whether mi~tion measures should ~~..te the
members. of the neighborhood for the loss of their existing neigJJborhood.
The OEIR/EIR should be guided by comparable examples of ma.taige.1and
clearances in other communities where acquisition/relocation costa
mandated by law were augmented by fmancial compensation, in addition to
acquisition/relocation costs such as the Los Angeles Staples Center project
where displaced senior citizens were guaranteed a fized rental rate in
affordable multi-famDy units that were constructed by the Ci~ of Los
Angeles for the displaced senior citizns.
It is important that the OEIR/EIR examine the Market and FinAW'lci9'
Feasibi1i~ Analysis that was commissioned by the governing board of the
San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Autbori~ (Authorit;y) &om The
Natelson Company. Inc. (Nate1aoD) several years ago (not Mq 2003 as
stated on page 16 of the IS/NOl) submitted ~ttom line. fiDdmp to the
Authori1;y that speD out the. financial scenario that would 1Ht requiRd for
development to occur in the North Lake Area.
1) "The net public investment required for the real estate. de.velopment.ptOIl1lm
(i.e., not including the lake development coats) wouId be apprmrirn_t",ty $33..
million for Phase. 1.... It should be notedtbe North Lake Area is the same
geographical area as Phase 1& and real estate values haveescalatal since
the Natalson Analysis.
2) .Cleared residential land would necd. to be offered to developers at or below
the prevailing market price- (Natelson. page S) -with baclcbone
infrastructure and l1tiliti.... (NateIson, page 5. fOotnote 1).
3) "The project would require subetantial public sector subsidization in order
to achieve desired development" (Nate1son, page 5) because -the cost of
delivering developable land to private developers wiD substantially exceecl
the potential re-sale value of the land. (Natelson. page 5).
4) "This potentially significant revenue source h8.S' not been quantitied.-
(Natelson; page.2 ).
According to the Natelson Ana1~ after the prope.rV slated for redeveloplllIOut
is assembled by outright purchaae from the private p&o~t)- owners, the Cf1;y
will cede the public rightS of way, amt everything would. be demolished. 'Ihe
; land would then be sold to private investors with backbone infrastructure and
utilities in place at comparable market value for the development of 12 sinp-
family homes and 12 acres .of commercial development. Massive public
subsidies would be required to bridge the difl"erence between the 8real. price of
16
4.7
4.8
4.9
llT"r .. .
. . " . ^ ifT i1 'I' r
,...
Response to Initial Study
N/S Lake Area Project
Januazy 27, 2004
Page 3
assembling the land and delivering it to a buyer in development-~
condition and market value price at which it would be sold.
Considering that redevelopment activities in San Beman:lino are routinely
financed by the Communit;y Development Commission based on a project's
. abilit;y to generate. an equal or greater amount of future revenues, the
DEIR/EIR should ~'1line whether the proposed redevelopment project is
capable of generating adequate revenues in future years that would justify a
massive inveabnent of public redevelopment funds estimated at $33 mnHnu in
yesterday's dollars by Natelson. It appears that the 72 single-family homes and"
12-acres of commercial development space, proposed in the North Lake Area,
would be grossly incapable of generating future revenues from either tax
increment or sales tax to repay the "1a.ssive public subsidy of redevelopment
funds in a reasonable. period of time- ta sustain ongoing redevelopment
elsewhere in the Ci1;y.
The DEIR/EIR should examine the Environmental Justice to low-income
persons in the North Lake Area that could be forced to relocate from existing
affordable housing unita, small f'amlly-ownecl businesses, or churches, if. ~
proposed North ~. Project redevelopment activities lack the abilit;y to
generate sufBl!i~, fUm1'e',r..u._.nl!O to:.. justify a massive public subsidy of
I~dl\,~"tt:. f1lJ:\t:lfi m... .. " .,.-w.. period of. t:ime-. to sustain- onaoing
redcve1opmentmthc:.4.. .
The DElR/ElRe.shoukti.a18o.. ~~tIi~taL.Juati~ to.low-mrcvnf!!L.
persons who xesidc.ie~n~' u....mrtJie"Ci1yotSiJrERmatdino tha.t'
will be. depEived: .~~of""'rc:de'fc1opment. activities in their OWII'
communities~ ~Il"',,-~pnh~ .~ in the- NOrth Lake Project
consumes an.~pDlpm:tionoUhe..ci1;f..resources.
The OEIIl/EIR"sbouJd tbrthermore-eJl\U\ .ine"thtt Environmental Justice benefits:
of limiting the land-cleatance in the North Lake Area to no more prapert;y than
is needed to accommodate the 44.5 acre reseIVOir, 1.35. &em water treatmlMtt
facility and 10 acrea of open. space, public trails, and public access that will be
fmanced by revenue pnJrided: by the. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District from the.88le.of.wat:e:r~ "
The OEIRfEIlt shQuld. clarify the- impact to other neighborhoods because. t1'ie-
City is required, by- law; .tct repJace--2X.. the:. number. ot. lost. 1ow-~tomnI'! .
. apartments and.~fainily unitlt80mewhere else within the Cit;y because the. "
. 72 new sing1e-fann1y hmnes:.beh:1a-built- in- the-North-Lake:Area-will exceed-the-
value of any of the affo~bie' l~pJaa.~r.lt \U1ita.
The OgIR/EIR should clarify the risk of blight and safet;y costa if the land
assembled land for future development lies fallow for a substantial period of
17
]4.9
(cont.)
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
] 4.15
~-".,
Response to Initial StudY
N/S Lake Area Project
January 27, 2004
Page 4
time because the City or Authori1;y lack, or are unwilling to expend, the
financial resources for the massive public subsidy. The OEIR/EIR should look
at redevelopment failures such as SecombeLake, where numerous adjacent 4.15
vacant lots continue to lie fallow even though the Mayor's Project MA",ager, Tim (cant.
Cook, has shown the opportunities to potential buyers and stated the City
would be amenable to consider selling public parks property if an adequate
offer was forthcoming.
The DEIR/EIR should also clarify the impact to neighborhoods adjacent to the
residential lots and commercial pads . during construction and prior to
redevelopment. The OEIR/ElRshould look at the impact to the Base1h1e Area 4.16
business district when commercial activity is eliminated.and pads paopoeed for
redevelopment are vacant between the f~ and E Streets and the impact
when commercial activity on the west side of 9CIl Street between Baseline and
9th Street. The DEIR/EIR should look at blight in those business districts, loss
of sales tax from displaced businesses, and loss oC city share of property tax
within the North Lake Area.
The DEIR/EIR should clarify the mechanism for maintaining the empty lots ] 4.17
before redevelopment occurs so they do not become blighted eyesores.
1t YielcllD, m perpetultJ pubUc property aDd rlPtII 0' wa,. that ..,........
the City of SaD BerDUcllDo to the SaD BemarcUao VaDe,. 1I"-'dit4
Water District (MUIlI) lor a 44.S-acn resel'YOlr ill the North Lake Are&.
Although I have expressed concerns throughout the conceptual stages of tJ1e".,
project regarding the City receiving compensation from Muni for ceding pubJir:
rights of way and infrastructure required to construct the 44.S-acre reservoirr
the DEIR/EIR docs not mention any compensation from Mum to the City for
this loss of Cit;y property in the IS/NOI. The DEIR/EIR should __mine the
Environmental Justice to the citizens of San Bernardino of yieltfi"g in
perpetuity the public property and rights of way with no compensation from
Muni. The DEIR/EIR should also examine the environmental justice of future
loss of sales tax and property tax from yielding 44.S-acres of public property
and rights of way in perpetuity.
2) PhyslcaU,. divi!'-e aD establlshed neighborhood.
The DEIR/EIR should examine the unique impacts to all categories' of
residents, (eJderly, children, physically and mentally c}1Allenged) commUDit;y
. groups, and communities bf interest that will be destroyed from the demolition: 4.19
. of existing structures in the 82.4-acre neighborhood that currently exists. The
DEIR/ElR should also e.xemine the impact to other neighborhoods in the CiI1
of San Bernardino if the Authority embarks upon a massive land clearance
with no proposed plan forwlienr-theae:households will be absorbed.
18
4.18
~-""'-'~"'~" """"""',~' ,_Hn_, -TT T iT"r,,~l
'''"'
Response to Initial Study
N IS Lake Area Project
Janwuy 27, 2004
Page 5
3) The Mulll Reservoir
In addition to the technical studies that clarHy the hydrology issues, the
DEIR/ElR should also identify the impact from increased pumping in the basin
and whether these pumps will interfere or enhAnce the Newmark/Muscoy
plumes and banier wells. The DEIR/EIR should identify any third part;y
impacts ~ ~ther water users in. the basin that may be affected by the new
pumps.
The DEIR/ElR needs to clarify the proposed mitigation for the 4:1 slope at the
water edge because it appears that three feet from the edge of the reservoir, the
depth will be 12 feet. With public access and trails surrounding the lake. the
danger of drowning must be addressed. Is this reservoir fenced?
The DEIR/EIR needs to discuss how the reservoir design will address the
elevation drop from the NW comer of the North Lake Area of 1120' on a contour
map to the Nw corner of the North Lake Area of 1080' on a contour map. 'lbe
DEIR/EIR also needs to look at risk of Bieche from seismic activi~ in the North
Lake Area-part:icu1arly in light of a 40 ft. elevation loss from the northwest to
the southeast boundaries and the continuation of elevation loss south of the
North Lake Area. What measures will ensure that flooding does not occur
downstream from the reservoir in the downtown &rea.
4) RepJacemeat of a8'ordable iIlllltl-famUy ulllts.
Since the 72 new single-family units proposed in the North Lake Area will not
be affordable units. the City will have to replace twice the units lost or 173
sing1e-family units and 264 multi-family units. The Ciiy baa a histmy of
developing affordable single-family units on vacant lots, but baa repeatedly
opposed the construction of low-income multi-family houaing projects
The DElR/EIR should examine the impact to other neighborhoods that may
become the recipient of affordable multi-family units since many
neighborhoods are adamantly opposed to construction of new low-income
apartments.
The DEIR/EIR should disclose whether the financial burden or replacement
housing subsidies "win be borne by Muni as weD as the City for the units lost
from the reservoir. .
5) Structures meetiDg historic criteria.
The IS/NOI states five structures appear to meet City historic criteria. The
DEIR/EIR needs to clarify the prqposed mitiption of those structures. Will
they be moved or how will their historic value be retained?
19
4.20
J 4.21
4.22
4.23
J 4.24
}~
}26
~~-PT~'" '
,='" r ~
"' ,- 1 ' "'"''="m~,,,,,'''
"",--"'-
Response to Initial Study .
"i I S Lake Area Project
January 27, 2004
Page 6
6) Six churches
The IS/NOI fails to mention the unique circumstances of displacing Six
churches that have repeatedly testiflCd before the Authori1;y that the
congregations are opposed. The DEIR/EIR needs to explain how compensation 4.27
can address the disruption oC worship and church sponsored activities
including youth programs, and sports activities in their facilities. The.
DEIRJEIR needs to clarify mitigation measures that will address the diSJUption
of activities at six active churches and the f'easibilit;y oC locating prope1ty to
replace churches within the Cit;y of San Bernardino where the congregations
that support on-going church activities live.
7) l1ndergroudiDg of utWties
The IS/NOI proposes undergrounding of utilities. The DEIR/EIR needs to. 4.28
clarify how this upgrade will be fmanccd and look at the impacts elsewhere in
he City if the costs are to be assumed from existing resources.
8) Hazardous Matedals
The DEIR/EIR needs to address the disposal of soil that may be contaminBtwf
from past uses. The DEIR/EIR needs to address the possibDi1;y that when soils 4.29
are tested for contamination underlying redevelopment areas, costly mitigation
may be required.
~~~ft.1& ..
SUSAN UEN~Nv;~
Councilwoman, Second Ward
20
or
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.4
Please note that Comment Letter #4 primarily addresses redevelopment agency authority for
the action, and does not include specific comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
4.1 Under CEQA, the lead agency has an obligation to evaluate the "project" as proposed by
the "applicant". In the case of the North Lake and South Lake Area Projects, the
"project" was defined by the applicant (the San Bernardino Regional Water Resources
Authority, or JPA) as set forth in the Draft EIR. The DraftEIR has evaluated the entirety
of the North Lake project, including potential redevelopment of remaining parcels for
residential, commercial and recreational uses. As noted in the Draft EIR, the potential
redevelopment of North Lake Area remnant lands are being considered at a conceptual
level and subsequent detailed site planning, financial agreements, and related
discretionary approvals would be required. The Draft EIR is a planning document and its
purpose is to identify potential effects and to describe feasible mitigation measures over
the range of alternatives to the project. For information on the impacts associated with
displacement, please see Section 4.9, Population and Housing. Although the January
27, 2004 letter attached to this comment was in response to the Notice of Preparation
and therefore not specifiC to any Draft EIR adequacy, an effort has been make to provide
responses based upon the contents and analysis set forth in the Draft EIR to the issues
identified in the January 27, 2004 letter (see responses below).
4.2 Comment noted. The land surrounding the North Lake reservoir would need to be
cleared in order to accommodate construction staging activities, equipment and soil
stockpiling areas, and grading and construction. North Lake reservoir construction
woukl take several years, and considering the extensive demolition, grading and
construction activities, the applicant has indicated a need for an adequate buffer area to
affoWl< construction staging and related activities. Affected areas are within
. regevelopment areas (the Inland Valley Redevelopment Project Area and the Uptown .
Redavelapment Project Area). Excluding lands along the project perimeter, such as
. al~H Street; would not only make NorttrLake reservoir construction more difficult and
expose;.mor&-persons to construction refated impacts (by retaining these residential land
uses' adjacent to a long-term construction effort), but would substantially compromise a
key projeclobjective of creating new residential and commercial areas to revitalize the
Narttrlake area.
4.3 Comment noted. As noted in Response 4.1, CEOA requires that an EfR evaluate the
impacts of a project as defined/submitted by an applicant, which the North Lake and
South Lake Areas Draft EIR has done. Project feasibility, financing, funding options,
inter-agency agreements that do not relate to direct physical impacts are outside the
scope. of this EIR, although they are appropriate>for discussion and will be considered by
decision-makers during project deliberations.
Responses to resubmitted Notice of Preparation comment letter.
4.4 Comment noted.
4.5 COmment noted. SBVMWD would be responsible for acquiring the entire 82.4-acre
North Lake Area project site for the purposes of constructing the North Lake reservoir.
Also; refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, for additional information.
City of SaIl Bernardino.
San BemanUno Valley Municipal Water DIstrict
2t
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
f....
--
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.4
4.6 As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, the entire 82.4-acre North Lake Area
project site would be needed for the construction of the North Lake reservoir. After the
reservoir is completed, land surrounding the lake used to accommodate construction
staging activities, equipment and soil stockpiling areas, and grading and construction
may be transferred to the City Redevelopment Agency for reuse as redevelopment land.
However, any decision for the potential for reuse and redevelopment of remnant lands
will be addressed after the CEOA process has been completed. .
4.7 The burden of the proposed project on low-income families, seniors, and minority
populations was evaluated in Section 4.9. Population and Housing. No protected group
or population (i.e.. low-income families, the elderly, or minorities) would suffer
disproportionate impacts as a result of project implementation.
4.8 Comment noted. Financial feasibility is not a CEOA issue and does not need to be
considered as part of the EIR for the purpose of identifying the potential effects of the
Project on the environment. Any decision regarding the implementation of the North
Lake Area Project will require an analysis of the financing and funding sources that are
available for the payment of necessary costs.
4.9 Comment noted.
4.10 Comment noted. Financial feasibility is not a CEOA issue and does not need to be
considered as part ofth&E1R. Fundlng.issues includlngJhose..90vered in thiscamment
willlikelyc ~1siEtef8d by decision makerscaSc part of overall projeetl'tll'llil1dl..11uo ~
4.11 SeE!>~iVltiM' ~ Pi'tptJ/Atinn and Housing... fafL8cdiscussion arT' poteJltialJl1Jejll~ tit:
to low-~. _.L. ~FI'the.North lake,Area... The,.preparation' ot.speGifiC:I......~II>.1Jr
plan. ~.anydisplaoementOCCUl"S' wi" provide. mitigation d..~~eff.t... .
desaibed. inthi& commenl It shOuk;l: be. notec1that:.untir:a..h~n!lad3_B!t\fnlll8Dt1l"
survey is'COfIdueteEi;a&part of a relocation plan, there-Is-no basj$.tlX.Ol._I~ . U ...~.
affected:~provide.affOrdable:housing. UI'1der"~"~I"-""'__11 -~
standar'ds; As." is" sa often the case, rent levels In neighborhoods' witW-higlr
concentrations of' older and poorly maintained structtlres Oftert ant:. welt in:' (WI< T at.
"affordable rent" as, this-teAn is defined In Health and Safety Code sectioFr'5OO5SI
4.12 Cammeol noted... No; unfair project burden would fall on residents living in other bIIgbtect
areas of thEJ City of sarr Bemardino as a result of the diversions of public subsidiesto'
the proposed project The proposed North Lake Area Project would' baimplemented
througtr SBVMWD fundS. not City or redevelopment agency fundsc:antrolled::by.... dty:.' .
Additionally, the ..... North Lake Area Project site is. within 8ithet'u.-.UpDNA
Redevelopment'" AnM'or" the Inland Valley Redevelopment Area 8Dth;o1ll1__.J..ofrtb8r -
community which (li$pJAY substantially more elements of conditions...ol~rai~,_t
blight" than atheE area& of the community, which are part of redeveloprTW!lnt"'pI'Oject"
areas; Th61~ro,e: anyrpotentlal redevelopment or reuse oftf1es&.8f989iO:as!tPill~PUUP-
projectis; not antlcipiftettto:result In-the. deprivation ottheCltyfumt9Ot1rooJq jltdr;~ "-'. - .
the neighborhoods-outside of those redevelopment project areas to:;cJeaI;;.witlIy.ublelfl8r"
associated with the- elimination of blight being directed away from other i'ede\etopment
areas.
City of 8anoBlkltaldhA
San BemardlnCl-.Vallay Municipal Water District
22
February 28'; ~
SCHNo; 2.OQ3jU150..
..~--
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.4
4.13 As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, the entire 82.4-acre North Lake Area
project site would be needed for the construction of the North Lake reservoir. After the
reservoir is completed, land surrounding the lake used to accommodate construction-
staging activities, equipment and soil stockpiling areas, and grading and construction
may be transferred to the City Redevelopment Agency for reuse as redevelopment land.
The entire North Lake Area project site is contained within either the Uptown
Redevelopment Area or the Inland Valley Redevelopment Area and the proposed project
is consistent with the goals of these redevelopment areas.
4.14 Please see Section 4.9, Population and Housing, for additional information on this topic.
This section identifies that the City of San Bernardino currently has a vacancy rate of
11.05 percent, which is much greater than the ideal housing rate of 4.0 percent. New
housing would not have to be built to accommodate the persons displaced by
implementation of the proposed project.
4.15 Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Ught and Glare, for a discussion of the impacts of
undeveloped land. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1c requires undeveloped areas to be
stabilized with landscaping and maintenance of those areas until development occurs.
4.16 Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Light and Glare, Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section
4.3, Biological Resources, Section 4.4, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Section 4.5,
Historic and Cultural Resources, Section 4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 4.8,
Noise, Section 4.10, Public Safety and Risk of Upset, Section 4.11, Public Services and
Utilities, and Section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation, for discussions of
construction-related impacts and mitigation-measures.
4.17 Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Ught and Glare, for a discussion of the impacts of
undevelepeG land. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1c requires undeveloped areas to be.
stabilized with landscaping and maintenance of those areas until development occurs.
4.18 Comment noted. The vacation of public rights of way is not an Environmental Justice
issue or a CEQA issue. The potential loss of sales tax is not an Environmental Justic&
issue or CEQA issue. The EIR has, however, evaluated the traffic impacts associated
with changes in local circulation. See Section 4.12, Treffic and Circulation, for additional
information.
4.19 Comment noted. The burden of the proposed project on low-income families, seniors,
and minority populations was evaluated in Section 4.9, Population and Housing. See
Comment 4.19. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.7, Land Use and Relevant
Planning, the Draft EIR found that implementation of the proposed project wouldresultin
.. significant unavoidable 'impact as a result of the physical division of an existing
community. Please see Section 4.9, Population and Housing. This section identifies that
the City of San Bernardino currently has a vacancy rate of 11.05 percent, whiett is much
greater than the ideal housing rate of 4.0 percent. New housing would not have--to be
built to accommodate the persons displaced by implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, no physical impact on other neighborhoods is likely to result fronT new
housing construction to accommodate displaced persons.
City of san Bemardlno
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
23
February 2&, 2005
SCH No. 200312.1150
-~" ""
North Lake Area and South Lake Nea Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.4
4.20 No new groundwater pumps or groundwater pumping activities are proposed as part of
this project. The proposed North Lake Area Project is a regulating reservoir that would
receive water from existing water supply operations that have already undergone
environmental review under CEQA.
4.21 Please see page 3.0-17, which states that the .slope at lake edge [would be] no steeper
than 4H:1V (4 feet of run to 1 foot of rise)." This slope would be very shallow, resulting
in a change of elevation of only one foot for every four feet of horizontal change.
Additionally, please refer to Section 4.11, Public Services and Utilities. Additionally, full
mitigation has been proposed to fence the lake to further reduce safety hazards.
4.22 Please see Section 3.0, Project Description, and Exhibit 3-11, Proposed Land Use -
North Lake Area, which identifies proposed elevations. A five-foot earthen berm would
be used to address the change in elevation across the project site. Additionally, please
see Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant,. for a discussion on the risk of
seiche and the risk of flooding associated with implementation of the proposed project.
4.23 Comment noted. As the agency acquiring the land for the North Lake reservoir,
SBVMWD will be responsible for the relocation of displaced households and the
construction of any new housing, if required. However, at this time, it does not appear
that SBVMWD will need to provide for any new replacement housing construction as
part of the mitigation of the reduction of dwelling units available for occupancy by lower
income households for the reasons set forth in the EIR.
4.24 Please see Section 4.9, PopUlation and Housing, for additional information on this topic.
This section identifies that the City of San Bernardino currently has a vacancy rate of
11.05 percent, which is much greater than the ideal housing rate of 4.0 percent. New
housing would not have to be built to accommodate the persons displaced by
implementation of the proposed project.
4.25 Comment noted. The financing and funding of a project are not CEQA issues and do
not need to be considered as part of the EIR, although they will be considered by
decision makers when considering project approval. As the proposed reservoir is a
SBVMWD project, SBVMWD will be responsible for funding relocation activities.
4.26 Please see Section 4.9, Population and Housing, for a discussion of impacts and
mitigation measures related to the displacement of people, homes, businesses and
institutions.
4.27 Please see Section 4.5, Historic and Cultural Resources, for discussions of impacts to
historical structures and mitigation measures.
4.28 Please see Section 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, for discussions of impacts and
mitigation measures related to infrastructure. Additionally, project financing is not a
CEQA issue and does not need to be considered as part of the EIR
" 4.29 Please see Section 4.10, Public Safety and Risk of Upset, for a discussion of impacts
and mitigation measures related to contaminated soils onsite.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
24
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
Comment Letter #5 I
{D)\E@~n\Yl~\ID
lril OCT Z Z ~
~
CAUFORNIA81A1E UNlVER8nY,
IAN___
~"IOCIALAND
IlHAVIORAL.....
5500 University Parkway
San Berauclino, CA 1140'7-1897
CITY OE &AN-==
~
DepartlDen't of GeOlNPhJ
and En~_lItAl Studies
108-880-6_
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 22. 2004
TO: . Valerie Ross.
FROM: James L MulvihDl, AlCP
RE: ~ to DrIft Plop.....
..
I am gready COJICCnIIllI tIIIt _ ofmy co-nt'l 10m my JmIary 22. 2004 co- of1be DrdEIR
Wlft dftctI;y address in dID praeal do.,;'Iil.M EICh collllDllll in tho......, ~ memo wu.... by die
preseDl ~_ lIS, .....the... will be IbIlIiId ill dID yJIII1 Em end ~ ~ IIta may be
susaeDd." or WOlds 10 tbIt cIl'ect. The City of Sa Bam8nliDo docs DOt haw 1bDds to IdequItely provide
police ofticcrs to UIUle the ..rety ofits ~lt~ _baa bclCII iDcIictted by dID fiaihn to DapJemIIIl
adequItely CbicfZimmon', "BaIt Prv.-.. n.City _1bIdy lpIIIla tremeadous IIDO\1IIl offilc:a1l11C1
persoDIId resoun:a OIl this pm...... wtddi thoctizrm simply ClIIIIIOt IIfbd. Thus tbe City II1UIt DOt SO
10twIrd with this project UDtI1 dfptlmt D ara hac been speclficd aud alJ. costs made public.
What to11ows in italics are my COIIlIII81U iom the Jumary 22'" maDO that have IlDt been addleuccL
. '17rerw en slW1'tll t:DIf<<I1I8l1bt111t I1jormDIlDfI t>>IIItIlntull,i tlte NlnilItIlllJldy/rtDllcc of prqKJIVlIlllnN 5.1
tiocwMnt tht.rt J want dDrljIltI '" the DElR IIItfl FInol E1R of. "NIS 1.aJz .Area" pTOj<<:t. Jq conunu 1111
addren ",. North LDJr. JID"IIo" ofthts 1IIilIIIl.rfr<<6l. .4ftN fin/lining my COIarns. 1 will elJIbonlte 011 ad
one. with specific Nj'mncu to ,. docrurraI:
1. North Lake design;
2. p~ rwprrBng ~ brrnrrrfWb bJ Nonh LDJr. project 1I1U;
3. ProvisIonfor 874 '111:1160/ qffiNtlDbldowing;
4. LocGtIorll of J1I'Oied tIlts'rtfltlNs;
; J. Dlmtption of Q predomhrDndy lower income. minority MlgIrborhood;
6. &Ic" 1rtutlrtl6;
7. Risks ofpromotirlg bltght _to lIOrr-DtUIimrwnt ofproJccI goals;
8. Eco1Iomic QfU/ I1'qffIc 4ec11 011 o'o1mtcnm San BUnDldIno ctIIIBd by yun of project-relllluJ
dlsnlpllOll;
25
-
Page Two
MEMO: Comrneats North Lab Project
.:>ctober 22, 2004
Agczin, all rsftrences art 10 North LaU in the "Initial SlUdyINotl~ of PreJNl'tllioll" t/acuIne1II:
1) Non" lAb daip:
II) lJtH:uIrnl. p. 15, paragraph 3 dat:rlba NOTIh I.aa tII being DJ1I1"O%ImaIe(y #.5
acru. awragiIIg 15' depth, witII dally kN1 jlut:Iuallorl8 of- than 5' - thaugII
I_ levels may on ~ drop IIftn thtln 5' pu dqJI. ,.,.,. f., 16 1/3 I. captICIty
ofresenolr, or 72 million gallons, Le. ((660 % 326,000)/3). Yet thI ~
treatmenl pltJllt's capacity is only 8 MGD (million gaIlom pu day). So 1M capadlJl
of 1M tTetJlJ7Wrl plant is on1)I IN' of J1I'Ol1O"d,.,,4 Le. 8 rnUliolllo 721f1il1itm-
pletUe expIam di#lWJNlllC)l In droft emlromnentallmpacl report (DE1R).
FIITIMTo tlot:turMnt P. 33, ptl1'Qgf'QJJh 6 ducrlba thI6 area tII being ..~ flat. "
An emmllUltion of 'opographie mtlp811roW8 tIult t. 'PltllWC/imI of /JtJsJIIbre A_
and "H" Street lie. on 1M 1120' contollt'; while lhe ,,*rM:tIon of9'" Street anti
"E" Strut llu r.rwf~y on 1M 1080' conlDfll' - a tlrtm m!I'tJ.a lhe -- of
IfI1S1I'O%lmatdv .m '[ '1'hU sllb#antiIIl drop in grmmd ,llrWlllon anti iI8 9!ects on
safety anti """"'r """'.be'ltonHIghly mI1IIi1I<<J in the DEIJl.
b) (p. 15, r paI'fJI1't'Ph) n..". of. ruervoir GI w... will be a "1IIi1rimIMf"
of 4: I, thDI'ulletlSl a drop of "'for every J 'from laks .. So V' a dtIld I1tou1d
take a stq of 2 ~ Mlm.lfIOflld be in .".,. 8' dap. Yel thetw is no intllcatiofr .. t1d8
SDjety w..tn tile doaunurt HtIW will the project miligak thI6 hazDrd? PletIIe
eva1ua111Ihi1 ill DEIR.
c) The com imolwd in 8IICh a ma.aiw. long-Ierm ani.( In mtJIOI ~ dl8tvptive .-d
10 be Icknttfied. 7Jrue ,...1rGw..,..,..."""". much kg utiIIrt*d on "'0'
capital im~ plan or IlI9' pnmll pion. Nor htu tMN bun tlIIYp/tItttr
comnritmelfl""'" ovr'fJ"ilJc fl$J*ls of IheNorth LD#2 betwIa ,Ire City. ,.,
San BuntI1'tlino Yal1q Jilllricipal Water DI8triJ:l (MUNl), CII9'~'"
...fgMcy, or lIPO' pI"IwJI8 dewlopNnt grrnJP; TIre DEIR ",., tell lire pIIblk 1." ,1IiI
project actually ental&. how U wiU pl'0Med, who is rupD1I$lbk for ,,,, WII'iouI gotb
imagiMd in lhe inIIial8llldy?
FurtMr, in 110". of the tIl.saIJIiOll8 of tIw "lalru" proj<<:I OM'the lat ... y<<lI'S
Juu ,''' ,.. offuwb ndMlllrough the sale t/'water from ",. project. MUNI-
never providMllIIIJ' indication of sIrorlng benejlll, PIlI tIttNIgh lire cl1y will yiIrId ",
pvpetuJty snur1lm.t rights-of-way which belong to ,he cUIseIfS oftJds Oty.l/ a
"Statement ofOvmidlngConsidertlllOll8"U beingplalmMlfor ultimat' ~
of this ErR and JII'OJect, ,.. must h "sunlight" bnnIghI into tlw ... oj1/lt1fJMlll'Y
b",.,pts, and how tire public afSon Bernardino wiUjUt:IJlly heMjlIfrom cUing
pos8U8l0n-0f itspllblic JftJ1MI'IY.1o MUNI.
d) Regarding tM "pollution plfIIIIU" (p. 8. partlgraph 2) the Federal Environmentlll
Protection Apnc:JI has spent mlUiom of dollan Oft tIpJ1IY1Z"",*" a dDzen "",.,.,.,.
wells that wlU holt tire tIIIwJra of ctmIDminllled plumes. the DEIR mIIII fItIdIwa lrt1w
'M ~d J1f'Oi<<:1 will: a) itIteIjIM:e with 1M ~ EPA barrier _or; - b)
illlpl'DWt-OfIIM EPA. qsIUI. tmd how much irnpmvement tire City will redize by
allowing the NortIll48 J1t'01-ct 10 proceed
26
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Vase 1bree
.mM0: Commflots North Lake Project
October 22. 2004
e) Pumping"" from U1II1erground pnxJut:u II H~ cone n In the MGIIrIlllM;
lhe iniIiIIl.rtr4' ".", 1M iIIpW$lOft Mil wll will "",.,..,., 10000Ihe WIll". tIIIW
aJ:I'08$ the aNa -lit. opaiItI the drain 01111 bill"'" 111 tJI'tW 10 IICIainf 0 Iowring
oflhe wIer 11M, and acltItIw lite e1Itni1tIItIOII c(lltpIffildlon . DEIJ tlt:K:utant
lfJlI$t 1ndit:tII, how 1IIIlIJYwl1I tn 10 be pltM:t1d tIIIIl..... 1'Iten -- be 0 Il*ffk
t111111yIi8 in . DE1R ofWfIIR 1IIbl.lI.YtJrology - e,6et:II t/ plllllJllnB br on/Ir for .
the publklo .""",. If'" fJI'OIKJMIl iI worth,.1iztIb1t com, Le.jIIcal. per8Of'llll,
.ociIIl, it .n/Dil..
5.7
2) prtH:U8ra NpnJiIrB coatlllllilulttltllmltwifWt/s ill NMi LtIke ptoJIcl...:
Nowhm in Ihs dQCllllle1ll II 1M t".", H11fowrtIeld"..."",.,. Yet thin .. editing
II1II0 rq1Illr fadlUIu 111111 gaoli". 6ttllfoAs 1I1Dlfl Btue/I", ".,..,..; otMn IIMly
e%lsted ill the J1IIIL And IIIU' 8DlWllb WMlIIIIlJllo rwptlirjllciJllfa qp.n ,. t1jJ onto 1M
ground. All ~ gt&JOllIIe 8101't118 tanG prior to 1980 1rIIwjQiled. tJweby
lealIiIIg tltzntpw8 tt>>d1u 8t:IJII...~ tM tII'ItL AlIo, pIl"$01I8l11DUld ilftDl
di8pO_ of. IJ#d 011_ t1IIw II1IlWIItt<<I ",.,itb "" digIng" hole in lheir yords
cmd burying IItue. FQPWI8IOCfl1ed In JII'fJi<<:I fIIWQ prior 10 rriaItimtIoIIlilriely
J1OIsawljorps, with 8OIl6 king ~ by thIa 'l"MN""'" be II dtItII1ed
apllllllJtiDll ofhow 80Il tuting WlU be ~ beftw DI9' lOil.from IftII II mntWtJtl
ill 1M DElR.
5.8
3) PNWisiOIl 0/814 _its of 4/ftInItIIM ".....,:
DocuIIIeIIt p. 10. J.IIM..-lillpA 4, 8Iata that North LrJa.,u. poIIU- 437 dwelling
unit.. whilcp. 46,ptII..-aph 1. NriI.t*wiU...".",..atImtIIIrtl36SdwlliC
amits. 77we is Il illllllt iIIIt:rqtIN:y. ~, ~ IWW qff~ rIIIII6.
Iu:rve to be br1llI"""" 1M tIIWl(W6 tnII is ~"".U'''''J_'' 4lo1L
lllliu liliiii be pnwIdMl. t.. 874 or'130. NtIwIIere ..,to"" . ~ "'"IN""'"
I"UpOIIIibilII for ,.",.,,,, Io8t ~ .... "*1t-Jii& wiltlid~" . {.. 1tow1l-
wUI b8jintJ1ad. n.. DElR IIIUII be 6J*"r:-""""'Nr~"'of~~'
4) 1.JIcAtu." ofprojul ""."dva:
JJocrment P. 20, pllhwQJ1/l1, sIrIIU:_" DEIK will 0IIIy..-iaM ,.,.ptfJ}M:I
altenudlN8: lID project; or a 8IIIDlWIdupeT 1'eUTWJir; n.DEa......-'-- otIw,
Ius intnl.five lol!tJlitms for lhe North Lak FtII' ~ WIt oIDrtg J1iIseIlnals'"
Lytle Crnk Wa.rh. w1Ikh " alNtltly publ#c property, tIad YlrtIllll1y 110 4i~"'"
and lower cosn. 77Ie Jla8elinefadet e%lstI,.. ..., - GIO' ~ Ind1t
to connect wlls to the wa.rIa locatitm would be "",."". COIIIpf>>'flIlIO J1I'OIM1Y
pruv:hDse. But,he 1fJI1jor IISIIB is .fiP/---- of IIt08Ily Iotrr.",., InOSIly mInDrlty
houWtoltb tI1Id how to eliminate thl8i"tru.riOll 1Il1o IIIl utablUMd ruidentlal
neighborhood.
5) Disruption of. pNJdomInatly lower iII~, __1II.1".;pllorlloDtl:, .
DocIllJlMt p. 4~ punwdp#,2 ..",,,, tItIIt "/II1'I1I6r'IIIIIII1*" will hlWJUlnd to
de,.,.",. ,he "gnl,/U:an<< tJ/Notth lJb',lIIIpIIeP .tlrls J1I'~y ltllllt'
income, lfIinorlty ",,,,.,,hDotl. n.1fIf'IW, ab....lIJ1JI'l'lf1:'ba ",Iib,f" 1M
olwioll$ly ,'gnIfiClltlllmpacl by disnlplillg the liwI of owr 1~-""'-
5.9
5.10
5.11
27
PaSG four
MEMO: Comments North Lake Project
October 22, 2004
charchel, tmd collllllNCiDl blllinusa. And this disnJpllon II "'lngju8l(lMl1llllh 1M
VGgIIUt, most implawlblc con.rIdmltiOltl. Ci1ize1fs tII'f pzrtI1IIMI.ftw4omfrom
unretlmJrtlble tilIftIN of tJMi,. plYJperty.
] 5.11
(cont)
On DocunrenI p. 45, ptIT'tlgI'QPII4 cUu tM SBCUSD QS IISing 0.5 IIUJlMI8 JIG' dwelling
unit in this tll'fll - thlllIlXlmfflly law! n. 8ItmI1tId u.d by pltornen ", Sa
Bemt1rdino 112.7 J1IftOIU per tIweIllng antlt. Giwn"'" 1....1ne18 ", I1ti8
nsighborhood It', IfWy the _be,. qf pel'SOltl 1M" JDdt 18 ,.",.,. tIIart thtIt. FtJrtMr,
thue aN lilrsly a1I aIHwe lMI"tIge """". qf""'" -- aJ"""""" ."",.",
the ,.11III"'" of cJdIiJnn IYePt 1UgIwr. 7'herc IIIJIIt be fteld &IIIW)S to atlIbIish lite J1I'DJ1II'
. number of chlldml being qffit:Ied by this project in order to JI'O'IIdfI II JWoptJ'
ewzllltltiDn of imp<<:t in tile DEIR.
6) Seiche hll%lUdr:
DocumInt p. 39, ptIT'tlgI'QPII2 Nata thiIt "No slgnifictmlwate, ftotwu have '*"
;dentifled in tire proJM:t area. ~tA no l1npact8 ore tI1IIiclpaMtl in t1dI rwgard. "
This Itateme'" ""ai1Il1 rai8u qUltiolu NgtIIYlitIg the tltJt:umaI tnII/Ior ~
qualljicatlons ~ dHt prtJDDMJl & 1I'111l11'" fMtuN/ ..4 .icM 18111id11l.. on II
1_: ;,', the $DIM proIMm tIS t:108Ii1Ig (I"'" btIllIIICbrg (I ptIIICh bowl wi"'"
spilling the CD1IIMI8. E1apt tlds "prmcII bowl" IltlllllUl/ta IIIWIIlOOl qffftt ;n
width, with (11 S' d.pIh. Itlllt1ll1d 1M ,. ~ tmd btUncbw II baA:mg ptIIIftlW
with water. nr..,...,-volr will conItIbt " 1dI{'-' ".""". qfWltlkt'. ~ ",
aas$ of1.0 ~ ..gnnmtl1Dl&" ... tDjItJping -.frotn II IJIDnklIL .
Geologists QlltU:lpllte II.... qf poaIbly 8.0 ".,. Stm BmrtInlIno. T/Ii$ tIIWI ;, lIIll
",.eltJtiwly flat" QS ~_ In * tlDt:ttmMl. p. 33, ptIT'tlgI'QPII6. n. 6fII/at:e 18 011 Q 4-
5% IIDfM. Intlftd tllelllllddrD/M ~ 40' ~ lltIIIlIM..4__ and "Jr
SltwI, tmd" and "E" SI1wts. WltII ~Sa B&~dbto kH:tztaIwilhbtftw
bloc1r.s qfNorlll Loa, wIIat VIOIIld ",* ttJf~ qf..." II "",. .",. aJ*1'UIR'W1Ir
durirIg II aowdld..,. $lICIt QS "~ 66 .rrdavous?" 77re DElR ".., give tlds
in", afull ~
AddU;OrIQlly, p. 46. ptIT'tlgI'QPII J ref." 10 "(...RuJ1Dl'X J 1.l6(b)). II No "Rupo,,"
11.16" ulIts'" * tIt1t:u1unL 77re dot:ument tIrII_ taku this JII'Oiect', IInat to
public l4/ety 10 Ug1ltly, IMY htnen't botMretl to check IUCh ,.q1ll'UCU-
7) Risk 0/ pl'tlllllJliltr bliPt" tD IItHItIII/dIIm"" 0/ project gOllls:
~", goalsfor * North Lake (ftQ 1ft simply poorly j'onIted gelfM'OlJtla
baled on achlnarat of a truly "bat ca.-" 1MftIrlo. TIIII is a crut:lal wtMns.u 11/
the plan - no ~ tJltmIativu lwldu ab.roIute eeonomlc ~ at
some unspeclfi-futrn dati are suggellld. 77Je wording of gods in not onlywrgw, it
is wry det:qtiw. For ~ * tlocat1Irent p. 16, JXII'tI8'fIPlI4 statu. "BaMl on""
May, 2003 Mar.' and Flnoncilll Fl/IIibllily.4ntllpi.t (l'Iw Nat'" Company. p. 4),
the most ,laM. product IJp basetl on IfI(JI'/r.eI de1nantIfor IIIW' hoUJinB 18 tIIIIidJ1t*d
to befor'ingle-famlly ho1na ranging "'lot -from 3,500 to 17, 200 (,Ie)....
feeL " Ths Nate/son ~ Ol S) *'~ llrat th18 prediction II volld only If tM land II
lold to dne/open at $2.75-14.00 JI' 8tJWI'W foot.' this qfter tM cost for Itmd tIIMffbIy
5.12
5.13
5.14
28
Pege rIVe
MEMO: CommeDls North Lako Project
October 22, 2004
October 22, 2()(u and cktlrtmcc is 113.00 JW 6qflQ1'C. 111 MWtls, __ publit:
,,,,,,, would haPe to ab.wri II 1oI101$9.OD-S1 1.25 pttr StJfIfII" 'Dot Nfin the prlw*
"",,*-1 WOIII4 co""" rl.rkIrtg htnIIing dewIopmenl- "... 7JIe
docum",' m'OI'$ ill IMO ,.,."..,.,. Nat.. _: :at, ". ",., jiwt whIdt
1M i1(ormatlon MIl drawnu "". years 014 and IfDlj'roIIJ , 1003; -. M:DI'Id,
lhe .,CD1Itlfigrn f-- by ,. ill/lltll1IJIdy ~ 18 '" ; the NaII/sDn f'8JJDTI
(p. 4) cita lot rife""",from 3,JOO-7,200 sqwnfeet .
Such a land lOp away" i.r highly 1I1IlI8" 10 be ~ wnlodtzy', economic
cirClllJll8lancu. Projld JI'fR'IOIm oft", rwJIr 10 lIInd duriItI* 1950s ·
julifyillf the praMt North 1A/r6, pI'tJfpOIfIl FIscal. . wIl III 6l1c 6II[JIIOf'IIUT SIIdr
cleanmcu IfD lontf'1' al8I& In I. 195fb, the 1949 HOfISitIg ct JIf'OYIdMIOI' 0213,
com~/rom tire F__",..,."."", to olocal.ftu'l8t' . for tJIO' loa
,1ICounlllWd by II I'IIJdtIl proJld -". ]JIOITiItn no 10"" . UIIIII the 19708. the
Federal gOHnl1lldl,/u1llW tip '0 9M6 .traMpOrttIIfoIIlIIId hrfra6IrwctJln
COlts il'lCUn'ld by lot:lII~ -."" IMaI progrllJll8 longer cdsI. 17Ie
ending of thD8I ptogroJm$ is ",. IWISOft' why pruent nuJe at:tiJUiG tlCl'OIS
urlHm.41J1M'1ca tlqad 10""" on~ . But tItIrw i.r 110
indlcJJtiOlllhal GPO' IIICh ptM b-'" cd.It6 ill IhII pro}cl. So, wItiI. lhe San
Bef'l'101'dillO YlIIltry Jltmiclptl/ ".... DlsIrld (MUNI) mqJ/ ba obi, tojlwlnt:e
COIISInICtiOIl 01 ~ blDlon pl10n fvt8lllIOIr CONrlng 44.5 01"" 81.<1 IICI'f NortJt
l.aI2 proj.ct aNtI, who wIlljilwl t1rI et:OItOfIttc dndOJlflf"" for the 38 ar:ru
SUI'I'OUndillg the IW8II'WIir'l u.- "rwwt#l1lfl1v. wIftIt wt1IIld lite ""eel on I.
SU1'1'OJIIfding _gIrborItootl ,.~ de".lDpIMIfI GI'OfIIItl dti8 huge
bot61 oflWlllr! 77w pTOjld tItJU1tllll bat become II larp ~ ~ IIf08t
peopl,jetIr to vaftn _10 ~ crIma and lack of. TIre bUght to be
i1lCJll1'ld by IhU Q/IenJQIiye ... to be closely aamillld ill DEIR.
011 p. 9. ptIIYIgI'tIlJh <I, 1M tlot:uiunIJfIII#Jiu'" North JAJ;. leu *PlY ""'"'" u
" ._providu atldlIitmal opfHJ1'IIIIfIIffor N'I'IIlIlimIiOll by GtIdltiOllll1
commm:ial ptIdI tIIIIl GddllIonatNlltlllllkllltJ',. " Ffn4 lite tject UT" abudy
p088I8U8 ""JIIY loa, 'tIIIticIr 8lttnIltl ".".,.,.. provltIe . for tIfIIJI'OP"l$
"hfIlU" "'0J1ItWIII- ,. tIIIly. cUy WOIIld .. fWIlI8Ilc for ,Ite
neighborhood. UI(orlrmaI.Iy, ... dIIIrilntting rehtlbUltaIlDIIfrtntb OM' lite pt1$140
yell1'$, the cUy ltaI fgrIorfdtltll ~ NO'll lite CIty lWDII6lO contleMnlM
area beclnIIe it "bligItIld. SeccNItL vactIItIlD16 6IU'I'OUItd S<<:combe Lallie. ,.. offer
simUQI' opporIU1IIIia lor raUlMIlIII and commercitd dtmIopmenI. yfi lilt" 1m ,."
place ill 'hi ,two dectMles slnc.e Sect:ombe LiIU 1IW mre_
Past experiem:e has thu ,hOYm ,hat littl, developtU'" 8htndd be ezpeclMllO be
all1qCled to this project ami, Leo similar pmJicled develOJ1fll"'l wasl(JlW:llll-IIIy
yean ago jor'fllWllllrllTOundillg S<<:t:t1tIIN Ltzk .4nd lID bUraI_ ." Mown frotn
thl prlWlle )ector, m:qt'" t:tmdltlons lI1here the land wiU be virtrIally glNII
away. Thtlt', IftlJ'dly ,,,. CO"., &III BlI'IJtII'd'mo should be plollfng at this ttmI.
B) EcOllomic"m/ InI/ftc tl/JBt:U 011 do"",""" 811" Bmt"nlillo couse4 61 yell" 01 project
rdtIletI.up'u,,,:
29
5.14
(cont. :
5.15
5.16
5.17
"T "" "
Page Six
MEMO: Comments North Lake Project
October 22. 2004
No ",.ntiOlf u IIItII# in 1M inUiIIl $1* 10 the ,.., if diInIptitJft lhe C8IIIu ofStm
Bmronlino will ".. lIS the,.,.,-"olr is ~ cnJ mIIYIllwy""" will be
.ilher clOleQ, or will hIM ~ trqffkjltlwl. ,4, prop_i. HF," HG, .. and HIr
Stroll will be pet ~ clOSftl. In QI/QItfoII. BilMfIIa A...",.." E- SINd wiU
be 1M northern cnJ itutern btnIIrtlaria, ~Iy. WhtllwlU be ",. impat:I 011
downlowra actiYiIiu _10 the tli.rnIptlDn IhtllIhiI projld...",1 7'IdI brt:twJIe .
d"lSI'IIpIion of QCCaIIbUlty will promtIIefurthu 61"'" In ,. dcnMItown t:OIIIIIM1citII
distrid Q$ _11 as In IhiIlpCclJic ndghborlrood. TIrl, mailer "'10 be 1pCC/flca1ly
t1Jldru6ed in 1M DEIR.
The Norlh lAks project lIS described in this Inflialllrldy lPOuld be 1IfttI<<1fplDble in progrusive
communilia. Although iI rqoru thai GIMlIN rmttIIiztllion will occur IlII'ough",. ,., no TtJIionDl .
justification exUt, to IfIJ1port this. 1ndMtJ. through"..""",.1IIDI16 by the JlI'OIcI. JJ1'Ol'DM"IS owr the ptlIt
sewn yetlTs, the key objectiH is to dlmintlle a bllgbtld"""'borhood mul d1$p1'P ft.r ~,1IIDStIY
minority population. MUNI clahnslt 1fIMSI hiM I. proj<<:l ,." ~ the lItDcUnl F.... ~
;s localld... The Bare'. F..,.l""asI1uctrn is.locatItl along lhe Lytlc Cred Wtlfh, wIrlch ;.,
public property. and 'WtIIIld not 61. ~ of l1li atIIbll.rhltl co...."", Q$ "" pt'OJ1l*llIOCGtIoll. Abo, 1
am perlOlltllly anpred by the obvlou ~tItion of the procus by aIISWI'ing any #rloIII public
COlICBm about I. project by Slaling.1M J1I'OPOI'd proJ", is only a "C01fCfI/1l. .. '17riI "concept" hIlS bun
moY;ng loward.r reall/y wilhftw chI1ngu in Us lfllgaltN Impacts for .snell JClII'I. The COIIIiIIIIDl ",.,.,.,. 10
it being Q "corrcepl" Is clearly a decqtiN ploy. SiIIIilarly, on tItH:tI1MnI p. 9, ptlI'DgIaph 2. It Intlit:Gtes thai
Ihe consultana have irIclut/ed I~ rept1I't$ thtItll*iJktdly _L U8G "COIIfIIDI1IIty bpII. "11Ie DEIB
must Inelllde tlJat cmrutrIIIIity input New- II ccrtain()I ",,'t in lhe lnitlallhldy. CIti#Iu. are protcctMlftDm
unrellSonable .I%IITU of propG1y.
30
5.18
(cant. )
5.19
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments .
Response No.5
Please note that Comment Letter #5 does not indude any comments that are specific to the
adequacy of the Draft EIR, as the commenter has resubmitted a response to the Notice of
Preparation. However, an effort has been made to provide a response to the issues identified
(see responses below).
Responses to resubmitted Notice of Preparation comment letter.
5.1 Comment noted. In addition, the comment appears to focus on project impacts to police
services and the City's "Beat Program: As stated in the Draft EIR, based on input from
the City Police and Fire Departments, the North. Lake Area project would not result in
significant impacts to City emergency services. In fact, the North Lake Area project is
anticipated to result in a net benefit/reduction relative to demand on City services.
5.2 The proposed water treatment plant would allow the treatment of water for potable use.
However, raw water from the North Lake reservoir could be conveyed from the North
Lake reservoir via the Base Line Feeder, a raw water conveyance line, or via the H
Street Storm Drain. Neither conveyance method would require treatment by the
proposed water treatment plant.
5.3 Please refer to Section 3.0, project Description. As stated on page 3.0-15, the change in
elevation across the site of 40 feet translates to a slope of 1.41 percent.
5.4 Please see page 3.0-17, which-states that the "slope. at lake edge [would bel no steeper
. than 4H: 1V (4 feetofrun to1 footaf'riS8): Tr,~~wOUklb.t::vetTshallow; resulting
in a changaof. elavation. of only ooe.:footJor every. fourfeet-ofitorimntaI. chc:n ~
5.5"'" Colllllltnlt-noted;Who will pay fOJ"a-proJ.,etlsnot;alC~c:ml~~~'IOt.'r~-WbS"
consKJamct: a& pan- otlt'rEf: ea:'Atitbe!'Proposedi!reS8I'NO.i& is..a.Sa\lMWD:'j)roject..: il 1&, .
reasonable- to-expectthatSBVMWtI.willo-be.res~blEJi.focfunding:reloCatiOlr'adlvitfesr ,
Please refer to Section 3.0, ProjecI:a.u.~ Rri:lddittonat iIlfllall.atiOn of-projeet.
objediYes. project phasing,. ancl tha: agencies responsible for implementing the- North-
Lake Area and South Lake AretFFrojects'; Funding issues will be considered. by the-
decision-making bodies when' considering project approvaL
5.6 Comment noted. The proposect North- Lake Area project entails the construction of a
regulating- reservoir-and propo15t:dI.,.db.y.$.,PIII"t1t activities adjacent to the reservoir; No
new pumps or pumping activities> are- proposed- as part of this. project. The ploposed ,
project is. a regulatmg reservoir that.. wouId- receive water from existing pumping.
operations that have already undergon&environmental review under CEQA.
5.7 Comment noted. Please- refer to-Response 5.6. For additional information on hydrology,.
please refer to Section 4.6, Hydrology and WaterQuality.
5.8 Please see Section 4.10, PUblic. ~and;.RisJfof Upset, for a discussion of impacts
andmiti{ydinn~lja:m:. relatEKticY~cotltan1h'JatEKt:soils onsite.
5.9 P1ease"see"S-ectlon~4.9", POpulatJoni'andiH<<.tsing, for additional informatiooOO"thIs-topict-'
This. section identifies that the- City of san Bernardino currently has a vacancy rate of
City otSarrB... .... dlllo
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
31
Febrtl811 28;:zo# "
SCH No. 2003121150
. -..
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Rnpon.. to Written Comments
Response No.5
11.05 percent, which is much greater than the ideal vacancy rate of 4.0 percent. New
housing would not have to be built to accommodate the persons displaced by
implementation of the proposed project.
5.10 Comment noted. Please see Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Action. This
section contains an analysis of alternatives to the North Lake Area project that include a
no project alternative, a larger lake alternative, a smaller lake alternative, a storage tanks
alternative, alternative sites, and the Vision 20/20 plan.
5.11 Comment noted. Please see Section 4.9, Population and Housing, for a discussion of
displacement of persons and businesses associated with the implementation of the
proposed project and a discussion of the potential burden of the proposed project on
low-income families, seniors, and minority populations. No population would suffer
disproportionate impacts as a result of project implementation.
5.12 Please see Section 4.11, Public SelVices and Utilities, for a discussion of impacts to
schools and the number of students that would be generated by the proposed project
based upon the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Irnplementation of the.
proposed project would result in a net reduction of approximately 228 students.
5.13 Please see Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, for a discussion on the risk
of seiche associated with implementation of the proposed project.
5.14 Comment noted. The financial feasibility of implementing a project is not a CECA issue
and does not need to be considered as part ofth8'environmental review process.
5.15 Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics; Ughram:tGlaff1!i fora discussion of the impacts of
undeveloped land. Mitigation Measure 41-1c requires undeveloped areas to be'
stabilized with landscaping and maintel'la..C8 afthosaareas until development occurs.
5.16 Comment noted.
5.17 Comment noted.
5.18 Please see Section 4.12, Traffic and Circulation, for a discussion of the impacts and
mitigation measures associated with construction traffic and street vacation.
5.19 Comment noted. Also, please see Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Action. This
section contains an analysis of alternatives to the North Lake Area project that include a
no project alternative, a larger lake altemative,a smaller lake alternative, a storage tanks
alternative, alternative sites, the Vision 20/20 plan.
City of Salt Bernardino
San Bernardino Vaney Municipal Water District
32
February 28, 2005
SCff No. :tw~l2'ff50:
r J1IIJ rrT~~c 'n<- <<- -"'<"T~-"" 1
","",~,'~'~"- ,
"-~'"
.~' ,.
. "~""---
Comment Letter #6 I.
SIUIIlIm c.llInIa
GII~
Ill.. W. LUIJIIIII-
t.dlllldJ. CA 92JM4720
IUIIInV MMIs:
PO" 3OCI1llC1011
IlIchndS. CA 9237JoOJOI
Ia...
A ~sempra Energy"company
September 20, 2004
City of San Bemardino
Development Services Department
300 North -0- Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
-:""\ r2 ~ rEint;\fl~ill\l'
: il~eo:~tV" .ro:.~~ \1} '--::I
~ ...' -' .... ....
lj')', ':.- ' :'. :: ..
.
~::
Attention:
County Clerk
Re: North Lake and South Lake Area Projects
City of San Bernardino
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-refenJnc: project. PIeaS8 note
that Southern California Gas Company has facirJties In the area wheAl the above named
project is proposed. Gas service to ttlt project could be providIId without 8l'f'/ eIgnJficant 6.1
impact on the environment The service would be In sc:cordance with the CornpIrIy'I
policies and extension rules on fBe with If1e CalIfornia PublIC Utlties CommIssion at tht
time contractual arrangements are made.
You should be aware that this letter Is not to be Interpreted as a contrac:tuaI
commiIment to serve the proposed project, but only as an InformatIon8I service. The
availabHity of natural gas service. as set forth in this letter. is bated upon present
concIIIions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a pubic utiIIly, The South8m
California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the CalIfornia ~ U.... 6.2
Convnission. We can also be affected by action& of federal reguI8tary agencieI.
Should these agencies lake any ectIon. which affects g88 luppty. or the cOllcltlons
under which service Is available, gas service wiD be provided in eccordance with revised
conditions.
Typical demand use for:
a.
Residential
SlngIe Family
Mulli-Family 4 or less units
Mulli-Family 5 or more units
(System Area AverageAJse Per Meter) Yu!Ix
799 thermelyear dwelUng unit
482 thennslyear dweIlng unit
483 thermslyear dwelling unit
6.3
These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by
Southern CaIifomia Gas Company, and it shcUd not be implied that any particul8r
home. apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy.
33
-1!1111'~.~" """
"",, "-",,~. ""
,," ,,"
b. Commercial
""" --,,""- -
Due to the fact that . varies 80 widely (a glass b~ng VI. 8 heaVIly
insulated building) and is such 8 wide varI8Iion In types of materials and .
8 typical demand fig\n is not available for this type of c:onstrucIlon.,
Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed.
We have Demand Side nt programs available to commerclalllndustrial
customers to provide assistance' selecllng the most effecttve appIIcItiona of energy
of our energy conservation progra s, please contact our Commerclalllndustri81 Support
Center at 1-80o-GAS-2000.
S~~ereIY, )"" t-
J:J,P(ZA- I:' ~111)'.,-:
BryatyWilkie
Technical Supervisor
34
6.3
(cant.)
6.4
~-"T'T '1 ..
,"' "'~"_'~~0_"
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No.6
6.1 Comment noted.
6.2 Comment noted.
6.3 Comment noted.
6.4 Comment noted.
City of San Bemardlno
San Bemardlno Valley Municipal Water DIstrict
35
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 20031211~
nr
Die-la-11M .1.... .,..cITY GF SMItlBAlDllO .....,IIG IIEPT
....v..~v. .v... raa .&. .at ~ ~
IlIUI4IM
1-41. P.DD1/DD1 '-lit
III DOl
Comment Letter #7
.'
~-P"""
..-.hi
NA1IVi MERlCAN HERITAGE COMMlSSION
..~... flClOIIItM
..,.,. iQ,CA....
.....
----,.
0CICIbIr 15. 201M
lit. JolIn ....r
car ar.........Ino... SIn IIInIIIlIIIOVlllWManlalpllW'8lllr DiiI*t
3CIO *""11' BL
SIra "_6.... CA _18
RIa: DE!IR; NldI.....A.-&SauIh ...,.,. PrDIlll:Ia
SCHlallD31211SD
"-'Mr. HolIJIr.
n.ntyau..... ~tD ~."_.""'IelIlliDl"""'MI'& 1heCOllnlilPln
..... to perfoIm.18GClnI 8llIIdl 01111 SIcftId .........I:lr lie ....._1Ihich falldtD IndIc:n
the ",.RClI afNalh.An_Il................ in 1118 it... ...,.,....... 1M' * fII
...............~...............IlIIlW r1 .. t ...,......11 it
......_oa.__......... _ _ ............." ......... 11' -.......4
/UllMn1ftll. .bod*--
I!II\'_ 81IJC.......lIt,...._........,tlJ.......1L J1 ....111 n I ~
."'iu"""-4.11 r -1i.""MI,]1Li . ",lIurlll ~.J. . 1 I.........
1W1~ r ..,.".....___..M..l.I,........... -.......11 1 - .afa
...l..MU..~J.J~.;. -~I. . 1 -r II lilt... . . '~JJU"'"
:::''':'.~l';'':r - ~11. ,:. l'n... ~~l:~~ I'~~="';'';'''''''
oW ~"'IIIIe."""",,'... 11'.. _.H' 1fT........... -_oil
tIlIt,.~:.. ...._1. I. . I 'I-f- - T 11.1 I'M.
~~~~~i4.lfi~:'
.-__._~ ...,,"..- }}__la......._...... u -.. '"
"III" - ..................r L.
~.
~:!!l~
FR.. --=fJ
cc: SIIIliI CIIiIIW--
36
..
7.1
7.2
T.'J
li <<<-,
" "-'-"~
Dtc-1H111. DI:II,. FrarClTY OF SM 8EIIARD11IO PIJIIIIIIIG IlIPT
...........w. .....A.. .~ ."u ,,'III. ....u ..."
....I4I1IIlI
T-4OI p.DuzlDDZ F-133
IIIUUZ
J
.......~CIII CIQIIIfa1W&
S8n .....-idInD c::oa.n,
~1"2004
Moroogo 88nd of MlulOn Indint
BriIlW. WIIIon. CuIIunII Flu -ural CaoIdInatDr
_ N. ........ -,1uiI8 C C>>I....
B111f1ing , I CA D2220 Serrano
Il!!:"
(IS' '...,,,, Fa
$1111 FemlII1lIo BlInd rJ MillIon InlIIaIw
John V......... ChIIIrpersan
P.o. Bax 1It838
Newb8JI . CA 91122
~;
181.. Cell
....'03 Home
Femllldello
T*JfIJn
......10
V8ftJUIIIB
~
San _l1li BInd 01 MlI.ion Indl.ns
D8r0n....... a.IrpInan
PO 8ClIC 26B Serrano
Patlan . CA __
San MIrIUIII Band of UiIIIan ......
~ BrII1ty, CUIIurII.......... CoQ.,r.&....
P08oK2W 8tltanu
P-.n . CA _
"*_.._................ t
14 - - ........_.
..............._...-:1_.. .~w:-.......
~~~'I:.\U~~~.~~tl:..i-1J11 ....lfltr..... ~..A
37
___r'.'."'.,'
,~'T'''_'_
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Response to Written Comments
Response No. 7
7.1 Comment noted.
7.2 Comment noted.
7.3 Comment noted. Please refer to Section 4.5, Historical and Cultural Resources, for
mitigation measures to be undertaken if any archaeological resources are discovered.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
38
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
17:1.' ~.
T 1'''1" u,
. .......
ATTACHMENT A
ERRATA TO DRAFT PROJECT EIR TEXT
Changes to the Project EIR are noted below. Shading indicates additions to the text; striking
indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0,
Responses to Comments. The changes to the Project EIR do not affect the overall conclusions
of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and where appropriate by
paragraph.
NOTE TO REVIEWER:
These errata address the technical comments on the Draft Project EIR, which circulated
from September 7, 2004 through October 22, 2004. These clarifications and
modifications are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than identified in
the Draft Project EIR. Any changes referenced to mitigation measures contained in the
Draft Project EIR text also apply to the Executive Summary in Section 1.0 of the Project
EIR. All mitigation measure modifications have been reflected in the project's Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
4.4 GEOLOGY. SOilS AND S~SMICITY
Page 4.4-12, First Paragraph
This SWPPP shall address all phases of Project development including demolition, excavation,
and construction.
8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Page Corrections
CO-LEAD AGENCIES:
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
James Funk, Development Services Director
Bernard Kersey, General Manager, City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Mark Lancaster, Deputy Director/City Engineer
Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner
Robert Eisenbeisz, Senior Engineer
Tim Porter, Engineering Assistant
Stacey A1dstat, Assistant General Manager, City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department
Maggie Pacheco, Deputy Director, Economic Development Agency
Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., Independent CEOA Review
City o.f San Bernardino.
San Bernardino. Valley Municipal Water District
38
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Program EIR
Errata
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
1350 South E Street
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Patrick Milligan, President
Bob Reider, General Manager
Randy Van Gelder, Assistant General Manager
Samuel H. Fuller, Assistant Chief Engineer
Raymond Brown, GIS Coordinator
ApPLICANT:
San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority
Clo City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
201 North E. Street, Suite 301
San Bernardino, CA 92401
John Hoeger, Project Manager
Gary Van Osdel, Representative of Management Committee
Timothy Sabot General Counsel to the Applicant
David Gondek, General Counsel to the Applicant
City..of.San.Bernardlno
San"Sern8fdlno:Valley Municipal Water District
39
February 28, 2005
SCH No. 2003121150
-" ,-'^ ',<"< ,-.,
ATTACHMENT"D"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
CHECKLIST
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
SCH# 203121150
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes
an environmental document, which includes 'measures to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects, the publiC agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This
requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The
reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. the attached Mitigation Monitoring
And Reporting Checklist has been prepared for the North Lake Area and South Lake Area
Projects. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification
that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are
monitored and reported. Monitoring will include 1} verification that each mitigation measures has
been implemented; tlon of the actions taken to mpl each mitigation; and 3}
retention of records n the NortH ke Area and South Lake Are file.
This Mittgattor'l'" .
also. allaws:thli CIty of"
flexibility and': d' d
proceduraawil~ .to
of de.\IOf~c:ftb~ n -
implementecL i /
Reporting-consi*dt~eeteBlisfling a
generally. involvel!::tt&foIlowing steps:
ingirnpJ~aNt .
. The City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Valley Municipat-WatBulJimid: - ,
distribut&reparting.faansJo. the appropriate entities for verification ofcompliane&", -
. Department/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the--EIR. whictF~'
generat baekground information on the reasons for including. spedfied;. Itdl~~JH_
measures.
. Problems or exceptions to compliance--will be addressed to the City of San Bernardino
anctthe-5af'tBemardii'lo Valley Municipal Water District as appropriate.
. Periodic meetings. may be held during the project implementation to report on
compliance: oflllitlyation measures.
. Responsibl&partieS" provide the City of San Bernardino and the San BemardinoNaUeY"
Municipat Wa.tIP District with verification that monitoring has been cond'~anm,
ef1StJl1:f.. as- appltcabte;- that mitigation measures have been implement~ ~~~,
cornpiiarn:e: may be'documentectthroU9tr existing review and- appro\/at'program-s~as.
field inspection reports and plan review.
City of &In ~._Jmo.-
San BemardinQ. Valley Municipal Water District
0..............,,13. 2O.Ol:.. ,.
SCHNo.2031Ztt50
1
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Draft Program EIR
Attachment B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist
. The City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District or
Applicant prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an
annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts.
. Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or
conditions of permits/approvals.
Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Program, if required, would be made in accordance
with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City of San
Bernardino and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. Such changes could include
reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, program redesign to make any
appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures
subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. All permitted changes to
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must satisfy the requirements of Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
December 3, 2004
SCH No. 203121150
?
1'- r~
ill a;
E.e
'50
Sga
:;e
.....:e
o
c-
;;.
'a
e
III
ga
e
;:
.s
c
o
2
e
o
J:
III
ga
=
j
~
-e'
0..
aI
G)
<
G)
~
aI
..,J
,c
"5
o
(f)
'lJ
CO::
a1-
a1w
~~
G)ga
~o
Il' ,',
:i 1St
Zw
0(,)
~~
...-
z....
wA.
22
;:)0
(,)(,)
ou.
cO
u.Z
~~
0(,)
:-
...!k
wet:
2W
>
...
Z
w>
2(,)
Wz
(,)w
et:c:I
~c
Z
w
C)
~c
et:o
0-
...et:
-w
zA.
o
2
Z
wO
....1=
~~~
~III~
A.2A.
(I)~
~A.
!
>Oil)
~~
g~
-uu
aI G).-
:J 0.:iS
.!!! II) :J
> .5 0..
>0
.0
e l!!
.2 ga 0
_nc13
al C1i'- G>
:J o.:s! C-
.!!! ~"3 ~
>._.0_
-
c:
coG>
a1cE_C
(f)'6 0.1I)~
_'-0\1)"""
OalGj.!.!..::;
>oE>~>
:t::G>G>QllD
UlDC(f)(f)
-
C
coG)
alcE
,^ .-
w 'lJ 0.
_'-0
oalGj
>oF>
:t=a;Q)
UlDC
- 'lJ C
.! 6 fa.2
Iii:;::: -13
Cl!!!Cl:J
c: m.6 -11)'-
.- 0. 'lJ
Se!!!C
C o.Cl8
. 'lJ C
QlCCO
...0(0-_-
.-.- U
III iii ci 2
Cl'-c
.5 II '6 Ui
se!!!C8
Co.Cl
C
o
.- '-
j~
1Il_
88
C
o
.- '-
13.g
~g
6 C
u8
W
et:
;:)
(I)
i5
2
Z
g
c1
j:
i
Ql-Ql"l::-=Ql- I QlQl
.o,! 2'iiS';;.o.S; .~.o=
C~QlC-'lJ _
1ii~.s:~iIi l!! (Q_ 0
W'i'iiill)al~iCl .]!~
~ eC:G)e!eG) lflllll;
III Ql.o -- :;::: E
(Q-21E -eiJ "> .;::
#nQl o.=Calu '-G)G)
....lii _all'! .- 13uo.
Q al5-ii~Q. alC~
Z Cl'6'W .~.- 0. .!! :5
<c.5 I'll ~i ial C
Cl ._ as _ .2 'lJ
!:C~g .=aE iIi 132~5.!
<l' J::~i3euic _'celii
-6>ooB-~0 ~ialc
..J'_~r.1Il - 8 !o.'lJ 0
13 -.;; -- ..,Ql'-
u):J 0==!>'lJ IIlC13
O-=al.oO_1:~.Cl 'iij:J
_II) .ell) Ql;;IIlC --=
WI- 6 j .2''lJ 0 8- ij fa '5 -8 i ~
O._G>co,-'lJ-c E8
::t: II) C al - 0._ -
l-
t/)
%!a1
-
I
... -
~~
.0
-
I
-
~
>0
.0
C l!!
.2 Cl 0
1U 1l .5 1l
~ o.:s! 0.
._ III "3 III
>.6.0.5
55 -~
E ~8.
e UCl
"3~i.5
cr" :J:s!
Ql~IIl-
a:: J2 .!!! .s
-
C
coQl
al C E-C
~~t~~
~E~~iii
C3~C~(f)
~
Ql
.:; III
G)II)
i8
- '-
0..0.
C
~
iii
f/)
C5 ~~QlCl ~ ~ ~~~~~~.8~.8~I..6
.0- ciii 0. B:J e~llIJ:: ~8' liio'lJ
~Z~~=~Clc5~ ~1lI~~S _~=~
_C U allll a1_Ql 0. QlG) D::i\iG)
g~~~~i~ij~~ ~t~~5 i.~3!'1
G)ec5C:II)-.!!~~ .5 :5~c.9i ="3li! .lflJlZ
~G)€~im1UiiiEel m~iQl~~C:!M.~~~
,c=~Ql.olii.s G)o.= -=1!!i.ollm~ ."5-Cl
II) ~II) .6G)=i ~x_="'_o. 9.o~c
--II)-a1 E - CUQllllal .- - .=:-.
10mQl,ci 1i1ii~ iii_1i~c:5-iii~I-a~!
G>>O...=G)o.,cu,c,c ~i\iIll_~QlQl.!!:J~;:J~Ql
o.faal>o~~~.6~IIl_ aI IIlfaa~.o~:J~~
_.o..,J > ~ u.. III c: c: - al--a Ql_1t) Ql .!=._
Cl,-al(Q Ql = a1Ql Qli-o.llI ~-=IlI-fI)
t:llt~~~~mi~il~I~~I*~~ci~j
'-QlE Z == 15QlQi_-a.5o.J:I ...nili!eI.6C5.
Cl~ ~ Ql Ql.oiii > Il >Jg fa IIl.S all ~ asS & -"3-a
~~~~==~=8=~~~8i~">EE:i !ifa
u
-
I
-
~
aI
N
I
-
~
~l5
o-
N_
.N
M_
-M
,-0
QlN
.0.
EO
BZ
G)J:
CU
(f)
M
u
i
is
..
.!
III
~
ii
c-
'is
C
:J
2
0>0
.5,!
1!ii
Ill>
Eo
_e
ID-
el!
ele
--
OlD
,a.e
-Ill
00
Zw ~l5
Ou
... ~~ 0....
CDU N....
ECD _N
...- M....
.c.c Z-' .... M
uU wo. ...0
Sa! 2~ .8~
CC .5 :)u EO
1: ull. BZ
0 go
Co CD:I:
~ cO
en
'0 II.z '0=
c: 00 'EBe
. c~
a! ~c:8.
c: Ou
1::: ~!!; Q)IIlOl
S .!: i c:
wit ::l 11I'-
'E :EW lif'- "
... l!!
0 > ~.EOl
2
c: ... ~
0 Z
; w>
.
a! 2u
; Wz
i Uw
Itc)
~~
Z
W
c)
!:c CD '0
1t0 .J::.
e~ c; B Ol J!1
....c:c_
-w ...1Il-e
Zo.
0 .2ie8.
:E o...!tl a!
~
Z
wO
af~
-...~
~z.~ c
OW ~
o.:Eo.
(I)~
K!o. > ( )
lX1
! (/)
:5"" g.Ol'" Q). ....ci ~'OIIlS'O'Eiii Miii~~S'Oil U
.~ c: CD .5.E:5 CDi -
III 1IlC:=~ =- 5'-- .J::.::lCD isC: t 8. a: ~j ~ III tiE i
CD IIl'SiPS 0 i .'5, iil 1Il.J::.!!l CD
g ;W.J::.S~:2::lllll I"
:ciii=....J::. a .~~Ol 0. Ol III .; .~ 0. iii is
;'C:" 1Il1ll:l:l III .5 ~~:.asil;~~~
"e' 11I$ ._~ III " Oi~ifii-g~1 E e ~
0. - -c:E =0. l!! - :E -- .- C:,,~~ C:'" I
0.. EIIlOOlIll.c eECD j S ~'E t i 5 fii ls.y i ~
III E c:.5c.::l '-.0 Ol .!!i c.;CDo.2_1!
~ W 8 "lIliii ~_1Il o..CD-.c .J::.;":o"ia;- 0.._ C:,,-_
It 'O.!tl=- > :-iii- -::l - CD :0-111I-
:) >- ::lC: e CD.J::.O 'E" 11I11I Q)'ii) ~ uic::5 ~ 0 i~~~.e!il~S 'ii
CD ~ e III g'.o CD .8 0..5 :5 III iii CDc~ C '-ellllll - Co
~ e.-CDE 0.,,11I1> .s Q)-g" Q).c CD . 15
III -fl$ i:5%-IIl'S ~.. e III . c: (/)a; E.8 _lIli'E~ HiS!-'t }i
...J :E mOIllIll~8.8 ICDg,BS 'E
.J::. $C:13Slif~ .c'Oi8: ... - 0 .J::. . I- -Ill S.J::.! ::s
- Z .- .- c: E'tJ ls lB III I- '5 8.i~'" >-i Ill=- .~€ ::E
::l c: Ill(/) ~
0 0 .J::. 11I.- C:-6 s; ~J ~ g i:e.s~ ~'i.8 s ~ il) i.sl'i 0>0
(/) !i ~.~~~lOlIll~;ES C:CD
'tJ ::5! ~ c: :-lllOlls III III 0.:....- c: CD S!' _.J::. III o.E - iii ii
c) ~ N " g.-.o _'- ll'8' c: .S!' ~'5=.o~" iCD
i~ ~ .!'3'IIi!E i'l ~ ~:i.E'C:= ls c:- .::T=... = CD .!! CD ~!!l~ic7J.5iE!a:~ ->
IIlW i =.c"'i'2 ~=E~o.e ~ .!! o..~o>IIlE=-o.c: Eo
eE IIlCD..e b> ..ei .IS
.J::. .J::. 8 0. E CD .t! O'~ CD .
<(l! 0.... CI) U)....m ~ ~ . . c:'E
CD a! .-
~O fl)E
.0 .....
olD
~ ~c:
o -( .....
rc .,; ul
~ -
.~
E.c
'5u
i~
8.
!
-g
III
CI
C
1:
o
-
C
o
:E
c
o
;=
III
CI
~
:E
~
Ql
.~
a..
111
~
Ql
~
3
.r;
:;
o
rn
"
co::
111-
11111I
19E
q.t!
QlCl
~o
~5l
--
Zw
Ou
~~
I-:;i
ZA,
W:E
:Eo
::)u
8&&.
cO
&&.Z
8~
:z:U
I-~
wit
:EW
>
I-
Z
W>
:Eu
Wz
~w
o~
&&.
Z
W
C)
~c
Ito
eO!
-w
ZA,
o
:E
z
~o
mi=
ii~~
~w~
A,:EA,
CI)~
~A,
I
~ -~
Eo Ql
Qlo.
l!! UCl
._ Ql C C
&:5 ~:2
Ql ~ Ill':;
a:: .e .!ILc
-
~ -'~
E o~
l!! 5Cl
._QlCC
::::1:5 111'-
C" ::::1:2
Ql ~ Ill':;
a:: .e .!l .c
C
coQl
I1lcE-o
rn:o 0.1Il~
~'-o~
o 111 Qj.!i!
>-E>~>
~ Ql . Q)I:Q
Ua:lornrn
-
C
QlO ·
.r; E
-;5 ~1Il
- C o~
~ 111 ~ E
.g ~ .! c..
o...!I!'iij.S 0.
-
C
.~
is.
~
~
::)
!
:IE
z
~
C)
i=
i
Clfli.'iii1:1i"ls.lsS
.5 ..c is a:5 i II) :2 V c
:2:e~::i 55Sco
~!.~ 8:c:iS:E'? S 111.
ellll1lC ~;:- a
'5~ -g'E"as:g<i:!
I1lcl1l..!I/)E 110.
.uJ!!,E'E-. .-!!1Il
u~o.".. - .c'-
c.E .a:l: 111 ._"C_
111 a':; ::::I.clll C
::::Igc.C.{ ~ ..
-:g :;::: ~.I1l.c =-is..! ~ ~
.- .r;.rn 111 '"':e
. Cl:5 _ .c ~ 0.
Ql : o'iii",I/)Ql= Ql
.r;:5 ls .r;,s -,=11108-
- ~,,_~1Il "iSi- ~
0.".- ~c 0.
o ...,.,. lit 0 111 CD 'i- -
- Ill.! = . ~ I/) _ Cf'2 55
~..- IIlB~CDCi50
~ "E:5c .~:;:::-CD
.52 E. .c Ql _ ..... .c .il '6'
~ 0. 111 ii 0 :5 c m M ~i III
IIlCli"
...._ '= III
i: I/) - ....-
::::Ii arai.rng
1Il-::::Iirn"C:g
-g~.l/)clijlll
CD ~ :5 iii . Cl_
III · a'C E C 0
- c. C .! 0.:0
CD '-CDO-
'C-'==E--:; ~
.!is.! ~a:l
111 Ql .
E,,".O"C11l
Ql I/) c::::I
.1Il~~011l:g
.~ ~ (0-....__.-
11 - C
CD 0._ " Ql
<<j5.!ClOj.sSJIi
'r_~cEi .-
Ciii=~.c 0.15 E
O.=::::I><::::IQl1:.
Z I/)a:l. III 0 0.0.
III
~
::::I
I/)
111
.
E
C
o
:;:::
111
a
:;:::
:i.
.c
.9'";'
.....
~.,r
.!"
~i
III
C')
I
.....
.,r
.c
C')
,
.....
..t-
III
"t
...-
.,r
>-
.c
III
i!:
cO
.52~
-tsu
III Ql.-
~ 0.:iS
._ 1Il::::l
> .5 a..
-
C
co.
I1lcE_O
rn'- 0.1Il~
_'EoIQ
OCDQj.!i!
~E>~>
._ Ql . . a:l
Ua:lcrnrn
C
C .2
~ ts
G .5
C .r; IIlc
0-
u'~ 8
5
._-...
ts~
.5111
III ~
c-
88
.~3! a~~.!I!:2~
:5ocsj=u:5t!o
o.Uo,9"= "C
:5'E'8,,-C_SC
=:5.-$CD~ICD
1!"iE1P!!0! 0
0. 8- o::ic ~
c ~ ls e-~ :! S <
.52CD.~~Uo. UL.:
l~~~-rn~l~o
iii8.5a::.!! .c:5!
5 CD 'E 'lii _ . i >-0
!:S.5 Ill~.c o~ .c III
. " E a III C o.!l! Ii!:
>:5it!~!:g~~ ~
... Clllc rn ::::I J!!.2::::1 .2
~ -['e-c1J " I.'! ~ I" :g
:) co..o i E mo.. E.5a..
a
Ill:
~
.....
N'
.N
...,r
~~
0....
N.....
.N
C').....
..... C')
~O
QlN
.c.
EO
.z
ldJ:
oU
rn
It)
1)
li
.
a
..
i
I
'is
C
~
:::Ii
g~
l~
fg
ID-
c~
11I11I
U)~
OlD
~c
_III
Qca.
.
, Zw
Ou
..<) ~~
E · !Z::l
s:.s:.
uU wD.
i~ :E:E
:)0
~ g~
8- 00
!
'0 u.Z
C 02
II o!c
ClI
C ~S:!
1:
0 I-~
:!:: WIX
C :E~
0
::&
C I-
~ Z
II w>
ClI :Eu
;:; Wz
i uw
IXC)
f2ce
Z
W
C)
~o
IXo
0-
I-IX
-w
ZlL
0
:E
w~
i~
~!io~
O-!l.
D.wD.
rn.... )
~D.
;!
.l!l
l.)
CD
"e-
o..
III
~
CD
~
III
...J
s:.
:;
o
en
'0
c~
1Il-
IIlw
~E
<l.1!
CDClI
~e
ZQ
~
W
IX
:)
~
:Ii
Z
o
~
C)
E
:Ii
mUlCD" CUl O"OUl w ~Ul=-oEo.CD
t;"l-.~ CD '-1Il .!~- Si cu --
~i~~ ...~ Ji! 8= l!!! :f UlGis c-
~l.)CClI ~~ ismtCllCll m ~~!~
~.e'->- a's 1ijC,,' ~"'O t:E2!oE:!!o
V':J Iii CT "'" R CD ;; Ill:!! ..:;-
C:J _ ~~ ~~ CD..:; CDCD
IIl-O v, 0. .....CS" ClIUl" ~
~E~~ ~: ~~IIlUl=~ ~8.~J =
Ul A~em a~6~~a~iiia~j6Bi
l.) BUl~ClIi >-~~i_~s:.: 1ij ~u
o 0 -CDW C:UlO -Ill
'x - m!: CD~" ill oi ~ v~ s.:!;;-CD ~ CD C 'E" 0
o ... 0 -Ul"C: "cU"'~mlll--.
~ Ullll611l :SOUl:i5 )( .a'so ~Or3CD'i:'
s C:!i!sUlI~~gCDE-mCD~_ ~~i~~=~
cCll~-IIl>-"~o.OW_OEolll=?os:.E~CD-Ol!!
~~~~ _ ~0 ~00~00 ~> ~
" II: ,s c:
~@'~l!!s.. ·
~1Il~a.E
-
~ -'~
E O!
CD 8Cl1
.: . C C
&= !!l:2
"CD 6 ~ '5
--~
-
C
COCD
IIlcE
en .- 0. Ul
o~-i.~
~~~~5
gUaloen
CII
CD
c'3~
.~ Ul
...Ul
j~
0..0.
-
C
.~
t
.
.;..J i.!! l'lf.a! Ii
..; ...L S ~ro i'l i
~ ~ ("i ,=j ! ii I
.Z II ..!l!zca
CD l B ! .~
s1! Ul.~.!l
Ul- ~..",~:S
CII .- J ,.. fi Ul
.. < ca
~ ~Jfh ~ a ~.
~.IUl_6i2':lca
III _ Ti 0 .-=:;:J I I
:eif) >,m!ca'2
~)(15'ci,Ql:SuJ!I
B · .It. . i ClI I .s!. at
...!l :i. Ji.!Il'lf
.!:F !I c :!2'
!~l!~~ .!~
III
<'l'''
NN
-.i-.i
. ---.~"H.
~15
0....
N....
.N
C") ....
....C")
...0
CDN
~.
EO
~~
au
en
ct:
1f;
i
Q
I
!
:g
e
:J
2'
0.>>
e.
l!i
E::
.e
m-
el!
call
01
'Om
~c
ucI
Zw
Ou
~ ill ~~
E.c !Z::;
au wA.
ig ::E::E
::)0
t: Uu
8. ou..
00
I-
"0 u..Z
c 02
lU
ell 85
c
'I: ~ii:
.9 wi2
C ::EW
0 >
::Ii
c !Z
0
;I w>
lU
ell ::Eu
;I ~z
i IXW
0"
u..c(
Z
W
"
Zo
Si
Cw
ZA.
0
::E
Z
~o
lOt:
i5~~
ZZ~
OW
a..::EA.
tn~
I! A.
!
J8
CD
.0'
'-
0..
l'll
CD
.4:
CD
.lII:
l'll
...J
.c
....
::I
o
rn
"go:
l'll-
l'llw
l!? E
<l!
CIlell
~e
~ -
zc
-
c:
CD a
E CD 00
l!? u~.E
.- CD c: 0 iii :to:
g.:5 ~ < i E
.....15:g~C.CD
........._w 0
-0
~3:
~~
OCD
rnrn
CIl'O
.cCllOo
~ u~.E III
-C:Odi=
...l'll<;;: s::
.2 iil H CD t:
'-1Il'"'C.CIl
0.. ._ rn 0 c.
-
c:
.~
C.
~
W
IX
::)
!
::E
Z
o
~
"
E
::E
= .!;i~~
o 1: ...:
c..c"C c:
~ CD[ji~
:g :5i-!~i
a . a ~ i~
CIl i c..lII:
gj III & <i 1l o.!/!
::1._ l'll_.EO:::
~.8=c.a;'E:5
_ "C .clUa;
_ l'll III i' CIl
~Ea; c:'-:t:
~1Ilc:....:80l'll
:;:~C;:::5i.!~'-
E =si~;
.!l!?iS.Z=o:!
<(c;:::::l.=tsrnc:
.c.
,.
N
~
J!l
'E "C .~
~ 'Oc: 158-
CD B.2--0
.!:: CD c:=o~ g>~ c:
::1:5 l'll E.- s:::C
i,-iil~i~16'5
0::: .E .!/! "C c. 0 c..c
~
.8
III
CIl
c'l
o
~
>
CD
rn
~ .! - CIl ... a o.c >- .9 'E ~ .E 8 CIl"C ~!t:: O"g J!! 51 i'g i "C
N .!=o 500::l~ e c-=!01~8€0 8'lU~i
~ 0"6 c: III ~ 5 III ~ 8 - 015 ~.E 'O.la CD "O.........E ~ Ii
III C:E:C:2Z "CO" O..,~CIl:5 =:5 "O.la8"Ol!J:l !..
~ "g -! ~ ~ III ~~:5 l'll CD J!l "" -; a.i sa .9 a Ii 5S i 8 CIl ...! I
= III 0 _ .~~ 'fi 0>- = ~ ~ :5 ; Is a 15"'i C:.2 C liS f ~I =
~ ~I- ~l~I~J:l~C:>-15CDCIll'!!~~~;jlU~lJ:l.9~l
~~~~I15~ii~~lj~;l82~~ifi~~~lli&~
lU"Oc:~ :;::;:!~~"COl'llUUCll5""!CDCIlclll~1lij::lCll.
~E~~5~c~~IIl!~8~!t::~<~~~2~~~~iil~~-!~=!
"C.... OC:CIl"CCIl'-CD l'll a~C)2 5l'll.QJ:l>-CIlE ."ellJoCll
C" i -- 0...._ Q) to .....8.-~.., G):5 lU .r.
.9 III ..J 'E ~ u2 ii :5 :s 1ii ~ 1l 0.E III l!?"g l! N g III ~L~ ~ !Q ~ . 11 a; ..
!..l'llCz _lBOCDCDCD aE~~lU8-.l=ri~iilO~J:l. ~'g
1IJ ,. CJ c: In c..E > :5 a = 0 lIS i "C .c .... III ~ c: c c J9 ~!Q i g
s~azo:5l'llC:8l!?5iic:~~~iii~~~:5C1l:!~::I~o~~J!!~ui
...."ito c."C c: Ow 1IlJ:l"C 1Il..._ .... ts Ill,", c...."C"C= l'll~
..J
o
ii
~ (W)
I C') I
N .(W)
~ "ft~
~g
0....
N-
.N
(W)....
....(W)
,-0
.8~
EO
CDZ
~:t:
00
rn
,...
tS
'I:
1ii
is
..
.s
~
1
oS!
C
::l
::Ii
0>-
c.
ii
->
Eo
.1=
c'E
lUlU
ft).
'Om
~c
_lU
Uft)
,-
~
, , ' .,' "-=-~"
~ Zw (;l5
au 0.....
o. , ~~ N.....
.N
E,c C') .....
'5u liD. .....C')
w2 ,-0
ir CDN
20 .c.
::::)u EO
1:: Uu. ~~
0 80
~ aU
~ en
'tl u.Z _50 j ::!
c 02 ~ -l ~
II Q~ ~~~1555s
CD E 0 -
c au --:lEc CD B CI;g
1: j!:!!; .!:~t i~ ~ .=CDCC:l=
0 :1= lIl'-.c E
- Will: illl' lIl_ 8
'E :lE~ '- .c> 15~~~CD
0 ex:: .e ~ 55 'tl
:lE _._CllIle.
c I-
.S! Z -
- w>- c
II
CD :lEu COCD
:;:; Wz lIlcE-O
i ~w en'- e.lIl~
'E08
l(~ 011I-_
>-E~~>
Z =CDCDCDCO
W ucooenen
C)
~Q 0
11I:0 08C15C1
0-
1-11I: -cc=s;;=
-w ,-lIl'i5l'cE
ZD.
0 .g~e! '58,
:IE ~.!2 CI .c
CIO
Z
wO
~t:
!~~
~w~ -
c
D.:lED. .~
0~
lI!D. 0..
! ~
lIlCD~~~lIlCDCCmOS Clm>- CD CD CD il~~i;iliilfi 1S
e=s= _j!:~CDCDC~.. -
II) lIl_CC 0 ujc_ CcB t
u 1Il0~~~ 2 '-~c~=~~ M~&=~ ~i:::J-15 ~ co. III
CD 8 E:::J -II)~ CD~611l1ll' e. - .c~-7i)CDl 'tl....IQ) Q
"e- cj-~i~r~~ e~!Eu~ ~~:li~ ~c .?:-c- _ = ..
ll. ~~~c~>_8~=:::J= ~CDlIl CD ~CI~ :E ~ l5 ~ 8:8 ~ en III R s
III CD,c 8'11I E ~! III e.~ ~ c! ~=C!) . i~1l~ i U)15.iE III 'E III '51 ! I
~ w iii E'- 8= lIl!.I~~~ 0-
III: ~615jsc ~CDIIl ooio~glll i:l~ 1
::::) U)-8E ~- -8:~-~
CD !fl - ~B-8.!2~CD~~S~ lIl-lIlCD~~e.~1Il Qo8,I~~!gji~~I'5
~ il~~~~_~s~~1Il~1ii:~~~~~ u
III
..J W ! ~.~~ ~ ~* 6!e:i lil is
~ :lE 'i &. - .!a = ~ III CI ~ ! ~ ~ >-~ u.. ~ ~ m > 'tl ~ :I
:; Z _ - -c III ex::c -.-11I CD CD CD ::E
1Il--'tl'tlCD-- - 11I00'- ~'tl~ ..J 1Il'tl. 8.e.iU'tl i
0 0 COOIllCDc_lIl'-c '""-' ~ 0>-
en ~ oe. CDCllIl~~~07i)~~'tle.co= CD_ o .~ ~ ~ [ i~ ~ Ii n:- i _ ~ .5.!!
~ cCi. III ~CD ~c CD,""~c.cCDc
'tl UCDO - - uc III 0=1Il0 'Eii
co::: C) 2.c~!=.!2~.!2~i i >-!illls~~~~~ ~ 0 CD S ~ CD i a t~ ~ ~'i 2
lil- t: -1Il- ~ -~ '- ->
lIlW 7i)-~ CD8'~8'-lIl~>-~_lIl'-~l~lIl~ 8 i!i'['~~~i~~!!i Eo
e E i c~ :5 >15 - ~ . i~ ~ e.CD_. Q)'-'O' ec
8~.!2clll- ~E~Uc,c:::J,c~=~~==~e: m-
<(l! 1I)'tl:::J~.cIll.c 1Il_1Il1ll1ll 0 III III c'E
..J
CD CD 0 --
~o <<ni
1Il '- W
C) III 'Om
1'"? ..... bC
.'
z~i C')C') .v u,
oriori .ori
, Zw
Qu
... ~ !(~
E.c !z:::i
'5u wll.
!g' :E!
i! 8~
0
a- cO
CD
0::
'0 u..Z
C 00
III cfi
Q
C Ou
~ j:g;
.s WIX
C :EW
0 >
::E
C ...
.2 Z
- W>
III
9 :EU
- Wz
i ~w
f2~
Z
W
C)
!:c
IXO
go:
ZW
Oil.
:E
Z
wO
iilfi
~!zi
OW
~::I.a.
rn~
WIl.
IX!
Ul
U
Gl
.~
a..
aI
~
Gl
~
aI
...J
.J:.
"5
o
en
'1:l
CO::
a1-
a1W
~ E
<(l!
GlQ
~e
zc
, ..
~I~~ ~Gl ~~Gl~ CD~CDS'1:l~'1:l~ ~CD ~~~i~~CD~~~I~!!
0..1Il-a1 N5 _CD50 N ~.caaCD5calti ti
~ a10g ~-o ~ C E. ... C .... ~"':-o aCDIIl 0 0) _:::i...J lI:S=
m.J:.1j .J:. =~CD 1-8 UlCl)" Co. ill >- 8 !
!:~ ~~ :!~~gs~t~~~~i!~~ ~%~QO!i~~~=i~1Il
~ ; c g I ~ ~ :a~ ~ ~Si a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 :11 ~I ~ ~...J en ..c.~ ':; I
1Il~~' ~~ ~te51~~[go~J i~.<(~ 0 ~iCDt.!!)8~i~
C'1:l 0. aI ~ 0 > 8 C CD III 0 0 Cl a.. W aI 8 c Cl5 ... E g " III CD
ial~~ g~ ~CD -en 1)~c 'E~~oc~ c~I!-OCDdg.ci- ~1Il
N = ... CD ._' aI = .c CD > '1:l 0 - '1:l . aI - C u IXl '1:l a- '3 CD ... CD
5a1> ~. ~ a1~~~.J:.CD~_a1...UlCD~. ~~~a1c~~c~~IIlD5-
_~~ ~g i~~s~~::ltlS~-9g ~CDC~~~ ale ~~lI:~
CD ._._ -E -cIIlO....:.-O' eno-.- o.CD u~CDc5CD .c'
.J:. a.. ,.:. ~ n &..!!l ~ CDIIl 0 'as ~..: C en 'S! ~ n CD - "a1 5 ~ D III III CD
-0..- - ~ CD- -IIlC-- III - ~ .J:. ~CD_ -I" a
Clo..~gioen '1Il~1Il~ o~eal CDa~oen - f:i~a1oN ~~=u
.5;: 'e"- u - C -;> 8'~' CD- .:g ~ a1.- >-.5 C'- - C 0 Cl 0. aI ~ -j...J - III
1CJ)0..~j~i~Sal1)~c!4~Y~I~~I"'i~-~jg:~in= ~i~CD
J!_~~~~m~ ~c~~iB~~i'3~~~~ml~~ 5~~~il~i~
'1:l~O'1:lua::ccc~,,~...a1I1l&.o..oo~~oa::cco..Da!SlIliCD~<...J~~1Il
-
0:1::
c~~
CDcCD
ElIlo.
!~Cl
._ Ul C
~ 11I'-
0"- :2
CD ....5
a::SD
~
.8
'It\
CD
~
-
C
COCD
IIlcElilC
en '6 0. CD
.....~o()
o a11).-
>-E>~
:I:: CD CD CD
OlXlcenen
~
CD
'S;
CD
... III
III
~8
- ...
0..0.
-
C
.~
C.
~
W
IX
:::::l
~
:E
Z
o
fi
C)
E
:E
D
....
I
.
~
aI
,.
.
~
D
,.
.
~
.!!l
C 't-o.~ C)
~ ~ 8.=8
e u a'3
'S! ~~D~
i...ili~CD
a::S~aalo.
-
C
C 0 Gl
a1cE-.C
en'- 0. Ul ~
-~08
o IIllj._
~i~~6i
omcenen
~
'S; III
! III
j~
0..0.
-
C
.~
C.
~
1
~
~g
0....
N....
.N
C")....
.... C")
...0
.8~
EO
~z
CD:I:
CO
en
a
1$
i
is
..
!
~
I
u
C
:J
::E
0:>-
CCD
1!ii
Ii
c'E
CDCD
mE
....CD
om
~C
-CD
urn
CIl oJ
E II
.c.c
uC)
i~
~
8.
III
0::
'1::1
C
III
CD
C
1:
o
-
C
o
::E
c
o
;:l
III
CD
==
::E
tJ)
~
~~
...
0-
al
~
0)
~
al
-I
.c
~
o
rn
-0-
c
al .
alW
~E:
l!
O)al
~o
al~
... -f
zc~
Zw
o~
lie
~::i
ZII.
W::E
::Eo
::)u
8~
u.Z
00
cli
Ou
:-
~!!:
will::
::EW
>
~
Z
w>
::Eu
Wz
~W
00
u.e
Z
W
o
~c
11I::0
0-
~III::
-w
ZII.
o
::E
,-, ,"
~
.~
... tJ)
tJ)
cO)
.me
O-c.
ts
0)
...-,
~
u
. . ....--
al
v:
.-
o
...
IX-
c
Q) '0
E B5
~Q)c~==
6-= !l E E
Q)~0GlQ)
O::,E.!i'Cc.
~
-
C
coGl C
~~[lii~
~....oCJ)
o alGi'~
:>.E>~>
:l::GlQ)Gla:l
()a:lCCI)CI)
C
~
~
CI)
en
~Er~K6~~ ~-l'~ T6~ 'C~~s~~~lS~ ~ w~~Q)!
.!!! al 5-:5 "..Q..5- ~! :5.. li ~ C ..J. (,) :5.e # _
8' Z'2 '0'01: u Sp';sp Q) is.. .ii.!:e ... It:. c-
5i Gl iii~ iG ~3 ~16iiN mrlB~ O)~:~(IJ!!li : 6 ~!~I
C) ~ = m tJ) 3 !if .'Z. O".~ [c _' = .!C ... :S ~ .... ~ 'i.!:r. ! en!l al~ Gl
~5~ Q)E~ -~~E0 wcC.2~alal ~~~~O:: ~ W0~Gl~
:>._ ... q, _ 1ii al C .... c g. 0) 'Qj ~ Q) e "'" .2:t ~ ""'::3 0) :>. III It: .!i I:; ~
~~0Glj~'C~:s~e=CI)Gl~[8'O~~ al oC>:S~ 0) ~==&i~1
5C~-a.o Gl.-->8c"':;: ot>> Q.LIJ 2 mEo 2 ElD.....
_~al ..._ 0al -s O)-c ~ ~~I~ ~... W
~~B-I-~~ 1ll~116=o'O=~~5- E-g~o ~~ 5 ~O-~t~
... ~ 1-'% i al -fi~:: s~a-a:l ~'O -i%:!i ~.e'~ a c ~ ~.; i I- CfS. I
~ as o.s;.5 ii j 8.~ II):;:J.! 5 !.!C.~ 8. CI).g t~.... ~ e. . ~ 5'!C III <..
'C"'II)CI).lBill)'ii~Gl i:g~i'B~mCCI)IIl alEiii 16.!!g~ .U!~!Gl-g
!. -e-e..J::o-g Gl 5 ~~ [-8'&! 'i 1! ;.!!! :>..! ~.! ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ 0 ~ i C) alii i
~~~' ~~'C~a o~~i~~I~8'~~e~Eall~ -~~3.!C -IE !
fgi!tfii~~;lit~_iIl~!~t!tf~~~~ii~il~ff
~
~ %~
~ ~.o
-.t .-.t
II!'
::f'
3.
'::E'
Z
o
i
i="'
~
~
.8
al
Gl
~
-
oc
B.2
0_=...
~iiio-
'c i ~ E
Q. .!i 'C !
II)
I
~
.
,'.,'." ,-.,'
c!;l5
0....
N....
.N
M....
.... M
...0
GlN
,C.
EO
~~
cU
CI)
o
....
~
-
....
I
is
S
~
ii
a.
:2
c.
::r
:E
0>>
c.
1~
E&
I!
c.
cZE
'01
~i
1ii
j
II)
:2
"3
,C
.
Zw
Ou
ill oJ ~~
E. !i::i
z:.z:.
uU WIL
!~ 22
=>>8
Uu.
8. 80
!
'1:' u.Z
C 00
III Q~
=
c Ou
'E: ::c-
o ...!!::
- wet
C 2~
0
:IE
c ...
0 Z
:;= w>-
III
= :lEu
:;:; Wz
i Uw
<<0
e<
Z
w
0
35Q
~Q
...<<
ZW
OIL
2
Z
wO
-LJ=.-
!I!~
Z~
OW
ILWIL
0...l
~IL
:!
II)
~
.e-
0.
lO
~
Gl
~
lO
~
.r:.
"S
o
(/)
~
CO::
lO-
lOW
eE
<(l!
Gl=
~o
(1\,-
ZQ~
:=
C 'PE
Gl 08-
Ii s=
.!::Q)Cc
::1= m.-
0'" ::Ii
Q)!..IIl...
a::~.!eCl
~
-
c
COCll
mcEj;jO
~ 'E Q.S ~
om-i_:E
>.c>~>
:=mQ) a3
0a30 (/)
'0
OSCl
::i.e:=i
O::l~
-Ill-
"'1Il'"
o._CI
0...
~
or
>t.
at
(/)
~.
~
\
'\
~ i ! ~ ~il~ ~ j j" '.,-:. - ~~J~:t~l~ f.'~sff.l .
in -r 15 g. 0 lii . i 8 "0 .s.... _ .2: .!...;..., ~-.'.;.. l$~g..-~: 8 g- ~b. e. f'T : 0
G11.r:....-......::c.r:. E.!e;i!"-iQ 0::115"" tt: ll/) 11 .. V'1SC
~ .= I/) i c S i ii Q) ~ z:. li E 8.. ~.a. :g- a'- .8 >. \IT 6- o' Ill- "aJe,::I
m~ll il! ~:~~ ~l!;~l~~~. ;i....lij..~f ..1., I-l~ ei.Di!.&.tc....&J
~ O....J:oil/)C5(/)8.eQ).6'.2c1i~a; .~. _om ~'fI) ~ l5~ mas~'5.15 -8
=>> m -I/) (/) 8.- ....!e::c 0: -g CI ! Q) -0' III iV' gUm ~ C CD a..E (J E C ::I
~ ...... ...oE- c~;:: ~- C::::-c- . . .~ -a3 mt 13
ii'l ":~IL..s ~.-.- e 1'i_'6 ~.Q.Q).C.!e..c:.2 'lV' oCD. '- CI.j (J ..Si'"S
~ !~~; H~[!; Ui 1.41 ~t.!!tii..'...i~f~ 1: ~ it.~; ~:,:
~ €1 ga~.~ 0 iti= m= a....._aCD13"~tlti~~~J!=: on#~
~ ~ ~I e ~ ~ iti C''l5'o::a:i--i-~~l~5~1.~&Ig...M:--R'ac ::I;ir'i'f' Till.
...~ c-c'
. 0.1/)_.0=
.&J
....
I
It)
..r
. .-
~~
0....
N....
.N
M....
....M
...0
1l~
EO
~~
00
(/)
...... .
....
1Sr
.~,
~
is.
t'
I
i
r
C
~
:L.
'~>r
.=-s
'2.
-:-'
'co
.c::
ID-
e'!
-'"
(l)f
OlD
l;' 1::'
--
(,)(1)
~F_-_____
a, oJ
E CD
~~
uCJ
Sell
~c
'"'1:
8.
!
'0
C
III
ell
C
;:
.s
c
o
~
c
o
:;::l
III
9
-
i
~
.~
a..
j
Q)
~
al
...J
.r;
'S
o
00
'0
co::
al-
alW
~~
Glell
~~
:Z-Q~
Zw
Ou
8~
ZA.
W::l
::10
:::::Iu
ull.
go
II.Z
00
Q~
Ou
:jt
~-
wa::
~w
>
~
Z
w>
:liu
Wz
uw
D:C)
Oce
II.
Z
W
C)
!:Q
D:o
0-
~D:
-w
ZA.
o
:Ii
z
w2
..It-
~~~
ZwD:
o:lice
A.WA.
0..1
~A.
II
W
D:
:::::I
:l
w
:Ii
z
o
~
C)
F=
i
cEci
ooc
~-==e.
._ III j!!
=~
.eu
al al .
-.eCl
1Il_ C
Q)-
III g
Q)E.!!
g-::I .
iii.5 ~
C ...
.- ::I
EtS
o 01 2
- -
C III
:2
III 01
'C=C
Q).e-
:t:: j!! in .
ElIlx,g
=Q)Q)Gl
<,
>-
.e
>-
.e
-
C
Q)
E
e
.- Gl
::1=
i...
o::.S!
III
1Il1!:
co
,g:!:
-Uu
al Gl'-
::I c.:Q
.!Illll ::I
> .5 a..
III
1Il"S
.~ :!:
-tSu
al Gl'-
il c.:Q
._ 1Il::l
> .5 a..
C
coGl
alcE_C
00'- 0. Ill:>
_"EoB>
o al i5 ._ ::E
>-E>~>
:t::Q)Q)Glal
<'''D C 00 00
c
~
Q.
~
CO
alC
00-
_"E
Oal
>-E
G~
~
~
Gl
c'l
~
> III
e III
la8
0:'"
c
C .2
Gl tS
~ 2
u -
co= ~
c."~ 8
...
.9
u
!!!
-
c
o
U
~~~.~~~ CD ~~ e~~ c_~~~i~~I~~ ~ W8
... _ al _ 9l as -Ill as"" ... .g P ::1-'- > as c
::I-Cl'a:~ iil!: ~'O:I ~ iiGl'-=<>>5GloS o..'~ 1-9l.!!
~~t'i~~~~~~~~~~f~ll~~mlu~li !: ~;e
l'CCl~~i\Ec~i~ie~asGl~...~a:: GliiGlII)Sg~ ~j8
~1~~111~i~~~~"'€~~i ~!~~=!i6 c= ~=~
~ii~~B~~!'C;i~~~m0as~~8s~~~la~11~~ ~i
uc.~~=alas~'CCD!C~::I~~~'C c!05E=E::IClJc ~a..a..
'6 ! II) Glla Ib W.r;.r;'c>.! c Gl Gl--.r;,E "E l!! .2 ::ao
-. c II) Gl.i! 5 atll) ::In al al=~:I_ 00 c ::I-816'~ 'CD
~1~~~j~ECl8il~f:~lil ~;~ !18c.ur~~~=
o >j!E8'o'S;~"'!l:.'i~Gl~E~ .c..al ~ (/)G"~(!)O
!11~gllj~ili~!II;l~~I~~_I~J)~:l~Si
c~i~! ii~~~8._tSccim~oEc=c8~~uiiz16$=S!~~o~a..1I)
_~.r;II)_alc....~alOO~-Gl'Coas ~ al ...'0 ~~~~.. Gl
D:
C
>
:l:Gl
It) N
tb ~cQ
-<i .-<i
('I)
I
It)
-<i
:z
-<i
-'__'F___.~-<.-~ '
~~
0....
N....
.N
('I)....
....('1)
...0
GlN
.e.
EO
Glz
~::I:
CU
00
N
....
f
is
..
oS
I
i
13
'E
2"
~
0>-
c.
=e:a
Ill>
Eo
CDC
11-
c~
..
(I).
'011
~c
(,)&
tT Zw
. gu
, !(~
Go
E CD ...::;
s:S: ZA,
uu w:E
i~ :EO
:::Iu
8u.
8. cO
&
" u.Z -~
e 00
lIS c~
CIl o Gl
e Ou Gle.
1: :- UO)
.s ...!: c: c:
WII:: 1'Il'-
::::l"
C :EW III e!
0 > .!!l 0)
:E
e ...
0 Z
~ W> -
lIS c:
CIl :EU Gl
~ Wz E_O
i ~w e.1Il~
o~
0C) Qj .- ::
u.C >~>
Z GlGllXl
W OCl)CI)
C)
~c
11::0
~i2
-W
ZA,
0
:E
Z
wO
...~
~I!~
ZZ~
OW
A,:EA,
0~
~A,
!
~
Gl
oe'
CL
I'll
Gl
<
Gl
.:0:
I'll
...J
s::.
-
::::l
o
CI)
"
c:o::
1'Il-
I'IlW
l!? E
cl!
CDCIl
ije
..
ZU.
CD-
s::.0~
c'" E
Gl Gl
E Gle.
l!? 00)
.- c: c:
::::l 1'Il'-
r::T ::::l"
Gl ... III I'll
a:: .E.!!l 6,
1o~
c-- E
Gl Gl
E Gle.
l!? UO)
.- c: c:
::::l 1'Il'-
r::T ::::l"
Q)~(/)t!
a:: .E.!!l 01
o
o :>'.C:: "
-="Eev c
I'IlI'llCl) 'E1'Il
::::l 0 0 Gl
I'IlOlXl c:: E .0
.- 0'- e.1Il~
E...o "E1'Il.e~"",
Gl'" C1).-....
-:=-'E:>.E > ~>
.1!!1'Il~O~GlGl.lXl
>()()lXlOCl)CI)
~
'j;
Gl
... III
III
16 ~
- ...
CLe.
-
c::
.~
Q.
~
~
:::I
!
:E
Z
o
~
C)
E
:E
1'll.8.1!!o'E.!!!' l5.8l5CD-g Gl-.!! -16I1l~ .CDCI)~~.li:~CDoi-gieJliCD!i
. 16~.!!E '5 U=1'll _ 0113 Ill:: ~0Q.=!'ii='ECL:1'll .Ia..=o
_c:IIl=CI)()o~g =0162-0 ~~~~::::l1 lXle ~2CL-~:>'lXl::::l_.E -l!!illli~~
I'll ,,'ii s::.-. E~ ~ oez _~_r::T0 - m g
~i~~16() a..1Il~:>.~~16~ ~ ~1~ 160 ~ "E= ~i s::.--i
~_s~~o ~~88e.~1i558~~-~ i-8ejidf~l52~~li~~~~l!!I=
::::l-::::l.. .:a.. >~ _ E>.' '.- ue. ::::l() .. III ::::l
iOiO~.!! I'llCL 1'Il1lla..-g~!~CI)E~~_::::l~ i E" s::. 0 u
...~=...~~ ~~1C ;~I'llg-I'll ~x 12~ ~"'.~l!?CDi~_~IIl~~
'E-.!!~ CI)- CD~>_I'll-I'llE~~~~CD"oc::e~CD~~~=~~~cO)
CI) _ I'll 0 CD ...... ~ . > 0 · ~.- - CL. -...... - ... r::T .!i Cllii ·
Wo i ~ ~ e = E c::......!i = CI) ~ S '" ... E ie.' O)'S ()" ~ I'll 0 l!? ~.~ li"~!l a
_Ill 0) ~0I'llg---.8 ~Gl -c::r::T. mE E-- CL=~
~.si ~,gj'~CiSCL:- ~!~j!: ~j:5. I'll~~i l!?i~i~iV~~ md!l!2 a Ii
.0 .elbll'lll5iolll~~~~i ~iV.s~~~'iia~8.~o ~...!~~iEE
:5 l':r~ Ili~j~~o:S~~i~2~tsl.~lol~~~J~ ~
ji~~J~~f~~~~!;~I~~lliiiljl~~'28~~~~I)~i
~
~
<0
~
I'll
'?
<0
~
C!5S
o-
N_
.N
M-
-M
...0
GlN
~.
EO
~~
o()
CI)
M
-
15
i
Q
...
i
II.
u
C
:I
:E
0>-
.5,!!
'2.
m>
.1
111-
e'2
<<Ie
'Oil
~e
_lIS
UU)
r
a. _
E ·
.s:..s:.
uU
.!I~
c.5:
1::
8.
.
a::
'tI
c
.
~
C
1:
S
C
o
:IE
c
o
;l
.
~
;l
i
III
U
.
"e'
Q.
to
.
<
.
~
to
...J
S
::I
o
00
"'C
e:a::
to-
tOW
~E
q,1!
.~
~o
<<!...
:Z LJI
.
Zw
Ou
~j
~..1
wll.
:E~
::>>u
g~
u.Z
00
e~
OU
~!!;
wo::
:liW
>
.-
Z
w>
:liu
Wz
~w
00
u.C
Z
W
o
lie
0::0
0-
.-0::
-w
zD.,
o
:Ii
z
~2
ml-
iiil!r;
zZo::
oWc
D.,::ED.,
0~
WD.,
o::!
!!~.~tO~~ ~i=i ,~ ~~=~~~~ to 1ii~~Q)~~ ~~-~n
.~=~_ ~ !!::I2~ ~ I~~ ~Qe:~ ~ s~-=~. ~=.
~~u e: to"'C ~ "'C 0 ~ _ > lil I~ 0 ~ ~ 0 :2 -5 . J! III iii S i" Q)e:" _0 0.1
to Q) 0 Q) 0 Q)'c CD s:: u.:e"C a.~,C_"'C O.5!-
E ~ ..5"0 EQ)Q)...a:CD. t:J!.-o:=o III ~olll.!!IiS Q)
Q) to'i .5 ~ 16 0 ~= ! a.;! 5 0 >':5 S a:l -'" ,: l!! ~ e: CD.!il III !Is :> !l!
u'" III to 0 -...J .to~'" -...J Eooo;;u::I to.2:yo lIIi4P=
Q)3~::I~ ~ lIIo-o...J~=::E lIIo-o,C.gE ~ Q) ~.2"'C-C .!! 01ii~
'0'::1'" 0 OJ ~- _""" ~- C,)=~1II - ...>> .e0 l::
...-E~ulII~ ..5_to_ Q).5_tO>>~ Q) tOtOe:"'C"Cl!!~ =c =~
Q. ~ Q.e e:Q)e:5o"'C>> e:Q)50Ee: ::E ~U.2Q)::ItO~ EOQ) 0
Q) "5"""-::Eb -cQ)_...Q)u "'CwbotOQ) ~"'C-=~~> .E:5e:-
:5€-a:l~a:l~ 1ii~E~!ei 1iilie:~s:5 ~ ~e:~~Q)-a:l Q.~ i~
1ii~i55I11Q):r: :5Q)15381D =..2LU."i"~i 1; t5~lf6-:5~~ ~~'Oi~
:5 . E Q. ,C 6 "t:: - Iii !! 0 "'C Is. E - Iii !! a .5 "C a. ~. to &.111 i; to '0 ~ .e "'C 1: ar:5
~~~Q)l::Eo-....~~!~tO.a w ~~~Ii~o~.5 ~.ci'~III"'~COIllQ)j ,~fIloco'i
.- E ... " )( a: Q) 0 lB ~ Q) 0 . ...-"'C N ~ - j e: "" -
~8~~~~E~~.i~.(~ ~~Q)i~.(!=-8::1 :~CD~.!Ilj:5~ sj~Ji
a..- Q).....se: Q).!!_Q)e:.s:.e: .-lQ ..:Q)" ...1IIQ) fIl~i1i >;-t!:~
;s~i~~~8.58t~~~~~~8i~~~~~~~~!~liii ~~i~g
w
U)
o
z~
~c:b
~.
-
1: .....~
Q) o~
~ BCD
.- Q) e: e:
6-= !I '6
Q)'-rn!
0::: .e.!! CD
-
55 'O.~
E !.
e BCD
'S~a~
i- iil~
0::: .2.!! CD
I I
- ~ -
e: e:
e:o. e:o.
~,g [III [Li to C;:15,0
- l;; .2 B - !iltO ~
0- Q)'- 0
>>E>~ >>~~
=Q)Q)Q) =e..
o a:l 0 00 --, 0 air.... ,^
)
./
~
'>
.111
il
Q.a.
~
~
i~~~~
e "-..J
~U /
..:::.....:
~~ '--
r
-
e:
.~
~
~
~1
(I~
\~
W
0::
~
~
:Ii
z
o
~
o
~
:i
.e
C')
.
co
.
C,)
C')
.
CO
.
~
.
>-
l!!~
c: ...
to a.
-a.
Q.lll
-
55 'O.~
E Q)a.
. OCD
.!:: Q) c: e:
6-= !I '6
.....0!
0::: .E .!/l CD
~
as
3:~
::E-
~~
OO...J
-
e:
e:oQ)
tOe:E-,..O
00'6 a.;~
llI--o.2:E
~~l~>
= cP. a:l
0a:l0 00
~
"> III
l!! III
lij~
- ...
Q.a.
~
Q)
'> 0
jl
Q.a.
o
~
~
00
o
3:
2
>
a:l
00
to
,.
co
.
.e
,.
co
.
",,,..,~~<=.~
gl5
0....
N....
.N
(1')....
.... C')
....0
.N
.e.
EO
~~
00
00
~
....
i
is
S
~
ii
c.
~
c
::a
::IE
0>-
.5:.1
I;:
i!
c!
.-
fnl
OCD
~li
Ufn
.. oJ
E ·
-,=-'=
uO
St
1::
8.
&
'a
C
III
Q
C
't:
S
'c
o
::E
c
o
;l
III
.~
....
i
~
CD
.~
0-
III
CD
.(
CD
~
III
...J
r.
'S
o
CJ)
"C
c., a::
11l-
I1lW
CDE
.(I!
CDQ
~o
II' ..
ZQ
Tr
Zw
~;
.......
ZA.
~:E
::)0
(,)(,)
OIL
cO
ILZ
00
c~
0(,)
:-
...!:!::
III Ill:
:11111
>
...
Z
III>
:11(,)
IIIZ
(,)111
1lI:C)
0<
IL
Z
III
C)
iEC
Ill: 0
0-
...1lI:
-III
zA.
o
:II
Z
~
!!l~>
0ZI-
~.
H.
0....
~t
III
Ill:
::)
!
:II
z
o
~
C)
i=
i
. iT ......
- ,-,-,~._-,.~~,.
>- "C
.c c
III III
III i!:
c ~o
.2 QO~
a; '2,g '2,g
~ 0.- o..c
III ill'S III ~
5,5.c,50-
c
o
tla
S15
1Il,g
88
~
'E
COCD
I1lcE-O
CJ)'6o.lIl~
-,-os"",
o III Qj._ "'"
.2:'E>~>
._ CD CD CD III
o III 0 CJ)CJ)
_ c
c 0
~ tl
a S
SiiSIll
c3"j8
CD "tT'CIJ "0"" V r.- v Gl ~ .!i Gl Gl Q E Gl .. a; ,i; a'a Gl!Q l:''O Gl -I ~ II .!!
r.Gl~CD GljGlr. III ~~cGl s~- ~ ~~ .
-('01 A Ii ~=jg'O a~.o~ ~i"Cai >-~l!t ~~ ~
~e~e EI~~ E~g~g 8i~~O i~m~~m.c~CJ)j j~l G
III o.lE!: Gl .e. E III 'a := :0;; iii 1Il:O;; ~ ~ III e ~ .c 1 "C g ~ ~ III );
_ ~o E~ _GlIllU l1luo- 'E ~11l~ ~c IV U -
i CGl,..g.i~J!! ci=i-m _~[c.;g CD~ -~ 'g.2~ c~~~ ~
~~~~~i~l1li ~ii~i ~Olll~~ !i80~~s~~i~~ol1l Gl
e ~fitc=r:ugi~~:u~i~:! i~15t~~i~fj~i~~ i
i'OlIllllm~~~s~~ S>-S~iii~J!!~'O iGli~~"CGl~~!~IlI~m
15 ~-g~=, .o8..slEo-8~fi~.slEo-8c~IIl~C GlS-8E!l;:8-m'~,:",>-"CcccO~ !
Gl -m-~Gl -~m~ um-o - CGlam IV~i -
~>-~~g~~>-~~o15iIll13~o~"C~~ ~.s_~~J~~8~IVE'CJ)~~ :
=_~J:l 8 i~,- C i 0.'- C >.!! CD.... u Gl Gl - 000 C 2;:) ~
r.I-Gl:5 ~ ~~5'" E15 ~'SE ~ '0!5 s: j.!: ~ ~Q'!5 ~ g'~ i ~ CJ)S iE' i CJ)~ g ~ =.n g : ~~'cn~ .. ~ S
>~'a~'" 0. ... ~o."C...... 1l1_t:.1Il1l1 ~ 1Il"'~ =00 1i!~-
C .2:' m . . E 01S i
. . . . . ~Di15~~ ~~~
.c
.-
.
CXl
..r
, .".",..~,_.W'
~15
0.-
N .-
.N
('").-
.- ('")
..0
CDN
.c.
EO
SZ
CD~
00
CJ)
a;
~
III
:>
c
m
CJ)
'0
<3
-
C
~
a
g
o
I/"
or-
~
i
o
o
~
CXl
..r
tt
i
a
...
s
~
ii
0.
U
C
='
:E
0>-
e.
l!i
->
Eo
Ole
ID-
el!
--
fl).
OlD
~i
UfI)
lrT'> , "".
v Zw
Q. 8~
E CD iCe(
1--
.c.c z'"
uU wlL.
!f :E:E
:)0
1:: ~~
8.
~ >- '0
" ~z .0 C
C ~~ Illlll-Gl - -
II III i!: C > C _ 0 >-
gI C 1Il0Gl""o. Gl OGlU
C ~~ o "'3: E.!! Ill- E S- C
'C '-OlO Gl ::!:Ill Gl ~ III
0 (jc~u.=i ~ .!O:GlC 0.
Gl '6 '-:::l I- - :::l= Ill.:::l
- wa:: 0.- o.25:if U 6.
C :E~ i :::It::~
11I'- 1Il:::l ... f! "'IIlGl
0 .5 .E .5 0. a: .E I- lS' a: .E .!ac.)
:Ii
C I-
0 Z
:;:: W> - -
III C C
g :EU oGl CCOGl
- Wz C E- III C E
i ~W .- 0.11I3:(1)'- 0.11I
'EoS _'EoS
fZ~ 1ll1i'~::!: 0 IllQj._
Eii iii>-E>~
z Gl ~GlGlGl
W IXlC(I)(I)<'>IXlC(I)
C) C
i:c 0 Gl lS'-
a:: 0 ~
gii! >::!: III
:::l S::: >
...
ZW :5~ ....!!(je
OIL. .g i f! 8:
:E .~ 8 0.1-1-1ll
II)
~
'0'
...
0.
III
~
Gl
.:.:
III
....I
.c
"S
o
(I)
'0
ca::
Ill-
IllW
GlE
<I!
Glgl
':':0
CI!'"
z~t
z
wO
...-
1lI!C
ii51-~
zZa:
aWe(
IL. :E" IL.
(I)~
~IL.
;I
w
a::
:)
~
w
:E
z
o
~
C)
j:
i
-'0
Glc
elll
-
(1)-
CD
Gle
c-
:::i(l)
Gl Gl
1Ilg'
~f!
GlOui
.cGlo.
-=E
III f!
'S; -g c!:
It) III 0
~U)G)
~o.Gl
-E-=
Ollll(l)
C .....,
'iij :t:-o
:::l0....
> "'[
~. "~._."
c ~~
Gl 08-
~ SOl
.!::GlCC
:::l.clll-
cr- :::l:g
Gl"'II)'S
a: .E .!Il .0
-
C
COCD
IllcE
(I) '6 0. II)
-...oS
o III Qj._
>-E>;.
~GlGlili
<'>IXlC(I)
~
Gl
>(1)
ell)
C ~
.!!!...
0.0.
-
~
.~
0.
~
-
C
l
0.
~
afiiV'5uill.$.~--- 0 ., 'i-~'i~,g.'.9--~t~s>f''it..,
e 'i ~t 8":1.. e.,1: IV.-n=S g.~ 'C,g: III i! IV .... i -g ~ E .l'jllg. ....
0._ 8" ~ . 0. ill :;:; 8' Gl~ - )( '6 .::: 1;; CD '0 <<I ai 'E ..
lS'i 6._,~f. 3..0 ,ae'~1)~-g!~ :z:o.~..:j'i'65j S i!' :~f.l.:_o
o.~ ~- i5 8o.II)ii:::l"'1D~-Gl'Cilii>-S II)CIXl ill &1
~:I Gl 1;; i1ji'C ~ ~ '60 II) [e c<'>'8<.>~ E~J !.5 m! C IV'C_ ~II)
"'" m = II) e = > CQ . III Gl Gl E Gl _ o.Qj ! cr - III IV - C .a ii!. .
-II) GlQ. o~ ... .c ..:6.8'0= <<I'S'CiCDmg.!l(l)io-i
e : ... = i!ll a! ~ 8 ~ .~ ~i .8 ~ .51 =i '0 'i ~ en ~i~ as .!!..'iii g
I-II)OO>~- ~,-'E -~~'Cni ~<<ICIll ~OC~ R
.---mlll';;; _w.::: U IV - -- f
~g .o~ ej.fi~ [is lI)-i 5 >l.s ;16'iii<; tD~~.a -
sci ;0&.2',.... iii ell):'~ 1Il!p' Bi5::!:'$Q, lI)i.'E=~:8~2,-.t"t,
c.--...~~o co.~ Gl.....!! w~ .i~~=~g ~i el
~ ~ 11i ~3-;i>y uill:.i-..~ C en :gli~ :l.~ 'i .i..lii. ~ ~ 'i B'; ~t ...8-S:......~
o III a~.e ~~ S n~ B~ II) 'E.!l:l i Ol- e o",,:::l~ 1:11'. '
:.g :2Cl, U , :I:: 6 ._ ~ Gl <<I ~g-Q..5~ - - m Ea.. a
.~ III Gl't Glo!,IQF tle- ~ ~.~ t ~l i ,!'~ ~~'g ~ e.~ CD. 8 g}, i I.
0'Ill.o~5S~~(I)~~~=~C'CCUIXl<<l_8A~~80.=<.>=1 ....
I')
.
IXl
-i
<<I
'1'
1Xl,
..;
.0
'1'
IXl
..;
'"~" "
~l5
0....
N....
.N
1')....
....1')
...0
CDN
.0.
EO
SZ
GlJ:
0<'>
(I)
U).
....
I
.
a
.I
f
I
u.
c:
::t'
~'
0>0
c.
"f=
~
.lC
cf-
tie
'0.1
~c
--
u.
- "1
0'
.
L.
...
E!
J::.-
uU
SaI
C=
1::
o
c.
&
"
C
III
aI
C
'C
.s
c
o
:2
C
o
;I
III
aI
:;:;
i
'"
-
U
G)
.~
0..
III
~
G)
-"
III
...J
.r:
'S
o
en
"tl
CO:
lll-
lllllJ
l!! E
c(f
G)aI
-"0
Ill'
"
~Ql
~~
~~
io.
18
8~
u..Z
00
c~
ig
...!!:
wa:
::E~
...
Z
w>
::Eu
Wz
~w
oel)
11.<(
Z
w
el)
~c
~2
...a:
-w
Zo.
o
::E
Z
wO
il~
Ri5
0.::E:;
tn~
~o.
I
~
:)
~
::E
Z
o
~
el)
F=
i
G)'"g ->- ->-G)
J:l i:J '~l ~; ~
-"iii 0 III 0 mill I/)c
16..(1)
.r: ~ 'fi Q. 'fi "tl !
1/).- G) G)~-
-"tlG) EG) Eijg
ic~.. J:l a)'C'-
Ill-I/) _00
&. g& :QG)C
._"tl'-llli= :gJ:l-
6-~ ~ c.! 8. = ~
G)G) 1ll:J1/)"tl mill
Gj= 0.0 cci G)
.g!ij1/).!5Ec~~cC .
G)~>-"':;::: G)iSG)G)f
Elll't: !!l Ec~E=.s
.90 -s:i!. C '0 .e. Z ::; ,g. E ~o.
6-al e"g&j 06-" 06-<5
G):::iE 0. III III a::: G) 01- G).t::...
.
.
.
='''7~'''''.",'=''='-
~~.,~.
-
C
G)_
E~-
G) ,_ ~
.!:: 0 0
:J Q: ...
i 0.
a:::.e~
--
0'-
c5E
~c!.
, G) !!l Cl
.!:: I/) C
:J.!Q'6
i...=
a:::.s.E
-
C
c:oG)
lllcE
en- I/)
"tlo. ~
_"'0
o III Gj.
~E>~
._ G) G) G)
umoen
~
G)
'S;
l!!
c:
III
ii:
-
C
~
Q.
~
1: III :i (5 I/) .. ~ 18 >- .! ~,I ii ~ .. ~' 5 j i
~ I/) '" 0 G) G) -g 0. icl >-to-~~~ c~
j~.& ~~o~,i~~16o~~! 1";.1
aio~'~ 8_l/)c:l/)'i' ~illl~~~~ !""=~
c:1"tl ...~!~iEi~~i81~"tl :g~J_O
"tlCl~Cl Oc:G)-,,~ g~ J::.c~ !.r:I/)O
~~~'~'~~li:~'OiiG)i~~ii i:~~~
G)~J:l:;:::l!!=I/)Cl5.e.X=[C~1ll J:lE~E
..."tlJ:l'Cl~:J llllllC:=:JG) - 0. u OJ!E
.si"iiii~~lllt~~ii~~~Z~i(5 ~ii:~8
.r: ... ._ '" _ I/) 0. _ ~ ! 0 _ o..r: III III .
1 1/)- ~-1lI -- G) c:- I/)~.-
. Ill. c::J-=- \1IICD G)J:l....-l III oc:
I/)C: lllJ:llllo.O .5i!:> = -0' CG)
c:~!~~ lll~%G)~c:~i -OC:~ ii>!il/)"tlCD~E
:J:JCDnCD 1lI1/)1/)~1lI :J0~1ll~ 0 B~IlI~
1/)1/)=Q)""1lI:2 :J -s:illllll-:s:.~... l" III
~mm ~~C~"glll-gas.!QlllI.sE~jg:i1 ~1lI
I-EE'O""~2!1ll=lllEgE~iiml/):JlllOIll Smo
u
,.
CO
-.i
"tl
,.
co
-.i
, ....~.-....,,,..
~f5
0.....
N....
.N
M....
.... M
...0
llIN
J:l.
i~
UJ:
alU
Oen
to-
....
u
i
is
I
ii
Q.
U
C
~
:I
~>-
-.!!
l!ii
->
ii
111-
cl!
tie
....
OlD
~;
U.
, ",,,,,.
""m'~
Zw ~~
Ou
, ~~ 0....
GI ~ N....
.N
E.c ~...1 ('I)....
aU ZA. .... ('I)
w2 ...0
IIQ 20 GlN
~~ .J:J .
::Iu EO
gl!> 8Z
&. GlJ:
" CU
CIJ
'a II.z -- >- '0
0'- .J:J C
c 8~ CGli Clllll -
III III .~ ~ '05
Q CD (,)
c ECo. ~ f!!0
"C :z:g CDCll~ ClO:!: i 8==~
... :J
.s ~!!: .- III iUl~l~ '3~~~E
WCII: :J 11I'-
C C'.- :2 :J :2 -
:.W CD ....- .2!1Il:;1Il.g l~:lCD:g,
0 > O:::.E.s
:E >.~.J:J.~n. __'0
C ~
0 Z -
;= C -
II w> C C
Q :'u coGl coCD coGl
;= Wz CllcE-C CllcE-C .:Jti ~I~
i uw CIJ '6 0. III s: CIJ '6 0. III :!:
Cll:CI _...o~ _....Q~~ _"'0
Oct o Cll1)._~ o Cll CD' OCll1)
II. >-E>~> >-E>~> >-!> >
Z ==CDCDGllXl ==CDCDCDlXl == CD lXl
W UlXlCCIJCIJ UlXlCCIJCIJ U C CIJ
CI
Ie ~ - c -
c .2 Oc
02 'S; l/I ~ 13 8~ l/I
l:CII: l!! l/I .5 Sc:-~
ZW CD G -2~~E
0A. c (,) c .c l/I
11l 0 0- c :lCDCD
:. - ... u'i 8
n.o. n. ._ '0 0.
CIO
Z ....
wO
...1-
mI-
iii~~ c
0 C
!w~C .- ...
13.9 ~
A.:'A.~ .5(,)
U)W Ill!!!
w...l > ~
Cll:A. lXl ~~
! CIJ CIJ
lS
CD
'0'
It
11l
~
CD
~
11l
..J
.c
'S
o
CIJ
'0
CD!:
11l-
CllW
~!
CDQ
~o
III ...
:Z 61
~
::I
~
:.
Z
o
~
CI
i=
i
&'i12 Cll '0 -g ~ ~ lD ! -g.9 -lD ~ Q) ~ C i& = ~ ~ ~ i&.m == n.9 i.m~ !I! -r!CD S
-Cll~ Cll-==~-~C ~o..c~o ~ . ti !
~Q.'E~~ tij ~~ -l/I'E 0 'l/I!E!ii! l/I ..; ~ 0 o It) '0 ~~_ U
'0 u:J 0 '0 Cll CD c. o~ .... c n. == - '0
_ C ~ CD I C' ~ '0 .!! $ ~ .J:J iii ~ ~ ls. i ~:q, ; ~ ~ Cll .; o.lJ tij ~ =
~~Illi=~= ~~~io~-g~-~ '0 CD ~ ~CD(,) ~i... CDS
~~==~.9l!!~j~~1 i~CllCll~i&!CDtij~~= ~~.5r; ~~i~.9~ I
'O~EtC... Clle - ~c oA~-= ~lii~ OCll:;:JCD -~= ~.~~
C ... .g :g,:~ .E ~ ~ o.'g i&.5 c: ui g - i >-'0 U) E -g -g l:g ~ c7i ! ~ ~ ~ C -I (!)
2$0 - :JCDCDCll CD~=-l/I"''C cCll8sc Cll- l/ICD O€=CCllCD-~
'Qj [!l >- ~ 0 in CI= '5.J:J l/I ~ E tij .E .a 0 CD l/I ~ ,.~. - c % 0 Cll s ! '5i! ~ i
Q.~i&~8~ C~-~ cCDl/IU)~!lii CD& 5It)m~~ cZ=~:J~(/)~
ECD~inCll~!.2!'OS~J CD~E~!~ ~=N~N5~Gl ~'C~:lo. ~~
8 .c - III ~ CD 0. >- _.!/l 0 Cll ~ == CD C ~ ' CD ' ==n. l/I CI: CD >- Cll -
:CiU ~ ~ .~c_.J:J 51g 31'g. CDciUe Gl eq c1 ~ CDc! ~Q. c 55 ~~
.9.es:,g'~lXl~ ~ 55~i~ CD Cl-[~~:l ~~~i.9~~:5 8-= ~ .~ e~~~ Ei
l/I ~ l/I ~ 0 CD 0. E O:J '0.5 0 CD 0. CD 0. CD O.W ... :J CD CD CD! U) t:; 0._ Ill.- i Q
Ij~~ltijl~:;iijCDi~l~~~:;~i-~es=-g~CDE~!~~~~~
n.o.ClJCllo.ClJCllCi~EIll=~.J:JCllc:...Cllie'CCllo:::=olXlCll~=!!!~~l/IeCll~~
CL
o
CLCll
N
CI)'
.0)
....;
Gl
"f
CIO
..;
It)
,
CIO
..;
<9
CIO
..;
15
E
.!!
o
...
S
~
&
l!
c:
:J
:E
II'
li
E~
&-
c:'2
II-
(1)1
011
~c:
url
r'
Q. -
E CD
.c.c
uu
Ig>>
....:e
o
l
"0
e
.
l:lI
e
1:
S
C
o
:IS
e
o
:;:l
.
l:lI
:;:l
i
~
CD
"e'
0-
al
~
~
al
...J,
.r:
'S
o
en
"0
co:
al-
alW
eE
Cl.f
CDl:lI
ile
zc1
" "''''
Zw
Ou
~~
....-
z-'
wA.
:I-!
::Iu
g""
cO
""Z
00
8~
:cg
....!!::
wa:
:lW
>
-
~ 'O.~
E CDo.
l!! 001
.- CD e C
5-:5 !!l '6
Gl"'IIle!
0: .E.!Il 01
- -
C _0>-
CD OCD(.)
E Gl-C
l!! OBal
.-Gl Cc;:: 0.
::J.cal:e::J
g:: iil CD 8
o:.E.!IlOO
....
Z
w>-
:lu
Wz
uw
a:C!)
0<
""
Z
w
-
C
coGl
alcE_O
(/)'6 o.lIl~
_...o~"",
o al Gi .- ""
>-E>~>
:!:::GlCDCDal
OalO(/)(/)
C!)
zQ
<<0
e<<
-w
ZA.
i
-
o
CD
0(.)01
....cc:=
... al'- ~
0::J"Ot:
'C = e! Gl
0-._ Cl 0.
Z
wO
-'1=
Ij!~
zia:
0:1<
g;~A.
1lD.
!
o
~
6i
(/)
-
C
Gl 'Oc
i !.2
.=GlC=:!:::
i~ i ~ ~
0: .E .!Il "0 0.
-
C
C 0 CD
alcE
(/)- III
"00.
_...o~
o alGi-
>-E>~
:!:::CDCDGl
OalO(/)
-
o C
CD.2
,gg=~
... al 0 E
.2 iil E...
ct .!Il -8 8.
i
E
0.
o
l~
CD C
~~
Cl C 1ii III CD CD CD G C ci Gl J=. >'-CD >- al '0 ~ al CD CD ~ al CD CD e 2;0 C ?-.!Il C
.S.!!! Xl:5.o:5:!:::g:>.o - ;: _' .il=. ~:516-.!. c ..s:
-g a.. oi.S >-= 0 III !ll:> 16 ~ CD.c. a.lii CD ...J >- IllS < 1i! C al:=" -n!J
U OllloCal-CDiS:E=:5COCD t: Clllle ~ 0 oC ......en ;ci:5O
~j ~~~i~:S~~OI~!~ ~~:~E8 III ~~~~~j~~"Oi~~~~
--i 1Il.1:5 :::lc"'(/) c~l:; ...J=e l!! ltIOl:; Sill cC')CD ...~
2 is .!Il Xl ~ i ~ III lIl'in. "0 l!! c;:: CD iil.!Il (/) [:=:5 16 i 2' III ..... E iii CD
Il 1~~li!l~~~~i~i.s:~~;I~~81 ~ 1!1~~I~l~ilr;~
::I CD OCD-~ ccl III al 1Il"O- CD 0 CD... CD CD CD CD~~ >a~
~ ~alCo.Cliiialg~1Il -2'IIl~~ijCD~>-~ ~ a..E~':5~' ~~~CCD
~ 0 CDCl.s:~CI)8i ~"O~~i~c :5Cl!~ ~ ClC~ c! ~~IlI! .!a::
~ .r:'O~~~"O<Gi~n~iC;::~CDE~tXl.s:.!H ~~d~~ii!~i~~~CD_OCD
o Cl OIllUCCD,-CDiiio. CD .r:1Il.r:-iS --NtO"'nE~ E~ .....:5c-:5
~ ~jS~~:il.s:~II.!ll.s:l ~~~i~o~~E~~~IJ~.!Il~.!!!~~o~io
a :5~is~e...Jil~ ~~.~~;~~:: oS.cS~ct~;nGii~~;~I=
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ €zO I ~ "11 i I ~ 1 ~8Gl i : i t ~ ~ I ~ E ~ Gia::iS ! ia::Gl ~ II ~ 8 j i 1ia::Gl .; 16
uno. ...a.~ al...,IIl..._IlI"OC;:: 1Il...~......;;>"O..._... Cl. to......:!:::tO...,::J "O:::l
.0
N
I
01
~
(.)
N
c>>
~
"0 to
~ ,.
01 01
~ ~
,--
~g
0.....
N.....
.N
C').....
.....C')
...0
GlN
.0.
EO
~~
00
(/)
01
.....
I
III
a
..
I
~
ii
a.
:2
e
~
:IS
0:>-
eCD
I~
Eo
CDe
ca-
e'!
..6mE
'0';
be
-.
urn
r
.
CD w
E CD
.&;.&;
ut)
i~
1:
8.
~
'0
C
-
at
C
'C
.s
c
o
:E
C
o
;:l
-
at
i!
:E'
n
CD
'0'
...
D-
III
~
CD
~
S
Zeol
-'---, -"" "-'",,","~
Zw
Ou
~~
!i:i
wll.
:E~
::::tu
gl!>
II.Z
00
8~
~~
wa::
:lEW
>
-
c: _
CD Oc:
~ ~,Q
"'CDC=-
,- '0'-
&= ~ E E
CD~tIlCDCD
Q: oS .!Q 't:l c.
~
Z
W~
:lEU
Wz
~W
O~
II.cC
Z
W
~
~
l:Q
a::Q
f;!ii!
-W
Za..-
o
:lb.
~.,~,~,~~.s.e~" ,a,-:- t~~'.,.~Q"ff' ' ... .s..~. lR-. "i-m'." -'fi! ;.:rt;:Jj','t:l;'5 1t.Ei.J1I
tlJ, IU W (/) ,. tIl- .~. _, ,@. '. ,'.. " ~. -Ii =: i.. 16 '2
_.c::.~ CD ~ '~-'i-C" ..J c. -- i1;" J!2~
~,J-s',w &.arlE ~J.r ~ilff~~ ~='E~~'" ~.li~&...J:(/)B f~E't:li
0'0 ar- e-= .' lIT "Cr'. eatS 8 0 ='C'~'t:l! 't:l C J!! ...=
n-~' >. dig 0.. ~ .!rQ) n:- ~ f! t ~ 11.; ~ c. Q)C _ J! Eli) tIl ~ i E ~ ~. 't:l - j
w. ~! &;, ~.~ ~i.e ;. ~ ~ ...::!~.... ! j Q ~ ~ ~ - ~ j cD e ~ ! 1 i i i ~.=
~ ._..e:iiftllil!~Q<Q). Ec.J!;lIfJ!!._i:::=e'c-ai',g_-8CD~'tli.5t1l !Il~E" €
en ~D- f/l ~ Q) Q) CD E: C =: Q; CD# Q) 't:l III III :Ii' III C ... .c III C C-CD tIl 1ii 't:l l:S 0 0.11 ~ lI:
i1 'Ei~lD.s-<...:!;.rg~!;;. c.~'~o.t'li~ii: a=Ul....C a't:l!'t:l i.r&B i tlJ~~~'ii
:1:, CD'c(5"l;;-i~se;.8:ar;:i:t' ~-f~9-ur&"E Q;:I'-~,.i~ liQ: I6,CD, >-CD >~ 5
z- :2< €'8"e'~' ..:..'..J.j. V' i3"-ciWC'CDe~CDca ~., 'C]l2f/l.CD ..c--8~.&; C
Q. CD ~.c.,=.= ,11>-1:-, ' ! -c 1Il..J.!2.. E tlJ O. :0 tIl;;::; tIl:5't:l Q-!D III 0 CD- Ii
J:. III~ . c-1='.....1IJ~ ar&::;"~iCDC.CDUl !';.CD.=.2 .s.g.!l!~IlQ:-Q
~ "i~III~ t ~~'Ji:ci-l,' a'f,",(/)le..Ull~CD.;. .&;....~ ~ !'j ~t;5 'J!!E ~ ~lj 11 ~ .&;....Q) I t~
~ C-='t:l.~CD.!l!~i '2........,2. 8(1)15 CD '1Ilq,'t:l:l..."j _tlJ't:lIll_...C. aJ~f/l
z.- as:l call' i t:l;;.lf''I cD 1::' . .~5' !Ii- CD E '. i: . '-'
~io&~~~~~5 ~~ a~~B~~ . ·
.c
.,.
CD
..f-
~g
0..-
N..-
.N
C')..-
..-C')
...0
CDN
.c.
EO
~~
CU
(I)
C
N
1-.
..
is
..
.!!
I
ii
c.
i3
c~
::r
:E
0>.
c:.
l!ii
->
~g
ID,
C.
'E
_CD
olD
bC
-.
uu)
r Zw
Ou
. ~~
II _
E III ...-
s:S: z..l
uU wI!
ig' . ~o
=u
1:: ull.
0 go
a.
!
'a II.Z
C 00
II Q~
Q
C OU
'c :J:jt
S ...-
wo:
C ~w
0 >
:&
c I-
0 Z
:;:; w>
II
Q ~u
:;:; Wz
i Uw
0:c)
~e
z
w
C)
~Q
0:0
0-
...0:
-w
ZD.
0
~
Z
wO
..I~
!!~~
~z
OWe
a.~
0W
w..l
0:D.
!
~'"T ,~,
~
CD
.~
a..
CIl
~
CD
~
CIl
...J
s:
-
::J
o
C/)
"C
Clr:
CIl-
CIlW
~~
CDQ
~e
zot
~
y
'E..!! "tTCD.!!.!!.r: 19 0 CIl tu CIl S in CD CIl - Qt: gr.l5'"i.'~it'~"'.&
CD .c c .c .c U c N '='ar . .5-c/) . i ti'ti!> Cf; .
~~ II ;~i~~ ~ ~z~ ~ E o~~.=a.i~~ 'l sf ~
~~ ~-=1~~~ ~ ~ eos~..~~~sB"C~~_~ · ,
c Ul _ CIl .c CD I&. CD c .- .::s = ~ c:'o.. CD .-.., = -=::.
8; '5 ~ ~ 1; ;;-f ~ ~ 0 ~ H.': h · ~ ~ ~ B H · j ~U~ ~H :0
~~ .~ "C::J t&,! II ~ ~;S~t:.i6'~~ ~1- iill!ri"C=-~ f Ills' '!I
~~ ~~t&~I~~~~ ~~~~~~~li~!i.!!.80o..CD I~i -I.;
o Q ,! 8- Ul '0 g 6 s: i Q 6 Q -= -- .n - .N!EO 'iii .Q "C .B CD s~ e.. if E L ....
m-g ~ ~.=j 6 6;S e.~ ~i3~ ~ 1ll_<C/)'ai~~ ~ i; 8= ~.!.! o.lD>a.ii: ~'3
~ II i Ul s.c- c...Sl ~ J. S -5:: ~ ffi 5-'8 ~ ~~!!It i=ari~.~ -
.~ ~,; ~ fBI 1'2 j.!Q 'E ~ E ~;~ ~~ ~~ ~ [: ~~s = I! ~'& li~I~:!'
lij :8 ~ 8. CD ~'::J ~ j !. ~ s. ~ ~ CD ~ !l a.. ~ <C j ;l.. 16 15 .!! Ul 0 CD to 0 ~ _ .
CD!1l."" 0 '& L.'CJj:-e'Qj ~ .B~ CD _ iii_ u~i E'!!l,e-:l:f.lt~,.
E".S! g-z E"i:l II li""C 8:; Qj ::J ul/) ~ .. 5= ~ ! i-e 8 <C !nra.. l5' e- foe ~ '
~e_~~ ~6 i~~C/)lImm~a ~~
. a: iii a.. ...J .B C/) .... .'l ~ ~ Q.W 'i E ...J Q;".IL..... ur:;
::1
~II
...
U? 00
Q) -...
.. ...
... ..~ '~.-.,~,,,~ ,~",.....
Ul
:!:::
~E Oc-g~
CDOCllQ.
CD o~ '" Q
~CDC'-"'c
.~:; ~ ~ .~ '2
~.E,l1!~ 8.~
~
~
CD
~
W
0:
:)
:l
W-
:a
z
o
~
C)
i=
i
~"",-",,,",.:,.~,~~
~l5
0...
N_
.N
C")...
...C")
~O
CDN
.c,
EO
~~
Cu
C/)
:!:::
~ O~
E CDQ.
CD u-
.!::CDCC:
i~ ~~
a:.e.!!! Q
-
C
COCD
CIlcE_C
C/) '6 Q. Ul :3:
~Jj~~
._ CD CD CDm
umcC/)C/)
~
.~ Ul
~Ul
i:~
a... 0.;.
-
N
c:
~
:e
>-
ll)
(/.),
.c
...
,
o
...
..
Zw
it. ~ ~~
E.c "':1
'5(.) ZIl.
-ell 18
ie
i: Uu.
8. 80
~
" u.Z
e ~.~
-
ell
e Ou
1: ~g;
.s w~
c ~w
0 >
:E
e ...
.2 Z
- w>
-
ell ~u
~ Wz
i ~W
OCl
u.C
Z
W
C)
:!Ee
~o
0-
t:~
ZW
011.
~
Z
~~
I~~
ZZ~
OW
1l.~1l.
fI)~
WIl.
~I
Ul
'0
Q)
'0'
...
c..
al
~ II:!
::>>
Q) ~
-"
al
..J ~
:5
::J Z
0 0
en ~
"C
co::
al- j::
alW i
~E
f!
Q)e11
iie
:zo't
"-,.i..~-_.. '~""'~,_"'.,-
~
,
-
C
Q) 'Oc
E CD 0
CD U.,.,
.!:Q)C::::~
6-:5 ~ ~ E
Q)"'UlCllCD
0:: .e .!I!"C c.
-
C
coQ)
alcE_C
en '6 c. Ul ~
'Ola-i~~
>oj > ~ >
:!:: CD CD co
U oenen
-
o C
2p2
oc:~...
:: al 0 'j:
,gii16
c.. .!I! "C C.
l5
- ...
'O~
~g
~~
~15
0....
N....
.N
(')....
....(')
...0
Q)N
~,
EO
~z
Q):I:
cU
en
N
N
....::. Ul ..: C . - >0= - CD . ~ Ul CIl Cl . Q) .c al .. "C CIl = '" 0 -I. ~ .>0 Oft . J '" ~
:=::J III 0 Ul.!i!i:Ill:5i" Ul -" CIl :!::al...._c.. =-t....S... U
OO'ii:W~CIl ci Z, :w c- E 'f.c c~ .!Ie -! 'r:=
j~EI.!I1e~~~~e~jal~~€8~al ~ z l5;~ICIl-t~p:I~I'O ~
al !ij C. Ul CIl ~ Q."C al Q) 'C ~.c C ~ ~ c CIl - o"C == of!: CIl CIl ... is.:t;: 1: · E is
~~e~51'l5-g~ c!sUl8i.!!! >O~'5~'.~ iiiUlC.i:Sc:ti-g~::J.!i ..
Gi'E~ _~:t~:G.i:.8i.!!!8ij~fB~.~i~ :a.'~li!!s:~~~~~Ji !
:a - 'Ul =c.~al=~.!!!_CD USal-"CalC u:;:;el~ l:; CDli 00:: ..
UlClC"C UlIllEQ)llliliii" 2 III -0 Ul -c.. !.! III - E ii
~~,!.:5 5 i ~ C e lii i '8 mE ~ CIl g. ~ ~.; ~ -g ~ :; ~ ~ .5 ~ II) 'i ~ ~ ~ J - f!. t
SUl e "C1ll CIl.!!! ...cs.ceQ)al'i II) _=CC.II)'C'PCD ~. i
-al;:CIlCluiCll_CIl.c.9!.!! CIlalal 1I)::Ju' ll:E al~Oc- ~CDC~.~ CD- C
II)E~Cl E>alU-a;- .c CIl "CcO CIlCD'-:S -0 ~:S =
55_-!~~20E_ooc'Omii>-;;~u6!ilii:s~e E~6~~'iiii~~!=-ic i :E
>... -.8"C Ei -.= OE .alCDCIl -'-~-.- ~.0~-111) 0>-
~tl::~~j~~lcJj~~III~!i~i1...!eIIJIII~;ll..' tt
'lIliSCIllllm.=&.~ 0 c.E ~E ~ .Wc.OoOal U E-j-li = Eo
C!' C 0 = 1: V' III II) 'g i ~ CIl if CIl .2 ~ CIl .5 . € III . " >o-g III . C
.!.Siii [[:8i'6_.s: ...<{:s lX'O ...-!:s:Eu. . . ~ 1I).8-!iii ~ E'6liict ~i :!
--
tnE
U .....
"7 0 ID
o ~e
; 61
rr
..
"
...
E.
.c~
U'"
III !:II
i=
1::
8.
~
'0
e
III
!:II
e
1:
S
C
o
:&
e
o
;l
III
!:II
;l
i
'"
i:S
Gl
"e-
o..
al
~
Gl
~
5
=
:3
o
rn
't:I
elt:
al-
alW
~E
<Cf
Gl!:ll
~p
~-QI
Zw
~~
...-
Z....
wa.
s~
:)u
81&.
cO
I&.Z
02
c!c
Ou
j!:g;
WII:
S~
...
Z
w>
Su
Wz
Uw
II:C)
00(
II.
Z
W
Cl
:!c
11:0
eii!
-w
Za.
o
S
Z
wO
....-
1111-
0i!~
ZZII:
oWo(
a.sa.
In~
a! a.
!
W
II:
:)
In
~
S
Z
~
i=
i
Gl
16
"t: -0
8"l!!
....-
0.:3
o.g
al...
Gl '"
.c1::
-;~
-Gl
~
'6 .~
c-
.- al
='6
al Gl
~E
cll!~
e_
=0
0._
E ~
al Gl
111_
n-,,-
-
i ~.~
E OGl
~ ~~
.- Gl C C
&= ~ '6
Gl ... III l!!
0::: .e.!!l 0
>-111
.ci!:
C 0
.Q~
-1';U
al 0).-
iil 0.:0
._ III :3
> .5 a..
-
- C _
Gl Oc
!6 ~.Q
"'Q)C~-
.- 0'-
i=!!l E E
0:::.e.~-8 8.
C
coGl
alcE_C
rn'- 0.111:>
_"EoGl>
oalQj.!.!::E
>-E>~>
~GlGlGlcn
()cncrnrn
-
Oc
~.Q
oc=...
-:: al I'E-
0:3
'C III lii
o...!/!'t:I 0.
-
C
coGl
~.5["iiic
_"Eo~~
o alQ5._::E
>-E>~>
~Q)GlO)cn
()cncrnrn
'0
Gl
oUO
...Cc:t::
... al- E
.2 iil~ lii
a.. .!!l 0 0.
o
c
o
o
c
o
-
c
.~
~
-
c
.~
Q.
~
C
Gl '0
!6 ~
':GlC
:3 = al
g...iil
o:::.e.!/!
C
coGl
alcE
rn'6
_"'0
01U-
E~
~Q)Q)
()cnc
-
Oc
os~
_c-
>;IUO
'c iil E
o...!/!-8
-
c
~
Q.
~
i .s i .2:- · .! .!! .s . · · Q) Gl l!! Gl ~ ~ Ii s '0 ~ 'i Ii .2''0 S
~~~!!l5;~~ > i!: ~ ~~ is-~rn .5c~
5 e E .~ - -c e J >8 g .5 = .5 0. g .. .c () Iii Ii i:S = 11 ~'O .!l Q)'I:
l:o.Gl Glo. III I: .'- lII~al 't:I N :!:3;P=~ liE
lli"'llEt'i ;~8~~~ ~iil~~~1 ~~ Ili~iil~ ~ii
'ic~ ~j~~ Q)~E~~ ~ ~~$~ ~ ~Q)~~GlO !i~
.calO=~IIIG)C ~1ii>-gjEE lll.!l!!E'g.I/)'t:Iic. .cSi:S=Gl 7O-cE
1/)16 ~ -olii-8 c .cGl>~8 al-'t:Iocalccn~GlC~'i.c2'O= llGl8
Q) I/) .- ~ _ Gl C"'WIUIU 0.:: - .-
_ I/) .c.c~1/) U al- Gl C 0~.c=.1Il alN
~ '0 ~ 0!Q 0 S ; :3 ~:8.c ; 'i >-'O,.:,g ~ Iii ~ ~ ~~ I: li: '"'3 S .211
c :=.!!-i!:1/) :"_GlU - c.c() Q) Gl-Gi. --
8i~~ lll't:li~li16~.! ~ ~~~Gl~i.!~~'t:I~~~~i li~~
't:I!- i~J~~E~tlll'" ~>-i~=~~i ~ iilGl.5Q)~d~all/)
~f~~~1~1l1~~o.c~it~~~8~i~~~~iS-!!~!s~~t~i~
I/) COGllllc=Q)~~c~IU~~-> alzrn()Z~~... lii =I/)E~Q)Q)
'OCo.l/)Q)Q)alE I/)~~NC.Q ~ - ~ ~.c
=CQ)x.c...>.cG) :3:3~al8- 1:1/)Q)1Il~.Q) -Ill
<CalO'Q)OO'Q)IIl....5I/)'t:I~.c.e. ... o..lU'OIU_.ccn.5EIU
't:I
yo-
I
o
-
.
Q)
-
o
-
.
al
N
o
-
.
.c
N
I
o
-
.
'---'"'-"""'~"'~'~.",_."7.!'.~..,._ h V
~:5
o-
N_
-N
('1)_
-('I)
...0
GlN
.c.
EO
SZ
GlJ:
c()
rn
('I)
N
1$
i
is
..
~
~
I
15
C
:I
:&
0>-
=,!!
'Eii
Ill>
Eo
.It
elll
cZi
OlD
be
-Ill
()U)
.~
E.c
'5u
i~
1::
8-
&!
'a
e
III
CD
e
'C
S
c
o
:&
e
o
;=
III
CD
;=
i
~
G)
-e'
0..
I'll
~
G)
.:.:
I'll
...J
~
-
:::l
o
CfJ
'a
is:
I'llW
~~
G)CD
':':0
... ....
zc
~
Zw
~i
...-
Z....
wA.
:&~
::Iu
8&&.
cO
&&.Z
00
c~
Ou
:c-
Iii&&.
ii!
:&~
!Z
W>
:&u
Wz
~w
~~
Z
W
Cl
3:c
a:S!
ga:
ZW
0A.
:&
Z
~o
all=
ii~~
ZZa:
oWe
A.:&A.
0W
w....
a: A.
!
c
o
..
= ...
0'-
E E
Q) Q)
'Co.
_0
"'~
B
._~
~>
Q)aI
CfJCfJ
-
'E
...
Q)
0.
'~17~
~~,~"""'"'~'"^
"-"."" ',""
-
c _
Gl Oc
~ B,g
..!:Q)C=:=
5-:5 !1l ~ E
Q)."'GlGl
a:: .E .ra 'a 0.
-
C
coQ)
I'llcE""O
CfJ'- 0. '" ~
'O~o~:E
>-El~>
:!::Q)Q)Q)aI
OalOCfJCfJ
-
o c
B.2
Oc=...
.... 0.-
a!1lEE
"t:"'GlQ)
0.. .ra 'C 0.
c
.~
c..
~
.""'"
Cc
,g.2
.- 13
oGl
Eo.
Gl'"
0.5
-
C
CoQ)
I'llcEiil
CfJ '6 0. Qj
-",ou
OCllCij_
~~~~
OalOCfJ
-
Oc
s~~:!::
CllOE
.2 iilE
"'",'"
q. ._ 'C
j
~6 i~B~~ .81'll .5". .856 SaGl.!Gl:i .!~aci.e
0- Emc~~ '0 z " , ~ ~- ~>-5 # ~Gl
~~ 0!~-6 ~ ~ 'Ci B~ ",1IlQ)~~o~ -=-o~ Gl ~ E~
Gl ''E:'''BGl= .cB Q. Gl", I'llCll ... '~E'C i!3 J:EC J: 1-'"
~~E~GlI'll 32 "'c 'C ~e c..~ ",a~~"'Gl'C -'E~"'~~ lIlGlc~
~E 0. a:: I'll Gl EO. ,. -..UGl 'C1'll I!! -I: uo~
_ Cll ~:::l ~ Gl... 'C-S-- ~ CllGl Q) Gl -C-c
'" ~ 1! .! i c co; Gl ;.. = '5 e ~ 0 "t: 0 '" c 15 ~ Gl i ii '5 i >-~ ~ ICll J!i
~~~~5:~:5 ~;6c~ :5 ~~ Gl~~~~Clll IIl~E~~ ~ ~ii
':;.19- 1::0_ _ -'- ",'" O'ljlCllGl- ~ III .i)_...o Gl_
'-8gjJ:IIlQ)~- Gl Gl ~~.~.!~ .5"'CD _I'llOU .-Q)'Cc'a_. Clla::~
13 ~ 0 Q)... J:60-- "'.19 c......~-'a - _c C ~
I'll "'CD 33 :"t:<C16~= ~~ .8o.2:51'll...3 ~",~!~-Gl~ '0
a~:~~~8~~ o:ii~1!BWi~ 16~!~tli !~iG)~I~!.5~~
.. '" E I'll """ i':'G) >-0.... '" c ...'C- ~ U:::lIlO:::l o._...;_~'C=.51'll OM
=GlQ...OOC~ "'13~~u I'll:::lGl~ ",Gl~~o I'll~el'll E J O~
~~€", G)~~0~:::l:!::OS",E ~~ "'ie~-'C:5 ~E~0 lii im-
~ ~: ~"C\f';E ~'i~<c'" ~ E ~CfJ ~ ~<C ~1 '50 i '2 ~<C .!.8 s.ra :io.Gl i j : .~] II ~ E , E t~
:::l-Gl ~ -- ~~ ~ I'llo. _I'll --...- ~G)~'a",~:::l'a '1'~~!
>--!ll~ c:.~:::lI'llQ) "'160.5 '~E"=>-;:J16=~ 1:'"-
CUll::: >-:!:: J:'CI'll :::lJ:~>:::lC GlC\f
l'll'6u~~8~~E. .. . .<c",o.o.gi~.5~o."'Gl~ ...Jo.O
W
a:
::I
~
:&
Z
o
~
Cl
1=
i
C _
Q) 0 c
E Q) 0
Gl u..
.: CD c: = =t::
5-:5 ~ ~ E
Q)"''''Q)Gl
a:: 2 .ra 'C 0.
-
c _
Q) 0 c
E GlO
Gl U..
'!:Glc'5:!::
i= ~ E E
a:: .e .18 ~ ~
C
c 0 Q)
I'llcE_O
CfJ'- 0. '" ~
_EoB
o I'll G)'-
>-E>~>
:!::Q)Q)Glal
Oal 0 CfJCfJ
-
o c
Q) 0
o uc:e ...
- 0'-
6~EE
._.A "-
",v'GlQ)
0.. .ra 'C 0.
:!::
-
C
I'll
.!.!
c..
~
U
N
I
o
-
.
I'll
M
,
o
-
.
~
M
,
o
-
.
U
M
o
-
.
"~,~,:::",,C""~'!-"'-"'~'=~
~15
0.....
N....
-N
M....
....M
...0
.8~
EO
GlZ
~:I:
00
CfJ
~
(\;
1$
i
is
..
.!l
~
ii
Q.
U
C
~
:&
0>-
,5--
l!ii
->
Eo
.c:.
11I-
el!
- -E
(I)
....
011I
~e
--
u.
Zw
i>>~ ~~
E.c !E:l
'5(,) w~
SQ :.~
:cc ::)u
1: 8l!5
0
Co
&
'g II.Z
C 00
III Q~
aI
C Ou
;: :-
.s ti~
'c :.w
0 >
:::E
c ~
0 Z
;l w>
III
Q :'U C
;l Wz
i Uw ~
1ll:C!) ~
Oce
II. >
Z CD
w en
C!)
~Q
Ill: 0
0-
~Ill:
-w
zA,
0
:.
z
~-O
a!i
(lie
z.
0'
a....
i~
I-
~
CD
"e'
a.
m
~
CD
.:0:
III
...J
.c
'S
o
en
-0
c:~
Illw
IE
oil!
CDQ
~e
'-'--
ZQ
i: _
CD Oc:
E CD 0
~ U;e
.- CD C:"O :I::
6-= !!l E E
o::CD 5 III CD CD
~.:::"'C
-
c:
C:OCD
Illc:E_C
en '5 0.1II~
-",oB
o 1ll1l'-~
~E>~>
._ CD CD CD CD
UCDcenen
-
o c:
B.S!
oc='=....
-:: III "0 .~
.S!~Et:
a: .!a ~ 8.
-
c
.~
Ci.
~
.11I11I -0001
c:aI _CD "'CD CD - c:
'-Ill~ IIICD'-
"'0- III u.5
_ ~ .J:l c; III .
'2 lii ~ ,; ,!~ ~
o E IllCD '> "Q i:
E >. -CD.!!!
-o.J:l CD!E c:
l!! c: -0 1:: .S!
W :J III III Cl._ B is
Ill: l!l B .5 i; :J
::) 0.15; E ...-~
U) X'-~ 00.011I
ii CDi... 'Ciiiia
S' .....O'.CD.cCDU
!!le io.lIIC:-o
~ 'E 0. i .9! 1'ii CIS
i=' =;:-.~0l!i;1fi.!!
iC CDc;O-oE l!!
C!) 5 -l!! ~ its CD ~,;
- II) III III ....- III
~.- 00.10 J:l - U CD
~ 0..11I -. .5 CD -
~ e._~u [=2
-0
C?
o
....
~
'-0
m. ..... -"...
i:
~
~
'> III
l!!1II
j~
0.0.
C
~
~-
&;
(J)
.s~ "CDaCDSCD ~a b.s~~~~gl=J~.ltl
0~CD~ -CDIIIIII IIICl !Q"QEICDIN.c~1 .Bs~~
!!! 8.~ l!.~'S~g l!!os.e ~CD ~.~ l!!' E(J)~ >. ~ CDi.2g.1
....11I50.-0.0- Ill~ ...:J jc: ii .. ;;I~
::::i l!! III ~ Is. ,.. i >..8-,g0 ~ ~ i -o!l! !!! ~ e J: E 5 i
- .,; CD III "'"- :I:: .- -0 ... c: 0 -e -:J 0 -'" -0
~.s~~~-~~;ul- ~liiCDIll;:-.~~E"i~ ~i~!lii
cg!i!.5-=EIII CD CD 0 .J:l iQ:JCD~ll"'~ iQliU
i~tl!~I~~~i: i~lli!;a.~~.s I~~&
ffi~CD~~e>~~€~"3 ~S~e!~~!8. ~o ~E
(,):-oCDIllCD~ CD~~W..o::-o~ j~IlCD5~ jC:di.'8
>w ~ i 'It!.~~.s ~ t:2.~ S.~ ~B";'~ 18.~! ~I ~ jtt !~
T i6 E _ .. ... :J > III CD:r is.!I! III c: IIIl1l ~ III a CD C
0~ G5=.e-5 i~ i l!! ~ ~.!!!~-oQ. >= e III III E C eUJ..l~-o.
(,) ~ III :J 0 CD "E" 8. lit "fi
-I ..5- ~ -i i Z (J) 0 0 m :I:: III . .
III
::J
Do.
....
- I
-....
. ....
..~
--"""'~'f'~~"'r "",In
~:5
0....
N....
.N
(t)....
.... (t)
...0
.8~
EO
BZ
CDJ:
cU
(J)
Ii:
~
u
i
is
..
oS
~
ii
Co
13
C
:r
:E
0>>
.5:1
1~
E--o-
.1.5
c'2
" "e
U)
.....
OlD
~i
U(4
~
.:i:
E.c
'5u
Jga
.....:e
8.
&!
"
c
.
at
C
'C
S
'E
o
:E
c
o
:;=
.
at
:;=
i
III
tl
Q)
"e'
Q.
(II
~
Q)
"'"
(II
...J
=
::J
o
(/)
'0
c~
(11-
(IIW
Q) E
<l!
Q)at
~~
... -
ZQ
Zw
Ou
~~
!Eea.
wlE
lEo
:)u
Uu.
go
u.Z
g~
Ou
~g;
Will:
lE~
t-
Z
w>-
lEU
Wz
Uw
Ill: 0
ee
Z
W
o
ZQ
iio
eii
-w
zea.
o
lE
Z
wO
...~
~:!~
ZZIlI:
OWe
ea.lEea.
cn~
~ea.
I
'~.""~""'''''''''''~' "T~"' 'r""""""1'T 0' r.r
-""^">'-''''l''\"''T>'';;~''i.''~'''''''''"'''':~
~
'5O III
~IIl
C Q)
J!!2
Q.c.
c
o
1
III
.E
S
(jj
c ~~
Q) OQ)
~ B~
':Q)cc
6-= !!l '6
Q)"'IIl=S
a:: .g .!/Lo
'E
coQ)
IIlcE....C
~'E 8"B~
o 1IlQ)'_~
>oE>~>
:!::Q)Q).al
UalC(/)(/)
III
B
.~
III
>
Q)
C
~
'5O III
~III
la~
- ...
Q.c.
c
o
g>'B
'i .5
0111
=c
&8
~
Q)
'5O III
~~
J!!...
Q.c.
C
:E
~
(/)
-
C
.~-
Q.
~
~}~~g>~~~~IIlg> ~~Q) Q)III-.Q) '0 =~~~Q) ~~~~S.~~
.c'OOIll-~~S=--. III ~ ~= -_.c~ i5
; la .c iiii I'm tii-i ~ ...J.g la ~:l~ N z'i l!~~ E i III 1'2{c (/)S
:E~~~s"'IIl~.E~': ~Q).ccu'O:o ~ Q)i~. ~EsQ)~ '0
c- ~-~Q) Co V :!::~c cs~ ·
~l~:(:t~!!m~;I~I~~i! ~ :'~:t li[l~~f~~
Q)~al ~~ a)'? 0:; Q)(/)- .i ~J iiii'ii = c ~tl()::: .s. e-gs 0 (/) Q)
S?'E(/) gj~i"'.i~~8(11U.=- ~ i.csQ).m _~8I1li'E~!~
s~ Q)~IIl(ll"'~ =1Il~0~' U ~ u~e= o~ Q)E.~~=
(/)~<==lIli...I~~~Q) ~~-g~lt.i 12t>o~ B:ll~~Ej~i
'~i~~-g11'g~1~1_~~:j;~11 ~~~;s~~;l~~f~at~
~ 8~.5~!IIl E E;5S lil .E B':~="5!~ ~scici~1! rJ_~.s'OQ)11.E.
.~ ll::: ... C III III _ C .!l.....-.... C (II _ l:S a.c '-.- Ill" iI)
~ ~ i~! B~2~~~ ~ 51~!',~i~;j ~~ I ~~iitfi :l~~ ill! i
_c.(/)=~::J.Q)~~-""'IIlalal-~Q)'Op~c.Q)!
. .Eii~~BE~=a::~&~!(/)(/)G~=.Eallli=(II~
W
Ill:
:)
~
lE
Z
o
~
o
~
i
~
.....
.....
~
(II ~
It) It)
I I
..... .....
..... .....
~ ~
(II
,...
I
.....
.....
~
~g
0.....
N.....
.N
C').....
..... C')
...0
CIlN
~.
EO
~~
CU
(/)
<0
N
I
Q
j
I
j,
:E
.II
'EllS
.>
~&
CD!
c.
!I
OlD
~c
_1lS
UUl
... J
E II
s=S=
uU
Igt
.....:e
&.
&
'a
C
III
a
c
't:
o
-
C
o
:i
c
o
;;
III
a
;;
i
III
U
Gl
"e-
o..
co
~
Gl
-'"
co
...J
.c:
'S
o
(/)
'0
C::Q:
co-
coW
GlE
.(e!
Gla
-"'0
co r..
ZQ
Zw
Ou
~~
1-::1
ZII.
w:i
:10
:;)u
glL
cO
ILZ
00
c~
Ou
:-
ti~
:iW
>
I-
Z
w>
::lEu
Wz
Uw
0::c)
eo(
Z
w
C)
~c
0::0
ei:
-w
ZII.
o
:i
Z
wO
-'1=
m~~
~w~
11.:111.
tnW
w-'
0::11.
!
c::
co
(/)
W
0::
:;)
!
:i
Z
o
~
CI
1=
i
~
o~
~.=
.-0
UIIl
~
Gl 0
5~
u
---=
0.0
;:,
a..
c:: 0
.2 c::
u:e
J!!co
III c::
.- '-
-Gl
5lm
"E \I-~
~ o~
l!! ~Cl
'51 co.s
CT- ;:,'0
Gl'-IIl'5
a:: S .!!l .0
==
'E E
Gl 0 ~
~ Ba
'51 fii.s
CT- ;:,:!i!
Glr..III:;
a:: S .!!l .0
-
c::
Gl 0
E B
~GlC::.E
;:'5 ~:!i!
i '-11I'5
a::S.!!l.o
-
il o'~
~ B!
.- Gl c:: c::
5-5 ~ '6
cu...U)!
a:: S .!!l Cl
'E
c:: 0 Gl
co c:: E
(/) '6 0. III
....'-oGl
o co Qj .2
>-E>~
:=GlGlGl
Umo(/)
-
c
~
Q.
~
-
c::
c:: 0 Gl
coc::E
(/) '6 0. III
""",oB
o coQj._
~E~~
o&lo~
-
c::
c::oGl
coc::E
(/).- 0. lfl
0~.9.Y
>-E~~
:=GlGlGl
Umo(/)
~
Gl
.:; III
l!!1Il
fiig
- ...
0..0.
~
'S; III
l!!1II
Gl
fii g
- ...
0..0.
~
>11I
l!!ft)
fii8
-...
0..0.
~
Gl
'S; III
l!! III
c::g
..!!!'-
0..0.
'E
.~
Q.
~
o
~
~
(/)
)
-
c
~
Q.
~
(
~oi~SGll!! ~-o~'Ca~ocGlGlo ~OQj~So~~GlC aemc
--.c:s= 5co m ==-s=- ~5=~ .E3em
~illlOf ~ .(~~~t~~~'Co~ ~illl~i~i(/)S .:s~~.2'(/)
o.E~~mE~ o~i~-GlGlEES-E o.E~Gl~~o. '0011I.0 j~
o.C:t 0.0 t: lQ.oGlCO QlIllO -Gl o.c:t=;:,i5.a II - !pm"
~~!m~~8. _...J cS!;;...fiili1~m~~~Gl~i~.E , oo~...JS
:5l ~ 8.(/)- ~ i€ fS!! c.s1-='C-< i:5l ~ [0 "'=;i . e~s ;;
~~E8!i~~ e~~~~2~~~"'Glfii~fii~~~e~~co~l:u~~i~;
....'- - =;:, ~Glu> -~-_ -(/)-.......8m -~Gl.oGl-m~ -
o~ ]!'E .0 is e7ii ~,..~ gJ.S~ Gl 03 Gl ~ i.5I! 5-== m iQ.Gl
Gl "" U - Gl ~ E ~ 0. co =' ~ S 0 Gl.2 n := Gl E .j; Gl m ~.!!l i= lD
g l5 .Gl B E &~ -c E ~ - = 'E .s ~:e 'i € 0 ... u ... .!. fll ~ 0. ~ ... ij.... C - ~
co-~i~gJ~Gl8-'-CO- o.lD SfiiSofSeol5 ~o;:, 0
i'E~~~~l5i ~oij~~~fS'l!!~ li'E~lD~J-ac ::E!!'E==E
III IV '> III _;:, C - -." III N 7ii;:' C > III!Q .r. .: Gl n 5: Gl t; 0 lD
-5I!-lD 00001ll1ll -u'Co--~-.. 'C~~E~c E.o
.s11~Ja!l!!-i~it~~~~~~~:SII~E~~ ~~~S~8-i
"'co>>2B'aC}~>>lIIc~~ ~o.~~~m>~si5.Q. e~i~EQj=
'Q.g1~e~ '5~Q."'x~~~Gl~l!!I'Eei~'Q.~~~e~%~eti ~Q.lD~]!
__ 0.11I .0.0 lDww_.o.c: 0...._ o.lIl""" __ 0.11I11I.. co_ III 0.'0 III
.0
~
I
.....
.....
..t
co
~
.....
.....
..t
.0
~
.....
.....
..t
t4
.....
.....
..t
^'".f"c.~~~
~l5
0.....
N.....
.N
('t) .....
.... ('t)
...0
GlN
.0.
EO
GlZ
~J:
OU
(/)
.....
e-
u
i
is
r..
I
ii
Q.
'is
C
~
:IE
0:>-
c.
l!ii
Ill>
i~
c!
Il Ile
tI)
....11
OlD
~c
-Il
Uti)
, Zw
0(,)
G>>al ~~
E.c
'5u lEA.
w~
!~ ~O
::l(,)
1:: glL
8. 00
II
0::
"0 ILZ
C 00
II O~
aI
C 0(,)
1: j!:g;;
.s wo::
c ~W
0 >
:2
c ~
0 Z
;l W)o
III
aI ~(,)
;:; Wz
i (,)w
0::0
Oe(
IL
Z
W
0
!:o
0::0
eO!
-w
ZA.
0
:2
Z
~2
1Il~
0~~
ZZo::
OWe(
A.~A.
fl)W
w.J
0:: A.
!
Ul
ts
CD
"e-
o..
m
CD
<'{
CD
.><:
m
...l
~
"5
o
en
"C
co::
m-
mW
~~
CDaI
'><:0
(n '"
ZQ
==
c: ~e
CD 0 CD
E 0.
e 8a1
.-CDCC
::::l~ m'-
cr- ::::l"C
CD'-Ul'S
0:: .e .!ILc
c"C
coCDC
mcEm _0
en'- Q.Ul Ul>
'Eo<o <0>
'0 mQ).~.~.~::E
>-E>~:B~>
==CDCDCD::::lCDm
umoena..enen
CD'OC
=80
oc~s
::mO'~
.Q~Et:
It .!Il -8 8.
o
~
::E
>
m
en
.~~, ~ '." .'~, "-"."" '" .
.<' ,'" '"''
~
"CD~CD IIl"CaI"CCDCDCD"C ="CCIIlCDCDIIl~ IIlCD~ a11~1Il."Ci'"CCD "Cj=UlCD
.w.. nC-IIl-.QQl"- - g C CD C C.Q C .Q
~>2 ==~-::::l::::lm > = .Q~aI ~ aI ~
~ [~ i'5'5 ~ l!!CiS7;; [~Ii g'ii l!!~-8 .21il:! 8 d Ei .g,....= laI ~1i
~8. Q.i~~'O~::::lEQ.O~O~~~So~ ~~6 o::w~~12'e~ Q .~
E c ~_CD alc . ~ "C_CDU c EaI'"aI ~ S
-g.! .2 0 "C"" 5 E III "C'-.!Il C l<< 0.ll!=.5 llllllQ) lis ui1il Cli!ll ~ -a..Q.aI:e .
_ . == c Ul 0 CD C 0 - Ul .-.c'"
~ ms~o"C.!!! E ES~ aI jj!:;"C 1Il"C.!'Oi : 16'i =8. !3=i- Ja-gj
i'lll~ :iE UH~~d~IHj i.. ~n~UnnHflli~;
-mCD- ><c~_en~""C ~o 0. 0. 'iUlm~ mal
.. u~m"C_.- _ mCDc=::::l _Gl..Gl . CDNUl -
OCDIIl u c.w .... - o. - == Ul ~ .-
-~'-Ii 2 ~m E a1~en 0 ~-6 ~.Q ~ E a.."C l<< CD.. III uilil 8~-1!"C.< i.e
oc.'i~~Ii!CD~~~b!CDCD~~m~.!~~=o~~~~=cEO ~.!~I~a
.5 ~ ::::l!.!Il ~::E 0:; g,.:c "C 0 Sl :; & E = E g, >-~ CD .5151 .!E .! lis ; ~ lis ~.! 8.*
'Ee-co =~~ e ~ CDUl::::l~m_l!!:;::::l aI~~Q..c1ll 0 ~~"C
IllEIll-6~:: t~:".!~~j~.!"C6~><~Eg~~l!!~3::E~"C~~~s~um~1i
0._ ~ _ -"CUlm ~Ul"C-"C-
CDCD~~' CDCDUlc:aI~>- CDlllc-lllcllll!!
m 0 ~ III 0 = e III ~ 0..0 "0 ~ III 8" E III = III .. ·
W
0::
::l
:l
W
~
Z
o
~
~
i
III
q>
....
....
..t
",:.","1'~?:'c'!f."',,,,":~~
~:5
0....
N....
.N
C')....
.... C')
..0
CDN
.0.
EO
~~
Ou
en
CIC
(\.
u
i
is
S
~
I
u
c
~
:2
0>0-
CII
l~
Eo
mC
m-
c~
1111
wE
'0.1
~C
-II
(,)W
.lIl
u.
ID
'0'
Q:
III
~
ID
.>0:
at
...J
.r:.
....
::J
o
(J)
"0
C~
roW, ~
III
~E.
IDO)
~o
cr<...
~ ,~~
zat
"H~'H~""',," _'r
... ""'-""'''/''.''~'''>'~''''~~-
o
~
iii
(J)
Q.
~
iii
(J)
~
:::)
!
:IE
z
o
~
~
i
~~g;f~l5:. .~i ~',,', ;Q),::J,a;l1.0 ui i !~js~lO ~~ !:gs
-~ ~- ~ -~ ~.Q) ~ ~i::Jii~i~co g.
i;! &tt. a i"E~ Itl:!::~ 9 > ~...J (J) ~l:e i ~ E E :! 8"21
-0) U ,lO lO lDUIDE lOlD 0. .o.a.aC::~i ',"t:
~2BIll ~~ ~t;~.i(J)=s~ ~~S~€~~~E::Jg ::J
E~~S~ S co~! ~.r:.IDO~0g 6 ...J(J)_~Eo~aE::J.Ei"O
~E-~Z~Z~~ ~~ ~~ o~:~E~~~~~~ i~J~~:~I~i:~~)
· lOe::"t: ~- ~~ >_~~~e:: co.r:..s....s &i ~::J->
jJj!l~!fi!! ~~ t~'~l~i~ ~~~ li~gi il&.2~ !l~ie
o~. !s .r:.~> Q~ &V~~S~llllO 0. ~oco"O~"Of~~ ~_....~
....E_~.~lO.~lO ! i~~~~~;SO)~~E~i~~ ;o5~~~~
i 1:: S co ii 'iiI co 5. :t:: 111,_ ~ 1f::J lO ~ "0 co ii ~.... ~ >. ~ III lIJ .
"0 ~ i ~ 'e:: ~ 6 S CJ Z ~ :;: &.... ;; ~! m"> lIJ I;: e:: J:.o I ~ s 'i 8: ii u; i &0 ! ~
~.- 'w -li s!:u .E ~ 0 :; ><l(J) 0. K! g'-;; lO ~ ~ i3 0) 5ii co ~ -;; 1ii.9-1 ii II)
~ ~ 6 E ~ 16' i :..16 It) . .g.,"~, b,'" ai 0 ~ = i -g,g s ! A' ~t:: ;1"-1 0 ~ ii ~ i'i
"':;:l I c:: Q. .... >-.~ III ... - ... lO - co ~ f ~ lO e::
lO IX! ::J--~ ~, ~ ~ e:: ::J.r:: Q) U III .... .... e::.r:: ,'- 0 c:: lD III
-00 :. 0;'~.#:5 ~ lU"O lIJ E .S: ~ <( .S::::i c:: 0. (J) .... 00.. (J) S ~
~
q>
~
~
-<i
N
I
N
~
-<i
III
,.
N
~
..t.
-
U
];
.
is
Ii
1;
~
I
:2
c
::J
:Ii
0>-
.5.1
'2.
Ill>
Eo
lOe.
11I-
c'2
III III
(J)i
'011I
~c
-Ill
c.t14
~, ~ ~,~~='~~~~~~
.._'.
~,'.,.".";.g!,\.~---
""~~ "'" ,"" -."""~""'--"' -.,-" """,,,.,,,,,,, "'~':::- " '"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 determined that the development of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area
20
21
22
23
24
25
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTION OF
THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE NORTH LAKE
AREA PROJECT AND SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND OTHER
ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS
SECTION I. RECITALS
(a)
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan for the
City of San Bernardino by Resolution No. 89-159 on June 2,1989; and
(b)
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2003, the Environmental Review Committee
Project and amendments to the General Plan Circulation Element (General Plan Amendment No.
05-06) to remove "G" Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 10th Street between "E"
Street and "H" Street as secondary arterials could have a significant effect on the environment
and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
(c) WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was prepared for the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project and other
entitlement actions and circulated for public review and comment from December 22, 2003
through January 28, 2003.
(d) WHEREAS, a Program EIR was prepared for the North Lake Area Project and
the South Lake Area Project and other entitlement actions and circulated for public review and
comment from September 7, 2004 through October 22, 2004, and all comments relative thereto
have been reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee; and
-1-
_.IlM~"'____J'~_""""
nr
1~I~I'~'-~~'.-
.-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(e) WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee determined that Program
Environmental Impact Report and Comments and Responses constitute the Final EIR, and the
Final EIR is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and local regulations;
and
(f) WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee independently reviewed,
analyzed, and exercised judgement in reviewing the Draft Program EIR, comments received,
responses to comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in making its
determination; and
(g) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on
March 8, 2005 in order to receive public testimony and written and oral comments on the
Program EIR, comments and responses, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
and
(h) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Program EIR,
comments and responses, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, other pertinent
reports and documents, and fully reviewed and considered the staff report and the
recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee; and
(i) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public testimony,
recommended certification of the Program EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program as set forth in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
-2-
~~I~_""'"
"""" r'" ""
"" .-.~"='"~."
~., . "" ,._~.~,,,,=.,=,,,
1 The Program Em for the development of the North Lake Area Project and the South
2
3 Lake Area Project and amendments to remove "G" Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street
4
5 and 1 Oth Street between "E" Street and <<H" Street as secondary arterials from the General Plan
6
7 Circulation Element has been completed in compliance with the CEQA. The FErn., including the
8
9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all the evidence and information contained
10
11 therein and the Facts, Findings and Statements of Overriding Consideration are on file with the
12
13 Development Services Department and incorporated herein by reference.
14
15 SECTION ill. TRANSMITTAL OF RESOLUTION
16
17 The Planning Commission Secretary is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this
18
19 Resolution to the Mayor and Common Council for consideration.
20
21
22
23
24
25
.3.
~"JI~""" f~.~-"""
"" c,
-r""',~-H.;<>~~
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTION OF
THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE NORTH LAKE
AREA PROJECT AND SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND OTHER
ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by THE Planning
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
day of
,2005, by the following vote to wit:
Commission Members:
Abstain
Absent
Aves
" Navs
Brown
Coute
Durr
Enciso
Heasley
Morris
Sauetbnm.
Linda Dortch,
Planning Commission Secretary
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
,2005.
day of
Mike Sauerbrun, Chairperson
Approved as to form and Legal Content:
James F. Penman~
City Attorney
By:
-4--
........... "'MIfQOI'C~ 'iI flSllAAt'a--...
!He
1
C) 2
3
4
5
6
7
~ .~. .
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA
PROJECT, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06, AND
TABLING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07.
8 SECTION I. RECITALS
9
(a)
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
10
Bernardino ("City") adopted the General Plan for the City by Resolution No. 89-159 on
11
12
13
June 2, 1989; and
(b)
WHEREAS, the City and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
14 District ("SBVMWD") prepared an Initial Study dated March 14, 2003, which was
C> 15 circulated for public comment between March 14, 2003, and April 14, 2003, for the
16 proposed North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project, and following the
t 7 end of the comment period for the Initial Study, the City in consultation with the
()
18
19
SBVMWD updated and redistributed for public comment and review a revised and
Expanded Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and
20
21
interested persons for a second 30-day comment period for the Program Environmental
22 Impact Report between the dates of December 23,2003 to January 28, 2004; and
23 (c) WHEREAS, the Expanded Notice of Preparation for a Program
24 Environmental Impact Report for the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South
25
Lake Area Project was published in The San Bernardino County Sun on December 22,
26
27
28
2003; and
(d)
WHEREAS, the public comment period for the Expanded Notice of
Preparation was December 23,2003 through January 28,2004; and
1
~. /b~ i
1/~5'/~
o
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
o
1
2
3
4
5 the public would like addressed in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
6 ("EIR"); and
7
8
September 7, 2004, for the 45-day review period with the review period ending on
9
10
11
12 relating to the Draft Program EIR; and
(h) WHEREAS, on October 14, 2004 a public workshop was conducted
(e)
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held at the Feldheym Library
on January 15, 2004, to give the public the opportunity to provide comments as related
to the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project and the issues
(f)
WHEREAS, a Draft Program EIR was distributed for public review on
October 22, 2004; and
(g)
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, a public workshop was conducted
relating to the Draft Program EIR which was presented in the Spanish language; and
(i) WHEREAS, six (6) comment letters were received before the close ofthe
public review period and written responses were provided on March 1, 2005 and the
specific responses to the written comments are in the Final Program EIR; and
23
24
25
26
27
28
(j) WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of
San Bernardino held a noticed public hearing on the North Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project in order to receive public testimony and written and oral comments
relating to the Draft Program EIR and proposed amendments to the City General Plan in
compliance with City requirements; and
(k) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Development
Services Department Staff Report on March 8, 2005, which addresses the Draft Program
EIR and the proposed amendments to the General Plan; and
2
~..,;"
1
() 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
C)
o
\
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(I) WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution recommending that the Mayor and Common Council certify the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2003121150), adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, to
change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Area Project by removing "G"
Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and loth Street between "E" Street and "H"
Street from the General Plan Circulation Element. The Planning Commission
recommended that General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 (Land Use) be deferred for any
further action until completion of construction of the regulating reservoir in the form of
an at-surface lake; and
(m) WHEREAS, on April 14, 2005, a public workshop was held at the
Feldheym Library to answer questions about the acquisition/relocation process for the
North Lake Area Project; and
(n) WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City of San Bernardino Mayor and
Common Council and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of
Directors conducted a noticed joint public hearing to consider certification of the Final
Program EIR for the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, adoption of
the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration, adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and, in the case of the City, adoption of
General Plan Amendment No. 05-06; and
(0) WHEREAS, the North Lake Area Project site includes approximately
82.4 acres located in the central portion of the City of San Bernardino, immediately
north of downtown San Bernardino. The North Lake Area Project is bounded by
Baseline Street on the north, 9th Street on the south, "E" Street on the east, and "H"
3
!I'Il:''';f_'-__,__^
o
()
o
"
Street on the west. Portions of the North Lake Area Project site located along Baseline
Street and "E" Street are within the City's Uptown Redevelopment Plan Project Area;
and
(P) WHEREAS, the predominant land use within the North Lake Area
Project boundaries is residential, which accounts for approximately 47 percent of the
total land area. A total of 437 dwelling units exist within the North Lake Area Project,
including 173 single and 264 multi-family units (i.e., a mix of detached, duplexes,
triplexes, and apartments). Commercial uses encompass approximately 16 percent of the
total North Lake Area Project and include 281,721 square feet of floor space.
Institutional land uses encompass approximately five percent of the total North Lake
Area Project and involve an estimated 114,703 square feet of floor space.
Approximately seven percent of the North Lake Area Project consists of vacant parcels
ofland, many of which were developed or improved with structures and have since been
demolished. Approximately nineteen percent of the North Lake Area Project site
consists of public streets or other public right-of-way areas; and
26
27
28
4
~r..'"
1
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
o
o
north (south of Rialto Avenue), Mill Street on the south, "G" Street on the east, and the
Interstate 215 on the west. The Lytle Creek Flood Control Channel and the Interstate
215 northbound on-ramp traverse the southern portion of the South Lake Area; and
(s) WHEREAS, the majority of the South Lake Area Project site,
approximately 57 percent of the total South Lake Area Project, includes vacant land and
much of this vacant land is presently owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of San Bernardino. Nonconforming industrial land uses encompass approximately 19
percent of the total South Lake Area and include an estimated 251,621 square feet of
floor space. Commercial uses encompass approximately seven percent of the total South
Lake Area and include an estimated 116,802 square feet of floor space. Residential uses
within the South Lake Area Project account for approximately one percent of the total
14 area; and
15
16
17
18
19
20 necessary parking and landscaped areas. The South Lake Area Project will also include
(t)
WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes the assembly of land
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino and redevelopment
assistance to eliminate blight on this site and to develop up to 450,000 square feet of
office development with 31,500 square feet of supporting retail, together with all
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an approximately 5-acre wetlands area, or other water body feature on an approximately
13-acre triangular parcel intended to incorporate additional landscaping and open space
components, and/or other community gateway elements, which would complement both
the new development and this important section of the City along the 1-215 corridor; and
(u) WHEREAS, in 2003 the City and SBVMWD previously entered into a
Co-Lead Agency Agreement whereby the parties agreed to act as Co-Lead Agencies
5
~"""
1
C> 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
G
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0 27
28
with respect to the preparation, review and certification of the EIR, as permitted by the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15051 (d); and
(v) WHEREAS, the City and SBVMWD further agreed in the Co-Lead
Agency Agreement that each entity shall individually review and determine whether to
certify the Final Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 and that the
certification of the Final Program ElR shall not be effective, and a Notice of
Determination shall not be filed, until both entities have separately certified the Final
Program EIR through the independent official actions of the elected officials constituting
their goveming bodies and approve any required mitigation monitoring program and/or
statement of overriding consideration as a part of such EIR and the implementation
13 thereof.
14 SECTION II. PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, FOUND, AND
16
DETERMINED THAT THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY
17
CERTIFY:
18
A. The facts and information contained in the Recitals section are true and
correct. The Program Environmental Impact Report for the North Lake Area Project and
the South Lake Area Project, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 have been
completed in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference, is the Final Program EIR
which consists of the Draft Program ElR (which includes a list of persons, organizations
and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR), the comments received on the Draft
Program EIR either verbatim or in summary, and responses to those comments (included
6
-"p",,'
1
C) 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
C) 15
16
17
18
19
G
in the City of San Bernardino - Request for Council Action/San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District - Request for Board Action staff report dated April 25, 2005).
B. The Final Program EIR was presented to the Mayor and Common Council
who have reviewed and considered the information in the Final Program EIR prior to its
certification and prior to its adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 05-06.
C. The Final Program EIR has identified all significant environmental effects
of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project, and an amendment to
the City's General Plan to change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Area
10
11
Project.
D. Although the Final Program ErR identifies certain significant
environmental effects that would result if the development of the North Lake Area
Project and the South Lake Area Project occurs, all significant effects that can feasibly be
avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation of the mitigation
measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Final
Program EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and all information
contained therein is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by
20 reference.
21
Potential mitigation measures and other project alternatives not
E.
22 incorporated into or adopted as part of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake
23
Area Project or General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, were rejected as infeasible, based
24
on specific economic, social, or other considerations as set forth in the Facts, Findings
25
26 and Statement of Overriding Consideration, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C and
27 incorporated herein by reference.
28
7
c
G
21
22
23
24
25
26
C>> 27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Consideration with respect to the significant impacts identified in the Final Program EIR
10
11
12 documents comprising the Final Program ErR.
13 H. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring
14 and Reporting Plan, and the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration
15
16
17
18
19 A. The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of San
20 Bernardino General Plan is consistent with the General Plan in that Goal 6A states:
F.
The Mayor and Common Council have given great weight to the
significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Mayor and Common
Council find that the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are clearly
outweighed by the economic, social, cultural, and other benefits of the North Lake Area
Project and the South Lake Area Project, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, as set
forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration.
G.
The findings contained in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
are true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the record, including
reflect the independent review, analysis and judgment of the Mayor and Common
Council of the City of San Bernardino.
SECTION III. FINDINGS
"Achieve an integrated, balanced, safe and efficient transportation system that
accommodates the demand for movement of people, goods and services throughout the
City..." The Program EIR evaluated the deletion of "G" Street between 9th Street and
Baseline Street and I oth Street between "E" Street and "H" Street as secondary arterials
from the General Plan Circulation Element and evaluated the vacation of all streets
within the North Lake Area Project to determine whether any of these actions would
negatively affect the overall distribution of people, goods and services throughout the
8
e
C)
o
~"E'
City. The Program EIR concluded that the removal of the street segments from the
Circulation Element and the vacation of the streets would not create significant adverse
impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Therefore, this
amendment is not in conflict with the General Plan.
B. The deletion of the street segments from the Circulation Element, and
ultimate vacation of all streets within the project area, would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Through the public
review process for the Draft Program EIR, City departments {including but not limited to,
9
_.cc..cw.
1
() 2
3
4
5
C)
o
SECTION V. AMENDMENT
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. The amendment to the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino to
change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Are Project by removing "G"
Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 10th Street between "E" Street and "H"
Street from the General Plan Circulation Element as secondary arterials is hereby
adopted.
B. The amendment designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 shall
take effect upon adoption of this resolution by the Mayor and Common Council as
provided herein.
C. The amendment designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 is
hereby tabled.
SECTION VI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is
hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act in preparing and adopting the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. A copy of the Notice of Determination will be
forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE
The certification of the Final Program EIR and the adoption of the amendment
designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 shall not be effective, and a Notice of
Determination shall not be filed, until SBVMWD has separately certified the Final
Program EIR through the independent official action of the elected officials constituting
10
1
C) 2
3
5 III
III
6 III
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
e 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~
its governing body and has approved any required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and/or Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration with such
4
Final Program EIR and the implementation thereof.
28
11
1
e 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
C)
o
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA
PROJECT, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06, AND
TABLING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07.
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
9 on the
day of
, 2005, by the following vote to wit:
10 Council Members:
Abstain
Absent
Nays
Ayes
11 ESTRADA
12 LONGVILLE
13
MCGINNIS
14
15 DERRY
16 KELLEY
17 JOHNSON
18 MC CAMMACK
19
20
21
22 The foregoing resolution-is hereby approved this
2005.
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
day of
23
24
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
25 Approved as to form and Legal Content:
26
By:
27
28
James F. Penman
City Attorney
12
~~
~ ~".
April 25, 2005
"into Record" ~ 4/~ 5' ko,;l
~vOevCml _ '-/
Mayor & Common Council
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino, CA
illtem
~
'T
Dear Distinguished Officials:
~/d-~
City Clerk,CDC Secy
City of San Bernardino
J
~
~,
Re: 20/20 Vision - "Lakes Project"
We have watched, listened and attended many meetings and information sessions regarding this
proposed project within the central area of downtown San Bernardino. Questions have been
raised, researched and answered. Confusion has reigned at various times and doubt and
uncertainty has been expressed by various groups and individuals throughout the various
preliminary evaluations.
As the project has evolved from the earliest announcements of a "San Antonio" type river project
to the more conservative plan of today, my husband and I have participated in the majority of
public meetings and discussions. Our many questions and concerns have been addressed at
various levels of the project. We have been able to talk personally with the many agencies, both
private and public that have addressed this project. From the first meetings with the various
designers of other water way projects to the many impact surveys, we have been kept abreast of
the project's progress. We have never been denied information that we sought. Answers not
readily available were researched and given post haste to us.
We have now reached the point of final decision. The extraordinary changes that will be set in
motion by the positive adoption of this joint project will "scare" many, displace some and cause
great growth potential within the city of San Bernardino.
We all have watched and are now feeling the expansion of the Inland Empire. Great influxes of
people from both Los Angeles and Orange counties are moving into our area. Cities to the west
and south of us have already begun to experience great growth and rising real estate values. The
city of San Bernardino is fast becoming the new leading edge of the continuing population
movement to more affordable housing and better job, markets. San Bernardino must be ready
and willing to accommodate this influx. San Bernardino can not continue to be the repository of ~
only "homeless, poor and indigent people." Our reputation as this repository must be changed.
Our city core must become more balanced and more inviting to those middle class families
looking for good, clean affordable housing, close-in jobs with shopping close at hand and safe,
education-focused schools.
As property owners within the central core of downtown San Bernardino and also as citizens
who live in the city, we urge your adoption of this joint project with the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District.
%~lt
Steve & Linda Sutherland
Fun Comer
426 W. Baseline Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
.'
or'
..
CAU'OIW4IA STAU UNIVBI8ITY,
SAN URNARDINO
COLLECI' OF SOCIAL AND
8I!IIAVlORAL SCIENCES
5500 University Parkway
Department of Geograpby & Environmental Studies
San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397
,
909-880-5522
MEMORANDUM
. :.;~
TO:
Common Council, City of San Bernardino ~"'-
City ChHk/I;Ut; S~l:Y
City ot Sail Bernardino
Entered into Recnrrl :It
Council/CmvO," "II
DATE:
April 25, 2005
by
re Agenda Iten .~
~.!!._-
FROM:
James L. Mulvihill, AlCP
RE:
Response to SBVMWD Response to Comments for March 8, 2005 Planning
Commission Meeting
As have my comments to the Notice of Preparation, January 22, 2004, to the Draft EIR,
October 22, 2004, and to the City Planning Commission, March 8, 2005, the following
comments refer to the North Lake portion of the proposed project.
I have ranked my responses, with those of greatest concern first:
1. On EIR Page 4.12-12, reference is made to 280 heavy truck trips during the
construction of North Lake being, "...offset by the reduction of traffic volumes
(20,074 average daily trips) resuhing from removal of existing onsite land uses."
a) The EIR attributes ALL 20,074 average daily trips in and around the project site to
the residents living there, AND the EIR assumes ALL of these will be removed by the
demolition of the neighborhood The EIR (p. 4.9-2) estimates that 1,442 men, women
and children live in the area to be demolished. If the standard 9 trips per day were
used for every man, woman and child in the project area, 20, 074 trips could not be
generated! The EIR ignores trips to businesses in the area, and the location of San
v'
Page Two
MEMO: SB Common Council, North Lake Project
April 25, 2005
Bernardino City Unifjed School District Headquarters, the location ofI215 on- and
off-ramps, and any other through traffic.
b) Nowhere in the EIR is the traffic disruption caused by the 1215 expansion throughout
the next decade accounted for. What will be the potential impacts of this long term
project?
The present environmental document conu>letely fails to study very real negative
impacts of traffic on businesses along Baseline Avenue. as well as on the population
of the area.
2. I suggest in my January 22nd, October 2200, 2004, and March 8, 2005 memos the EIR
examine a location for the north reservoir west along the Baseline Feeder, in the Lytle
Creek Wash. This alternative would not create the problems the present ''North Lake"
location does. This alternative was NOT evaluated in the EIR. The present EIR simply
reviews several locations that are easily refuted "straw men. " CEQA standards and case
law require that "viable" alternative projects be evaluated. The EIR has not evaluated the
viable alternative I have previously suggested.
Additionally, since my January 2004 comments, I've recognized a less intrusive
alternative that was reviewed and eliminated in the EIR. In the EIR, it is stated that all
82.4 acres of the North Lake site are necessary for the construction of the 44 acre
reservoir. Experts do not agree. The Draft EIR states that the smaller lake alternative is
the environmentally superior project. It has sufficient water storage, but is not chosen
because it lacks sufficient ''redevelopment opportunities." So it's easily seen, the smaller
reservoir can be constructed without clearing the entire 82.4 acres in the selected
alternative (with the exception of the Campfire Boys & Girls facility).
3. Proponents of this reservoir refer with certainty to subsequent commercial and residential
developments associated with this project. Yet no study is provided on the continued
effects of these projects on the area's environment. What will be the cumulative impact.<;
of these various projects?
4. My previous memos comment on a 40' drop across the area of North Lake; this is shown
on current USGS Topographic maps for the area. Again, there is no consideration of the
effects on safety that this drop entails. What is the potential impact of placing Y. billion
gallons of water iust upslope from hundreds of elderly and other residents, as well as
businesses in downtown San Bernardino. The size and shallow depth of this reservoir
would result in its emptying if it were shaken only a few degrees.
5. My earlier memos address the requirements of providing 700-800+ units of affordable
housing, given the elimination of affordable units within the project area, and the
expressed desire of project proponents to make the area one of "upscale residences." EIR
Section 4.9-7 to 4.9-10. The referenced section states, "...new housing units will not need
to be constructed as a result of the displacement resulting from the North Lake Project..,"
~/
Page Three
MEMO: SB Common Council. North Lake Project
April 25, 2005
(p. 4.9-10). The EIR gives little indication of the "affordability" issues, or of availability.
This is especially true because approximately 40010 of the housing units are owner-
occupied. Give the lack of affordable homes for purchase, not providing appropriate
additional housing is a tremendous negative impact on this community.
Many assertions have been made for the great potential for economic revitalization in the
project area. The SBVMD commissioned a May 2003 "Market and Financial Analysis" of the
project by the Natelson Company. The Company used several methods to assess the feasibility of
redevelopment; one of these being a series of focus groups composed ofsevera1 dozen local
development and real estate professionals. From these assessments, the report concluded that,
after the cost ofland assembly and clearance ofS13.00 per square foot, for residential uses
development would pay a maximum of$2.75 to $4.00 per square foot - the City would subsidize
redevelopment $9.00 to $11.25 per square foot The subsidy from the City would be slightly less
for commercial uses. Today, such public "give"'aways" are unacceptable.
.
April 24, 2005
Ghassan Norman Abdullah
Azizeh Abdullah
Solomon Abdullah
1129 North F Street San Bernardino, CA 92410
Entered intn RAcord It / ~
CounrjlllCms Mtg: I-.{ ~.!fi aS
by _
~.
re A
litem _
To:
Mayor Judith Valles and
Members of the City Council
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Distrct
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418
~~
City Clerk/COC ~
City of San Bernanlllll
. Honorable Mayor and Members ofthe City Council:
First of all, Our Family and many of our neighbors have raised many concerns with
North Lake Project EIR and the hostile taking of our land and homes without
concern for our rights, dreams and desires. The EIR is inaccurate, flawed and
grossly inadequate since it does not give the true impact of this project on the
community and environment as a whole. The figures reported in the EIR are wrong.
It underestimates the number of residents per household, and does not examine or
evaluate other viable alternatives to this project. This Iakel reservoir will not
mitigate liquefaction as implied by SB Valley Water District /Mr. Milligan
according to many experts in the field. Therefore, the true impact of this project
would be greatly amplified if the correct numbers and problems are are taken into
account.
Second of all, the taking our land and homes via Eminent Domain for private use by
the S.B.Valley Municpal Water District and the remnant land kickback (40 acres) to
the city for redevelopment is inappropriate use of the law of Eminent Domain and is
unlawful. The Supreme Court is currently considering a similar case right now. We
challenge the legality of your actions thus far.
Third of all, we further challenge that this project fails to deal adequately with the
elimination of 437 affordable houses without replacing them with fair and
affordable housing. We also believe that this violates the current state law.
Fourth of all, numerous hearings have been held but no answers or responses have
been given to the concerns or objections raised. Why is it that you give us no
responses to the questions brought up so far? Perhaps, it may be naive to believe
that a Public Hearing is to be informative and two sided. It is apparent that you are
doing this to meet the legal requirements only. Thus far it has been only one sided,
we speak and ask questions and you give no responses or answers. This is a
monologue not a true hearing.
In summary the EIR needs to be modified and correded, all the concerns and
objections expressed by the citizens need to be answered, fair and affordable
housing needs to created not eliminated, and the law of Eminent Domain was not
intended to be utilized to acquire hard earned homes for private use Uke the SB
Valley Water District for economic gain and profit at the expense of the residents of
this great city of San Bernardino. Thank you.
Sincerely, ~
Ghassan Norman Abdullah
IMPORT AUTO SUPPLY
MALKI AUTO SERVICE
565 W 9TH STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 91410
909-889-9505
FAX:909-885-4903
www.l1Ifpot1tultobertloo.com
April 25, 2005
Development Services Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Department
1350 South "E" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92408
~n' .,..If into Record.; 4 II'} 5 10 ~~
'. ,'Ii;mvOevC_Mtg: I~ It. J..J
'l~ _.
ff'.. .da Item ?J "" "...j
~I h. ~l"'k~J
City CIIIt,CDC Secy ,J
Cit, of San Bernardino .,,3
RE: North Lake Area Proposed Project
I have two major concerns about this project.
First, all of the drawings of the proposed project are of a :Oat area with the lake coming very close to Baseline
and Ninth Streets. There is no recognition of the 18ct that there is a 44-foot drop in elevation between
Baseline and Ninth. Streets. The drawing shows a lake surfiICe elevation of 1092 feet. This puts it below the
level of Ninth Street. This means that there would be a high bank on the Baseline side, and the ~I
developments proposed for the west side would also be well above the lake level, especially the northernmost
peninsula. This would restrict access to the lakefront on most of the lake, as well as being a safety hazard.
One UJd~n that the elevation was not taken seriously by the designers that there is a boat ramp shown just
below Baseline and "E" Streets, which would be at least 50 feet above the lake leveL
Second, this amount of water surrounded by residential and commercial development constitutes a severe
hazard in case of earthquake. Moderate to severe ground movement would create a "slosh" or tidal effect,
and large quantities of water would inu~srtP. surrou!ldit,g areas, especially to the south, creating major
damage particularly to tose on the south side ofNintb, where my business is located, as well as flooding that
would move downward toward the School District headquarters, a new school under construction, and the
downtown commercial area.
It was mentioned at the recent PIanniQg Comm~n hearing that one other possible location for the reservoir
that was considered was in the Lytle Creek wash area, but rejected ,because of the proximity to earthquake
filuhs. I would like to point out that even though the wash area is closer to the fiw1ts than downtown, the
damage potential is virtually zero because the large wash area is ideal for harmlessly draining offwater that
might be released from a reservoir during an earthquake.
Sincerely,
c:2I~ ~
Linden MaUd
'"
Telepbone 619/239-2611
LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS E. GOEBEL
110 West "A" Street, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92101
Fax 619/239-4269
o 0 0
4tECEIVED...etTY OlERK
.. 1122 P4:04
April 22, 2005
Mayor Judith Valles
and Members of the City Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Response of Lucy Romero, Steve Veloz, Felix Willa, Rosemary Lane,
Diane Hayes, Nathaniel Grant, Kim Goodstein, Regina Flores, and
S.M. Alvarez to the Draft EIR for the North Lake Area and
South Lake Area Projects as currently presented
Hearing Date: April 25, 2005, 6:30 P.M., Council Chambers
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
This firm is the attorney for the above-named property owners in the proposed North Lake
Area. The following contains their response to ilie Draft EnvironmentaIlmpact Report
("DEIR") regarding the proposed site generally, and for the "articular home site of each
family. For your convenience, the objections of Dr. Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams
and Dr. Ghassan Abdullah from the date the DEIR was released for public review through
April 24, 2005, in writing and in open sessions before the Council are incorporated
herein by reference.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. As currently presented, the DEIR is woefully inadequate and will never pass
muster in the Superior Court or the appellate courts.
2. Contrary to state law and the City's own General Plan and related housing
ordinances, rules and guidelines, the DEIRperforms like an ostrich, burying it'! head
in the sand and ignoring the pernicious, devastatin~ impact on the communIty of the
proposed demolition of over 400 affordable homes (WIth a mere 72 unaft'ordable homes
possibly being offered as so-called replacements).
In fact, the City's current General Plan (The Consolidated Plan) declares
as its higilest priority, "preservation. . . of the affordable existing single family units."
lbe DEIR concedes that approximately 74% of the families living in Census Tract 56
earned incomes less than $24,912.00, thus meeting the low income standard of the City.
(See DEIR 4.9, Population and Housing-Neighborhood Issues, at page 4.9-10.)
1 "Affordable" as used here means a home thl, average San Bernardino citizen could afford --
not limited to subsidized bou~ing of federal, state, local government, or charity.
,.. . ',... "~'~"-~'~""'O"""'_'~
3. This project is a shameful example of environmental injustice at its worst.
The OEIR demOnstrates the City's lack of respect for the honest and hardworking people
who have ~ lived and worked in this nei2hborhood. They have toiled long and hard
to improvft'" community. Many of the family homes and small businesses in the area
are well JIlajntlJined and show pride of ownership. It is unfair for the City to threaten
to take these citizens' private property for someone else's great profit. Instead, the City
should respect the hard work, ethi1ic diversity, and entrepreneunal spirit of these citizens
who are striving to make San Bernardino a better place. The OEIR Ignores the fact that
much of the "blight" it complains about is the result of the threat of eminent domain which
has been hanging over these people's heads for years.
4. There are a myriad of other flaws in the OEIR, large and small, some of which
will be discussed in detail hereafter.
5. The only prudent and fair choice for the Council is to continue this hearin~
and order the authors of the OEIR to "~et real", and openly present the extreme graVIty
of this extermination of some 400 low mcome, affordable homes, and provide real,
concrete solutions before this project takes one step forward. The citizen-homeowners
of San Bernardino in the project area and their families (realistically estimated to be
well over 2,000 souls) are entitled to environmental justice.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE DEIR
6. According to the Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act
(Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, 1999), one of the factors reviewing. courts use
in assessing the le~.al sufficiency of an EIR is a good faith effort at full disclosure,
Regrettably; here,justtheopposite appears to have happened.
One of the most controversial issues in the proposed Project is the extreme
displacement of people, housing, and businesses. (See OEIR 4.9, at page 4.9-2).
The OEIR readily concedes that this aspect of the proposed Project has "Unavoidable '
Significant Impact". (See OEIR 4.9 at page 4.9-7).
Rather than make a "good faith effort at full disclosure," the OEIR ''punts''--
offering only a boilerplate state code, absent any specifics. Missing are any detailed
studies of the scope of over 400 properties proposed to be taken and the scope of
realistic mitigation of the ''unavoidable significant impact", i.e., what property is
available for relocation, how distant is it, and how much will it cost.
7. The OEIR fails to comply with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15146 and 15147.
These sections require a detailed review of the ~ecific effects of a construction project.
Here, the OEIR hardly touches on the 437 affordable single-family units, numerous
businesses, relocation orders as short as 90 days, impact on the elderly, problems with
non-English speakers, and the effect of shortage of comparable affordable housing
reasonably close to the site and the prices likely demanded for such as are available.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE DEm
8. Land Use and Relevant Planning -- not significant.
This section boldly (and incorrectly) states ''the l!!:oposed Project would be consistent
with the City of San Bernardino's General Plan. . . . " LUEIR 7.0, Effects Found Not
Significant, page 7.0-7.] False -- The Housing Element of the General Plan, Chapter 3,
page 3.3, declares as its highest priority: "preservation... of the affordable existing
single family units."
2
<~ .~.~ ~'_'~"H'_'__
. . .
9. Construction-Related Impacts.
DEIR 4.0. Environmental Analysis. page 4.1-1.
Construction of the proposed Project: Less than siwuficant with mitigation. page 4.1-8.
DEIR concedes that construction includes "demolition of existing lana use." but does not
offer any specific mitigation. Without a specific mitigation plan before the EIR is approved.
there is no standard to mana~e the actual performance. and all to often. the mitigation never
happens or is given short shrift.
CONCLUSION
The DEIR and the massive Project it attempts to analyze wreak a devastating negative
environmental impact on the occupants of the Project site and specifically the responding
parties herein. and its product is inadequate and manifests a bias for the Project.
It is inaccurate to report that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. It is not.
The DEIR fails to properly address mitigatIOn by limiting its work to vague speculation
in the future and completely avoiding any on-the-ground detailed study' of the availability
and cost of relocation sites as mitigation. In other multiple areas. it fads to make a
"good faith effort at full disclosure". especially as relate(1 to the property owners.
The only prudent and fair choice for the Council is to continue this hearing
and order the authors of the DEIR to "~et real". and openly present the extreme gravity
of this extermination of some 400 low Income. affordable homes. and provide real.
concrete solutions before this project takes one step forward. The citizen-homeowners
of San Bernardino in the project area and their families (realistically estimated to be .
well over 2.000 souls) are entitled to environmental justice. .
Very truly yours.
LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS E. GOEBEL
If:1!fdt~
Attorney for propJrty Owners Named Above
cc:
James F. Penman. Esq.. City Attorney
Rachel Clark, City Clerk
San Bernardino Water Resources Joint Powers Authority
3
TESTIMONY FROM COUNCIL MEMBER LONGVILLE
Joint Public Hearing on North and South Lake Projects
City of San Bernardino and San Bernardino Municipal Water District
4/25/05
What a long strange journey the San Bernardino Lake Project
has been with more twists and turns than a good mystery novel.
The North Lake Project lies within the Second Ward and it's
success or failure will affect not only my ward, but the entire city. I
have studied, agonized, reached out to the people in my ward and
throughout the city for over eight years since the first discussion took
place in the summer of 1997.
I will be as brief and as thorough as possible, to address the
North Lake Project from both a water resources and an urban
redevelopment perspective for the CEQA record.
Is this a valid water project? Yes. The mission of the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, known by its nickname of
MUNI, is to assure a reliable wholesale water supply to San
Bernardino and our neighboring cities. This project, a regulating
reservoir disguised as an urban lake, will maximize the management
<of local water supplies in this valley and help make our area less
dependent on imported water for growth and long-term sustainability.
That is a step in the right direction.
MUNI has a record of innovation and partnerships. One
impressive example are the lakes at Yucaipa Regional Park. Those
lakes were built by MUNI as a regulating reservoir and they also
enhance the quality of life with fishing and swimming.
I had hoped that such a project in San Bernardino could serve
our city and MUNI as a multi-faceted project just as the Yucaipa
project did, and it should. But the North Lake Project as currently
presented is flawed. And it does not have to be.
It could work well for our city and for MUNI if we have the
courage, imagination, and the foresight to approve a project that
1
".F'" .",<",....,,'
,- --'f7'O:.-::.-F:"";":~:'_'e-"'<'!_O--:;?>;~~'1o~
would be a genuine catalyst for a more successful, livable and
sustainable San Bernardino. In its present form, it is nothing more
than a suburban style lake accompanied with a plan to plunk down
three huge commercial pads and72 isolated homes in the middle of a
distressed neighborhood at some point in the future.
So what went wrong? A series of inconsistent statements in
the official record will explain how the JPA got to this CECA
certification hearing.
After the Joint Powers Authority made the decision to move
forward to design a reservoir in the North Lake Area, I was optimistic
that a WIN-WIN partnership was going to result. A world class urban
design firm that had been credited with successful redevelopment
projeds in the Los Angeles area was retained to develop a visionary
revitalization plan. $600,000 was allocated for that endeavor-our
biggest expenditure yet.
MUNI had the sole responsibility of designing a reservoir for
the North Lake Projed area that would meet its needs without any
interference from the city or the design firm. MUNI retained Harlan
Glenn, a leading engineer in lake design and construdion. Glenn, in
concert with Louis Fletcher, world-class engineer who is the retired
,,~neral manager of MUNI, designed a 33-acre lake that fulfilled
MUNI's water management needs with a capacity of 509 acre-feet.
Mr. Milligan repeatedly assured the members of the JPA that this
reservoir would provide sufficient flexibility in its system to justify the
cost of building it in return for the benefrts of better management of
the basin.
One the redevelopment side, the design firm was charged with
working the city and the citizens to design a revitalization plan that
would incorporate MUNI's lake projed design as one component of a
fully integrated downtown. The redevelopment around the lake would
alos be designed to serve as a catalyst to turn around one of the
most troubled areas in San Bernardino-our central city.
The consultant, after many meetings with the residents,
businesses, and community institutions presented an imaginative,
attradive, and ambitious conceptual plan for our city's core. That plan
2
-~
''''''''':"'"~--tl!Irr--' - '~=-~~'!'}""-~=-"--,''''" -', ""ccK "Si"""'7r-Th,,~~~~~r:.:..~~v;::~'.:~~~,_"_, _~..,....._
included a practical preservation and rehabilitation program of 111
single-family affordable homes that are overwhelmingly owner
occupied on the western edge of the 82-acre site to stimulate the
upgrading of similar residential neighborhoods that lie to the north
and the east of the lake. That plan limited the necessity to buy every
home and relocate all those good folks.
The preservation and rehabilitation also included the largest
church and left a neighborhood shopping center intact that serves the
daily needs of the residents.
The plan also included redevelopment opportunities. There
were 65 new market rate cottage style single-family homes on the
lakeshore plus small commercial pads that would revitalize and
enhance the distressed Baseline corridor on the north and the
northeast. Upscale commercial pads were proposed on the east and
south to stimulate the downtown area.
That development included new public infrastructure that was
designed to make the North Lake Area a city destination. E Street
would be realigned to hug the east side of the lake so the water
would become a drive-by attraction. There would be a special
destination site with a lake view on the south side that would serve as
~,.,city center for special events for the downtown area.
Unfortunately, the design firm failed to turn this plan into a
Specific Plan that was acceptable to the JPA. All of these concepts
for the North Lake area have been included in the EIR as the Smaller
North Lake Alternative.
Subsequently, a new consultant was retained to prepare an
EIR. After a review period, this consultant stated in a public meeting
that MUNI's 33-acre reservoir was flawed and raised unforeseen
technical and environmental issues.
The consultants said the depth of the 33-acre lake led them to
recommend that a larger, shallower lake. The consultants said the
smaller, deeper lake would require additional layers of clay for lining
that a shallower lake would not. They said that locating that clay in
the immediate area would be problematic and transporting the clay to
3
-~.~
-----, ... '-,'" L"'___'~"'-"""'-~""_'_"_'_"_ -, .-'.7"'~':-"""";'''''~-'l''.:!~t "'""',,-..___.rf;:.._~?r.!". "'_>"'_,,"\'~ .
the site by truck would pose air quality impacts that were substantial.
They stated that the cost of the additional clay layers were more than
MUNI had planned to spend on the original design. And on that
premise, the North Lake began to grow from 33 to 44.5. Along the
way, I have consistently disagreed with the other members of the
JPA.
But that's old news and why am I bringing it up? Because the
EIR, this official legal document, states the reason why the Smaller
North Lake Alternative was not chosen as the preferred alternative
and that reason is not depth, not liners and not air quality impacts.
The EIR makes the bold statement that smaller lake "fails to
provide sufficient opportunities for redevelopment and reinvestment
into the existing community and partially fails in limiting the spread of
blight". This .statement makes it crystal clear that the technical and
environmental issues that were raised by the EIR consultant were
nothing more than a ploy. A ploy for setting aside the smaller lake
and the revitalization plan, increasing the size and capacity of the
reservoir, and wiping out all the existing properties for Mure
redevelopment.
What does the EIR say about the Smaller North Lake
Alternative? It says the smaller lake is (quote) "the environmentally
~
~uperior alternative" (close-quote) and it also states that the smaller
lake (quote)"provides sufficient storage" (close-quote).
What is even more perplexing is what the EIR ~oesn't tell us.
It doesn't tell us why capacity of the lake increased by 30% from 509
to 660 acre-feet when it simply needed to be shallower. It doesn't tell
us why the plan to preserve and rehabilitate a portion of the North
Lake Area was laid aside. It only tells us that all the properties need
to go for the sake of redevelopment and reducing blight.
But above all, there is a fatal fiscal flaw in this project that puts
both the city and the water district in a very vulnerable situation.
That is because MUNI alone will be acquiring and relocating all the
residents and businesses within the 82.4 acre North Lake Area.
4
^^C'>"C'^"^^CCCC^^'^~ -". '^C"'~_^"'""~~"J!><c ,
Of course, MUNI should acquire property for the lake and
adjacent park that they will own and operate. They should buy the
city's roads and sidewalks and streetlights and sewers that belong to
the citizens of San Bernardino so the city can fund new infrastructure
in the lake area and use any excess for deferred maintenance like
streets exploding with potholes all over town. But it should stop there.
MUNI should not be acquiring 25 acres of excess land on the
premise in the EIR that more than 25 acres is needed for construction
activities. MUNI should not hold title to vacant land that is covered
with nothing but grass and hold them for redevelopment purposes
until some date in time when the city comes up with a huge source of
funding to compensate the water district for the money it has spent.
The Redevelopment Commission of the City of San Bernardino
should acquire property necessary for. the new homes and small
commercial pads when they have the private developers to do these
projects. This project can't be successful without private sector
participation and the projects should start with a private investor that
is ready to come to San Bernardino and take advantage of what we
have to offer.
And that is why there is absolutely no guarantee that there will
ever be any redevelopment in those 25 acres. The EIR merely states
'(quote)"certain remnant lands may be transferred to the
Redevelopment Agency for reuse as redevelopment".
To help you understand what this means, let me acquaint you
with the financial analysis that was completed by the Natelson
Company for the JPA. That report states the (quote) "cleared
residential land would need to be offered to developers at or below
market value with backbone infrastructure and utilities. The project
would require substantial public sector subsidization in order to
achieve desired development because the cost of deliverinG the
develoD"ble land to DJ:iva. devel9~rs wlQ.l.yJ)ftantiallv exceed
the Dqtential resale value of the land." And that statement is even
more valid in today's escalating real estate market with single family
homes in the project area worth substantially more than they were
when this analysis was done.
5
~~"
.~.~ .~.~, ~
."'''_..~
",
How much money are we talking about? We don't know. The
report states "This potentially significant revenue source has not been
quantified." MUNI has already started a relocation survey before the
environmental impact report has been certified to quantify this figure
that I believe it a technical violation of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
If our city is to thrive once more, we must shake off the fear of
combining older homes with new ones in today's market because it's
already working. We must shake off the fear that mixed income
neighborhoods always lead to blight rather than a brighter Mure
because it's already happening in the Meadowbrook area. Some of
the worst housing stock has been tom down and new homes are
selling for $250,000 to $300,000 right in the middle of an older
neighborhood.
This is what should and could happen in the North Lake area if
the right design concepts are put to work and they save taxpayer
money.
I have stood up for the 33-acre lake project with the design
concepts that I have described to you because it will indeed enhance
our city and it is fiscally more conservative because it combines
preservation and redevelopment. Why destroy the good older land
uses and drop a suburban style development in the middle of the
iJrtan core of the city?
The Preferred Alternative, the 82.4-acre North Lake Project with
all the serious problems I have described, is like a knife in the heart of
progress in San Bernardino. I cannot in good conscience support it
even though the EIR technically does address the environmental
impacts.
I must vote no on certification of this EIR. I do not want to leave
it at that. I urge, I implore my colleagues on the council and the
elected board of directors of MUNI to adopt the Smaller North Lake
Alternative because it is the environmentally superior alternative, it
has right design concepts and it does not place the city or the district
in financial jeopardy.
6
.....0 0 ",oo"o'c"'TCc' CO' ,.
. ..
Therefore I am making a motion that the Smaller North Lake
Alternative be substituted as the Preferred Alternative and I am
asking for a second to this motion.
NUHO
7
-"
, .'" "
...
My name is Don White. I have lived in this community for 65
years. I love this city, and it hurts me deeply to see the
downtown surrounding area continue to decline. It's time to do
something about it.
1) Here's the problem:
a) The wealthy moved to the outer reaches of the city, leaving
the inner city for the transient and low income.
b) The inner city could no longer attract people with money or
keep major department stores for a variety of reasons, such
as increased crime, blight, and transients.
c) The degeneration continued, bringing in more 99 cent stores
and low income housing, which affected the city's financial
decline.
2) The solution is to create a magnet that will attract those
with money back into the city, investors, businesses and
consumers. This is what many cities across the country have
done. We should learn from the experiences and successes of
others.
a) With property in the area going sky-high, the task is made
somewhat easier.
b) We need to create a dramatic face-lift, a whole new image
that will entice investors and raise property values. In order to
achieve these goals,
. Deteriorating buildings and other structures will be
leveled, to make room for the new lakes and streams
project. The former owners of this project area will be
fairly compensated to upgrade in another location.
. Quality housing, senior-citizen/assisted living centers
will be established, as well as other new businesses, and
this growth will ripple into surrounding areas.
1Il!E"""""'"
~,
.. .~...
~
. ...
3) The lakes and streams project will influence a healthy,
new growth and will help revitalize downtown San Bernardino.
Water has a very positive effect in our warm climate. When I visit
City Hall, it is so refreshing to see and hear the rippling water
cascading over the spillways. Not only will this project be
beautiful, but it will greatly improve our economy by increasing
tax revenues and by creating an atmosphere around the lakes that is
safe, exciting, and inviting and will bring back those with money.
In conclusion, because property values are at an all-time high, this
is the best time to initiate this project and stop this downward slide
of our city's economy. All of us will eventually benefit from this
lakes project.
-'~-""",--
~
)...
.
.
\
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF LAKES & STREAMS PROJECT
Apri125,2005
Rabbi Hillel Cohn
I have been a resident of San Bernardino the past 42 years. My wife and I have
made an unalterable commitment to live here for the remainder of our lives. We love
this city and its people. That love for this city has led us to join forces with others in
many efforts to improve our city and to support those agencies and organizations that
strive for the betterment of our city.
Like so many others we have seen the unfortunate decline and demise of some
of the greatest institutions that provided employment and strength for this city and its
surrounding areas, most notably Norton Air Force Base and Kaiser Steel. But we
have also seen what can happen when there is vision for the future such as the
creation of California State University, Carousel Mall, Inland Center Mall, the Jerry
L. Petttis Veterans Administration Hospital and so many more.
Our historic city has been plagued and stymied too many times by short-
sightedness, narrow vision, self-interest and timidity. I have great hopes for a real
renaissance of my city - our city. And I know that such a renaissance can only come
about by a readiness and willingness to think creatively and imaginatively, to forsake
self-interest and self-aggrandizement, to make sacrifices, to be flexible, and to be
bold and courageous.
The Lakes and Streams project is visionary and viable. I firmly believe that it
will make of the downtown core of our city a place that is safe and attractive and that
it will bolster our economy and repair our tattered social fabric. The plans are
exciting.
I have full confidence in those who have devoted years to creating this new
vision for our city. I only lament that the original plan which encompassed a greater
area has been down-sized but I respect the conclusions of those with impressive
expertise who have been realistic in their assessment of what is possible at this time.
They have seen what other cities across the nation have done to face the future. Those
of us who have been to such places as San Antonio have been awed by what is
possible. We will not duplicate what other cities have done. Our project is one ideally
suited for this, our city, for San Bernardino. There is no reason why we can't do it!!
I believe that the Lakes and Streams project is viable.
Will the Lakes and Streams project displace some of our fellow-citizens? Of
course! Will they be fairly compensated for their property which needs to be acquired
to turn this project into reality? Of course! Will the end result be a place that attracts
tourists, that makes us and those generations that will follow us proud, that undoes
much of the image of our city that has come to be tarnished over the years? Most
certainly! Will there be some who profit from this project because it will open up
windows of opportunity for residences and businesses? Absolutely! That is in
keeping with our American free-enterprise system. Fortunately there are ample
safeguards to prevent anyone from taking undue advantage of this new opportunity.
_,.:..,~"'~~:o:~',c lC
;
..
Those who will ultimately profit the most are the people of this city and their
descendants. For ours and theirs will be a city that is easily recognized as a city of
vision and foresight. That is the kind of city that I want to live in. That is the kind of
city that will make me prouder than ever to call it "my home."
The Lakes and Streams project, in its initial phase, does require adjustment and
sacrifice. No one minimizes that. Memories of homes and businesses are important.
But if we allow sentimentality and nostalgia, either based on reality or enhanced by
myth, to deter us we will besmirch and desecrate those memories. Would we not all
want to be remembered for more than being possessors of decaying buildings? We
have an opportunity to be remembered as pioneers, as pathfinders. No real progress is
possible without such readiness to adjust and sacrifice. The Lakes and Streams
project has such an incredible potential to turn our long-decaying central city core
into a spectacular area that will proclaim loudly and clearly that we ARE a city that
knows how to move forward.
I cannot help but think of the visionary words of the biblical prophet Isaiah:
"You shall draw waters with joy from the springs of salvation, from the wells
of deliverance. Isaiah 12:2-3)" Ours is now the opportunity to capture the waters
which are our city's great natural resource and to let them open for us the ways-b
salvation and deliverance for our city.
Let us unite in mind and spirit to grasp this new and promising opportunity.
"
2
~~. ,'''''i,":~''~'..._''
.
r' '
..
CAUFORNIA SIAm UNIVERSITY,
SAN IllllNARDlNO
~OfSOClALAND
8111AVlORAL SCIENCES
5500 University Parkway
Department of Geography & Environmental Studies
San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397.
909-880-5522
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 25, 2005
TO:
Common Council, City of San Bernardino
FROM:
James L. Mulvihill, AlCP
RE:
Response to SBVMWD Response to Comments for March 8, 2005 Planning
Commission Meeting
As have my comments to the Notice of Preparation, January 22, 2004, to the Draft EIR,
October 22, 2004, and to the City Planning Commission, March 8, 2005, the following
comments refer to the North Lake portion of the proposed project.
I have ranked my responses, with those of greatest concern first:
1. On EIR Page 4.12-12, reference is made to 280 heavy truck trips during the
construction of North Lake being, "...offSet by the reduction of traffic volumes
(20,074 average daily trips) resuhing from removal of existing onsite land uses."
a) The EIR attributes ALL 20,074 average daily trips in and around the project site to
the residents living there, AND the EIR assumes ALL of these will be removed by the
demolition of the neighborhood. The EIR (p. 4.9-2) estimates that 1,442 men, women
and children live in the area to be demolished. If the standard 9 trips per day were
psed for every man, woman and child in the project area, 20, 074 trips could not be
~enerated! The EIR ignores trips to businesses in the area, and the location of San
"~"l
,
.
,-
...
Page Two
MEMO: SB Common Council, North Lake Project
April 25, 2005
Bernardino City Unified School District Headquarters, the location ofI215 on- and
off-ramps, and any other through traffic.
b) Nowhere in the EIR is the traffic disruption caused by the 1215 expansion throughout
the next decade accounted for. What will be the potential impacts of this long term
project?
The present environmental document coIJUlletely fails to study verY real ne~ative
impacts of traffic on businesses along Baseline Avenue. as well as on the population
of the area.
2. I suggest in my January 22nd, October 2200,2004, and March 8,2005 memos the EIR
examine a location for the north reservoir west along the Baseline Feeder, in the Lytle
Creek Wash. This alternative would not create the problems the present ''North Lake"
location does. This alternative was NOT evaluated in the EIR The present EIR simply
reviews several locations that are easily refuted "straw men." CEQA standards and case
law require that "viable" alternative projects be evaluated. The EIR has not eVlJluated the
viable alternative I have previously suggested.
Additionally, since my January 2004 comments, I've recognized a less intrusive
alternative that was reviewed and elimimrted in the EIR In the EIR, it is stated that all
82.4 acres of the North Lake site are necessary for the construction of the 44 acre
reservoir. Experts do not agree. The Draft EIR states that the smaller lake alternative is
the environmentally superior project. It has sufficient water storage, but is not chosen
because it lacks sufficient "redevelopment opportunities." So it's easily seen, the smaller
reservoir can be constructed without clearing the entire 82.4 acres in the selected
alternative (with the exception of the Campfire Boys & Girls facility).
3. Proponents of this reservoir refer with certainty to subsequent commercial and residential
developments associated with this project. Yet no study is provided on the continued
effects of these projects on the area's environment. What will be the cumulative impacts
of these various projects?
4. My previous memos comment on a 40' drop across the area of North Lake; this is shown
on current USGS Topographic maps for the area. Again, there is no consideration of the
effects on safety that this drop entails. What is the potential impact of placing Y4 billion
gallons of water just upslope from hundreds of elderly and other residents, as well as
busineSses in downtown San Bernardino. The size and shallow depth of this reservoir
would resuh in its emptying if it were shaken only a few degrees.
5. My earlier memos address the requirements of providing 700-800+ units of affordable
housing, given the elimination of affordable units within the project area, and the
expressed desire of project proponents to make the area one of ' 'upscale residences." EIR
Section 4.9-7 to 4.9-10. The referenced section states, "...new housing units will not need
to be constructed as a resuh of the displacement resuhing from the North Lake Project..,"
n" >.
~,v'
Page Three
MEMO: SB Common Council, North Lake Project
April 25, 2005
(p. 4.9-10). The EIR gives little indication of the "affordability" issues, or ofavailability.
This is especially true because approximately 400Al of the housing units are owner-
occupied. Give the lack of affordable homes for purchase, not providing appropriate
additional housing is a tremendous negative impact on this community.
Many assertions have been made for the great potential for economic revitalization in the
project area The SBVMD commissioned a May 2003 "Market and Financial Analysis" of the
project by the Natelson Company. The Company used several methods to assess the feasibility of
redevelopment; one of these being a series of focus groups composed of several dozen local
development and real estate professionals. From these assessments, the report concluded that,
after the cost ofland assembly and clearance ofSl3.oo per square foot, for residential uses
development would pay a maximum ofS2.75 to $4.00 per square foot - the City would subsidize
redevelopment $9.00 to SIl.25 per square foot. The subsidy from the City would be slightly less
for commercial uses. Today, such public "give-a ways" are unacceptable.
. /
, '"
,
STATEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE
LAKES AND STREAMS PROJECT
APRIL 25, 2005
Earleen Ferguson- Dudley
Owner, Garden Interiors and Party Planters
393 W Athol St Ste 12
San Bernardino, Ca 92401
I have owned my l7uslness, Garden Interiors, here In San 6ernardlno since 1982.
We are located Just east of the Arrowhead Credit Union 6allpark, Just north of
the Mill Street/E street Intersection.
My first real Jol7 was window dresser and Junior department l7uyer for a small
dress shop at 6aeellne and E Street. As a young wife and mother, we lived near
and enjoyed the many services offered along 6asellne: dry cleaners, full service
grocery shopping, pharmacy services, toys, and gardening supplies could all be
found within walking distance of our apartment on North 'F' street.
The nelghl7orhood was occupied with young families and seasoned citizens,
mostly living In well kept older homes and l7ungalows on 170th sides of 6aseline.
It was a lovely place to raise a family.
~
Now those nelghl7orhoods are thirty five years older, home owners have given
way to houee renters and the area lacks the qualntnese It once had.
Water has always l7een the strong fundamental asset of San 6ernardlno. It is
the reason the first settlers chose to locate here. Water Is again at the heart
of a decision for San 6ernardlno.
''''~, "
.~
.r
We have all witnessed change - both good and questionable over the years:
The dlvlelon of the community caused by conetructlon of the interstate
freeway In the late 1950's, the 1970s shifting of the retail/hospitality centers
to the eouthern part of town, and now the apparent 'warehouslzatlon' of the
former Norton AF5 area. All these events have resulted In the fragmentation of
the community.
The farmers of the Central Valley advertise that 'where water flows, crops grow',
and thle can 17e said for our community, especially true since we live in an arid
climate. Communities like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tempe, and closer to us - in
Riverside County - have Incorporated major water features into their landscape
and theee wonderful spaces have become a focal point for community pride and
development.
When I think of spending an afternoon picnlcing with my grandchildren lakeside,
It excites me. Somehow, It wouldn't be the same opening up the picnic basket
next to a giant a170ve ground water tank.
As a 17uslness owner, I feel that the Lakes and Streams project can provide a
much needed focal point of pride for San Bernardino, not to mention the
opportunity to develop wonderful new neighborhoods and storefronts.
And as the owner of an horticultural business, here's a little reminder ...
If you want something to thrive and grow, just add waterl
~. ,.
I" ,
.~w,,~~
April 24, 2005
Ghassan Norman Abdullah
Azizeh Abdullah
Solomon Abdullah
1129 North F Street San Bernardino, CA 92410
To: Mayor Judith Valles and
Members of the City Council
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Distrid
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418
Honorable Mayor and Members ofthe City Council:
First of all, Our Family and many of our neighbors have raised many concerns with
North Lake Project EIR and the hostile taking of our land and homes without
concern for our rights, dreams and desires. The EIR is inaccurate, flawed and
grossly inadequate since it does not give the true impad of this project on the
community and environment as a whole. The figures reported in the EIR are wrong.
It underestimates the number of residents per household, and does not examine or
evaluate other viable alternatives to this project. This lake! reservoir will not
mitigate liquefaction as implied by SB Valley Water Distrid /Mr. Milligan
according to many experts in the field. Therefore, the true impad of this project
would be greatly amplified if the corred numbers and problems are are taken into
account.
Second of all, the taking our land and homes via Eminent Domain for private use by
the S.B.Valley Municpal Water Distrid and the remnant land kickback (40 acres) to
the city for redevelopment is inappropriate use of the law of Eminent Domain and is
unlawfuL The Supreme Court is currently considering a similar case right now. We
challenge the legality of your actions thus far.
Third of all, we further challenge that this projed fails to deal adequately with the
elimination of 437 affordable houses without replacing them with fair and
affordable housing. We also believe that this violates the current state law.
Fourth of all, numerous hearings have been held but no answers or responses have
been given to the concerns or objections raised. Why is it that you give us no
responses to the questions brought up so far? Perhaps, it may be naive to believe
that a Public Hearing is to be informative and two sided. It is apparent that you are
doing this to meet the legal requirements only. Thus far it has been only one sided,
we speak and ask questions and you give no responses or answers. This is a
monologue not a true hearing.
.. .
" "
In summary the EIR needs to be modified and corrected, all the concerns and
objections expressed by the citizens need to be answered, fair and affordable
housing needs to created not eliminated, and the law of Eminent Domain was not
intended to be utilized to acquire hard earned homes for private use like the SB
Valley Water District for economic gain and profit at the expense of the residents of
this great city of San Bernardino. Thank you.
Sincerely, ~
Ghassan Norman Abdullah
-~
eliminating racism
empowering women
ywca
April 18, 2005
Mayor Judith Valles
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Dear Madam Mayor;
As directed by our Board of Directors, I am writing on behalf of the YWCA of
Greater San Bernardino to lend any support available to us to bring about the
completion of the Lakes and Streams project. Lakes and Streams will bring a
much-needed economic boost to San Bernardino, and will beautify our city.
The YWCA facility at 567 North Sierra Way had originally been a part of the
project area, and we were very pleased. And though we are no longer part of the
project area, it is clear that the City is determined to beautify Seccombe Lake,
which sits right outside our building.
We are very sure that as the Lakes and Streams project moves forward, the
city's plans for the area around the lake will be a beautiful addition to what we
see as plans for a beautiful city. Our entire Board of Directors is very excited
about the re-grading ofthe park around the lake. The beauty of the lake is now
evident to passers-by, and we are proud to be located there.
You can count on the support of the YWCA of Greater San Bernardino as you
move forward with the Lakes and Streams project in downtown San Bernardino.
Sincerely,
~~
Christena Elshof
President, Board of Directors
ywca of greater san bernardino, 567 north sierra way, san bernardino ca 92410
(909) 889-9536 office
(909)381-9826 fax
...==.~
Arturo Delgado, Ed.D.
Superintendent
April 25, 2005
Mr. John Hoeger, JPA Project Manager
San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mr. Hoeger,
It is with great confidence that I extend my support to the City of San Bernardino's
Lakes and Streams project on behalf of the San Bernardino City Unified School
District.
I would like to commend the City for developing a plan to revitalize the
neighborhood north of downtown San Bernardino. The San Bernardino City
Unified School District welcomes the possibility of new businesses and neighbors
in the downtown area.
As the District continues to prepare students to join the workforce, it is important
that our city provide jobs and business opportunities for future generations. As the
Lakes and Streams project transitions from a plan to a reality, it will provide much
needed employment opportunities for the community.
On behalf of the San Bernardino City Unified School District I extend my full
support for the Lakes and Streams project.
~Q
ARTURO DELGAD ,
Superintendent
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
777 North F Street. San Bernardino, CA 92410. (909) 381-1240. fax (909) 885-6392 .
arturo.delgado@sbcusd.kI2.ca.us
. .....~c"u.. .",.,_
IMPORT AUTO SUPPLY
MALKI AUTO SERVICE
565 W 9TH STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
909-889-9505
FAX:909-88S-4903
www.importllllloberdoo.com
April 25, 2005
Development Services Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Department
1350 South "E" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92408
RE: North Lake Area Proposed Project
I have two maJor concerns about this project.
First, all of the drawings of the proposed project are ofa flat area with the Jake coming very close to Baseline
and Ninth Streets. There is no recognition of the filet that there is a 44-foot drop in elevation between
Baseline and N'mth. Streets. The drawing sbows a Jake surJBce elevation of 1092 teet. This puts it below the
level of Ninth Street. This means that there would be a high bank on the Baseline side, and the residential
developments proposed for the west side would also be well above the Jake level, especially the northernmost
peninsula. This would restrict access to the lakefront on most of the lake, as well as being a safety hazard.
One indication that the elevation was not taken seriously by the ~ that there is a boat ramp sbownjust
below Baseline and "E" Streets, which would be at least 50 feet above the lake leveL
Second, this amount of water surrounded by residential and commercial development constitutes a severe
hazard in case of earthquake. Moderate to severe ground movement would create a "slosh" or tidal effect,
and large quantities of water would inundate surround~ areas, especially to the south, creatiog major
damage particularly to tose on the south side of Ninth, where my business is located, as well as flooding that
would move downward toward the School District headquarters, a new school under construction, and the
downtown commercial area.
It was mentioned at the recent Planning Coml1)i~Q hearing that one other possible location for the reservoir
that was considered was in the Lytle Creek wash area, but rejected becalJse of the proximity to earthquake
muhs. I would like to point out that even though the wash area is closer to the fiwlts than downtown, the
damage potential is virtually zero because the large wash area is ideal for harmlessly draining offwater that
might be released from a reservoir during an earthquake.
Sincerely,
#-~
Linden Malki
-"'''0 r::T=' .....1>>.. .<<>> ::roen en ~-taQ,).....:=.... ""C I>> ::::J"C'D"'Q;;t .c..-c-o U))> .~ CD: en en :: I: =....
cl a CD o.s.c 1'0::11:::> I>> o..:rar:z:t;::rC'O:::> ii~.ii::llC'OIC 0 =CD en ml>> I>> C'O"O om::r:cnD~ m -4-1=-=
::L ""~--g:",,,,"o..ao..n"O- C'O 0.. IC 1'Il.s:!1>>e:30-.z"OaoCil:::>r-C'OCDg_'fn::r=r-m
r ""e: c:rC'O I>> ~:=-I>> _.."C'O ::r=:::::n~ e: t;::ro:=-;;;.:r~ =r"S!.~<o ~"S!.I>>IC GiCil,< CDeS 0 CD mr-G)
I ;;-1 ~~ -.1::5 5.~"g cNg -,"0 .....gQl !::~.sa.::ra:"a~cn :p.-t:z:~ g Q. ~ =,c~i!!
· .,S:O ~ is:c:::> :::!9'Ci~~fn::llf!: ~ s:! O'j;33-=",fn S:~.'2'n en Cl!!!.~ 0 :e=:...c,o _~g .!!l.~=-!ai!
-.. ....CDnC>>9mCD <~s>>-...,"'O:::.-' oo-<.a:...CD~o""z::;:'~=:::r--3::r_...., ::C", ...
.... ~g......g 16 C'O cn~ g.!" ~a~lJl-gcg!!l & :=:em,,1>> "0 3.a s; C'O g !!l.~.I>>: 2,:;; s:Cil Z!z
.., ::rNfn "OCl1>>31>>::r ~O-~Cil CD.._ Co..e:3CDm:::>o..~ _m:::>:::>-1>>1>>00C)Q
I!D cS CD en _.0...,,,.... ::2 -.m 1>> -"~r::rcn 1>> a; -II>> aJ-'~(D -zc..cr' if- Q"< CD en S''< ....cc:D
. W 2 ;~'~ii.g ::II!i~ o..<~~~a~o;; s.a~~a~~c;'a~i!ii>~~ ~G)c:li'@ g:~ C'OS:~611;!
:I C'O~ -..- mo ~ -.- Cl:::> en :::> I>> - fn "C'O ::rv. ::rr-:::>::rC'O C'O - 3 ~ o..:=: C i
~ Ii ? ~.CDcS uH~ ,.....su ao~="'I>>.~::~ Cb ~ ~:zI=i"Ci)::1 g =r~ _gC'D 0::1 :""'0cn See 0 g.Zrnz
a ~~- _c..~gnO cnm~~o cn_....,mnon0~mZ~I::Im~>~_-~~o
Ifl.8 ~~ ~;a ;~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ e!. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~;; ~ ~~. ii ~ 5~'co ~g;!i~ ~~.~R ~ii;
... Ci"S2'< c; s>>Cir~S>> 9:~r-::I. m~ m ~:e ::;.!:!!. < eCD <o-.~cc ~ ~ m ~::+.....~ ~ ::I CD CD I>> we....
.5 It II>> g::ren g.g !i~eS.@l g: Iii ~g.!!!. "'"!!l. C'O g lJl Cl!:?;!t;:::' ~Iii ~~~=:~ n':Z:~_ ar Ci::r;; &o=-=
.g-~~o~c' mc~m~~~S~~~~~_$~~ ~~gm~~i~=m3~~g~ 3.~
>.:18' I>> I>> 3C'O ~ :::> ;!C=o :- 3 < ii'5l !!l. Nin'C'OC'O 0 ~ .. ~~~ :::> ::r~ . - C'O '::Po:!".~ -::t!"C g ii fn'< 4'mS;>>
& 1=:::> ;:;C'O~en_-II>>< CD~ 0 )>-00 C'O ~~- ~::r-o:::>--00"0~
8' I Al Q.~ oa; :Dr-o ~~~=g :E=~ m !a ~ststg ~(D'"E..c5'e!.~ ~ ~ ::I =-c;.(il r=::+ 0..;;;<5 !;~.g:-u:.
gf~~~ ~~ !!~~ lil~ in.g~*~~ ~~!!: ~ a.~ ~:&~.~~~!iii~~~~i.~~~~s;:s;:;
., tiC c.cu n m c.m.. c..~ ~ I>> CD ""'\.~e'0 mien -'&0 ~Q en c>>CC acn (").., en r-gen..::O ~ co"'.
~~irSa:~ 5fj"s;i~' o~ ~~'a:~; c ~cE'2<5 gm CD goa~:: I>> a~ =: Zm!i =61&~ F!;11
-a=I=.a'C 3!" arCD -~~ 3 ar -'::lJla;rCil &9.CiC'O:::>~ &'5l"O -gge:~.~';~_~ Q 2-:fii!
-)1 rg~S-~ -t~ t;~o Q.g:!=L: ~d:!:~'< Q..: sto'S.gcc ::g~5.a ~S;:?;rne?~'< ~3!~:a c
.. :! m D1 CD ~ c-....J(").Q ~o --I ~ c: -1m S::TCD ~ coO ~gO c.c: 3:'''crQ::I::T~ u.r9. _::!Q
.._~.::r:::> ~C'O CD~~~;:l.-='~ ~ g.2.ii~0 ~:;; ~03!2:lJl CD3 !!!.a5~!!!.;!g. -ns:~~ Ci~.2.I:.:.!.
.._-Qc.c::r~00en=+:~"00~S'::sn ~CDacn enl>> C.~""'<-CD-.-fC1l :::!. c::r:li!:
~llgim ~3';-~ ifi'ii'!;;.g ~~;O'~~~:;; <li!!: in.g:'~~.g'iii'CDfJ:;; ~ ~ a~~g ~'~~p.!:aC)z
-a.1If3eS 3 ii;'o..ao..s:&mCiIC in'~ <S-fn-g"'"'!2:IC I>> ~ iil.;;:o..g~ g:S'd s:[!!g~!!: ::rg"O 0=-~
=-. m n 3 Q. < is m ~ CD I>> :e 6. g- 9:~ e!. Q. c::r I>> ~ dl =. c. ~"< :i c ... 0. ~ ;! CD ~~ en ~ ::::.i. c r-:r
UJ.J~ ij:~ :i'!!.~ :rs-2:Cil ge!.=G-.g.fa_~~~ a's-5 Ci)"~g a5.~~&en 2 ;R~ti5:S2 i"a2!~..-
<} ::::SClJCD~C:" "Cent>> "'Cc:::: - ~ CD......~ "'D3cc I>>_."C-:a-~~""~ -.me
_ .~ =m~~3Snm_"s.~.CD:e~'mmo._....CDN=.C g~~o~~~.~~- on~ _
.I. I.&;l~ ~~~g ~.~~ ~~~ ~~~~~Ciii-~~ ~~~:~~i ~~~~~ ~ ~[~~ :~i
.. .:iA~cCi";;~ CD ;-u)"en a~s.g C.~CD ~ rn g mgo Cn:::ro::J?ice 0.3 CD a=~g.3 0.:.:"_
",,",,,,S'::TCD- 3cc it"!it~ =~en ~c;)"=n =a::::::: g:_.::g nc>> m 0 cr.....~ 0 !2.~.....0~ n CD n mOl;
g;;;t.~ 0- g j;j ~a I>> g lit S. o..<g. s::::"":,- 9: ~ ~~~ g 0- ~!i! '" ='. s:-g g ii CD3 50 03: g ii Cil !!!. !!!. S. g 3! ill
-~o~ ~ nt>> a... ~t>>n~ H"<.....t>>....~....~o~t>>-I>> ~ _ t>>::J~ ~~c-
~!!: 0 g.g I>> 3'':< a~g in'S:C'O fn'-O g~ s:o<"~ Ci~o~ ~fji g 3~:::> ~~i5'!!l.:::> ~i>l ::!j!= ~
~ ic.~ocn~o~ ~mna~~a~en,,< CDc. ~o-.~om~CD""c.o"<CD~Q.-~z5A~
51 "'" Cil !;t~~~ in'in'~ca~~ &'i~~ ~fS.s:~t g !!l.3-'~:"'~~~~"O ;::~ 3;S.~ iis:! ~ Ci=1=: c
. :!;.re.S< :TCD e: 3 i>l < mo'Cil 0 c:~ CD O~CD ~ :::> __ ii:::> CD fn 0 ~~ fn CD::r;a. !2.~e: 3'~-o-m!!!."" ""0
.....0 -r CD ~......c n -:::J~"'C om'" en - cr ~~- .....~ 0 "'''0 0 I>> I>> ~_... CD m 0""""""'"
:W.. ~?! lit~ i g.l~.3!~~: "'og: ~ ;~a.~~':~.g ii~.~.?~1*~~~ 2~'~~ 3'5 al5'~
....if...)>::I >< C'O:::> 3 0 en -0:5. I>> CD CD C'O C'O C'O _.fn _0 00<"--11>> ~ ~ I>> !!!.C'O::rn o..e:;:e ail-
~.. ~~e:c:ren- B:::>e:=:;;=Oc:r;a._3:::>en~~::r~i>l ~::r= I>>n:;;33~C'O-~_=:z:.~
I ::I-C'OI>>"O~o-C'O;~:::>_omo..:::>I>>' - 3C'OC'O~::r CD~ :::>Cil;:;fnl>><I>>~::I::rmm&(')
~3-~~n~:::>::r~ C'Oo- ona:e3m CD~ 00"0 ~nen::r ~<:::>e:ICCD~~.
-: I:'a~ in'~'!i~~~~'~~~~~ lJl ~ g'~~ ~"g.g~~~ ;~~ :;'~ s.~'~~i~g.~;p~~i"f!
I- _0-' -'-ene::::>C'O I>>'<o::ro-:::> - 3':::>g~ -o~s:-::r::rz :::>oC'O~o-",_
113gt;~~~~~0-~:::>S~=5oB~lii~C'003~ois:~~C'Og~BQ~~~Ci"Og-l6Sc>
I: a.......~ -N_.....m .....aJn c>> -'_~"" - (') d1-..;c: -0 _CD c.C:'O s>> 0 0 .....c.~::I:e 0 Ci)~:a5
Jil! il f~~~;llliili.ll:!!~i~~I~ij.ii ~!fi:~~~:!~;~ m
n- 10 ~=~~ "00.. :::>1>>1>>_:::>33=-CDI>>e: -en m_i>lo..na l>>:::>eni>l~en~.~I_
~ I (; ~=.~ ~~'f a ~ SPi. 9:~~ 3.... ~ 9:-.~!rg~ cr~ S-~ =~~~ i~ 5:~ii ~&~ Ii. ~
IS .Cil::'t' 'C' ;..!ll"O0..30. 5:::>::rCD::rl>>g~a;'o';a.I>>~-am30::r~- "O=:O'ii>o- G) Z
!: ....! c>>:rIa r::rCi"!e>> m ~ ~.)>CD~~~ er2 en ::J ii1 a c.~ ::!._.~a;.~ Ci.~~e!.g 3....~'< ~!ii! G>
{e: 0.. CD "0 OCD 1>>'<:::> n ~ CD CD CD <:::> _.!!? I>> en., 0 in'::::r.cn fn g en 0-:::> <. '"03-
Ql CD ot>>:I 0 So Cot) ::3 (J) >!a~ aro':) g:"...."o CD C'D -Q._C') -.=-.fQ I>> *'!I::' CD -i
a~~~~~0..:;;::r:::>9nzl>>!!!.~~,<0..:::>o..n__ii>en_~in~gfnICo-~0~..oe:.
;;:CDOO-<' CDeno~m"'CD ~o ::1~~::rn~~<~o...."'~ '<m....3:'5!Q..-
.. 2'~"o c;;.5"~~ ~..... =to~ ~ ~:E~ t>> -o9.~ em CD CD Sfa=r6:~ ::!..g ~~ cc>> ~c>> ~:;'zE
!ir;-c ~ 0 CD ao.s 5 o~n5 ac: ast~c>> Co -~ gc.......US.n S. gi>>0 ;:t<s-g'<. "0:-1_
.:le!.CD~~::r;::;:C"':'t""'~3_;::;:' CD'" CDcn::Jen~o~~1>> oCD~...n=".!aCUAJst $:. ie
ilo.:::IQ.-CL.o ,<'_m ""C:;; ~C'D:::r:en ~~-o "'C~~3Q.Q.CDCDo::s"mJ>==_'S::::: _
:ll!cn ;'Op.~ 3 ~:r..,.,.c..< Q). = ii"~ o! ~"O (ij"t>> 0 Q) 3 CD ~ Q.Q.~o ~ c.:::r.cn C>> ;:;z!B
.tSs: = o~ I>> O~CD ! CD S ffr~.a z !;p51 ==. S ~ ::r~ ~ oC 5.3-::=CD I>> ~ @~ Ci) ~ 21>> m'9.~ Cir.a:
.....~.:::J _. -~.... mo CDCD~CD".""-rn< v#o-=,_~. 3 en3 <::r 'm
g_CDO"-:::>.....Uc,o~en- :::>o..l>>en::rC'Oao::rCilw~~o..::rfn::r1>> ~~fnS.CD-3~0
~cn~g_~_N':<",",C:;;~~ ~o-!!!.O:::>"O:::>OICW~ "mC'On-s:~"'"'a' ~,<fn'<~0
~aa.c ~Cil ~S!? :Dst:;-~ c.c: !!!.3i~. CD :e ~~~ 0== ci"-o 2:::1CD":=:C'O ~ c:5' t>> ~n". ~ g ~o..-IO)
c~'O I>> ::JCDCDOCD~CD ~C')-aCDccCD :lmm CD~.....= ~= ::1 -c=z
.1~~~~~~~~03::r~~ .. ~~ffi~gQ.~~en~~:Ea~~~:r~~~ _.e~~mg
'C I>> ~.....I>> CD <:::J ~_.CD 0 en 0 -'''~ 0 z~ ~o ~ C" rn m ;11:"< ::J CD _.~<...
gar.! i5 c;;.iit5-~2.~S-~ =; O';.~ 3.3-:3, g gg,~ ~g fI c:~ n3 0 ~ cS'.g!!!.~;=:I
-.. ::rCD..... 0'3"0-0 Q.:::J(Q-o o' ~ CD ~ ..... 0 =r ~ CD 1>>-0 (")"2.. A =..g~sts. ~ :::r-o-g == !;m
I CDO)>I>>CD=31>>-_~"O ,<1>>:::> ::ro ::r_ICCD~CD- ICO CD_- ~o-<~.
. f!:3 3><~'<CDa<o::r~'0 o=!!l.:;'~.o..:;O::rCD~"<;I>>:L. ;:a:en:;;o..::rii -~~~'m.'
~mmg~::T~~~~~::+ -~~~~~~~~a~m::l~ CD~oomm gcCD;_
tn-.tnmo.....cn ...C"::sen O::lCCD!a:J-CD, ~ 0::wc."C C;: c:e'-c. t::~::I !i
=-:::r c;'.C'O :::> 3 )>en en e: 0..1>> < n fn =. '" 0..1>> o'!!l.!: 0..:::> I>> - .-0 is::::> S;::;: fn.;;;: -::r"Oo
.ull>>i>> r>>cC>>....-. <-.'::1= en _'OU~m::3 ~ ....-0 .. "<
8'~:::J S~'en ~ ti 0 tice ~ :e!!..>U5 n ~ I>> gQ ~8:e cr g.!2.a; ~ CD ~ 0 OCD::I.'"
,::I.......3CDO. c.-":i"C:0 c>>~;;;:e~ _.c..o_" - ::eCD<<Nji)":::t :;.iil-n
go C:o:;!~_.<Pce:=t. CitS'.Pc>>Ci~'(U ent>>Q:oga:. CD~~::I.:"'- ~Cil::)~,:
I -8 ~~~CD :e=.~~~a ~S'oCDC"2~ m~'~::'~.a Cio~e:......~ 9.3 ~ str
~3en~~3~~~C>>C.5. =3en~a0~ ~~~~~< ~~CDre~'< ~~ena
O-c 0 CDUlm-c C1I:::rea:r:::J ;;rg en On crS' . 0 CD CD en CD 5!:C1II>> ....c.ne!. ~ CD"E.~
I ~a:J~O~c:~CD~CD~ ~.....ac:g::3c ~ca:.c>>~~ 6n~~c>>~ ::J-ac>>
IlL ::1.CD~o~_aO"'C~~c: ~.."C...,~..-+~ CD~'~-o0C'O- ~~~ ~:e ~C'O::rl>>en
'< 3 - -..., '< -...-+ - ~ mOm _.:::J - c: ~ ~ n Ct. _. en a
I :r! ~ CD st5.~a~'CI)8-Q) n .g a~.o ~ g.cc~!2:~:e ~~ Cil (;j.~ 83 am
~ Q..~:e ~ CD CD c;;.n Cit::.tCb ~ CD s; en:;.< 0 C:;;'(;j.n.:::s:E ::\ I>> are -.a! 3 ~~::W
3"<=aoc. --onrn en ~~~CDO CCN-.::T~~ a::lCDen::lD "C~c>>c
~~~~~~S.~I~~~ ~~~a""~' ~~~g~~ =~~~S~ ~S~~
..,-<C>>~Q.)~::sCD::II>>O -t I>>~~~-f ~CJ'1. 003.... CD:::rCt._CDn _.=:::s:::!.
m_CD< g~CDneno~' ~ X~~_.~ C. ~~. CD enCDCDaCl)~ oO~~
"'C~::ICD- ~CDI>>-. ~c>>CDCCCD"C-C ....~. o<~-c- ::I..,OCD
o CD,< S'"m"C~ aCt.::J _-f c: ~cc c:'~~ S'~ CDC CD c.. <I>> :i"ci":::J ~ '-~c c.
.....~CD --. '< c..~~ rn CDe-c ~ ~0t>>m CDn :::r ~; _
g Q)5.~0~_OmCDCD CD ~~':Jo_ -~o~c..::J Ct.e>>a..... =cn ~aSO
=t.~.~(')I>>~N=~O......a ~ ccna~g ~CD::IQ~'~. :ea5'~>. ~'<a:.3~
c>> =' .... _:J;.OCD'< aCO~ CD:e;:::;:O.... CO (I)..-+tQ. -._::1 o:E '< n
=~-reCD~oooaN3 ~ :e~00cn :JO"C~_-I ~e>>_c:c>> gO-I>>
~ ~ g. ~ ~ Cir ~ 5 ~ a 9 ~ ~ :=: ~ 9. ~ 9. ~ ~ ~ .~ '~~ n, ~ Q ;::::- = ;:::. c: =-3
~
i!:
ill'
~
~
:0;-
J
~8J!..~ =;-t~.~.g-
..... \0 ~ "'d dQ.rJ'}tI:l., r"". '"rj
8......iie:.~t;l0;;. 0
~." ~ n'~~. ~~ g
go-a g t~.lIl'<."'li' '"
It S'~O'~lC::
t?,oo .1. ::::e.t
~ 0: ::I =n
0' n <: S' ::r () "
... 8. _. 0 III - 0-
n rtl nO;
9"'09-" ..W
. $l\!r.;. " erg ~8"q
n a n B= 51 0:
-'0!!,0 ;;:g. --;
. ~.. = a. !tl -.' ; t:h
n ~ ~(JQ &!t"Da, = (;i' I
. ... I _ ~di. I II
r
I
I
II
r
.1
.i
I Jl
I~N 18fj~ L
I'-Ifll~
r"~ II!I:I
i Iltl\l~
L-__...__,~~c.._
:'.~."i '
" . ~,.,-", ""=.,,,., ",,",~,,~
~4/25/2ee5 17:29 9893847475
-"-,~",-'~-~'~-' - -,- .~.
MAPCO
'--'-"'"'~"-'T"".
PAGE 81
i i
MAPCO
413 MacKay Drive
p 0 8o~ 5822 '.
San Bernardino. CA 92412
(909) 384-7464. ItECEtVEfJ...errvCtERK
(909) 384-7475 fax
,. NIl as A7 :19
FAX TRANSMITTAL
COVER SHEET
TO: -R~~ C\ark
COMPANY: ~k dfifL,.
FAX#:~ 3gLj -,515&
FROM: ~Vi J. ~V't~ i
DATE: ~()S
SUBJECT: ~'iv \-\e.o.n~ AtjenM
# OF PAGES (including cover sheet): ~ 3
On~inal to follow in mail: _YES\/.NO
.'.
--- ~ -
Message:
ee.~
~
O~h~
~~WD
...<
~4/25/2005 17:29 9093847475
Mt\PaJ
PAGE e2
.
MAPCO
April 23. 2005
City of San Bernardino
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino. CA 92401
Attn: Hononble Mayor Valla aDd M~ben oldie COIB_. ColUICiI
Re: TIle No.... ud Sea" Ub Area ProjeeD
'teal "2, April 25, 2005 .... H....... Ageada
Honorable Mayor and Members oftbe Common Council:
I am addressing th.is letter to your attention due to my inability to attend this evening's
public hearing on the matter of importance reIeting to the prosressioD of the North and
South Lake Area Proje(:tS.
Let me besin by stating the importance of your ~tinued attention to this m8lta' and the
need to adopt the necessary envirnl\tnerrtallUld land use actions recommended by staff.
As a local business owner, property owner and real estate cn1repr'erIeur. it cannot be
overstated the importance of the continued involvement and patieipation of local
government in the rehabilitation of the City of San Bernardino. I have spent the last 30
years working with and participatins in projects that result in a positive impect on the
neighborhoods throughout the City of San Bernardino. The best results of our efforts
have come in those cascs wbert the partnership of private development was joined with
the local government officials and aaencies. It is through these partnerships that
COJJlJIlCTCe and community reflect Ibe needs and desires of the City. It is auciaJ that the
regulatory controls and impasses be cleared for expedient and certain outcomes for real
estate investment and redevelopment of those areas of our community that will languish
without your involvement and participation.
Recent efforts. such as the demolition of the ~ice~house' located on Third ~ should
be applauded and expanded upon to eliminate blight and cncourqe reinvestment in our
community. The City Attorney and your Code EnfOn:enlent personnel have done a
wonderful job in establishing the process and procedure for dealing with unsuitable and
undesirable conditions of neglect located tbrougbout many areas of the City. We are all
fighting the same battle and if we do not join ~dR;l IDIUl)' IIreIIS of the community will
continue to be lost to absentee landlords. criminal elements and W1desirable lifestyles. It
413 MacKay Drive P.O. Box 5822 San Bernardino. CA 92412
Telephone: (909) 384-7484 Fax: (909) 384-1475
,,,,--,,"==='"~=' .._-~- .
~4/25/2885 17:29 9893847475
",,*--,-
-
o
PAGE 83
MAPCO
.
17v Norlh and $ourh LDM Ar.."
Proj<<:ts It,," #2, Apri12J, 2005
PublIc Hearing Agenda
April2J, 2005
Page 2of2
is projects such as those envisioned by the lLakes' concept tbat will clear the way for
meaningful chanaes in our community. oppommities for new growth and development
and lead to the rejuvenation ortbe downtown and sunounding community.
In closing, I hope to be mcm readily available in the months and years ahead 10 lend my
support and effort to eauleS such as the iask at t.nd. I will continue with my personal
efforts in areas of the community to bring forth dJan&c anc1 davelopmcot 1bal will
complement 'the vision' and improve tile quality of life in our c;ity. Tbank you for
making tile bard decisions 8Dd placing the trust aod future of the City squarely 011 your
shoulders. I truly hope that you an stay the course 8Dd provide your staff with the tools
to accomplish the long term aoab you have envisioned.
you for the time and attention you have given this matter.
10//
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
NEW/REVISED DOCUMENTS
FROM--STAFF
April 25, 2005
.,
:~~
",
I
~~
.~
~~~e~~i1/~~~~::~~'-:'~a: - '.~'h~'7:/J~
bV
re Agenda Item 1...J
,j
4~~L );y. ~!
City ClerklCDC Se~
City of San Bernardin.
,
'~"~J
<1
;j
""". .C'.,_--.
o
o
o
.wi." """"'f"-"'>t~;.C__"i - --.--
. , ,,-- '''-'~e
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA
PROJECT, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06, AND
TABLING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07.
SECTION I. RECITALS
(a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino ("City") adopted the General Plan for the City by Resolution No. 89-159 on
June 2, 1989; and
(b) WHEREAS, the City and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District ("SBVMWD") prepared an Initial Study dated March 14, 2003, which was
circulated for public comment between March 14, 2003, and April 14, 2003, for the
_ proposed North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project, and following the
end of the comment period for the Initial Study, Marek 14, 2093, eavHellHleBtal smay,
the City in consultation with the SBVMWD updated and redistributed for public
comment and review a revised and Expanded Notice of Preparation to the State
Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and interested persons for a. second 30-day
comment period for the Program Environmental Impact Report between the dates of
December ~~, 2003 to January 28, 2004; and
(c) WHEREAS, an Expanded Notice of Preparation for a Program
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South
Lake Area Project waS prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible
agencies and other interested persons in December, 2003, and published in The San
Bernardino County Sun on December 22, 2003; and
I
..........;"'.T~"'~"""'""'" """
o
o
o
'-."" '"
",~"
._",
(d)
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
WHEREAS, the public comment period for the Expanded Notice of
Preparation was December 23, 2003 through January 28,2004; and
(e) WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held at the Feldheym Library
on January 15, 2004, to give the public the opportunity to provide comments as related
to the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project and the issues
the public would like addressed in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
("EIR"); and
(f) WHEREAS, a Draft Program EIR was distributed for public review on
September 7, 2004, for the 45-day review period with the review period ending on
October 22, 2004; and
(g) WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, a public workshop was conducted
relating to the Draft Program EIR; and
(h) WHEREAS, on October 14, 2004 a public workshop was conducted
..~.-
, relating to the Draft Program EIR which was presented in the Spanish language; and
(i) WHEREAS, six (6) comment letters were received before the close of the
public review period and written responses were provided on March 1, 2005 and the
specific responses to the written comments are in the Final Program EIR; aJ?-~
G) WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of
San Bernardino held a noticed public hearing on the North Lake Area Project and South
Lake Area Project in order to receive public testimony and written and oral comments,
relating to the Draft Program EIR and proposed amendments to the City General Plan in
compliance with City requirements; and
2
~~r-
'^'", "', '0
, ." ,,__,"e ,-"."
o
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Development
(k)
Services Department Staff Report on March 8, 2005, which addresses the Draft Program
EIR and the proposed amendments to the General Plan; and
(1) WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution recommending that the Mayor and Common Council certify the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2003121150), adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, 1Q
chanl!:e the Circulation Element within the North Lake Area Proiect bv removinl!: "G"
Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 10th Street between "E" Street and "H"
Street from the General Plan Circulation Element (CifealatlsB)! The Planning
Commission recommended that General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 (Land Use) be
o
deferred for any further action until completion of construction of the regulating
reservoir in the form of an at-surface lake; and
...~ ~...
(m) WHEREAS, on April 14, --2005, a public workshop was held at the
Feldheym Library to answer questions about the acquisition/relocation process for the
North Lake Area Project; and
(n) WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City of San Bernardin_~ Mayor and
Common Council and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of
Directors conducted a noticed joint public hearing to consider certification of the Final
Program EIR for the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, adoption of
the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration, adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and, in the case of the City, adoption of
o
General Plan Amendment No. 05-06; and
3
_F"_F~ -_,' - P-_F'_"'~ ,
.~~
.-
o
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
(0) WHEREAS, the North Lake Area Project site includes approximately
82.4 acres located in the central portion of the City of San Bernardino, immediately
north of downtown San Bernardino. The North Lake Area Project is bounded by
Baseline Street on the north, 9th Street on the south, "E" Street on the east, and "W'
Street on the west. Portions of the North Lake Area Project site located along Baseline
Street and "E" Street are within the City's Uptown Redevelopment Plan Project Area;
and
(P) WHEREAS, the predominant land use within the North Lake Area
Project boundaries is residential, which accounts for approximately 47 percent of the
total land area. A total of 437 dwelling units exist within the North Lake Area Project,
including 173 single and 264 multi-family units (i.e., a mix of detached, duplexes,
o
triplexes, and apartments). Commercial uses encompass approximately 16 percent of the
total North Lake Area Project and include 281,721 square feet of floor space.
- Institutional land uses encompass approximately five percent of the total North Lake
Area Project and involve an estimated 114,703 square feet of floor space.
Approximately seven percent of the North Lake Area Project consists of vacant parcels
ofland, many of which were developed or improved with structures and ha~e since been
demolished. Approximately nineteen percent of the North Lake Area Project site
consists of public streets or other public right-of-way areas; and
(q) WHEREAS, the North Lake Area Project is primarily a public facilities
project which would result in the construction of 44.5-acre (660 acre-foot) open
regulating reservoir. Following the completion of the lake and related water reservoir
o
regulating facilities by SBVMWD, certain remnant lands may be transferred by the
SBVMWD to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino for reuse as
4
~F~;j-
~.. . .~=
,e-c'~~~'
'. ","
o
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
redevelopment. 8ft6 thereafter, geaeml eSHlfReFeial ases may he de":elsped aleag the .
ssath side sf Baseliae Street 8:Bd west siEle sf "B" Swet, and siagle family FesiEleatial
wlIelliBg lHlits may he esRStmeted alsag the east side sf "R" Swet. The e\llFeRt NeFtR
Lake .\i"ea Pi'ejeet eeaeept pre'lides fer the peteatial ef pllHHled Fesideatial develepmeRt
sf appFeximately 12 Beres ef eemmereial Mess. As amenities to the lake, open space and
public access would be interspersed along all four sides of the North Lake Area Project;
~ pre'liEliag pahlie aeeess te the aew lake; ami
(r) WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes approximately 53.7
acres of land bounded by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way on the
north (south of Rialto Avenue), Mill Street on the south, "G" Street on the east, and the
Interstate 215 on the west. The Lytle Creek Flood Control Channel and the Interstate
o
215 northbound on-ramp traverse the southern portion of the South Lake Area; and
(s) WHEREAS, the majo~~~ of the South Lake Area Project site,
, approximately 57 percent of the total South- Lake Area Project, includes vacant land and
much of this vacant land is presently owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of San Bernardino. Nonconforming industrial land uses encompass approximately 19
percent of the total South Lake Area and include an estimated 251,621 square feet of
floor space. Commercial uses encompass approximately seven percent of the total South
Lake Area and include an estimated 116,802 square feet of floor space. Residential uses
within the South Lake Area Project account for approximately one percent of the total
area; and
(t) WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes the assembly of land
o by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino and redevelopment
assistance to eliminate blight on this site and reuse and redevelopment for up to 450,000
5
-"""""",,,,---.'---
.'"
o
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
square feet of office development with 31,500 square feet of supporting retail, together
with all necessary parking and landscaped areas. The South Lake Area Project will also
include an approximately 5-acre wetlands area, or other water body feature on an
approximately 13-acre triangular parcel intended to incorporate additional landscaping
and open space components, and/or other community gateway element, which would
complement both the new development and this important section of the City along the
1-215 corridor; and
(u) WHEREAS, in 2003 the City and SBVMWD previously entered into a
Co-Lead Agency Agreement whereby the parties agreed to act as Co-Lead Agencies
with respect to the preparation, review and certification of the EIR, as permitted by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15051 (d); and
o
(v)
WHEREAS, the City and SBVMWD further agreed in the Co-Lead
Agency Agreement that each entity sha},l..individually review and determine whether to
- certify the Final Program EIR pursuant to E:EQA Guidelines Section 15090 and that the
certification of the Final Program EIR shall not be effective, and a Notice of
Determination shall not be filed, until both entities have separately certified the Final
Program EIR through tfteH: ~ independent official actions of the ele<?ted officials
constituting their governing bodies and approve any required mitigation monitoring
program and/or statement of overriding consideration as a part of such EIR and the
implementation thereof.
SECTION ll. PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT
o
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, FOUND, AND
DETERMINED THAT THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY
CERTIFY:
6
~~::~~;2.7~<:~'
o
o
o
~'~c~~<', ,', "~
'.
.-. '
, ,
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
A.
The facts and infonnation contained in the Recitals section are true and
correct. The Program Environmental Impact Report for the North Lake Area Project and
the South Lake Area Project, and General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 (te reJBs':e "G"
Street Betweea 9t1i Street aRa BaBelifle Street aREl I QtIi Street Betv:eea "B" Street &Ra "H"
Street flem the G8BR Plan Cifealatiea EleHleat aB aesigRatea seeeaEiary Brtefials) have
been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final
PfegfQRl BIR, iRell:lEiiftg the Mitigatiea Meaiteriag an6 ReJlertiag PIlHl, aREl all the
e':iEleaee aRa iafeffBatiea eeateiftea thefeiB at'e 8ft file with the City Clerk's Omee aRe
are iae8Fp8ratea herem BY refer-eaee. The Faets, FiB6iBgs aRa StateHleat ef OveffiEiiBg
CeftsiElefatieR are attaehea Berets aRQ are iassFp8mea aereiB BY refereaee. Attached lQ
this Resolution as Exbibit A. and incornorated herein bv reference. is the final Prolrram
EIR , which consists of the Draft Pro2l"am ~IR (which includes a list of nersons.
orl!anizations and nubHc al!encies cQIDU}~~tinl!: on the Draft EIR)' the comments received
, on the Draft Prolrram EIR either verbatim or in summary. and resnonses to those
comments (incluckd in the Citv of San Bernardino - Reauest for Council Action/San
Bernardino Vallev Municinal Water District - Reauest for Board Action staff renort
dated Antil 25. 2005),
B. The Final Program EIR was presented to the Mayor and Common Council
who have reviewed and considered the infonnation in the Final Program EIR prior to its
certification and prior to its adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 05-06.
C. The Final Program EIR has identified all significant environmental effects
of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project, and an amendment to
the City's General Plan to change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Area
Project.
7
~"iO'i""';:;t",,<.
o
o
o
D.
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
Although the Final Program EIR identifies certain significant
environmental effects that would result if the development of the North Lake Area
Project and the South Lake Area Project occurs, all significant effects that can feasibly be
avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation of the mitigation
measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Final
Program EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and all information
contained therein is iaela6ea iR the FiBal PfegAUB EIR is attached to this ~~solution as
Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
E. Potential mitigation measures and other project alternatives not
incorporated into or adopted as part of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake
Area Project or llHI:eRtImeBt ta the City's General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 ta eftllftge
the eirealatiaa elemeat witIHa the NartR Lake ;"Fea Pfejeet BY FeffieviBg "Gn Street
B6tweea 9~ Street Ilfta BaseliRe Street aRa H)~ Street Bet\veea "En Street ana "Rn Skeet
-'--
- ffam the GeaR Plaa Cifel:llatiaa Elemeat,-were rejected as infeasible, based on specific
economic, social, or other considerations as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement
of Overriding Consideration, att~ed to this Resolution as Exhibit C and incomorated
herein bv reference.
F. The Mayor and Common Council have glVen great weight to the
significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Mayor and Common
Council find that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts are clearly outweighed by
the economic, social, cultural, and other benefits of the North Lake Area Project and the
South Lake Area Project, and the llHI:eBdmeat ta the City's General Plan Amendment No.
~ ta eRQRge the eirealatiaa elemeBt 'lffihiB the Naftli Lake :'.:rea Pfejeet '.vlHeh
feme'les "Gn Street Betv:eea 911t Street ana BaseliRe Street Ea lOllt Street BeWJeea "E"
8
~q"~j~"_"~'~"'~'''''''O" ""~'"_.,,,~,." ',C' '< .. '"
o
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
Street a:Rd "M" Street ft:em the Geael'al. Flaa CifeulakeB BlemeBt, as set forth in the Facts,
Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration.
G. The findings contained in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Consideration with respect to the significant impacts identified in the Final Program EIR
are true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the record, including
documents comprising the Final Program EIR.
H. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan, and the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration
reflect the independent review, analysis and judgment of the ~avor and 'Common
Council of the City of San Bernardino.
SECTION III. FINDINGS
o
A.
The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of San
Bernardino General Plan is consistent with the General Plan in that Goal 6A states:
- "Achieve an integrated, balanced, safe- and efficient transportation system that
accommodates the demand for movement of people, goods and services throughout the
City..." The Program EIR evaluated the deletion of "G" Street between 9th Street and
Baseline Street and 10th Street between "E" Street and "R" Street as seco~dary arterials
from the General Plan Circulation Element and evaluated the vacation of all streets
within the North Lake Area Project to determine whether any of these actions would
negatively affect the overall distribution of people, goods and services throughout the
City. The Program EIR concluded that the removal of the street segments from the
Circulation Element and the vacation of the streets would not create significant adverse
o impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Therefore, this
amendment is not in conflict with the General Plan.
9
J il'1~n~~ -C,~"rm->'w' ,- co~~ ,
-H,,'~_-'W_~'
o
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
B. The deletion of the street segments from the Circulation Element, and
ultimate vacation of all streets within the project area, would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Through the public
review process for the Draft Program EIR, City departments (including but not limited to,
Police, Fire, and Public Services) and govemmental and quasi-governmental agencies
had the opportunity to review and comment. No comments were received that identified
impacts.
C. The amendment to the Circulation Element does not affect the balance of
land uses within the City.
D. The amendment to the Circulation Element does not affect the General
Plan Land Use Map.
o
SECTION N. CERTIFICATION OF THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (SCH2003l21150) is hereby certified, the Facts, Findings
and Statement of Overriding Consideration are hereby adopted, and that t!te Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan is hereby adopted.
SECTION V. AMENDMENT
A. The amendment to the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino to
change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Are Project by removing "G"
Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 10th Street between "E" Street and "H"
o
Street from the General Plan Circulation Element as secondary arterials is hereby
adopted.
10
~--^Tt:;:"<i,f'_-~;-~~~::E?;=~I~:?:'-~-:>"':'Y--::'::-''':;;':::~~:","~_"g;",-
. ~ .
o
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
The amendment designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 shall
B.
take effect upon adoption of this resolution by the Mayor and Common Council as
provided herein.
C. The amendment designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 is
hereby tabled.
SECTION VI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is
hereby directed to file a Notice of Detennination with the County of San Bemardino
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act in preparing and adopting the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report, ~ Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration, and ~
o
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. A copy of the Notice of Determination will be
forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
-~~ --
SECTION VIT. EFFECTIVE DATE
The certification of the Final Program EIR and the adoption of the amendment
designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 shall not be effective, and a Notice of
Detennination shall not be filed, utitil SBVMWD has separately certi~ed the Final
Program EIR through ~ ~ independent official action of i8 ~ elected officials
constituting its ge'/emm.eat e:ovemine: body and has approved any required Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and/or Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding
Consideration as a part ef ~ such Final Program EIR and the implementation thereof.
o
11
,"""""",";iop"~""1""'"",_:::.?>?,,?"'''''C'':''':Z''Y'''-~'''''~' ~"'''.''- ----,,- "
,-.."._.....'C".."."'h,.,.-"'_~='li1F'. -"
o
Strike-out Version
April 25, 2005
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
CERTIFYING mE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORiNG AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND mE SOUTH LAKE AREA
PROJECT, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06, AND
TABLING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held
on the
day of
,2005, by the following vote to wit:
Council Members:
Ayes
Navs
Abstain
Absent
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
o DERRY
KELLEY
-''""-
JOHNSON
MC CAMMACK
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of
2005.
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form and Legal Content:
By:
o
James F. Penman
City Attorney
12
", '''''',"",.,,,,',-,<, ,.", "
o
o
o
," ~-",,-"-, " ,,',
1
2
3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
4 CERTIFYING mE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
5 ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA
6 PROJECT, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06, AND
7 TABLING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07.
RESOLUTION NO.
8 SECTION I. RECITALS
9
(a)
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
10
Bernardino ("City") adopted the General Plan for the City by Resolution No. 89-159 on
11
12
13
June 2,1989; and
(b) WHEREAS, the City and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
14 District ("SBVMWD") prepared an Initial Study dated March 14, 2003, which was
15 circulated for public comment between March 14, 2003, and April 14, 2003, for the
16 proposed North Lake Area Project and'the South Lake Area Project, and following the
t 7 end of the comment period for the Initial Study, the City in consultation with the
18
SBVMWD updated and redistributed for public comment and review a revised and
19
Exp.anded Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and,
20
21 interested persons for a second 30-day comment period for the Program Environmental
22 Impact Report between the dates of December 23,2003 to January 28,2004; and
23 (c) WHEREAS, the Expanded Notice of Preparation for a Program
24 Environmental Impact Report for the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South
25
Lake Area Project was published in The San Bernardino County Sun on December 22,
26
27
28
2003; and
(d)
WHEREAS, the public comment period for the Expanded Notice of
Preparation was December 23, 2003 through January 28, 2004; and
, 1
~~ ,_"""""'^~"" """,""'_ u
0 1
2
3
4
5
o
o
(e) WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held at the Feldheym Library
on January 15, 2004, to give the public the opportunity to provide comments as related
to the proposed North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project and the issues
the public would like addressed in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
(i)
WHEREAS, six (6) comment letters were received before the close of the
- public review period and written responses were provided on March 1, 2005 and the
28
2
_ ",,_~.I~-'-,\'?1~"""'--'"-'''''''
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
o
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0 27
28
,~,_,,~ r '_
(1)
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution recommending that the Mayor and Common Council certify the Final
Program Environmental Irnpact Report (SCR 2003121150), adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, to
change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Area Project by removing "G"
Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 10th Street between "E" Street and "H"
Street from the General Plan Circulation Element. The Planning Commission
recommended that General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 (Land Use) be deferred for any
further action until completion of construction of the regulating reservoir in the form of
12 an at-surface lake; and
13 (m) WHEREAS, on April 14, 2005, a public workshop was held at the
14 Feldheym Library to answer questions about the acquisition/relocation process for the
15
North Lake Area Project; and
-~--
(n) WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City of San Bernardino Mayor and
Common Council and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of
Directors conducted a noticed joint public hearing to consider certification of the Final
Program EIR for the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project, adoption of
the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration, 3.doption of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and, in the case of the City, adoptibn of
General Plan Amendment No. 05-06; and
(0) WHEREAS, the North Lake Area Project site includes approximately
82.4 acres located in the central portion of the City of San Bernardino, immediately
north of downtown San Bernardino. The North Lake Area Project is bounded by
Baseline Street on the north, 9th Street on the south, "E" Street on the east, and "R"
3
~~~ ,_C q', -,',-,-'' ,_.
o
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
Street on the west. Portions of the North Lake Area Project site located along Baseline
Street and "E" Street are within the City's Uptown Redevelopment Plan Project Area;
and
(P) WHEREAS, the predominant land use within the North Lake Area
triplexes, and apartments). Commercial uses encompass approximately 16 percent of the
demolished. Approximately nineteen percent of the North Lake Area Project site
(q)
WHEREAS, the North Lake Area Project is primarily a public facilities
20 project which would result in the construction of 44.5-acre (660 acre-foot) open
21 regulating reservoir. Following the completion of the lake and related water reservoir
22 regulating facilities by SBVMWD, certain remnant lands may be transferred by the
23 SBVMWD to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino for reuse as
24
redevelopment. As amenities to the lake, open space and public access would be
25
26 interspersed along all four sides of the North Lake Area Project; and
27 (r) WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes approximately 53.7
28 acres of land bounded by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way on the
4
_c~,~c~~,'c~
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
o
o
WHEREAS, the South Lake Area Project includes the assembly of land
-"-~
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino and redevelopment
(t)
28
5
.~~""',~i~~A-~"-~'-';c.
0 1
2
3
,.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
o
o
-,
""..;"""".;,.",.~~,c,.
"
. -
,-
with respect to the preparation, review and certification of the EIR, as permitted by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15051(d); and
(v) WHEREAS, the City and SBVMWD further agreed in the Co-Lead
Agency Agreement that each entity shall individually review and determine whether to
certify the Final Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 and that the
certification of the Final Program EIR shall not be effective, and a Notice of
Determination shall not be filed, until both entities have separately certified the Final
Program EIR through the independent official actions of the elected officials constituting
their governing bodies and approve any required mitigation monitoring program and/or
statement of overriding consideration as a part of such EIR and the implementation
which consists of the Draft Program EIR (which includes a list of persons, organizations
28
6
". . ~. "7"' ""~""~>'
o
o
1
2
3
4 B. The Final Program EIR was presented to the Mayor and Common Council
5 who have reviewed and considered the infonnation in the Final Program EIR prior to its
6 certification and prior to its adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 05-06.
7 C. The Final Program EIR has identified all significant environmental effects
8 of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake Area Project, and an amendment to
9
the City's General Plan to change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Area
10
11 Project.
12 D. Although the Final Program EIR identifies certain significant
13 environmental effects that would result if the development of the North Lake Area
14 Project and the South Lake Area Project occurs, all significant effects that can feasibly be
15 avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation of the mitigation
16
measures as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Final
17
Program EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and all infonnation
18
19 contained therein is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by
in the City of San Bernardino - Request for Council Action/San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District - Request for Board Action staff report dated April 25, 2005).
20 reference.
21 E. Potential mitigation measures and other project alternatives not
22 incorporated into or adopted as part of the North Lake Area Project and the South Lake
23 Area Project or General Plan Amendment No. 05-06, were rejected as infeasible, based
24
on specific economic, social, or other considerations as set forth in the Facts, Findings
25
26 and Statement of Overriding Consideration, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C and
o 27 incorporated herein by reference.
28
7
,,_,",~~~~~~f- . n" '
0 1
F.
2
3 significant
o
o
"'
,'''',n'~
8
o
o
o
"-'~~'.....e"'V- ..
City. The Program EIR concluded that the removal of the street segments from the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Through the public
review process for the Draft Program EIR, City departments (including but not limited to,
~'-
The amendment to the Circulation Element does not affect the General
27
28
9
,.-~~"".".,-
'0
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
0 27
28
,.,-.0.__' .,,,,~,~-t''''''''
CO"'l" . "N
".
".0<" "~~
1
2
3 A. The amendment to the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino to
4 change the Circulation Element within the North Lake Are Project by removing "G"
5 Street between 9th Street and Baseline Street and 10th Street between "En Street and "R"
6 Street from the General Plan Circulation Element as secondary arterials is hereby
7 adopted.
8
9
take effect upon adoption of this resolution by the Mayor and Common Council as
10
1 1 provided herein.
C. The amendment designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-07 is
SECTION V. AMENDMENT
B.
The amendment designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05.06 shall
hereby tabled.
SECTION VI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
In accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, the Planning Division is
-....-
, hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bemardino
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the City's compliance with the California'
Environmental Quality Act in preparing and adopting the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report, the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consider~tion, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. A copy of the Notice of Deterrnination will be
22 forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
23
24
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE
The certification of the Final Program EIR and the adoption of the amendment
designated as General Plan Amendment No. 05-06 shah not be effective, and a Notice of
1
Determination shall not be filed, until SBVMWD has separately certified the Final
Program EIR through the independent official action of the elected officials constituting
10
o
o
o
~~c T~
"""1' -
1
its governing body and has approved any required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
2
Program and/or Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration with such
3
4 Final Program EIR and the implementation thereof.
5 /II
III
6 III
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 ~'-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
1 '_,,_~'O"""" "'''''f'c'''''''''"" ~"'"'''' ~~,"rnr-
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
,__,or,,' - -""_,,,_,_,_~,,,,_,,__~ __',,'Y'__,_ __,"'.'P ="cm ,-
, ,--, --- , r"~f-~illI""'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT AND THE SOUTH LAKE AREA
PROJECT, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-06, AND
TABLING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-07.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held
on the
day of
,2005, by the following vote to wit:
Council Members:
Nays
Abstain
Absent
Aves
11 ESTRADA
12 LONGVILLE
13
MCGINNIS
0 14
15 DERRY --'--
16 KELLEY -'..-
17 JOHNSON
18 MCCAMMACK
19
20
21
22 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
2005.
23
24
25 Approved as to form and Legal Content:
26 By:
,
0 27 James F. Penman
City Attorney
28
Rachel G. Clark, Ci~y Clerk
day of
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
12
o
o
o
~ _ _ _ ~ .n..~......_
_._. _~n...
~'_~-~~~'~__"~?~_,~p-l'~~_,~7'"-ry->c'" 'Ccc'-""'jl'':i{':TJ-'L~.a~::~::S:C:'--'''; ;'"'-""'~;:-,~'__c,~~F"~':;~~~","~oE~~
SUPPLEMENT TO THE ERRATA
TO DRAFT PROJECT EIR TEXT
Additional changes to the Project EIR are noted below. Double underling indicates additions to
the text; striking indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to
in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments. The changes to the Project EIR do not affect the
overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and heading.
NOTE TO REVIEWER:
These errata address the technical comments on the Draft Project EIR, which circulated
from September 7, 2004 through October 22, 2004. These clarifications and
modifications are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than identified in
the Draft Project EIR. Any changes referenced to mitigation measures ,contained in the
Draft Project EIR text also apply to the Executive Summary in Section 1.0 of the Project
EIR. All mitigation measure modifications have been reflected in the project's Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Page 4.3-9, Level Of Significance After Mitigation section
Ne I:IRa'.'9ieable SigRifiElaAt impaets assesiates witl=l bielegiElaI FeS91:1FGeS l=Ia'/8 beeR
ieeAtities. DeDem1ina on the final location ot the soil borrow and gisDosal sites aradina
andJ:jisDosal actiYJ1ies associated with the Droi~ct cou~~ result in sianiflCant imoacts on
e~istlna veaetation. wildlife sDecies. to sDecial status Dlant sDecies. and to sDeclal status
wildlife soecies
4.8 NOISE
-.....-
Page 4.8-27
SHORT-TERM (CONSTRUCTION) NOISE IMPACTS - OFF-SITE
Note that the Proiect d~liian feature of removina all exisijna structures from the land
immediatelv surroundina the Drooosed North lake reservoir In order to accommodate
construction and eauiDment staaina wol,lld also Drovide the ancillarv benefit of additional
buffer distance between existina remainina residences and the Drooosed construction
~
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25,2005
SCH No. 2003121150
'lOa
~',~" "",~"""~-'~-'
".- "~, :~;~_':':"~"Y~~\i.~.,:~::;::.:;P:""'-
I
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
3.9 PROJECT BENEFITS
o The following benefits will occur as a result of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project
implementation:
NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
1) Provide SBVMWD with sufficient surface storage capacity to meet its near term goal of 347
acre-feet near existing infrastructure including the Base Line feeder and SBVMWD and USEP A
groundwater pumping operations;
2) Create a surface storage reservoir in proximity to current water production facilities (to limit
pipeline length) and upstream of water transmission facilities and future water service recipients
(including the "H" Street Storm Drain and the Santa Ana River).
3) Utilize surplus land surrounding the proposed North Lake to facilitate new development and
focus reinvestment in the community;
4) Create a new public park and lake, which would be the focus for the existing and newly
developed residential community;
5) Construct new commercial developments along sections of the proposed lakeshore; and
6) Limit the spread of blight through the development of a new, aesthetically pleasing water body.
SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
o
1) Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area through the development of a new, aesthetically
pleasing water body;
2) Create a new water feature, Which would be the focus for the existing and newly developed
commercial district, providing both an aesthetic amenity and opportunity of wetlands mitigation
and/or recreation;
3) Construct new commercial development near the proposed South Lake Area water feature.
4) Construct new commercial developments, in~luding office, restaurant, and retailing, within the
_ City's core business district, provide employment opportunities, and, through the use of a water
feature, create an attractive gateway entrance for the City off of the 1-215 consistent with the
Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
Development of the proposed Project will provide a logical extension of convenient and aesthetically
compatible uses, which will strengthen the economic viability of the City.
3.10 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, decision-makers are required to balance the benefits
of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. In
the event the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, the adverse environmental
effects may be considered "acceptable". The CEQA Guidelines require that, when a public agency allows
for the occurrence of significant effects which are identified within the final EIR but are not at least
substantially mitigated, the agency shall seek in writing the specific reasons the action was supported.
Any statement of overriding considerations should be included in the record of project approval and
should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
o
To the extent the significant effects of a project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a level of
insignificance, the Mayor and Cqmmon Council of the City of San Bemardino and the Board of Directors
of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, having reviewed and considered the infonnation
contained within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, and having reviewed and
considered the information contained within the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
April 25, 2005
CH No. 2003121150
)
o
o
o
~ cc,'~~
"__'"' ~c ~ ,,' .,
~~-C'U" ".,. ,',"_.
_."~':!;:"':'-tr'"'i~~~~r~--ft~,_,_"",,
,-
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable
in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District find that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed
to lessen project impacts to a less than significant level where feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives
to the project are either infeasible because they have greater environmental impacts, do not provide the
benefits of the project, do not eliminate the project's unavoidable significant impacts, or are otherwise
socially or economically infeasible.
The environmental analysis undertaken for the North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects indicates
that, while mitigation measures would be effective in reducing the level of certain environmental impacts,
the project may still result in significant adverse impacts in regards to air quality, land use, noise,
population and housing, and public services and utilities.
Specifically, the following significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed
project after implementation of all project-specific mitigation measures identified in Section 1.0 of the
Final Program EIR, Executive Summary:
AIR QUALITY
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during site preparation and
Project construction. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur as a result of import/export
activities. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
The Project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct
impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption.
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
The Project may conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Impacts would be significant
and unavoidable with mitigation. Cumulative impacts for construction emissions and long-term
operational emissions would also be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
BIOLOGY
Depending on the final location of the soil borrow and disposal sites, grading and _ disPosal activities
associated with the project could result in significant impacts on existing vegetation, wildlife species, to
special status plant species, and to special-status wildlife species.
LAND USE
Development of the proposed North Lake Area Project reservoir would introduce a barrier land use that
would obstruct traffic circulation throughout the vicinity and physically divide an established community.
While compliance with mandatory site development standards and design guidelines would lessen
potential impacts in this regard, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. No additional
unavoidable significant impacts related to land use and relevant planning have been identified.
,
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
AprD 25, 2005
CHNo.2003121150
'.~'~~'
.' . ~.."._.~.c."~, c-'-
"""~'T"If"< "''''"''F:o.
'>'C-""~"'T:"L"'~-=-~:~'~~_~:~:.'::~~T
--"--"'-~
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
J
NOISE
o
Due to the requirement for a large volume of import material from, and export material to, the Soil
DisposaVClay Borrow Site and the extended period of time import/excavation/grading activities would
take place at that site, the project's temporary construction-related noise impact at the offsite Soil
Disposal/Clay Borrow Sites is considered an unavoidable significant impact.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Implementation of the North Lake Area Project would displace a substantial number of people, housing
and businesses. Additionally, cumulative impacts would occur due to displacement caused by cumulative
projects in the vicinity. Notwithstanding compliance with California Codes, and the development of the
72 new housing units, this impact for the North Lake Area Project is considered significant and
unavoidable due to the number of persons, housing units and businesses being displaced.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Due to the large quantities of deconstruction and demolition debris generated from the implementation of
the proposed project, an unavoidable significant impact would occur relative to area-wide solid waste
disposal capacities and the City's compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act.
o
The City of San Bernardino and the San Bemardino Valley Municipal Water District, as co-lead agencies
and decision-makers for the project, have reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
EIR prepared for the North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects and the public record. The Mayor
and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District find that the following benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable significant impacts:
The following benefits will occur as a result of the North Lake Area Project and South Lake Area Project
implementation:
Development of the proposed Projects will provide a logical extension of convenient and aesthetically
compatible uses, which will strengthen the economic viability of the City.
BENEFITS OF THE NORTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
1) Provide SBVMWD with sufficient surface storage capacity to meet its near term goal of 347
acre-feet near existing infrastructure including the Base Line feeder and SBVMWD and USEPA
groundwater pumping operations;.
2) Create a surface storage reservoir in proximity to current water production facilities (to limit
pipeline length) and upstream of water transmission facilities and future water service recipients
(including the "H" Street Storm Drain and the Santa Ana River).
3)' Utilize surplus land surrounding the proposed North Lake to facilitate new development and
focus reinvestment in the community;
4) Create a new public park and lake, which would be the focus for the existing and newly
developed residential community;
5) Construct new commercial developments along sections of the propos~d lakeshore; and
6) Limit the spread ofbligh~ through the development of a new, aesthetically pleasing water body.
o
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaDey Municipal Water District
April 15, 1005
CHNo.2oo3121150
"
o
()
()
'-"'="".f'''~i'l"!,%,,..b
-~,~"' -
- - "
-, - - ~"r'r -'?,..""...~I~-'~~-'" <--'f " 'l~=C'"" -'--"v ' <'-r', ~, '~'''''''''2':~':'':=:::~-:,,,,,,,,~,,<.,,y ,-,
North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects
Final EIR
Findings
BENEFITS OF THE SOUTH LAKE AREA PROJECT
7) Limit the spread of blight in the South Lake Area through the development of a new, aesthetically
pleasing water body;
8) Create a new water feature, which would be the focus for the existing and newly developed
commercial district, providing both an aesthetic amenity and opportunity of wetlands mitigation
and/or recreation;
9) Construct new commercial development near the proposed South Lake Area water feature.
10) Construct new commercial developments, including office, restaurant, and retailing, within the
City's core business district, provide employment opportunities, and, through the use ofa water
feature, create an attractive gateway entrance for the City off of the 1-215 consistent with the
Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
Based on this Statement of Facts and Findings; all of the evidence presented; the consideration of the
above described project benefits; the consideration that, due to the size and nature. of the proposed
projects, certain impacts of the proposed project cannot be mitigated below a less than significant level;
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino and the Board of Directors of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District find that
the benefits of the North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects (as described above) outweigh the
adverse unavoidable significant impacts associated with the construction and implementation of the North
Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects.
3.11 ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE
CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires the City adopt a monitoring or reporting program
regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid significant
effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan included in the Final Program
EIR is hereby adopted by the Mayor and Common-,Council of the City of San Bernardino and the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the Mayor and Common Council and the Board of
Directors hereby find that such plan satisfies CEQA's mItigation monitoring requirements:
1. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the
project and mitigation measures imposed on the project during project implementation; and
Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements or other measures.
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino VaUev Municipal Water District
AprU 25, 200S
CH No. 2003121150
<:QJ...,nlC)>
QJ<: Ul UlCD 0 ..., .c
o 0 c
ft...,.O...,CCD
...,::TC!:;:Jo.
...,CDri:J~C
...... CDQJ<n
CD nUl ftQJ r'"
~;:::tt"t'U'Jar
;+-<0 ...,
30",,0.
CD.....~CD
:J QJ-
C Ul ::: <' Ul
. QJ CDcQJ
< :J QJ ~ -c Vi
QJ 10 -c 0
=OJCD =
CD :J CD
-<!!1Q.g,Ul
o.:JCD 3
OQJUl QJ
CD ci........... :l
Ul -. Ul ~ QJ
:J:JCQJQJlC
o o.nft:J CD
t"t'Ul::r-,CLU'J
. ~~1'~ ........ j
fl\t...
,
"
.",'
"
-
...,.
',i, J
~. \
....... ~
)11~'i" f
_t.,--
".-..:- .'}
. .' :...,.1,.\
I. '.". .,"1 t
"c '':. .1
~ -c 5" 0' <
QJo.on ...,...,QJ
n ft (ii" a: c ~ ro
QJ ..., q- :J a. -c ..., -c -<
..... c:1C5'QJ",~g
o .....c lC:J<-.Ul
..., """"'QJ_.:JQJo_.
:J""'O-' -....,.:Jo,"
_.::T3:J:J 3:J CD QJ -_.
QJCD 1C0.,lC...,_CDUl
:J"Un;::;:"TI0nnUlZ-fg.0 n
OjjJQJ o...,03QJOO::TCD..... III
;+:J= ~o :;;~;+CD N
::T ...,. 0' Ul-' -. :S. CD 0 ~::T n ,^ ::;;
",'..., :J=Ul ~ ...... 0
< :J 10 CD' :3CDCDUlQJ ..,
~ iii' a. Ul..., iii' :3 :3 or a;~;if :111I-,
...,.~ CDO""" n"'" CD-
::TQJ=cQJ-c QJCD:3:Jro
-. ...,. < ...,. 3 :J. )> n - -. n -< :I>
on CD::T :J.cQJ::;; QJiii' .c
..... ::T ..., ..., -. 0 n c - 0 0 Ul <: C
...... CD:J:J -. CD -...., O'"Ul <: ID
CDo."'" -C .....o:J...,....,. QJ
...,. < o...,.QJo. -.QJQJ...,....,. c.
::T -. ::: ::T = C :3 QJ 5' ...,. ::T CD C
CD Ul _. ~ CD :< !+ iii' QJ Ul CD ~..., n
n~<"T1 . :J :E 0....
n -. ~ 0 ~ lB -f a. ~ QJ 8 (ii'
QJ3-< ~...,.:r::TcO'"QJft:Jq-
3 3 0 Ul 0 ::T 0 -. !!!. :J. ft ..., q- o'
-C :J OCD3Ul:J:J QJ...,.
cCD 00."" 1C1C"""Un
Ulo.~C" Ul """"'Ul-'
-.v....r,.. ~ 0
QJ 0 ::T QJ -. -. .....~. '"
ft~ CD ,,< ...,.~...,....,.o CD ::.0
0-CD...,CD!!1::TCD::T...,.3!+....:J
.....-< ..., :J, . CD..., CD 0 .::T CD
jjJQJUl....UlQJ...,.
,,=0 iil-c:J Ql
CD03QJiilo.:J
-.~CD""'3QJ Ul
:J ...,. a. -C
...,. a. 3-' CD -. -c 0
OCD :J:JCD;+3:
o.=CD...,.lCriCDC
...,<_. oo.n
-. CD:J 0'" - ::T
:J-, -CQJQJ....
~"'< ...,. - Ul ft 0 0
:J ::T QJ -. a. .....
1C0CD:J:J g.
"'.............,.!'l mg.
< c c-.
QJ~""'n_:JUlUl
ftQJcQJ:Jo.QJ
...,ftiil:J CD~~
Ul"" QJtOQJ~
-<...,.0. CD
Ul.....~o,"O'O)>...,
fto...,.CD;::;:C:J
3 3 o' :J QJ ~.
Ul ~ :Jo.;o=
.00'", -.
g. =- !:. -. ~ 0'"
CDo.;:;:QJ:J...,CD
O'::J;:t
.....CDCDUl
-. 10 CD
fir =- a. OJ iD
o.~UlQJ -<
-. -. Ul < Ill'
~:J""'~QJ
:J. 10 ::T 5' = C
g-iilCDCD~ iii'
...,.Ul ....
o' CD Z "TI (ii' :!.
:J:<O~n l:l"
Ul Q. ;+ a. C So
-< ..., ::T CD ~ 0-'
U'J-t\ 'CD
fto :J:I
3 ..., r .....!:! 'A
...,.QJ~-< <.'
~iti=:CD III
,..,. ,..,. X ,...
-. -c ID
-cQJ~QJ 3
OUl :J
;+ QJo.
o' :J:J
:J QJ a. 10
<
III
-fOJrUlOJCDQJ
CD - -. QJ CD QJ 0'"
...,gfi.:J""UlO
Ql3QJ iilft~
n' ...,
CD 5' OJ 0. :J _
QJlC CD-' ...,.
:Jt"t' -,::Jt""I"O\
0.0 :JO",OUl
:J QJ <OCD
-<' ;00.<0, -,
C CD-'QJ"!"O<;
n o.:J-::TOCD
QJ - 0 CD- -. 0 Ul
-'IQJ' ...,
-c _. ~ -< a.
QJlC~'Ul QJ
2:5}n Ul
QJ' 0 -f 0 -c -c
:J -::T.....QJo
a. ...,. -. :J -c
, OUl :Jc
:J ,.,. _. _
, _.::T:J QJ
:J CD 10 !:!
G)C!r!l g
Ql!!!..o5.Ul...,.
:JS3CDQJ::To
a., QJ Ul :J CD .....
~~~=:'O'
o 0 0 ...,
:< ...,.......3 3
-.QJ CD
nlCn CD
CDCD""'"",o.
QJ QJ::T <
..., ~ :J CD 5' !!!..
lB;::;:o. ro
. ::T...,.n....-<
-. 0 QJ
:J _\0
3 -. Ul
;::;: 0'.j::>:E
UlQJ..., QJ
:J:l,..,.rt
W QJ -. 0 CD
NlC QJ ...,
UlCD
lCUl30
~ ..., or -c (ii'
cg....o...,.
QJ :J CD ;+ :J.
..., a. n
m~:E~""
3~~~~
:::CDCDCDQJ
m.,.,..,Ul
QJ 0'10 )> OJ -< OJ 0 3
.c...,o.cQJcc.....QJ
!:. cC!!!.@:J....5.
..... -c :J CD :J _. " ::T
CD CD 0.0.. -c CD"" or
~ ..., '" C QJ"" CDCD _. <
,n<n I:J
Q.QJ ""'<OJ_._Ul QJ
QJ""'CD QJQJ=o....=
.... =Ul n~CD
-. ..., CD -....... QJ ~-<
o ~:J::;._CD
:J....~'" ~
OQJ QJUllC~
:J ....o.:JQJ...,o
....Ul!!1CDO':JgC<:
O-c =....OJ:J:J<:
..., <::T o.QJ
....CD CD CD CD a'",....
::TQJ ..., ""~<CD
CDo.QJUlUl:JQJQJ""
-. :J QJ QJ .... ....CD
C:J ""CD
:JlCo.n:J!:;...,...,
a. QJ -f :J Ul
CD =-.oO'"cO
....,0'" .....3.......QJ-c-.
-<"~oQo. !!!.-c~
-. -. n :J t"t' t"t' :J = ..,
:J :J QJ _. CD ::T Ul CD o'
lCUl_QJOCD..Ul....
o)>g.QJ~
QJ:JCDiilc
3 QJ QJ...,
....... n' n
, QJ CD
3:C!=OoG)
-. < 0'''''' -t\ ..,
=CD ::T 0
n"":3CDUlc
..., 0;" .., C ::J
CD ...... Ul -c a.
CDQJ)>O"S!.~
"O'".c c-< QJ
QJo ..., ....
< c n -'CD
:J m CD CD :J ..,
a. a. Ul < _.
r C QJUl
-<Ul!+g,=....
!:! CD ' CD ::T
CD<...."'-<CD
CD <.
n:JiifQJUl-c
(ti nr U'J ::!.
moUl""~:J
" QJ <;n
. QJ:J QJ -.-0'
~oriilhl!!!..
COJ
:J CD
a.""
QJ iil
o ..,
:J !:;
....:J
::TO
CD
Ul 0
o :J
C ....
""'::T
;:rCD
~"U~<
QJjjJQJQJ
1""f":J1""t"=
CD....CDCD
.., .., -<
)>QJ..,
;::l!....CD
CCD....hl
!!!. a- ::T -.
:J QJ CD <
10-< CD
. 0 Ul
_CDn
_....<QJ
QJ :::=
:J "'0. 0'
10 -. n ..,
Q CD~QJ:J
t"t' .,:J--
::T QJ....-<~o:r _.-<QJ
.... fi.iif~~:Jo -Co.[g)>
o QJ.... 3Ul -0' iii' CD -g
r _ -c ;oq- ~3Ul"UCD
o "CD QJ -. CD .... -. CD 0 a.
Ul'" ....QJ_....~:J-....~c
3QJOQJo ::T n~ "::T
QJ:J 3~:J SCD S::T~~!!1 (ii'!!1!+
/.....~~.
' ~ . ' I ~
. .
" 1..\ "
I . ,~ ,1
:," - . ~. '\,
~. -)' - '
, ,~:~ ,,7"
l:ll
III
n
~
IC
..,
o
C
:I
C.
C:I>
Ml:ll
(1)0
-4c:
~-4
n<
-4:1>
r-
r-
m
-<
:E
:I>
-4
m
::a
""'0.
o CD
..,=
CD <
""'CD
~. ..,
;~
QJ ~
ft!!1
..,
nO.
C ::;.
Ul CD
g~
3-<"
!!1...,.
!'lo
::T
o
C
Ul
CD
Ul
o
..,
OJn
CD QJ
.., -.
iilO'
..., ..,
a. 2.
5' QJ
o
Ul
....
QJ
....
CD
C
:J
<'
CD
...,
Ul
;::;:
-<
:J
Ul
QJ
:J
...
o >-
",WI-
U..I..
G1..1-
...., c( ii2
f>t-
c.ocn
III Z is
... is a=
Wa=w
~c(~
Cl:il
.JW..l
...IDc(
"'ZA.
t-c(-
D::cn!:!
o GI Z
Z.r:::::::>>
...~
U)
I-
U
c:(
u.
~
U
....
~
a
.!::
~
3:io
OJ..-i
UII-
~o
:J.!::
Ul"b..
OJ OJ
~U
eo OJ
OJO'l
L.. eo
U L..
eo OJ
>
Lrleo
~c
~eo
.
"-
o
.....C
u 0
Q) .- ...:
............, .-
o u 0
Vl~2C:
.- ..... Q)
....VlVlVl
u .!!! C Q)
Q,l.....OL.
......= U QJ
o '0 Q) ~
"l'll'cl'll
Q.."-.....-
Q,l .~ C C
~ - .- Q)
III .0 ..... a.
.... 5."3 0
.cl'lllG~
1:: L.u
~-l'll
0..:== .
Zl'll~ll'!
Q,lE.....v
.c'- l'll V
I- ~.s l'll
Vl''c
- L......
:t! 2l .~
L.l'llz
ti~
.- "-
o 0
l'll,C
-e
L.VlO
Q) ~ C
..... .-
l'll :J L.
3: g'o
L. c:
Q)
Vl
>-CQ)
Q) l'll L.
=0.01
~ C
L..:O
Q) l'll
t)"S
l'llCl
E ~
L..
OJ
...
eo
3:
~
OJ-
~eo
eo 'u
L..
OJ OJ
uE
C E
c 8 OJ
Ul
Ul _~ :J
~.~ ~
:J"'L..
C eo
uOJo..
OJU
x 'iii u
.- OJ c
:EL..eo
>-
E
eo
II-
OJ
O'l
c
'iii
u
OJ
..c
U
eo Ul
"'OJ
OJ Ul
U:J
NO
r--...c
eo .
.- Ul
U_
L.. OJ
OJ U
E L..
E~
o OJ
U OJ
"- L..
O.!::
Ul......
OJ c
b 0
eo Ul
N~
..-i:J
-gOJ
OJeo~
U eo
eoUl-
0..'- OJ
Ul~..c
c......
OJ U 0
0..= ......
O.oUl
,,-:JUl
o 0.. OJ
U
Ul O'l U
OJceo
L.. .-
uUU
eo:J=
- .0
eU:J
..-i.~ 0..
OJ
...
'iii
OJ
L..
U
eo
~
N
00
"-
o
...
OJ
OJ
"-
OJ
L.. OJ
UO'l
eo eo
eL..
IDO
IDtl
.
.
.
.
.
.
Q) Q) Q) C Q) .::,(,'
.o-:O'cO'cL.
'0"'" a."'" l'll .
- 0 "- ::> a. Vl
==EO 01 Q)
~ 'CL.Vl
E C Vl .- 0 :J
o .!!! '0 "-
Q) 0 .- ~ C 'iii
.a,..lu"""'-:J
.- U U .- '0 '0
Vll'll:J~eQ)L.
b,,-L.Q.QJ
~oVl.....~OE
u.....CL. Q)E
o 0 >
'P L. U 0.'0 Q) 0
vQ) o.c'Ou
. '0 '0 :J l'll '0
NL.CVl- C
COOl'll Q)l'll
Vl ,.0
CC~C
c'-o O_l'll
<( .- '0 :p == :p
'O-:OCQ)~C
Q)>l'llo. Q)
L.l'll '0
l'll U Q) E Q) .-
Q)X~O~Vl
uQ)~u~~
:z ~ 5l::: 'iii~.e- ~
.- - l'll ~ '0 ..... Q) Q)
:J'iii,C cC'cc
.o>u;!:::l'll~_
L.. c L.. = 0
Q) :J .ti:::J~.....
.0>-0.>- u C
.0 _ -e '0 .-
==Q) VlC
==~~o. Q)l'llQ)
>~ O-l'll'- >
> Q) >-L.._== l'll 0
.....Q)o......E~E
Q) l'll _ C
~@'iiiQ)l'll~l'll
l'llo.>.sti Q)'O
...Jo .0 ~c
""';Q):JOl'lll'll
U-Vl.....-
,C '0 '': .0 Q)
-eCtiE Q)'c'OVl
o l'll ._ Q) u ..... C Q)
Z OVlQ)CCti::U
'0 L. ~ '0 2 .- ai
Q) Q) .- Vl 01 E '0
C ..... '0 > .- C .-
~ g! C e ~ '> ~ lG
O;:>l'llo.l'll=.....L.
L.
IJ')Q)
.-i.....
I'll'll
.!.,~...:
Q) Q)
'O.sal
Q)2l~
:Q~Q)
Ul:JC
01=
ti~51
l'll_ l'll
w==co
Q)~Vl
.r=.L..~
.&-1'0 L..
cC:.E
OQ)Vl
..... lG.!!!
Q)L.o.
~Q)o.
.....,C :J
Ull-Vl
Q) Q) ,
'c.oz-
..... .-
c=u
:.c .;: ,C
.....>.....
'3: l'll '3:
Vl~Q)
~ l'll U Vl'
:J C
..........l'll~
Uu'Ol'll
:JQ)L.-
L.. .........0_
ti e l:l e
uo..l'llQ)
'': C al
o Q) .- LL
.....~
.!!! l'll '0 '0
:I:...JQ)c
c: l'll
'cQ)Q)
-eVl.....
o~2
z o.Ul
~Vll'llQ)>-
._'-o.'-Q)
:J '0 .- Q)-
.o~G~'iii
Q):J >
~ Vl >- VlQ) >-
;g~ ~.o
.2 -:0 ~ '0
>01 Q)
Q) .....
L. .~ Vl 5l e
a...... Q) Q) Q)
~~,C a.
Vl:Jl'llI-O
l'll 01-
'cQ) .~
.. Q) .::,(, l'll .
>- L.....c L.. t
Q)Q).....l'll,o.-
=01-1 o..cb
l'll l'll l'll Vl
> ~ 01- .-
C l'll >-0
.- C.o
L.."'C 0 L..
Q) :J .- ~ 2l
,C U 01._ l'll
.....cQ):J;:>
o ._ a:: .0 ;:>
.;.;
u
'"
.....
C
o
u
C
o
:i:l
'"
E
L-
.E
.S
V
.<:::
-e
.2
L-
o
U.
D!
W
I....~ M
v> 0
01>>-",00
'" f- ....
c~_Q)v
ro ct~N
::;:ZO:JOl
.....8:x:Ul<{
:rl Cl f- .....' U
........w::J Q) ...
ect<~g
o..,ol(ltn'6
ID~uC:O
OIClD!.<:::C
VD!::l-ev
O<{OOIO
:X:ZUlz
D!W C
..2wcto~
010 0
....z M
<{
Vl
M
M
....
l/)
.J.
(X)
M
c;-
o
~
, '\/~'!!.~.
\,",- ' ,,[~~~~t.t
')'--. ':I._.:~!
"- :),j) '." ~:~ '1-~;;
~'.\..(,
~'.l':'.'~j
;olS!!5":;'g.q g.
=lg3!2-~
QJ3QJ~<QJ
fti:;. !1!~i5.QJ
-<~c ro o~ ~
-<0:JUla.o~3
~ ..~: g. ~ lD (/) -. _.
QJ _ 3:J
-. Ul a. QJ iii'
-g coQJoa.q
. I;oro:J"'QJQJ
-'ro"" 3
lC a.:J 01 nr ro QJ
::T_D.I(1)"'::J
[ij"OJa....,o.rtc
:J:J -.1il 0 ro:J
.?- g- 5 -, VI OJ
- - e:o '0
~ ::::!. 0\ 0
G);on. ro OCT
.., -. Q. ~ P (ij
QJ ~ 8" l;r ~ 0 o.
i5..? _:J 8" ffi g g.
2. g.1il Q g.:o<
=~3:;;-Ul~
QJ...,-.o'O.l>o1O
U'I 0 C'D ..., ..,
n :J:JO'O-<
C a..... -.-< QJ <' m
QJroOQJro...,<_
!:}'" l=l.QJ!!:.o
QJ C a.-< 0'O!!1 iii'
a.QJ.ro a.0 ....
QJ ..., ro a. 0 ::::!.
VI C'D (t) -.,..,.
. QJQJe:~...,~o
c.. to :!. tC _. ::t c..
roC'f!.C3l=l.ro
tnOJ...,QJ"C-
ro a.o.....;:g
<"'ro~;+~c
(i' C - QJ QJ
-'0" m'n
0,..,. ~(t)Cila.
a.~QJQJ-QJ~
roiil.3"a.QJa.<
W:JQJOlCOQJ
Nrona.cro=
UlQJroroQJ:Jro
<
QJ
10
-<
n'O
0...,
00
..., <
9: (ii'
1il o'
:J
_ro
0'"
'"
a.
roro
:J
< QJ
o''g
"'QJ
a.
ro '"
C a. a. a.n-< :J
..,~:;. I'D roo: -'n
~ro.o' n~~:J-5c
C=lro-l~2roa.a.0-<""
U!QJ. QJ=;;ro ~~;+~~
~;;l 3Qa. QJ...,QJa.-'QJ
QJ S!::JC lC5'O.OOlC
a. ft, (t),-.a C 0 :J C
ro-< in:J!l' 0 ~QJ c;: :J'iij"~QJ
ro
'"
...,
ro
'"
'0
o
:J
'"
QJ
a. CT
ro '0 10
-iij"
:J
~-g
Q ...,
n
0:_
:J QJ
):0
:J
..
m
n
m
a.
m
:J
..
m
CII
C-C;'l:l
I-l<mm
tn>>tn
-Ir-Ci)'U
~J;;c=~
n-<>-I
.j:ecO
>m>
-Ir-r-
m<c
;'l:I>1-l
r-tn
r--I
m;'l:l
I-l
-I
o
"''0 nnz"On"Oo< !!! QJ a.QJ QJ n OJ 0"'" tn- rO~~2'QJ.2' '0 n :J 0la.3QJ
O'QJCJO'W'''' n :::::;';\0 l.C C roniilC< ~Q.I::JnCD(t;(l) 0 QJ 0 !!1roro'g
CT:;' = = ;+.9. =~ ~ ~ ):0 C C C C ro ""QJ"'3~ -3QJC:JQJ:J ..., '"
:::::t\U) QJ QJ :J QJ :J-:JQJ
iil O.O'O'ro ~ O'ro:J 10 :J _ _. _ C'D_.........ro,...,. ,...,. 3 '" ..., QJQJo
n ro 0 n QJro :Jro
~ 3 3 c.c3 Q.Ui''< c ..., ..., a. QJ a.. ~ n ur-< n- 3a.roa.ro ro ro..., ...,
0 QJ .,_ CUlm :J o~ e:o.~QJ
~3iii'iii'ro' iii'o 3::!i!!! m '" '" "'roa.-' c.... m roOQJ.l=l. 'Om 0 QJ;+~g,80
. m 0 a. '" &-ro~ ~d::!i- (DU1lnoQ.rn'- :-'
:!~ ([) Q -....... a. U1 ~ C C'O ,...,.)> -..- ntnQ,l ?' QJ QJ ro ro :;' !:!: ro ",' QJ 3 ..i3
o~ c=ro-lro.cro9 n CTQJ ro n Ul- OlQJ ....0 =l=la. <O.QJ ro a.OQJ
11m ~0':4i5 c"'~ .. -<..., -'CQ.I_CV1Q.(1)iji' o _.ro 0 -.'OlC :J~::!ia.ro:J
0 ~QJ @..(t)::JQJ::J CD',...,. -< g n ::::!. O. QJ C
ro m :J ..., QJ ~ ro 0 ::::!. ::J a. A .., o QJlCO-QJ g- ~ ttl - iii'
QJ a. - a.:1. a. nlC .... -. 8" a. ro roc::!8roa. 0;;: "'QJroUl03
~ro QJ l=l.3 ro"" ro~ iii'o '" a.-ro a.
g.~ oQJo~cCir~ m :s:ro=;;:Ja.ro", lQ"" roo
CD ,<o:::;;QJ::J::!.Q.. ro - o~~ ego.. -. - 0 ro - C a.c oQJ'O '"
""e: ~_g:Q ~l=l.ro n !" -a.roQJ QJQJl=l.ro =a.3a. CT ro QJ ro :J QJ
III ::!l 0 0 IlC n-.-.ro<"'.... < '0 01;+ a.
..ow 0-':30.- =.0 (1). a.=C (J')- ...,.cQJ-QJCro roa.QJroQJro
~ClC ~....~ iii'ro n ro ~ :;; ....QJ ro-QJc ~ roC- =3"" :J-';+""3
""-n lC
<rocn""ro -O",lC 0 QJ QJ<-< CT3c ro ro ro QJ ro -. iil. ar~31il~~
ro QJ QJ :J C .., ""Ul-lC~ :1.:J
:'"10.... ~CDCD!:amq-cQJ g.QJ =~c fI) (tiQ.l Q.I
:J O'ron(i)c-,::J -<~;o:;;rq.ll: a.@"roa.,...,.::J
ro a. -QJ",QJ:J iii' CD ::J_.o@"
11 C~Q.Irr,...,.,..,.oa. ,-<QI::JO"@!:!a. ~roo' ~o 3C:Ja.
-0 !+ lCroQJO ro n::J -. ,..,. "(I) (1)
roc-....,,o ro:J:J- QJro'O
~..., oUlc::!ig-na.- :JroQJroQJ ...,roro QJ:J '" ro lC:J<~ro~
roO< ~QJ oro< :J '0- iil.QJ < ""OUlgoro", c rti cu-)>
< -. QJ:J _n-< QJ-< Vl:J _QJ aQJ~ q:::J QJ = UllC '0
:J_.ro a..... QJ
a.=:Ja.a.roroa.roN= OQJro;+-QJroa.o= ~ ~ar~~ iij"iij" ~QJ~~:;;Q
ororororo_...,ro_<Dro (/)(/)_t'DCU:JCUt'Dlnt'D
'0 a.'O C ~CT""
o,'o:J a.cu QJ
or ro a. cu ro 0' :J
CTl=l.!!1'O 3 ~
(i)CU w~~!:!:o
'03ro:J- ro;+G)
cut'D::J1""t' ..,cu..,
-,:J<curoQJa.cu
cu ct 0;' a. :J CU:J
V) ...,t'Drorocu_
C cu ,...,..-:J
8 ~iil2' ;0'0
:J - I""t' I""t' n -~ cu
",oQJQJcco;+
C"'lC3...,roUlro
3 C iii.o:J QJ
o !!!.QJ:J '" Q:J
. ~ 8' ro V)@'ro_a.
roa.
3roa.-ga.~
QJ",roa.ro:J
ln~Q.I"" Q.Iw
lC QJ. a. -< lC
a. C -. C
ro~QJn~::!lQJ
.Y"gCl)~
w woo ~ ~,@ V)
lC lC QJ 2 o.a. ro
ffi...oCJ::;'::'~CJ~
"''0 a.
OQJ ro
CT
...,'" n
roo QJ
roCT
;iil ~<
o ro 3 ~
;+ - -. ro
roro QJ-<
- '"
~I""t' ([)..,
QJro :J~
~-< -5'
QJ QJro
ra. ro
o ffi hl -
3a. :JQJ
QJro ....lC
Ql C
rUlo ;oa..clC....QJ 0-< a.-QJ
:;' QJ ro -. ro C ..., C lC -. 0 ro ::T a.
~:J~~:Jro~g:;;~:J-o:ro
~ ro....o '" ..., ::::!. 0 ..., :;::
QJm ro -. CT 0'-
-...,QJ", e:~ c~ro n
",:J 0 roQJ. c-<;::;>S.~c
~~2!:fg.~3 g:ro!!1~a'~
. e: n ro '" iii' ~ :J g QJ ::::!. ~
:JQJroa.:J...,a.a.ro-<:Jni-t
o,'_ro I oroo_. I QJO
a.""rl/lQ.l
ro~~iii'3
e:~ofti'2.
~ QJ 3 iii'
-,a.Zwn
5'Qo 0:<
~QJ;+a.:J~
-. '0 ro ro QJ 10
g~ ~ ......... )> :J -<
QJ Z - -<'
o -.
ffi;+3~
....::Troa.ro
OJ ~ro~
'OrQJ-QJ.
o QJ O. "0
a.@g~5
g~ '-' ... S ~
a. 8 -< a. o.
ro3 roro
'" :J"O:J
CoroQJa.
",...,fti;+o
-. ro !!!. 0:
~-o I""t' Q.I
([) .., OJ C
3 ro", a.
ro ro :J
QJQJ--QJ
III
iii'
..
m
3
III
a.
m
C
iii'
..
:!,
C"
c
n
o~
:J
a.
m
<
III
iii
<
Ciij"rooro::T
:J "'ro:JQJ
-<' nr~ < q Q.
ro =roQJ
iil 3 ~ n~
;::::;: <' In OJ ~
-<ro~~ro
roU1co:JV)
:J O:O::J iij"~
UlQJQJro
~a.QJ:J ro
01 -ron:J
roa.~-~
3t'D"'~q-~
QJ ~""QJ<
..., en 0. - ([)
e:nftiro::TJ
:J QJ -.<:
? ~a.n!:}O
Q~QJog,
:J =ro
-. Q 0' ro.
QJ ...,nr
3:Ji-tQJ
'0 iii'i=i'~
Ulc- QJ-
...."'.0
~a.ca.V)
ro ro ro ro ro
c
~ w
, ...
- ...
.= ~
C'lI ...
..low
.c...c
i~c(
zlll:;
-tic(
wiSw
t-_c
It: cu ...
o'tlc(
z'se:
O u u
cu -
C) >- Z
c2:)
..I a. ==
o
>
1-1
I-
D.
1-1
Ill::
U
II)
w
Q
Z
w
:[
::J
II)
w
a:
Q)"o
"Oro
Q)~
'0 "0
If:3
Q).....
e.e
::Je.
III .
Q)roLt')
"03...-1
IIlCQ)
~o"O
U U ro
roo:O
Lt') 01 Q)
. ro E
v-
v
.
QI .1. QI co co
-tg-o-lfl
o 'C 0 c l:i
z a.,g QI ~
Vl .0 'co
o QI':J L. >-
en a. co
Z" ~o
IlIUO:JCl
..J.!!!'tJlfl~ .
_ e C1J L. en
Qla.>- c~
"C eQl:Ju
Qla.:JQlCO
O~ O"-oLl?
'U....JCVl V
QI.c:JQI,gv
>~Qlg'OQl
o 0 ..... .- u-o
...2C~2co
... QI-..... ~
WoQlECOVlQl
.c - t1 c .-
W t:. ~.!: 8 ~
QlQIQIO-Ql--
-0 01-0 -0 QI -0 W QI
'x QI~'CO 0 . co
O QI L. C:'-
~ co..... u.
=C-O"'@ L. ;:Q co:!:
.....tJc .oa.u.cQl
.~'i:-~= 19ro=
Cl~co.o:Jwc-oco
._ .00" QlCOU
-Clco Vl QI C E'> co
Q)L."'O C1J'-c-
-0 QI~--:-co co<t QI QI
-6-J:JV)~:J "'C
OCOrn L.0lQ)L-Q)
b:5: QI.c a.CO-o lX':J
U')>-L..&-I~C1J C'I
~ QI co .!: -0 co QI co
-:J2co E-oVl
EIii Cl..........J C QI QI
>co ,0Ql:J-O
c........Q) ~Lri.u~ Cl.Q)
COQl-oQl....~Vlc-o
C. = > N:J 'QI co
roroo I u-.-u
> Vl2~': QI.o 0
w-~ _U-OE.o
Qla.QlQIQI COco
"'O~~"'O"'O~....,-
co UQlo'-coco
::1ro +-,I......,-e:JL.
~5~iYl.@~ g~
III
Q)
.....
U
ro
V
I"J
co
Q)
"0
o
C
Q)
.....
.....
Q)
.......
C
::::>
ro
::J
01
ro
Q) Q)
"0"0
Q) 0
............
U C
ro Q)
Q)'E
"Oro
III C
.~ Q)
e.U
ro
oE
1.0_
I.Oro
.
.
C
o Q)
U ::J
o CJ"
01 .....
IIlro ~
Q) ro
c '- ... 0
orolllE
'0 e. Q) 0
l3 0 .!l! U
._ III U >-
e.::JclIl
ro-Q)Q)
Q)"O_
III .- ro
Q) C 1Il._
_Q)Q)u
e.>-""''''''
:j:j::JIIlQ)
--Q)E
'::J U C 0
:::[ .~ l<= U
.
~ Qj~ ~<t.g~ lfl
o '8 C Vl '5>~ Iii
ca.O c~cq~
~ u>.:Q cv
Qj~.8 gco~E
.....COc QI-QlO
o.::sO...., UU
C ......,Ol:J "- ...
:J co C o 'co Vl
OC-CO-6-JL.Qj
'~-o:Q E:rllXlii
COCOU >-'0
......,tl"OQj CCe
QlO>-oQlL.ClQl
fir.o l3 -0 a.~ ~
QI X _Vl.
'OVlQlCVlQjQlQlVl
QI ,oQl -oL.~
(Xb~'ug L.(/)~
co L. ~'O :c .g ~ co
~b~.~QJ:Ja.
v=Vl2EalcoQl
Nt1JgUlL.L..~-o
ex) ~ u.!:2-ro a.>.
o
z
is
llI:
c(
Z
llI:
w
m
z
c(
II)
w
C
III
Q)
.....
ro
C
Q)
ro
'0
.....
Q)
E
o
U
o
III
::J III
Q) ro
"Ow
III U
Q) .....
..... ro
ue.
ro III
I"J Q)
...-Ib
III
o
U
..c
Q).::J 0
"0 e. 01
..... III ro
Q) -
>0_
..... ro
roQ)o
Q)"O U
..... C ._
.ro Q) :0
Q) 1Il.::J
"Ooe.
III "0 0
Q)clIl
..... Q) Q)
U >- U
ro ::J U
ouro
...-IC>-
E
~
III
ro ~
"0_
C ro
Q) ::J
.- "0
>.-
.- >
> .-
I"J"O
r-. C
.
.
.
Q)Qj'~ 0 ~ -ci ~,~ lX co >-
:,t,-oQlEcocoo..... 'co
co VlVl>-o:.JVl L.Vl
....JCO._ QlcQlQlCOco
:J >- E '0. co QI -0 -0 .-
.cO!.. -O:J.....c:Ju
~<t:~QjQlL.UCo>-fjj
o QI:\;! L. -0 a. co QI-o CO-o
2-oL.0 coL.E Vl'iji
......01;; a.ro-.~Cij co QJ OJ
'-:::J u:JQ)-L.
2:! ~ Cl 0 Cl'CO C ..... L. ,
L.L... "'O<(L..rou'co-
ot)L..co roc"' II)
z .- ~ L.. "E: (C Q) 0 co
oCl~ ~QI 0 co:JQj g~ vi
01 Iii > 0-0 E-o 0" -:J co
co :JVlC-C=
....J 'co aJ >- 0 >- >- co QI QI QI
_Qj=o~ m=:: ..ltJL..ro
W U co~b'~,co Eo.: co QI
QJ>::sc.ncoL..ro :JL...tn
c........L..- L.. Q),,-"'O L..-6-J L..
QI .....Cla.QI C.....Cco
.....~Vl E>VlQlVlO-o
L.-C oco'>cu:J
~~ 8 w 8 a: -;;;'> 8 fjj E
C
o
U
V
~
'"
U
'c
:J
E
o
U
C
'0
'u
'"
E
...
o
....
.!:
III
'"
E
~
'"
0.
o ltJ- lJ'I- L..
~:JCOOWQI
:JOlgtn....iU
b '" '5>W 8.:5:
Vl QI.
gQl/X:QVl>-
u-o QI :c.g~
co 5-0. ~~
..cUlL._Q)........
co co co a.
>-oa.COQl
QI 0-
= ~ Qj '5> >- Iii
~'SCQlVl>
ClQl/XO_
QI- QI Vl co -0 QI
....L..oa.I'O"'O
C Cl';;::;E~
QJ co ".. L.. "I'
EVl_Uo:J
ro~U')~~en
.- OJ 0 ...... C <t:
>L.-
~a.oCOeQl
a. ~ -0 .9- QI -0 .
cro:::J .........
QlU.....OtJ
U') >- :::J U'):!::'-
R):::J>-obb
b U OJ en.~ .~
o.!:-o~ClCl
C
OJ
00:
"'w
UI-
QJ ~ ...
>-.... 0
e:;:>-\O~
D.-.JI-wv
Qj~C2~N
U~o:JO>
L...9:r:U)<(
OCjI-"";-U
~ w::J w ..
...o:<l:QJO
.., "'c
.~O~V):O
.s~uo ;0
Eo/X.c:c
u/X::::ltID
<t:<l:Ooal
L.....~~z c
~w 0:: 0 ~
val 0
Oz l"l
:I:<t:
cv)
.c:
o
...,
l.',j I" . .~IU;
~---- . _ J \~:fL.l
;;/:.~ .~
~/ ~
l"l
l"l
...
Vl
.;.
co
l"l
0;-
o
e
o
<::
<8
'0
'0
f-o
/X
w
I-
<t:
~~
<t:~
zo:
00
~:I:
Cjl-
w::::l
/X<t:
o III
Zw
~U
00::
O::::::l
<l:0
Zlll
O:W
w/X
al
Z
<t:
III
~g.g,~
o l"i ,., ::l
C ::l '" '-<1
<n
!1l '0 ~
~ ~ s'
~ g, ~
g,,< I""t
::r
~ 0 (b
~ !;;
a(b
<n
....
::r
(b
'0
C
....
n
::r
~
<n
(b
0"
(b
::l
(b
.... t:n
g-....
~. ~.
<n
0"
(b (b
::l ::l
(b 0
t:nC
....(JQ
~ ::r
<n
~ ~ 0
n~~o
~ ~ ::l
..... ::l Q... ....
0'~'-<1 ~Ci
....~S"'nC
!:!. ~. ~ g. n
o:r":: ...:: ~
(b(b .(b::l
S S ~ ~ n
8-: 0 0 '0 t:n if
~~~~~o
~~s1fQ...~
::l::r0 S....
n(b::lC-oO
!1l ~ ~ g. g. S
~ s-g"OQ ~
'O~n'O(b
..... ~ ~ '-<1
S- ~. !;; ':'1 0
(b n (b tj ~
~S-g~
rit~ t"t::;;
O"rlQ...nO....-
(b-l"iSl......g......
~B~....~[g
fir g. rfJ 0 s ~ :.
'-<1 ::l l"i ...... 0 ~. ~
g....::r g....o
O1.ggair~S
PM,""" . (') (l)
~ ~ Cl g. o-J (b .D
..g g COQ g:?f~
~SH Vlt:)~
~ P. 5' '-<1 ::r g., ~
~~83~(P..fir.<n
g' ~ (b 11 0' Cl
....... 1-1 8 H c:
~ :.~ 0 ~ ~
'0 0 _......::l ::l
e. ~ g rr~: rl
::l>-<;S....3~
.... 0 (b .... ~ ~.
::rC::l::r '<
(D H I""'t (l) (l)
g ~! S: g g ~
~ ~(b",~
~ o. ~ ~ ~ tb ......
S ~g:::l <n'\J
g o;<j ~ !!. 0
::l .... (b ~
.... 0".... 0" 0"
o(b::roc
::l 0 .... '-<1
o;<jg.,!;;g-~
r-t ~ (b 0 U"J 1-1
:T '-<1 p... S' g C
(b >-<;0 ~(b
O"OC~~::r(;J-
riQ' C n '-<1 .... (b ,s
(JQ'O~0::r "
g ~ ::l co.... ..
'-<1 C (b ...
g-o,g.~~g(;J-
!;; .... .... g ~. ~~.
!1l ....::r ..... 0'."
g-~O~::l~
t:;;
.....
~~
C ~
...
n ....
o (b
<n'O
.... 0
?' ....
....
(b 'Tl
<n 0
g ....
o
l"i ~
~
(t>3
(b'"g.
,-#U'J Sl
(t>
(b
.<n
~ ....
::l (b
Q...n
o
~ ~
::r::l
(bOQ
....
r:; (t>~
~ ~ 3
::l. (b
<n ::l
=U(jr-tO-
(') ~ (J) 0
P. (b C
g ~ ~ ~
>-
(J)
(J)
l:C~
tt11-1
Z>-
I-1Z
tt1C"'l
l:Ctt1
(J)'T.!
o
l:C
89.~
::l <n ::i'
~ S. ~
n g
(b ~
Q... (;J-
'0 C
g.~ ~
.... <n
::r
....
::r
(b ~
.... '0 o'!"l
(b ~ .... ";
~ n C
rl2"o~
~ ~. 0
::l (b tb>
~ ~.ft
(b
(t>o-J
(b ::r
<n (b
'-<1 _ 'Tl
0100
~g->..::....
'O~(b:T
0'O~(b
::r~~~S
o~~no
01<n. g..::
$ o' S ~ .(b
::l 0 Q...~'
C<n..::. <n
~ S' J> 11 !!.
oo~o.......
111'-<1 ::l (t''-<1
ooQ...<ng
q ~ g 6' n
E:.; .... '0 i:l ~
(b (b ~ ~ i:l
~~n-n
!;;""':>;"'s::r
n ~ 0 0
(b==..::0
S 0 S' ~
(b ......OQ ....
g 0
::r
o
C
<n
~.
C
e.
....
?'
.... ....
(b (b
(;'~
.... ~
e.~
<n S
(b
.... ::l
o ....
....
(b
'-<1 0
o n
C ~
P.
~ ::r 5' g
'0 0
1130rl
O(bn'O
'0 . ~ ....
t:l. g. ~
~ >-<; (JQ (b
~ 0 g
C ~ ~
~ P.
::l l"i ..::
Q...S (b
n
o
~ .....g ~
~ (b ~
~ ~ ~ M
b- ~. 0" ::r
(b~ (=bg
b- ~ ~ g ~ ~. ~
~ .... '=" (b C .... ~
(bo~g>~~...
~O"::l <n .\J.... t:;;
C P.~. :::-'
~ e:.. <n 0 C ....
'0'-<1. H......
'O~_n""'''
I-t r-t ~ (b fI) n
e:. [<n.'O _ 0 lb ~
<n ~p.."""~.'
e:...'-<1 .... ~ f;:
Se;:,~g-~S
S2::roo"OS~c
..... : C ~ '" ..,
~ !;; 5 .... ::l E; lb
(b '-<1 g. '-<1
~ .... ~ c
9 5' <n (b ~
'< n (b 0'6
g.... n... (;J-
~ ~ ;P. g. ~. ~
5.a.~i:le:.~
g.~
o 0
n' g.
g-~OQ
~~ tn'
'-<1 Q... i:l
g :T ~
S g ~
~ (b <n
'-<1~'-<1
.D ~ 0"
~ S g
~~"<
~ i:l 0
~~~
Q...::r
<n ~
o ..::
......(b
~. ;1
<n (b
....
S ~~ b..~~ rl ~ g'
Cn~(b(t>..::'O 01
~ S. &~ ~ ~ ~ 0- ~
~ @.~ ~ 5. S 8 ~ s'
U'J '-# ~ (t) (t) 8 (b
5. ~ 0.0 ~ i:l i:l .... <n
::l 0 ~ " ........ ~
~ Q... t:n n 0:;.
?i:,o::l(bfJ.... ~~
n ifOQ '="~.2 Q... s. q
g. B ~ ~ ::r~' ~ rfJ ~
P 0"5' ~ ~ g g I? ::l
t-I-I en p ::;) (") 0
(JQ o~. (b (JQ 0 (b
<n<nni:l::l ::lQ...
~ 0 n OQ.... n. <n
Vl c' CII 1=0":
(b 5 '0 o-J S P: ~
sQ...~g:o,co~
<no &rcnH~~aa
. . (b
>- g- '0 5' Q... ....
::l~....~(b J<n
Q... P. 0 C ~ 3 0""" "R
. i:l'OQ...::l(b ~
~'gq ~ ~ '1M g ~ ~
~ g'~ ~.g ~g ~
::"~3(b~("O ~
O~(1) g ::J.....
~....::l~3~~~
::l '=".... ::l (b ~ (;J-
l"i ~ .... (b i:l S'. C
g:....2"C....~~~
g.g-....'011 ~ 3 ~
~(bnCl.g....~~
g8~Cg3~~
u;' 0 g n ~ 0 (JQ lb
......<n~ ::+(b~
ff M ~O'Q
Vl::J&...o ~oS
....:(b (b (b C 5'o;<j ~ C
o ~ (;' <;: ~
0: 5' ~.... 0 ~
-n~~ ::lCl]l
0.... .... C ~
~ (b '="0 .... ~ .,
::3 ~ M ~ g ~. ~
Q~~{J)M~I-t)
o Cl >-
C ....
c: ~ a...
::l ::r 0
~ 0 Q
::l .... S P.
('D ~ ('D 0
~ ~ r-t ::3
?' ::l 0 ....
Q... ::r.g
"-<l a... ~
o '0 ~
C ~ (b
.., 0 ::l
~;:: S" 0.....
~ P. ~ 'T.!
g,;1~ ~I-l
~ (b l"i tt1 "7
~ g-> S '0 ~
::l <n n t::l
Q.......o
~ S >-
Ci.g(b
c: .....r-t
.... <n 0
~
g,
~
<n.
:I:
o
Z~
tt1{j
~>-
:I:Z
'TlQ~3~
Q ~ ~.~ "-<l
S' ~ ~ ~
~'"Oi:l.Do
~ (b n C
::l t:l.!1l ~l"i
R g o-J~::l
~ ~ So
<n (b
5' ~ ~ g-
~ ~ (J) ~
':'1. ,=,,'0 (b
rfJ~g~
~ :T~g
::l (b ~
~8e::~
::r~5.
o <n <n
SCl
!1l C
:I:
t:l:lO
tt1s::
Ztt1
tt10
~~
I-1Z
(J)tt1
l:C
5'
~
o 0
......c
l...
,~ ~ ~
'ti- -~..s!Cll
'1:: "'- l:: ~
-Cl~~Ol::l::
~ ~ 5 ~ .~ '~
?-..E:9..l...~~...;
""CllE:l:l()~-e::
l:: ~ '_ l:: 0 {l Th
o_~:.s~ Cll
.~ '0'> l:: l... l... ;:::: ~
~~""S:-Cl
~ l::~ ~ l:: .......
::l .9 Cll ~ Cll '" ~
~ _ _ ~ l:: ::l
~ .e, 8 .'::l ~ .9 tl
o l... '_ l:: -.. - ~
l... ~.... Cll ~ ~
~~~~~~
- .... 0 l... Cll ~
~ ~ '- - l...
to-; ::l ~
~r~ ~
~ -~ ~
;:j
~ ~
.~ .~ .9
- l...
~ Cll ~
'-i ~"_
..9~9..
~ .9 ~
l... Cll-
::l ;::. ~
0._ ~
;:..,--
- ~ l::
~ l:: 0
S ~ ',:::
l:: ~ ~
r~ l... E:
'-' ~ l...
l.....g,
l::
.-
z~
8z~
f-4<1-I
<{I}~
Uf-4Z
OU~
~<N'\
~~~
=
.;.:
l::S
,~
:::t\Q
l::r<~
~~
~~
~
,l:::S ~
- I
2.'J~
~oo
l::U I
~~
I..ic~
..::;cc
"'l00
l.... Cll ~
Cll - ~,
-- '-
~ J5 .~
U .E
~ S..9
~ .;;::">
~~~
:St:sC,J
g l2 .
Cl...Q:l~
~. t; ~
l:::~Q:l
-S!;:s:: 00
~ ~ ~
0........'-4
f-c
U
~
=Cs
~~
O~
Z
~ .2
~~ ~
'- ~ Cll .
'i: ~ '- N ~
Cll Cll ~ .0'';::
~ l:: ~ ~ ~
.- ~ '" l:: -
.~ 0 Cll ~ l::
l... ;::. Cll
l... ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~o~
t.o:l '- t= ....... ~
.- '" Cll ~ l...
~~~~6
::l ..... l:: '_
..:::::C'O''o..J..............
g .~ l... ~ 8
l...g.9~..9
-Cl~~.'::l~
~ ~.5 ~ ~
to-; ~ l::
o ~
O~f-I
z~u
1-41-4~
g~f-I
<zoo
z;:J1-4
==~Q
~~~~
~ ~
00 ~
;>
00
f-I
Z
1-4
o ..
~~
f-I~
~~
~~
o~
~o
~f-I
"0 :-_
~~tI] ~
!:: 0 (Ij ell
1I):a ..c:: I-< II) ~.~
I-<~>..oeo-
S-!::~09>-~
Ol-<;:!..- ,II)
>..~.............,......D
>.. 0 S u ;::I ~ !-"
(Ij >- 0 ,_ e ~ ;::I. .
P. u;...... 0"0
<Li II) II)!:: >.. II)
BOJ:)OJ:)oo;:!lI)~
(Ij (Ij"'" ...... ell
~ OJ:) OJ:)..... ~ p...9 8:
.s -g -g 'Eb..9 g "0 ~
..... '1:: u ~. - -
5 e e II) ~ ~ g ~
U88~c2~~.s
.
::::=
a
~
o
>- ..;
. !:: ~
d ~ 0 0
o t;:; .~ "0
o II) (Ij !::
eIl!::ut;:;
011)..90
0.0 II) .....
..... ~ ""'" Q.)
II) ~ I-< ;.
;. 0 ~,-
o >.. ~ :Ei
e ~ _ !::
o..9~~
!:: >.. i:: ~
o (Ij 0 go
oeUI-<
i::
II) !-, II)
li3 ;::I ;.
If: o.~ "0 ~
,- >...:s II) t;:;
"O..c::!:: 11)11)
(Ij ,<;:: II) II) !:: !::
ell ~,~.9 >.. II) <Li
(Ij~1-< ].0;.
..c:: _ go e _ 11)._
.Q~I-<]!::.9~
.- !::..... 0 II) II)
~ d 0 II)'~ !:: I-<
c;j 0'- ;. (Ij,- !::
<+-< .~ ~ '5iJ s s (Ij
..c:: (Ij u II) u
~E..9"O<E-~
~'c;; ~ ~.s ~ ~
.
.
~
B.9
s vi
~ t.= tE
!:: I-< <E !:: II)
(Ij 2 o!::
..... ~ 00....... Q)
9~~~.D
.....;:>OUI-<
ell II) > 0 ~
!:: .- ..c:: .. G3 0
.9 II) - II) I-< >..
""';''+-<~-eIl
(Ij.- 0 c:::: (Ij .....
g:Eill)tI.l!::~
--II) .0_
II) ..... >.. - 'c;; 0
I-< ~ 0 U ell I-<
I-< II) - '5 <2 p.
~ I-< P. ell .....
~@'~o~.s
.
\
Y'"~~.41
V~p
~I.~~-
"~.II'j
.'~
>, -J.
i~'
~'tl ,,'tl 0
=' "" ~ (3 =
n n pot. "C r.n
c:: a ~ 0 5';;
~Q.""Q..,<Q..
n t'D n n '" lo'tj
Q.. - =- (I) n =
00 0 ~ = () I'D
"..o~86'Q-
..0 " 'tl " ~."
,,"oQ-...Q-
n () ... ~ = n
Q-o..o:=:="
~r.n=N~~.
n S' n ~ ~ l=t
o i:l.'tl . IJQ 8
:= III " ::: 0
;-t.:"'~=n=
~_"CIlQ-
Q-8nc:r""~
l;; := III ~ ~
~ 5.. t; r/J ;:r n
" III " P!''' 'tl
~~g:8S;~
'" "" .....0
So,.. =-:"", n
. g g. e; 0 ~
~.' r.n - "" =
- 0 t!. S'
n ~ ~
o I>> .....
3 ;1 ~
o'tl 0-
S ~ ~
'tl g,;l
~ !:t.ri
o ~ r.n
2> !J:
"
~'s 0'"
-I>> "
" :;)
~~~
n ~ o'
o "
3 " '"
'tl '" '"
~ ~ ~
0...."
~ e:.. Ci'
S ~:;)
:w t:3 (t
" " t'l
I>> i:tl 0
~, 0,3
o 0
] ~ ~
,,'tl'tl
~ ~ ~
~ s. g
~'5" ~
- '" "
I>>
"'0'"0.
8 g !!.O;J
:;)" :;)
l"L i:tl'tl I>>
"" 0 ... :;)
Q. o' 0 Q.
o '" 0:1 I>>
:;) I>> '"
!J: 'E 3
~ ;1 I>> ri
t'l 0. I>>
non t)
~ '"
~, ,D
~ ~
I'< 0'"
I>> I>>
~'i)'
I>> '"
0.'
g 0
~(D
]~'< 5 ~ 5" ~C\.
...., (D ,...,. ~ (') Vl t.:I, (:)
~ 0 S' W fIl t:
;)~ ~Q o..o..~ f'b
0'> ." '" I>> 0 ~
8 ~ ;..:I, ~ t:1,'U ~ t.:I
3:I>>30~~~
_j:l:I~..hr.n",~~
v '0 '" S', - f'b ""
~ ~ C.oc ~ 8 'u ~
0. r;' g: '..; I>> 3 ,.... ~.
(b ~ l"1 ~ l"1 "-
~nO"'~''''O~~
:;) :;) " " (J)'" " E
s:.,) 0 ti '" ..... ~ 0.. ",,'
n ~. net:: ~
~~t::rlf.l)~5....o
~ e: 0..- (b (b :;
3 t'l 0 0. 0. I>> 0, Q
-(,I) n?f~
~, 0" "'O...c ~ ;:::s
'" ~ c il G, I>> 0'""5
~ fJl 0.. ('D 5'," >l
~o..rb("D~~~~
!!.. o..::r..... .., t::rl!::
~O'" ~o-n~
. e. g ~ 3 ~ 0' t.:I
ti 0." "0 :;) '" n
@ ~'" ~ 5 ~ ~
t'l0.31>>:;)~
~ !!.!J: 1::\
g. E ~ ~ ~. ffi
~ tIJ ~ .~
Vl (D fJl ~ - S'
" ... 0 "cro
VJ t!. fJl-'"
frrDe.(tfl
I>>,D 0.0
'" '<1 '"
" " g,-g
0.. (b (b l"1
." I>> ... 0."
s' ;1 "0 " S'
('D' ~ 0 H (b
t:3 n 1"1 ro ::3
0. 0 S 0,
I>> 3 ~.,
~11' ~ ~
f.n l:o) '::3 0
C 1"1 ~ ti
a, !!. 0 ,.., e,
~ ..... n
~ n ~ ~ o'
0,0 :;)
g> g' s ~ ~ ~
q g. 8 ~. 8 9
e,...g3~Ei
j:t. ro S""E.. n VI,
g.~. 0.,,0 [0
::.: [3 " 0- ~ "0
0" o.~ n ~
I'< .g 0 '{;l
~ 5 ~- 'E :;)
n g s'~ ~ g
o 1"1 Vl n ~
Vl ~ (ll 0
~ g, :;) 'E 3 "1"
VlClQ 1"1~
~ :: a N
I>> ~ 0.
:;) 0 "
t:t, :;)
.!" ~ S
!!.. ::r ~ ~
o 0, t'l
",:;) ~ I>>
"0 '"
<Ya~~
o 0,
~ s: ~
0.
"
1'<"0
ti ~
'"
I>>
t'l
t'l
5:
?
1-4>
Z~
tOe
et:l
1-4>
l"""
1-4'"Cl
Z>
0:=
V'J>
<'\ n.
~ ~
::;, ::;,
i.!
~
~{l
f'b f'b
<'\
~s
~
Q, ..
~
C' ~
S Qo
g
~ ~ Q
.. ~
0- >l g.
o ::;, '"
g g,
a '\J ~
>;j 0,
~~~io
... " ::; >;j
ro (IJ 0 ~
~[;;~Q.;!
2 p; .p.. o' ~ tr
.. .. ~ := ~. 8
""'" (IJ fi) ~ e:...
'p~=,-""....
o-'tl';~1fgo
~ n 0 ~ n ~
&) if ~ ~a.1'
01:=:J.&)0~
0" III ~" "
8~?1'oo-
E: iii' '< ..0 := "
IllCll~""g.
(lJnnn=,.o
~:= CIl " III
" "8""
&.~8'tl8~
- 'tl Ill'tl "
~g~~;;Q-
III " III i:l. CIl 'tl
~ ~ i:l. III III "
~. III _ "
F =' 0 ~
...
~' 1?' ;,0 8 Ii? ~ !:!.. :l :0
e.8~8g~i.!~h:
o 3 "0 ::; 0. i:tl '" <'\ f'b
_ ~ Q ~... 0 c. ~ c ~
V" .~g.i3"
~ ~L,,:::,,","5 ~
""e.>;jo:;)~;:~
:;)",D":=~<,\"'''
8,:;) G, ~ S - ~ l::
::l I>> "::r "0 ~ S
l:l)nl"1~Q.1"1 ~
I>> S' CIl l;; 0 fl'
~~nron~.\Jn[t
- ... ... a ~
3 '" " -" ,...... n
S', 3" o~ ~ I>> ~ ~ ..
g ~ ~ ~ S" 0. 0 ~ ~
o ... 0'" -" 0. tl' ~
0.I>>"t:l~;J"~f'b
~ : ~ ~~ w ~ ~ ~
Vl s:: Vl "" r; 0. 'II 'II
~ (ll n g o. 0 S ts" n
5: F; g t:. 0 (ll ~ IoQ ~
? F~~~~~~~ ~
o
'tl
"
~ 0':::
tn" =' =
-g &l go
,,='<~
o ;: ::r' ro
8.;;~ :=
(i""'C =' 0
0" fi:l = ~
= i3 8 ;:
~~~.Q:
=' n ~
" " Ill'tl
~ ~ (IJ ~
(IJ n 0' 0
~.; a ;
fi:l n fi:l ,.,.
'f' S' CIl a.
III ~ 1:1.
;r ~ n
CIl 'a ~
Q-
III
"00- ~' g, ~, t5.. 8 ~,~ g'
..... :3 Vl (tl ~ t-l.
3 e. 1>>, 3 2 e, g ... ~
a ~ !:to 0 ~ c: 0.!1: ~.
looI. 1-0. n 0. 0 ~...... Q..
~ 0- 0 t:t 0:;) ""
'< ::3 "Vl (tl' (tI (b ~
~ 0."'" 3 "0 '" 0. e, 0,
~ (ll ~ e; en ~ E!. ~
3"e,0l>>I>>"!10.
0'" - '" ... ~ :;) ~ "
n~ ~ ~ en 0 ........... 0 en
::3.....g~O'~"(llens::
"0 ~'~ ~~, a,
~~ ~en~en~2
~ ~ 0. ia. s:: (ll cr" n
... ,p." '" '" tI1 ~ "8 5:
~o.s::F;o;4~ ::3
S'" :;) :;) t'l 0 I>> 0.
"'t'l0'"".g 3"
"0 e." I>> ~ S'''''' g ~
~ (tl (tI ~ n .....
0. S"::3 - (tl C (ll e:.. n
0: ~ ~. ~ "en ~ ::3 ~ E:
::3 1-0. en :3
. o. (t ~ '-< (tl 0. "'0
.P3~,D"'0'""~
'-<~O~]~ n
... t'l:;) S 0
~ ~ ~ e:.. o' ~ ~ ::i
n ::i ::3 n
o (b (tl 0
::3 n n ::i
~(ll (b en
n' ~. ~ iJ
o' ~ ~
:;) 0. "
~ g fl ::3 VI
"
~ (b 0. (b n
~~:a~
t-l. ~ ~ g ~
ff' 5' ~,~'E 0.
~ en H ~ !!..
?' 3 3 ;:; ::;
~. ~ l:l) ta. 0
0:1 :>> ~ ~:;!
I>> < ;; 3
::3 (b "l:l)
o.a["'~o.
" "0 "
oS: ~, I'<
~ I:l:l S ~
S (b re..
(b S''-< 1"1 ~
Q,,' 3" _] "
VI ~ ~ 0 0-
s,c
~. ::3
I>> ...
... "
1>>"0
" ...
:;) !J:
"
g
I>>
g
"
,D S, 0.:;) 1i- ~ 5 " n.
il -o(tl. ~. n,,(b <: en I:l:l ~ ~
~ ~ '" t5..~' 0. ~
I:l:l 0 ~ ~. 0 (j S'~' tl
3 g 3 ~ " g: ~ ~ {l
g(llg"'O~. ~ ~
O<oe;8..~1"15n
rp,.1:l) ~ ~c
"0,,"0 _
8e;::i~~oe-:~
e. I>> "0 0. 0'""0"
...c(b~(biJ~2;e
G, -cro ... '" " .
~ (t 0 (tI ~ g ~
I>> a' " Ei, 0. ~ 0- ~ .
~ 5'~ ~ 0 ~ ~
_ 0 8 ~ S'~ a :::-
~ ~ ~ n ;;..g s:: ~"
~ - 0 0 nl~ _. ~ c
nl.~ !!.. e.: en ~ 8.. ~
~ ~~5'n'~ 0."...0
~..... _. ::3 '"
3aAgo- 0.
5l 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~
"
(;'
3
"0
R
S' ~ 'E s, ~
n en 1"1 <: s::
e;] ~ ,,0 ~
~.~ 0.] a.
o 0 0 0
::3 I:l) ~ ~ ~
~ 0- ~ 1"1 !l.
n Vl 0 "0
03 8 t:t, Ei ...
'" "0 g,~
"0 ... 0
a ~ en ~~.
(b 0 VI ~
Ft::i en 8 g.
" _"0 :;) ~
::i~~~rt
~...c ~. Q. ~
:;) " ,,0
~ (ll en ::3 n
< s:: ~ ~
~ ~ ~::3 ~
~ 0. g::3
~ "'0 I:l) (tl -
. c'~ ~ ~
>;j" 0. o,,D
Qg.-F~~
Z~~.
eL,{j
tr1{j0
<Os::
OZO
::t:1-1'"Cl
o~e
~:=tr1
>et:l
~ZO
t:l:l
tr1
'"ClZ
:=tr1
O:::J
'"Cl{j
~~
tr10
1-1V'J
>'"Cl
~>
~:=
0>
tr1
l"""
'" '"
~ ~ '" ~
-- ~ .
~ "'~,~ c-;:.., ~ ~
oCl()::S-"'-'1:S
~~~~~,~~
::S~~~~g~
~::S"".s:a....-...
r:: r:: r:: ... ... .. ...
'll l:l -l:! 'll :: ()
IS ~ 1:: '" '1:S 'll '-l
-l:!-~~~~~
(){l1S ....'1:S'll
'" ,_"'a::~::s
~,~'ll(){lr::~
()'O~'i3~,~~
... "..::: 'll -.. '-l '-
~':::-... ~;:"'l:l '-l
.......l:l'" -t;;,
,,5) '-l.~ 'll... ~ ::s 'll
-.. '" .... .... ~ r::
~{l~r::~~'ll
'" ",()l:l oCl
~ () '-l ...
'-l ~
I
I
-
{l ,~
~ ::'~ c:i
r:: l:l ~
~ I:l, E '-l
~ '" () ::s
"'~~'"
~ l:l '- l:l
&l-l:! ~
... ... '" '"
::s ... 'll ::s
'" {l "'a ';>
r:: _ ::s 'll
() ... '-l '"
'-l E ... '"
'll l:l l:l'l:l
~ ~ ,5 IS
t () IS 'll
'l:l ... ... ::s
:: I:l, ~ ~
a {l
~
o cncn
Q 00
<cnuu
...10--
fl)E-4e::~
<<u~
"""'o~z
"'"' ~~
f-c ~~
,ra
::s
~
~
ti~~
..::;C7;)~
lr)OQ
l....' ~
~~O\
....... '-
~ J3 ,~
~ ,E
~ 6'..9
~ .;;0>
~~~
~~Cj
g e '
o...~i3
~' t; 2
:o::~~
~ ~ co
~ 2 ~
Q-~
a-
S
sJ =
O~~
O~~-
tJo
~z
o :I:
= ~
~ 0
sJ 6
o
~
:s
l....
;:.... ;::: 'l) 'l)
'" 'l) "'...
ti c ;::: ;::: ;:::
.,.. '_ ,'l) 'l) ~ '"
"l.....:::..t:l:::~
~ ~ '" 'l) 'l) -
':::, ~ ~ "l::l '" ~
- l.... ... 'l) 'l) to:>
's:: 9..'~ ;:$ l.... ~
~E:6"'&'"
- 'l) ._ to:> l......,!!l
~ '" '" 'l) ;::: "
I:l.. c ~ ~ ;:$ ~
~ ""-1 ~ 'tj l.... E:
<-i '_ 'l) c ~
~~C3~I:l..Sc
~ .~ .;::: ~ C3 l2
<9Co)~C3-g1:l..
~;:: ....."- N........
~ ~,~ Co)._ 'l)
r~ '- 9.. ~ ~ "l::l
........ ~ l2 ;::: ;:::
l.... I:l.. 'l) ~
..t:l
~
:aoo
e:~z
~~~
:esJ~
OQ~
f-4<~
;!~z
f-4~<
(/)<(/)
-~
QQ
rJ>
~
~ ..
~~
O~
~Q
::e~
.....z
rJ>O
OU
~~
o 0
~o -
_.~ ;;
...... .~;:s .
~ "" 0 '" 0 '" ~
0" 0 'C - 0 "0 ~ 0
OJ .- (ij g! "0 "" ",.~
~ go 0 0 "" .[)' ""
'" .....Y"O O"O'C
oo.oo'y"Oug
"0 r;; ,90:0 0 0"E o'
s::-.....oo.....o
"" ......-:.a"'~'"
00'..... ~....o
- ""0 l,";S ~ - .- '"0 '-
...'" ,_ - ...'" fJ) QJ en
0'.Y's::~~""....'"
o 0 "" "0 ",.- '" 0
,~ 0. 0...... ..., 0::J.-
.5 :.a E 0 g 5 ,..g
..... OOO"O;;GJ
s:: ~ U s::'='- ~~ -
OVl UOfJ);;~
U 0 ~ ''::: 0 ~ 0.]
.
'C
.S "'l
~~~
I;) z:: I
III I;)~
\:l $~
-.,.
z::~~
8-~
III ~ ~
~ .....
t
~
z::
a
~.~8 !
.g&~~g,
"" "" .....
.- ~ f'l 0-
'" OJ ~ 0
E ~ Po; g'~
QJ ~ . (.) ......,
"0 "O:S . s::
o 0._ '" ~ ui
"Ot:i..g~5o
S::Jo]~]
oS]~fr~
'" s:: "'.... l:l
Zoe;g:9~o
0.",1::","0
.
s:: "" '"
o E 0
~ a B~
.D 0 .- s:: ..:
"" "" .... "" '" GJ .-
s:r:: c...... ~.D:9
,QjOo",o
QJB"O=iiJ::::O~
550"00-;::0
''::: ~i; ;>,g.~1l
"" "'" ~ '" s::'~ ~
:.::::.a c 0"0 p.,
's c:: ~ ~'u QJ.-o
tl:;S..oO-cd"'"0
~ .~ fr ~ E ~ '@
432.... <2f'l0
U"" .- ~ 0 s:: C3 ~
'" '" "0._ 0. 0"
.
""-
~ 0 ""
5h~ S '"
eo. 5GJi;l
o..~ "0 0
-t'::S;:scd_eo
~ .D (/) .~ ~ .Y
o ~ <Ii ~ :9 0
.... 0 ~ l:l '" a
~s::ooo~o
~",<:....o~
oOGJa....O"ui
"'''0''0....0.'''0
GJ "" 0 s:: "" 0 .-
s.. u; .+oJ ~ ~ '"0 ~
GJ ~ Eo.... "" 0
.... .... '" .... o.""'~ s::
~ 0'- fr E 0
(/)"00....0 .D
.