HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Development Services
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Valerie C. Ross, Director
Subject: An appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 16794
and Variance No. 09-02. The project is a 44-lot single
family residential subdivision on 18.45 acres, with a
Variance to permit a retaining wall up to 26 feet in
height on the west side of Palm Avenue, 200 feet
north of Verdemont Drive in the RL, Residential Low
land use district. (Appeal No. 09-02)
Dept: Development Services
Date: November 30, 2009
MCC Date: December 7, 2009
Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and uphold
the Planning Commission's approval of Tentatjve Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02
based on the Findings of Fact in the Planning Commission staff report.
Alternative Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council grant the appeal and
continue the item to the next Council meeting to adopt Findings of Fact for denial of Tentative
Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02.
~$(/{?!#-
Valerie C. Ross
Contact person: Terri Rahhal, City Planner
Phone:
3330
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: NI A
Source: (Acct. No.)
Acct. Description:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. 3Lf J
j;}"/7/0q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subiect:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 16794
and Variance No. 09-02. The project is a 44-lot single family residential subdivision on 18.45
acres, with a Variance to permit a retaining wall up to 26 feet in height on the west side of
Palm Avenue. 200 feet north of Verdemont Drive in the RL, Residential Low land use district.
(Exhibit I)
Applicant:
Owner:
Appellant:
Eric Borstein
Borstein Enterprises
12301 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 302
Los Angeles, CA 90025
310-582-1991
Palm Avenue 45 LP
12301 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 302
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-582-1991
Richard Hernandez
6941 North Melvin Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92407
909-997-1623
Backl!round:
The subject of this appeal (Exhibit 2) is the Planning Commission approval ofTTM No. 16794, a
44-lot subdivision on the west side of the northern-most reach of Palm Avenue, in the
Verdemont area. The project site is adjacent to the existing "Skyline" Tract No. 14352, and the
project is designed to improve and connect to the existing Palm Avenue, with an extension of the
existing Melvin Avenue. The Planning Commission also approved Variance No. 09-02, as
needed to approve the proposed retaining wall at the southern boundary of the project site,
ranging in height from II feet to a maximum of 26 feet. Most of the public testimony at the
Planning Commission hearing was focused on the height and design of the retaining wall.
Nearby residents voiced concerns about the imposing height of the wall and potential problems
with future maintenance of the landscaping. The proposed wall is a Verdura retaining wall
system of interlocking blocks containing soil and a built-in drip irrigation system to support
100% coverage of the wall by plant materials. Details, cross sections and example photos are
presented in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 3), and will also be available for
discussion at the Council meeting.
This appeal was initially to be considered by the Mayor and Common Council on November 16,
2009, but was not properly noticed for the public hearing. The notice of the December 7, 2009
public hearing was mailed on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 and published in The Sun on
Friday, November 27,2009.
Appeal:
The appeal application does not specify an objection to the retaining wall, but the appellant seeks
denial ofTTM No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02 based on the procedures followed in noticing
and conducting the Planning Commission hearing. The appeal states that "all residents" were not
notified. It also states that the Planning Commission changed its vote after the meeting was
adjourned. In response to the notification issue, statT has verified that standard procedures were
followed to provide public notice of the Planning Commission hearing. A current mailing list of
2
property owners within a 500-foot radius surrounding the project site was used to mail hearing
notices 10 days before the hearing date. A description of the project and the date and time of the
hearing was also published in the San Bernardino County Sun newspaper 10 days prior to the
hearing, and the Planning Commission agenda was posted on the City's web site, at the
Feldheym library and outside City Hall six days before the Planning Commission hearing.
A procedural issue did arise when the Planning Commission voted on the project. On the first
vote on a motion to approve the project, the vote was 4 in favor (Commissioners Durr, LongviJIe,
Mui'ioz and Sauerbrun), 3 opposed (Commissioners Coute, Heasley and Mulvihill) and 2
abstentions (Commissioners Eble and Rawls). At first, the Planning Commission chairman
declared that the motion carried. He then announced that the last public hearing agenda item had
been concluded and he thanked everyone in the audience for attending the hearing. The meeting
was not formally adjourned, but people in the audience began to get up and leave. The Deputy
City Attorney quickly consulted the Planning Commission Rules of Order and determined that a
majority of members present is required for a Planning Commission motion to pass. The
chairman was informed that the motion to approve the project failed and he alerted everyone
present to that fact. Approximately 90 seconds elapsed between the chairman's fIrst
announcement that the action on TTM No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02 was concluded and his
subsequent announcement that the motion to approve the project had failed. Then the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to reconsider the project. Under reconsideration, a motion was
made to approve the project, and the motion passed with a majority of 5 in favor (Commissioners
Durr, Heasley, Longville, Mui'ioz and Sauerbrun) 2 opposed (Commissioners Coute and
Mulvihill) and 2 abstentions (Commissioners Eble and Rawls).
Conclusion:
The final outcome of the Planning Commission hearing was the same as the result mistaken for a
fmal action after the first vote. The project was approved in open session of a noticed public
hearing of the Planning Commission. So the specific grounds for appeal stated in Exhibit 2 do
not warrant overturning the decision of the Planning Commission.
Financial ImDact:
None. The appellant has paid required processing fees.
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and uphold
the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02
based on the Findings of Fact in the Planning Commission staffreport.
Alternative Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council grant the appeal and
continue the item to the next Council meeting to adopt Findings of Fact for denial of Tentative
Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02.
3
/~-7-tJ'7
fl,t'(7/c..C"t>"'f>,,1 ~ je
11---_ 1/
Exhibits:
I. Location Map
2. Appeal Application
3. Planning Commission Record of Action and Staff Report
4
)
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
LOCATION MAP
PLANNING DIVISION
HEARING DATE: 11/16/2009
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16794 & VARIANCE 09-02
d~Q;'
V'I
/'.
all.:'/
G;'
/ ;'
,//
"/1,,, .
. 'f.'"..
// '
'\
,
'/ .
": :~
"
/'/ ..-
///'/ ..-
;'////,
///////
" //>>
,//1/
"I' ,
/>' ,/1','
/ ' I;, ':'
. / /. I;.' .
.,- /////////.
': //1>,:/ '
11// /
/"/'~</-</"-
, --'////////,.'
,'.I 1'/// ,.:"
", ,',
.I ..' -' /.-'
Project Site
,
/<./<
///./,/
, J I /,
, .. . ',I
}f}>" ~.._--' ,
}<: ,:',.
II;' ,
, /j'<,<.
1///"
-. .
. ,
'/.' /
" / /,'
-'.'.'. .
, '//.1 ,'.
.I ','/'//
<'.><'~}~ /
'-.~'
Palm Avenue
"
'/ '
::;
::{
,
,-,',,,
" Copyright
NORTH
,.
"
, I
~I/ I' 1/ I
' ' /;
,.;. /.///;/ /
"'iF,. /.
~ 'I . 1/.1 .
_.,.:'/ ,'//; /I/. /,
,'V'<:Q'II>//~'I'I I
:; / ',?<// . I
~. /.I.',-
/f::l?r}1fJW~; ~.
.
',..'<,- .;
,';'.
. ,
,'j / '--',
/;',;1.\
. ,/<~>. /
"
, //
, 1.!
, >
19-1HOOI l5:5Tp. -, Fram-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING ~m
9013145010
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department, Planning Division
300 ~orth "D" Street. 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Phone (909) 384-5057 . Fax (909) 384-5080
Web address: www.sbcity.org
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one)
[J Development Services Director
[J Development/Environmental Review Committee
, "lll Planning Commission
Case nwnber(s):S-rm / (077 i.f ~ deN(' I ~CY<.J n'7-O 2.-
Project address:1'€N-:M1~e..~ f'/VIR ...v. p,,;1Q"l ~ ~NL.€- NO. dI-OL
Appellant's name: ~\U~ ~Nt)~L
Appellant'sllddrcss; CtA'i1 I'IO~ MEt..-Jlr-! f><.Jf.,"'AN,
Appellant's phone: qa\ -C-l't7 -11,,23
Appellant's e-mail address: \~\iU \1'f'<=!. YI\1\1XJ.C-4rI\. .
'V~\NI;) (A
,
"i"ZW7
.\
Contact person's name: ~C,.\~ '1~l!-NAI'C>e.,-
Contact person's address: ~
Contact person's phone: ~
Contact person's e-mail address: ~
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal mu.st be filed on a City application form
within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee.
Appeal. are normally scheduled for a derennination by the Planning Commission or :'vlayor and Common
Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and
time of the appeal hearing,
OFFICE USE ONLY
Datb appe~tile& ky#;o/ C9 .
"">:ceivedlly: IF::. ,
I IiI)",
JI~Z4-Z001 J5:5ip. F".-cITY OF SAN SERNAROINO PLANNING OEPT
lOl3845080
7-544 P :03/003 F-512
)
REQUIRED lNFOR.:~1ATIO~ FOR ~~ APPEAL
Specific action being appealed and the date of that action:
\\Jit) '-10.\ Sl~\,.e.. tAtJ.\\i-{~<,\CO'.N"i1\(_
Of 10 P9. 2... 'd.J..""~ I'=fe,!\...n ^
,
wALL.. Up'\t) 'll., fft:;r \ to.:I
A~ n\E. -ttj> r.~ 'f'AI..M.2..co
.
p.. ~~~i-;,\ -m <'11;z,DI",Di'.. IQ..S k-<<
L-cir<., ......1\\\'1 '" M\N.iVIIJ..A \A'rr'SIz..1:.
""'l.-I"..i..!C_ \b ffq..M~ \ A \!.€.~\N\M...
i-\tnJl\'r.?h:>''1''E..<< \S ~
~C>r A'Oo'Ji.. "ILq..:~t=.Mc.1'J\ p~\V~. 9/2
Specific grounds for the appeal: . FAlL.u~ -"Tn C'~\"U..\..'-{ \'.Li\f-l t>..~~ U<"Ii)e~
. ~an~) N..-""CN of c..c.M<A\S5I~: ....A.o~ .U-(-.;~ MU>nM.
p., l'1'U- A I.\."'\t) 3 '\bi'E..
:.') C.MN\:'~ VC~ ~
Mfbn~Mc,. A~t'\
Action sought: .~~.-( '''IT\E-~i1\n,,c.... -\'?1'<<7( ~ No 11.:07(11.{ At.JP
" A'ht>.N.Ui.. \-.Xl, 01- 0 z....
.,
.
Additional information: !A.K... t..f'
· CCMJA\~ I':'~ s"'~"'"
L~~ c.N ,,~
.. ~ck'\ De\lacVM~N\
1U-~t.:>\1'<T'\tN
~~U.<'f~ ).r f.~tt-.:i \NU"I"t.. Mu.T\f'\A"
\')€>Jt.v(~ ~M\....f _
Oy ~E..~€MON\" 6e.l\\(..,.l, = \Jt..h"'~,Ti' HI\.N~
"ignaturc of appellant:
Q
Date: 10 - 5 -U-'\
2
11.04
0..
: . ,; CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.Jf EXHIBIT 3
;'.. . . STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
)
PROJECf
Number:
Tentative Tract Map No, 16794 (Subdivision No. 06-31) & Variance No.
09-02
Owner:
Palm Avenue 45, LP
Applicant:
Borstein Enterprises
Description:
A request to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 single family residential lots
with a minimum lot size of 10,882 square feet and a Variance to permit a
retaining wall up to 26 feet in height. The project site is located on the
west side of Palm Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Verdemont
Drive, in the RL, Residential Ipw land use district.
ACTION:
APPROVED
Meeting Date:
September 23, 2009
The Planning Commission:
1.) Independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised independent judgment in its
consideration of the Initial Study and in making its determination;
2.) Adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment E) and Mitigation
MonitoringlReporting Program (Attachment F); and
3.) Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No, 09-02 based on the
Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of
Approval (Attachment C), as revised and Standard Requirements (Attachment D),
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Durr, Heasley, LongYille, Muiloz and Sauerbrun
Coute and Mulvihill
Eble and Rawls
None
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the
appropriate fee, within 15 days of the Planning Commission's action, pursuant to Section
19.52,100 of the Municipal (Development) Code,
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination
of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino.
7~~/ 9-2tj-OC)
Terri Rahhal, Deputy Director/City Planner Date
cc: Case File, Department File, BnildinWI'lan Check, Public Works/Engineering
.'" PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SAt... BERNARDINO PLANNL....G DMSION
CASE:
Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 (Subdivision No. 06-31) and
Variance No. 09-02
I
September 23, 2009
5
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
OWNER:
Palm A venue 45, LP
2730 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90404
310.582.1991
APPLICANT:
Borstein Enterprises
2730 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90404413
310.582.1991
REPRESENTATIVE:
David MI}TIarski
MAPCO
Mackay Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909.384.7464
REQUEST/LOCA TION:
A request to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size
of 10,882 square feet and a Variance to permit a retaining wall up to 26 feet in height. The
project site is located on the west side of Palm Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of
" Verdemont Drive, in the RL, Residential Low land use district.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
High Wind Hazard, Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District, Geological Hazard
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
o Not Subject to CEQA
o Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332 - In-fill Development
o No Significant Effects
I:8J Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation MonitoringlReporting Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
~ Approval
cg] Conditions
o Denial
o Continuance to:
,
Hearing Date: 9.13.2009
TTM /6794 (Sub 06-3/J & Variance 09-02
Page 2
~
V
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This is a request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 18.45 acres
into 44 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 10,882 square feet and a
Variance to permit a retaining wall up to 26 feet in height. The project site is located on the west
side of Palm Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Verdemont Drive, in the RL, Residential
Low land use district (Attachment A).
Development Code Section 19.20.030 (8) Table 20.01 sets the maximum height for a perimeter
wall at 8 feet. The applicant seeks approval of Variance No, 09-02 to permit an interlocking
retaining wall up to 26 feet in height. The proposed interlocking retaining wall would be
constructed along the southerly property boundary ranging in height from II feet to 26 feet to
accommodate development of the proposed subdivision (Attachment B). The location and cross-
section illustration of the proposed interlocking block wall is shown in Figure 3A of the Initial
Study (Attachment E - Initial Study, Page 11). The design and placement of the interlocking
blocks allow the incorporation of plant materials which, upon maturity, effectively screen the
walls as shown in Figures 3B and 3C of the Initial Study (page 12). The applicant proposes that
the retaining wall along with the slopes north of the wall be maintained through a landscape
maintenance district (LMD), A 3-foot path along north of the retaining wall is proposed to
provide access for maintenance of the LMD area.
-1
The RL district promotes the development of low-density, large lot, single-family detached
residential units with a minimum lot size of 10,800 square-feet. Residential lots within the
proposed tentative tract range in size from 10,882 square feet to 37,508 square feet. The average
lot size is 15,127 square feet. The proposed density is 2,8 units per acre,
The applicant proposes Lot 13 as a temporary on-site detention basin and as a developable lot at
such time when property immediately north of the project site is developed and the basin is no
longer required, Conversion of Lot 13 to a residential lot is detailed in Public Works Standard
Requirements (1) (C) incorporated by reference in Attachment D, A IS-foot concrete channel
along the northern property boundary is proposed to provide access to maintain the basin and a
six foot wrought iron gate is proposed as a security fence, The proposed project would
incorporate a fuel modification plan located within the project site and along the northern,
southern and western property boundaries of the project site. The street layout has been designed
with a "U" pattern extending Melvin Avenue approximately 900 feet west connecting back to
Palm Avenue.
SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS
"lI
The subject site consists of 3 parcels and is accessible from Palm A venue. The project site is
currently vacant and slopes toward the southwest of the project site. The western and southern
portions of the project site, which consist of sloping hillside, comprise a substantial portion of
the developable area. The northeastern portion of the site contains highly disturbed soil along
with seasonal weeds, cobbles, rocks, and some scattered debris, The eastern portion of the
project site has been previously used to stockpile material from the development of adjacent
properties. The site previously contained a single family home and a detached garage
(Attachment E - Initial Study, Page 3).
}
',,"
"
Hearing Date: 9.23.2009
rrM /6794 (Sub 06-3/) & Vanance 09-02
Page 3
Surrounding the subject site to the east, across Palm Avenue, are single family structures in the
RL, Residential Low land use district, constructed in 2004/2005 under Tract Map No. 14352.
Abuning the project site to the south and north are vacant properties in the RL district. Abuning
the project site to the west is undeveloped area under Tentative Tract Map No. 17367 approved
by Planning Commission on May 16, 2006.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA)
The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial
Study (Anachment E) was prepared by LSA Associates Inc, and circulated for a 30-day public
review period from May 8, 2009 to June 8, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, The
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration received two comment letters from the California
Regional Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region and the California Department of Fish &
Game. Responses are appended to the Initial Study. Mitigation measures are detailed in the
Mitigation MonitoringlReporting Program (Anachment F) incorporated by reference in the
Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Tentative Tract Map was reviewed by the Development/Environmental Review
Committee (D/ERC) on February 7, 2008, where comments were issued and the project was
continued for revisions and preparation of environmental documents. The applicant revised the
plans and provided additional reports/studies (biological resources assessment, cultural resources
assessment, preliminary hydrology report, fire/vegetation management plan, geologic
investigation and others) as requested, and the D/ERC conducted a subsequent review on April
30, 2009. On June 18, 2009, the D/ERC reviewed the revised plans and the Initial Study, at
which time the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review and the
project was moved to the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 18.45 acres into 44 single family residential
lots with a minimum lot size of 10,882 square feet. The proposed subdivision will be consistent
with the RL land use district and compatible with previous approved subdivisions in the RL
district abuning the site to the west (Tentative Tract Map No. 17367) and east (Tract Map No,
14352) of the project site. Each proposed lot will have sufficient building pad area, and will have
direct access to a new public road. Other components of the proposed project include
improvements to streets and fuel modification. Extensions of the existing infrastructure
constructed as part of Tract Map No. 14352 to the east of the project across Palm Avenue will
provide water, sewer, drainage, and utility services to the site.
Access:
Direct access to the site will be from Palm Avenue which is currently an improved two-lane road
with sidewalk on east side of the street. The west side of the street will be fully improved with
sidewalk to match the east side at the time of site development with residential homes. The street
layout for the proposed tract includes extending Melvin A venue approximately 900 feet west in a
"u" panem connecting back to Palm Avenue.
Hearing Date: 9.23.2009
'ITAI 16794 (Sub 06-31) & Variance 09-02
Page 4
)
Drainage
Drainage flows from north of the project site will be directed to the detention basin on Lot 13.
The proposed project will incorporate a concrete channel along the northern property boundary
to intercept and route off-site storm flow to the proposed detention basin (Lot I3) located at the
northwest corner of the project site. A 48-inch storm drain is proposed for the basin and will
connect to the existing 54-inch storm drain approximately 20 feet south of the project site on
Verdemont Drive. Drainage within the site will flow to the streets and will ultimately empty into
the existing storm drain on Verdemont Drive.
Water Supplv
The project site is located in the 2300 elevation pressure zone, The existing 2100 elevation
pressure zone south of Verdemont Drive does not serve properties north of Verdemont Drive,
including the proposed project site. A new 2300 elevation pressure zone is being planned for
construction by the Municipal Water Department. In the mean time, in order to serve the
proposed subdivision, the developer will be required to connect to the existing "Melvin" booster
pump that was constructed in 2004 as part of Tract Map No. 14352 adjacent to the project site to
the east. The "Melvin' booster pump was originally installed and sized with calculations to
provide adequate water supply to Tract Map No. 14352 and the proposed subdivision, The
existing "Melvin" booster pump will supplement the existing 2100 elevation pressure zone to
provide water supply to serve the proposed project site. With the "Melvin" booster pump, the
proposed subdivision will not impact the existing service in the 2100 elevation pressure zone,
."
Fuel Modification Area
The project site is located within Foothill Fire Zone High Fire Hazard Area. The project includes
a Fuel Modification Plan that is required to buffer the site from the abutting wildlands and
undeveloped areas, The Fuel Modification Plan includes a "wet zone" which incorporates
inigated back yards, an irrigated 2:1 slope in the rear yards, and perimeter block wall along the
northerly and southerly property boundaries, A "thinning zone," where flammable vegetation
will be removed, will extend approximately 50 feet from the outer edge of the perimeter
boundary.
The lots created by the proposed Tentative Tract Map will conform to all Development Code
requirements, as shown in Table A.
'.
)
-.....
'\
Hearmg Date: 9.23.2009
17'M 16794 (Sub 06-31) & Variance 09-01
Page 5
TABLE A - DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMA.J.'\'CE
i DEVELOP~IENT CODE GENERAL PLA. 'I r
I CATEGORY PROPOSAL
I Pennitted Use Tract Map Subdivision Permitted Consistent
Density 2.8 Units Per Gross Acre 3.1 Units Per Gross Acre Consistent
Lot Size Lot 14 = 10,882 sq.ft.
(min.) 10,800 sq. ft. (min.) Consistent
Lot 13 = 37,508 sq.ft.
-.lmaxl
Lot Width 74 feet- interior lots 60 feet- interior lots nla
115 feet- comer lots 66 feet- corner lots
Lot Depth 115 feet 100 feet (min.) nla
Wall Height 26 feet (e) 8 feet (max.) nla
Access 2 standard means 2 standard means Consistent
. .
(>0) A Variance IS requested to pemut a retaining wall up to 26 feet In heIght.
FINDINGS OF FACT - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
All requirements for lot size and design that are contained in Development Code Chapter
19.04 (Residential Districts) have been met, except for the height ofa proposed retaining
wall, as shown in Table A. A Variance application has been requested to increase the
wall height ranging from 11 feet to 26 feet. Findings of Fact supporting the Variance are
presented in the following section of this Staff Report. The applicant's findings for the
Variance are presented in Attaclunent G.
2.
The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed subdivision will implement the goals and policies contained in the General
Plan, Land Use Goal 2.2 promotes development that integrates with surrounding land
uses, and the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the pattern of development in
the surrounding existing neighborhood. Land Use Policy 2.7.5 requires that development
. conform to the availability of public infrastructure to accommodate its demands and
mitigate its impacts. The proposed subdivision will connect to existing water and sewer
services, roads, storm drains, and private utilities.
Hearing Date: 9.23.2009
TT/I.{ /6794 (Sub 06-3/) & Variance 09-02
Page 6
.)
3.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development.
The site is physically suitable for single-family dwellings. The proposed project conforms
to the Development Code's design standards for minimum lot dirnensions and two
standard routes of access. Each proposed lot will have sufficient building pad area, and
will have direct access to a new public road. Extensions of the existing infrastructure in
the vicinity will provide water, sewer, drainage, and utility services to the parcels, Other
components of the proposed project include improvements to streets, trail system, fuel
modification, and open space.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development and will provide
adequate access, drainage and utility services. The proposal is consistent with the
Subdivision Map Act, the General Plan, the Development Code, and the proposed parcels
will have lot sizes that will be similar and compatible with the surrounding subdivisions
within the vicinity that have been previously approved. The General Plan allows up to 3.1
units per acre in the RL district, and the proposed subdivision is for single-family
development at 2.8 units per gross acre, There are no physical constraints that would
preclude subdivision of lots as proposed. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
"\
5.
The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat. A comprehensive environmental review was completed according to the
CEQA Guidelines to determine the presence and extent of any environmental impacts, as
discussed in the Initial Study (Attachment E), and will be subject to the mitigation
measures in the Mitigation MonitoringtReporting Program (Attachment F),
6. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
The design of the proposed subdivision meets all applicable Development Code
requirements, which protect the public health and safety. The proposed subdivision will
have direct access a public street and provides adequate provisions for drainage water
supply, fuel modification and landscape maintenance as discussed in the Initial Study
(Attachment E). Emergency and public services will continue to have adequate access to
future structures on the site. The proposed project will be subject to the mitigation
measures in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment F) that minimize
serious public health and safety problems,
\
)
,
2.
\
Hearing Dare: 9.23.2009
TTft,{ /6794 (Sub 06-30 & Variance 09-02
Page 7
7.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements do not conflict with any
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of. property within
the proposed subdivision.
The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public easements. No conflicting
easements have been identified, but any easements requiring reservation or relocation
will be provided for under the review of the City Engineer prior to recordation of the
Tentative Tract Map.
FINDINGS OF FACT - VARIANCE
1.
There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the Development
Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and
under identical land use district classifications.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance pursuant to Development Code
Section 19.20.030 (8), Table 20,01 to deviate from the development standard that
requires a wall height of 8 feet. A substantial retaining wall is required for Lots 16
through 26 to achieve a pattern of development similar to surrounding approved tentative
and tract maps, i.e, Tract Map No. 14352 for 65 lots (Gardner Construction) - east of the
project site recorded on November 3, 2003. Tentative Tract Map No. 17367 for 66 lots
(Neil Gascon) - abutting the project site to the west approved by the Planning
Commission on May 16, 2006, Tentative Tract Map No. 16533 for 48 lots (Roger Hobbs)
- approximately 1,800 feet west of the project site approved by the Planning Commission
on February 8, 2005.
The proposed site is an irregularly-shaped parcel consisting of 18.45 acres with slopes
ranging from 2% to 15%. There are special circumstances applicable to the property
including shape, topography, existing improvements and surroundings, Due to existing
bench marks permanently set for streets and improvements on Palm and Melvin Avenues,
Palm Avenue and Huntington Drive and Palm Avenue and Verdemont Drive and existing
topography with elevations ranging from 1,960 to 2,080, grade elevation differential of
120 feet, as a result, strict application of the height limit of 8 feet on the design of a
retaining wall would dramatically reduce the developable area of the project site and
deprive the property of the privileges enjoyed by other sites in the vicinity, including
similar properties on Verdemont Drive and Palm A venue in the RL land use district.
Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and
denied to the property for which the Variance is sought.
The property has topographic limitations, and thus needs the Variance to develop the site
in a manner similar to other RL properties in the area. Granting of the Variance is needed
to preserve the right of development at a density similar to that enjoyed by residential
properties in the surrounding area, Adherence to the required 8-foot wall height limit
would put an unusual constraint on the potential development of the project site. Given
)
"
j
6.
~,
Hearing Date: 9.23.2009
ITM /6794 (Sub 06-31) & Variance 09-02
Page 8
the existing bench marks and improvements on Palm and Melvin Avenues, Palm Avenue
and Huntington Drive and Palm Avenue and Verdemont Drive and the existing pattern of
development fronting Palm Avenue and Verdemont Drive, a minimum pad elevation of
2,010 is required to maintain a consistent pattern of development. The unique location of
the project site requires a retaining wall exceeding the maximum height limit to achieve a
development plan similar to other residential properties in the vicinity,
3.
Granting the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use
district in which the property is located.
Granting the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity, in that all proposed
construction would be required to comply with applicable health, safety and building
codes. Therefore, the proposed subdivision would not pose a threat to the public health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino,
4.
Granting the Variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such
property is located.
The granting of the Variance to allow a retaining wall up to 26 feet in height would not
constitute a special privilege, Based on the topography of the site, with the elevations
ranging from 1,960 feet to 2,080 feet, strict application of the height limits in
Development Code Section 19.20.030 (8), Table 20.01 would severely limit potential
development of the project site. The proposed retaining wall design is a practical solution
to the problem that would be recommended for any other property with the same unusual
configuration, Therefore, granting Variance No, 09-02 would not constitute a special
privilege,
5.
Granting the Variance would not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel.
The granting of the variance will not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. The proposed
subdivision is permitted subject to subdivision application approval and the proposed
Variance from the retaining wall height requirement. The existing and proposed use of
the subject site will be residential subdivision, consistent with the RL, Residential Low
land use district.
Granting the Variance would be consistent with the General Plan.
General Plan Policy 2.2 states: "promote development that integrates with and minimizes
impacts on surrounding land uses" The granting of the Variance would be consistent with
the General Plan because it would allow development of the site that will blend in with
the existing pattern of development. The retaining wall will be articulated thought the use
of landscaping and planters to integrate with the slopes in the LMD area and will be
maintained, minimizing potential impacts on surrounding land uses in the area. The
Hearing Date: 9.13.2009
ITM /6794 (Sub 06-3/) & Variance 09-02
Page 9
)
proposed subdivision would have lot sizes and improvements similar to other residential
lots in the surrounding neighborhood.
CONCLUSION
The subdivision as proposed satisfies all Findings of Fact required for approval of Tentative
Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the hearing be closed and that the Planning Commission independently
review, analyze and exercise independent judgment in its consideration of the Initial Study and
in making its determination, and that the Planning Commission;
I) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment E) and Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment F); and
2) Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No, 09-02 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).
.,
Respectfully Submitted,
YmM; (/. ~
Valerie C. Ross
Director, D elopment Services
..
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Location Map
Tentative Tract Map No. 16794
Conditions of Approval
Standard Requirements
Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigated Monitoring / Reporting Program
Applicant's Variance Findings
'<';
ATTACHMENT A
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
LOCATION MAP
PLANNING DIVISION
HEARING DATE: 09/23/2009
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16794 & VARIANCE 09-02
NORTH
)
o~8,:".',
ny...
V r</--:</..
~~/';'"
. ~/.'III" /
r"/.',,', .
'1,/
- /"
, .
~,-, '/
~~t{~
~~',~~'
,.',
,;;~':, ~::11<::ro~ec;:.:;:t,::,.
, (, ,;I, ",I' ,- ,-", r ./I'~
~/""'J... !.L/~:-/X~)?"-'I,;~/..."..; .::~(:/;
, -' /~ """" ',",'" .- ".1// /".''//,
<<::j5'z'~~:.:,::'~J7,jfrti :
, , !'., "';'-:;'/
/
I
'':' '
.,'
"
" -'.J
i. "
.,
"
I' I
l'! ,!I! I!'!'
1':':I'!,"ll!!'111
i''''! a h ! I.Uu!
, "I!. .. )0
Iii "'I'.,'!I. I I l' ,. · , II
I :i'~I!";;'" II ," I!:; II I , ,
I "~"IIII.1 I I !I....!.. II
. I. . ',' J' ,I Ii'
'l'i.II"','!I' " ., ;j .II,: "
I ,..," 'r. ,. ,. I' ilt . I' , ,
!11;;::!ili'!1 I: I: "I h.!; J! il
I: 'l'j':,:!:I" " " ' :1:" I;' 'I
J i ""1'1,1' '. '. I,' !i,':' ."".
'1'111 ' ,. " , ' 'II' ,
Ii ,~!,' ~I~':I :! :! ~I' .~, !II '. ,It
. i: ,'!!I"I'I,I;II " 'I,:'! hilI; ji I! II
i: h, .11., I" :, :, ,.1.'", ."10
I .. '1""I".II!'1 "" ill,lj',1 'I' ',",' I'
j .,.' I~", ! . . II' f I! ! Ii
~I :II l:iib!i!liilll! III ~ill !Ii !II II II II
!II I' I
j!' I'" ;"1
~ ,'I'll ,I!'II ;,,'1
. "I' ,','1 I'l
5 .! I:I! .Uhl! ! n !
"",b
CJ) !I:
......
~ ~i I'
0::1
iZ ,~
.; ..I
I: t; i~
~i< .,
/ ~I a:: I.
.,1- ~!
!II, _I
,w,-
>,.
~!i Ii
~!d I
Wi!
1-" f'
~I ~
. ,
f,!!!!!!!!!!!!I!i;;;;ii;i;ii;i;iiiiii;;;;;i;;i I
f,....------. If.............".......~.............................. ,
..................................
I i= ~~:~:!=:: !!= :!~! !.i.i.i.;.i.i .i.;;;; iii iii i i; i;i iii
_ _ 2''';!..''....':f.1I......
~!--_._--_..,..,.,..."'............................
,'1&, '17.
. . ,J?,'
/l','
.... //
. V/
" :i.~.
..
ji II
,I I.
II' Iii .!i II
I. ~. ill I
_II 11,1.1
,I. I'
Ill. "
I' I' il
I! 'I' ~
;II illi ;ll ;1 j!
.
;
. , :1
I I "
';1 1,1
Iml hil -I'
iiiil .....,. u'
.
~
lit! 1'" Mil,., ~
:------ ..J
i
I
,
~II
~ .
~I'
;:
Ii
'~i
..,
~ /Il
I//l
/t"
lh'
,,/:l
/
,
I
,
I
/
I
,
,I S''''
.'. / l
/~ It
';" ~
ill
/1 ..'
j]
I
.
I
,
~I
. ~ '\1
r~~.
':I~::
'Ii 11)/
. U _:: I~~I!
~ .. i~a'
! ,.j i . ~
i'I1
I,
...
I:'
'1'1
i it
III I!'
J I rl
=,/1 J.
., "
.
~ ;1
. ~-
I ~~ ;i:
! ~~ :'
. z 2: i
r: ~~ !
" u
< .
",'
,... ,~
r
I\,... J'
~i!il
I
i',
I,
:1
'I
.,
II
@
.....
1:11"
I~li
)
j
!
d
~;\
!
-----~
!
;:!
,;.;:;Li
-:t-FI'
---~~.;. ;::.:.;;;,
d. .}~~~t
5;:.-;
s;--
~
!
d., .ci~.J
s;:;:{:: :f~~3.
. ~ ."....
.. .. - ..~.
'_. _;- ::-;r
----.- .~~
!
~
CJ)
I"-
WCO
>.....
1-'
<(0
I-Z
ZI-
UJo
I-~
I-
d..
S;,:
!
-------!-
f
d
-.
'-
!
=1.
5~
I~
of
5;; .. I
_u_~. .... .1
~~~~~fi~~~!!M~~!~~;~;g
~8
~~
i
~ilf!
~
w
z
::;
~
0:
w
a.
o
0:
a.
>-
-'
0:
w
:r
I-
:J
o
en
~
-'
-'
~
u..
o
w
-'
u:
o
0:
a.
:i
~~
Uj ~;
-'
<cU
u. .
,^. .
w__
"
}
~ II::
1f;:;-'i
.j ~ ~
i >( i - t
5
~ I
i, I ! .
I .
; ..
~III~I
~!
~~
--::;"" .
~,
::ll I
~,
~!
...
O'
d
OJ
,
,
,
: .,
, .,
,
,
,
, ,
/ ."
,
,
,
,
,
, on
,
, .,
:
, ,
,
, , ~
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
...
.,
,
, ~
,
:
!
/
i
!
,
,
!
~
/
/
I,."
"'I
,./,
il..
/
~u
.:1;
0..
.'e
! ,I,.
Iii!
'-.
;:.
"I:'
~ I U!
-.......-.......-~I/ g1IIII',
(-.... 9;:I1flll.
/ ~.. II
/~
/
,
/
/
/
/
/
/
!
.4)
'J
,
)
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 (SUB No, 06-31) &
Variance No. 09-02
I. This approval authorizes Tentative Tract Map No, 16794 to subdivide approximately
18.45 acres into 44 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 10,882
square feet and a Variance to permit a retaining wall up to 26 feet in height. The
project site is located on the west side of Palm Avenue, approximately 200 feet north
ofVerdemont Drive, in the RL, Residential Low land use district.
2. Within two years of this approval, the filing of the final map or parcel map with the
Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration
of a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel map
shall be filed without first processing a new tentative map, The City Engineer must
accept the final map or parcel map documents as adequate for approval by Council
prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk, The date the final map shall be deemed
filed with the Council is the date on which the City Clerk receives the map,
Expiration Date: September 23, 2011
j
3. The review authority may, upon application and for good cause, grant up to three
extensions of time not to exceed 12 months each pursuant to Development Code
Section 19.66.170 and the State Map Act. The applicant must file an application,
processing fees, and all required submittal items, at least 30 days prior to the
expiration date, The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all
current Development Code provisions in effect at the time ofthe requested extension,
-
4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of
this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency of
the City of San Bernardino (EDA), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or
commission of either the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns,
agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys
of either the City or EDA from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the
foregoing persons or entities, The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for
any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a
result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her
obligation under this condition.
The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office
shall be considered as "attorneys fees" for the purpose of this condition.
"
.)
1TM /6784 & VAR 09-02
Hearing Date: 9.23.2009
Page 2
As part of the consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in
effect if this subdivision and variance is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the
request of applicant.
5. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the
Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by
the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which
exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall
require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the
appropriate hearing review authority if applicable:
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping;
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures;
c, Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification
of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved
theme; and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
)
6. The permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20- Property
Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design control; noise control; odor control;
screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and vibration control.
Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the
developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until
they are complied with, Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transforiners,
boxes, ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural
element, blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the
ground.
7. Any change in elevation or building pad height of 6 inches or more along the
perimeter of the tentative tract map will require approval by the Planning
Commission. Any change in elevation or building pad height of 1 foot or more on
interior lots will require approval by the Planning Commission. The
applicant's/owner's engineer will certifY the elevation of the building pads to the City
Engineer, prior to construction of the building foundation.
8. This project is located in the Foothill Fire Zone Overlay District and is subject to all
requirements contained in Chapter 15.10 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal
Code and Chapter 19.15 of the City's Development Code.
9. Maintenance of the fuel modification areas shall be performed by a Landscape
Maintenance District.
,
TTM /6784 & VAR 09-02
Hearing Date: 9.23.2009
Page3
10. The retaining wall and all slopes along north of the retaining wall up to the
"backyard" wrought iron fence as illustrated in Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 shall
be included in a Landscape Maintenance District for maintenance.
11. The applicant shall post a bond in an amount equivalent to the cost of landscaping
including landscape installation and one year of maintenance service. The purpose of
the bond is to ensure that all landscaping survives the planting process and lasts for a
period of at least one year. The bond will be released no sooner than one year after
issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy and only after such time as the survival
ofthe landscaping has been verified by City staff.
12. The retaining wall along the south property boundary shall conform to the exhibits in
the staff report. Landscapinf! and drip irrif!ation shall be installed with suitable soil
to support drouf!ht tolerant. fire resistant landscape materials as the wall is
constructed. Uniform coveraf!e of 50% of the wall shall be established urior to
acceptance of the walls and f!1'adinf!. A detailed plantinf! plan for the verdure wall
shall be submitted for approval with the Develoument Permit for the project site. ·
and Ihe perimeter wall along the north property boundary shall be constructed of
slump stone or split face block. Both sides of the wall (above ground) along the north
property boundary shall have the decorative finish.
13. Install a 4-foot wrought iron fencelpost and cable fence along top of the retaining wall
as a safety fence.
14. Development of residential units shall require approval a Development Permit Type 3
application subject to approval by the Planning Commission.
15. The location, materials, and design of interior fencing shall be reviewed concurrently
with the Development Permit for the units, and shall incorporate the design standards
in Section 19.20.030(8)(D) of the Development Code.
16. The developer/applicant shall utilize substantial ground covers and planters as
landscaping to screen the retaining wall along the south property boundary.
17. The ownerlapplicant shall provide written disclosure to prospective homebuyers that
the subdivision is within a Foothill Fire Zone Overlay (Zone B - High Fire Hazard).
The written disclosure will also include property maintenance provisions established
by the Fire Department.
18. Development of Tentative Tract Map 16794 shall be subject to the mItIgation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment F).
19. Submittal requirements for permit applications (site improvements, landscaping, etc.)
to the Public Works/Engineering Division shall include all Conditions of Approval
and Standard Requirements issued with this approval.
17M 1678~ & VAR 09-02
Hearing Date: 9.23.2009
Page 4
20. This permit or approval is also subject to Attachment D, conditions or requirements
of the following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Public Works
b. Fire Department
c. Water Department
End of Conditions of Approval
* Added bv the Planninf! Commission 9/23/09
)
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department - Public Works Division
Standard Requirements
Descriotion: A request to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residential lots with
a minimum lot size of 10,882 square feet and a Variance to allow
construction of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet
along the southern boundary of the site.
Aoolicant: Bornstein Enterprises
APN: 0261..011..08,13, & 14
Location: West side of Palm Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of
Verdemont Drive
Case Number: TR 16794 & Variance 09..01
)
1. Drainaae and Flood Control
'\
a)
All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject
to requirements of the City Engineer. which may be based in part
on the recommendations of the San Bernardino County Department
of Transportation and Flood Control. The developer's Engineer
shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood
control.
b) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage
improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate
downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed
and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way
dedicated as necessary.
The detention basin located on lot 13 shall be designed in
accordance with "Detention Basin Design Criteria for San
Bernardino County: A concrete spillway shall be incorporated into
the design of the basin which releases emergency flows into the
interior street. Retention basins are not acceptable, Lot 13 shall
serve as the detention basin until it is no longer necessary due to
the availability of new storm drain infrastructure or a change in the
drainage patterns to the north of the tract. Upon such time lot 13
may be used as a residential lot. Prior to the conversion of lot 13
from a detention basin to a residential lot the property owner or
c)
~
Proiect: A reQuest to subdivide 18.45 acres inlo 44 resideotiallots with'a minimum lot size of 10.882
souare feet and a Variance 10 allow constructioo ora retainin2 wall ranllin2 in heilzhl from II feel 10 26 feet
a1002 the southern boundarv of the site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
Page 2 of 12
applicant shall submit documents, reports and/or plans subject to
the approval of the City Engineer,
d) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an
approved public drainage facility, If not feasible, proper drainage
facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
e) If site drainage is to be outJetted into the public street, the drainage
shall be conveyed through a parkway culvert constructed in
accordance with City Standard No, 400, Conveyance of site
drainage over the Driveway approaches will not be permitted,
f) A Full-Categorical Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is
required for this project, The applicant is directed to the City's web
page at www.sbcitv.ora- Departments - Development Services _
Public Works for templates to use in the preparation of this plan,
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required.
The applicant is directed to the City's web page at www.sbcitv.ora
- Departments - Development Services - Public Works for
templates to use in the preparation of this plan,
g)
~
h) The City Engineer, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve
the WQMP and the SWPPP.
i) A "Notice of Intent (NO I)" shall be filed with the State Water Quality
Control Board for construction disturbing 1 acre or more of land
(including the project area, construction yards, storage areas, etc,).
j) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an
Erosion Control Plan, The plan shall be designed to control erosion
due to water and wind, inCluding blowing dust, during all phases of
construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be
immediately built upon,
2. Gradina and LandscaDina
'\
b)
a) The site/plot/grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a
Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required,
The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the
City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard
Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer,
Pad elevations shown on the rough and/or precise grading plan
shall not vary more than one-foot for interior pads or one-half foot
(': [)1'{;Jm'::Jh '-1:;(1 \'Cllir.;;-i J:.mg_ar Lt'-.:al Sl.:tlint:s rl'Il'':p<.lrJr> Im":11lcf lil..:s OlKmn R ih794 Ct P OS..(j6 West side u( Palin ..he
100 n \;orth tlfV~nli:munl ~ DIlJ.doc
09;09/09
.~
Proiect: A reQuest to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residentiallolS with a minimum lot size of 10.882
sQuare feet and a Variance to allow construction ora retaininll wall ranllinll in heillht from 11 feet to 26 feet
. a10nll the southern boundarv of the site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
Page 3 of12
for exterior pads from the pad elevations shown on the tentative
tract map as approved by the Planning Commission. Exterior pads
are those pads immediately adjacent to existing streets or existing
residential areas.
c) Perimeter walls and landscaping & irrigation in the Landscape and
Lighting Maintenance District shall be installed and accepted prior
to acceptance of rough grading.
d) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal
permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28,090 of the
Development Code shall be obtained from the Department of
Development Services-Planning Division prior to issuance of any
grading or site development permits,
e) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, the
grading shall be supervised in accordance with Section 3317,2 of
the California Building Code,
f)
J
The applicant must post a grading bond prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The amount of the bond is to be determined by the
City Engineer,
If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the
import material or the site for the deposition of the export shall be
noted on the grading plan. Permit numbers shall be noted if the
source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino.
h) If more than 50 cubic yards of earth is to be hauled on City Streets
then a special hauling permit shall be obtained from the City
Engineer, Additional conditions, such as truck route approval,
traffic controls, bonding, covering of loads, street cleaning, etc, may
be required by the City Engineer,
g)
i) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where
feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and
shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the
Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"),
j) One 4' x 11' PCC pad at least 4" thick shall be provided in the rear
or side yard area of each lot for storage of recycling containers.
The pad shall be screened from public view and a 3' wide concrete
walkway shall be provided from the driveway to the pad. All gates
along the access way shall have a minimum clear width of 3'-6".
'l
( "I":'J,~':'1h .lOld "C:lljn;;~ h.mg_ar L('~'i\. S':::':;:1~:; Il'I:'1,.,...'rJI} 1:1l":l11l'll il..:~ (H-KWJ II{ jI,7').,J. U P '1,')-()fJ \\ o.:~( ,.J..: 'J] !'.dm A\\;:
2')0 II \'orth pf\crd..:'"",nf. lJHJ.doc
')<},li9,l)'J
~)
Proiect: A reQueSllO subdivide (8.45 acres inlo 44 residenlial(olS with a minimum 101 size of 10.882
SQuare feel and a Variance 10 allow construction of a retainin2 wall ranl!in2 in hei2hl from I I feel 10 26 feel
a10n2 the southern boundarY of the sile.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
Page 4 of 12
k) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be
designed and detailed on the on-site improvement Plan, This work
shall be part of the on-site improvement permit issued by the City
Engineer, All masonry walls shall be constructed of decorative
block with architectural features acceptable to the City Planner,
I) This project is located in the high wind zone, All walls and fences
shall be designed to withstand 100 mph winds. All construction
details shall be included on the on-site improvement plan,
Structural calculations shall be provided for City review.
m) This project is located in the high fire zone; therefore, all fences
shall be of non-combustible materia/.
~
No construction on a site shall begin before a temporary/security
fence is in place and approved by the City Engineer or his
designee, Temporary/security fencing may not be removed until
approved by the City Engineer or his designee, The owner or
owner's agent shall immediately remove the temporary/security
fencing upon the approval of the City Engineer or his designee.
Sites that contain multiple buildings shall maintain the
temporary/security fencing around the portion of the site and
buildings under construction as determined by the City Engineer or
his designee, All temporary/security fencing for construction sites
shall include screening, emergency identification and safety
identification and shall be kept in neat and undamaged condition.
0) An easement to the City of San Bernardino shall be recorded for
drainage, maintenance and access along the northern and
southerly boundary of the tract, The easement shall be vacated
upon development of lot 13 with the submission of documents,
reports and/or plans subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Upon the vacation of the easement, the developer of lot 13 shall
reincorporate the easement areas into lots 1-12; including but not
limited to the removal and reconstruction of perimeter fencing for
the affected lots.
n)
p) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5
copies to the Engineering Division for Checking,
q) Prior to occupancy of any building, the developer shall post a bond
to guarantee the maintenance and survival of project landscaping
for a period of one year.
"
i ),,~, ~:,,";l:h ~"d ....t"lIme:..'i j';m!L:!t 1.(\(.:<1.; S~tl,_-:~s It'I"":",,,rJf) Jm~l11L>f hI.:;:. OlKIJI) J i{ l()~(J.j. ('II' rl,'i.(j6 \\"::Sl ..iJ..: ofl',lhn I\ve
11)1) II .'orth llf\'cnkmonf. nflJ.doc
l)l},lJl)JO')
)
Project: A reouest to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residentiallolS with a minimum lot size of 10.882
souare feet and a Variance to allow construction of a retainin2 wall ranlrin2 in hei2ht from 11 feet to 26 feet
alon2 the southern bow:"I.rv of the site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
PageS ofl2
r) The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb
(also known as "parkway") along adjoining streets shall be
landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the
property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping shall be
included in the project's on-site landscape plan, unless the parkway
area is included in a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District,
in which case, a separate landscape plan shall be provided,
s) All electrical transformers located outdoors on the site, shall be
screened from view with a solid wall or landscaping and shall not
be located in any setback/right-of-way area, If the transformer
cannot be screened, it shall be located in an underground vault
unless approved by the City Engineer pursuant to Section
19,30.110,
3. LandscaDe and Liahtina Maintenance District
"'\
a) A Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) shall be
implemented to maintain landscaping and street lighting within the
following areas (Note. LLMD formation requires a minimum of 4
months after approval of LLMD landscaping plans.):
i)
Fuel Modification Zone
Ii) Debris Basin and Access
iii) Southern Boundary Retaining Wall, Slopes and Access
b) The Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District shall include all
in-development street lighting and may share a common electric
meter with the landscape irrigation controllers. Existing street
lights, if any will not be included in the District. The cost of
installing the street lighting system shall be bonded as part of the
faithful performance, labor & materials, and warranty bond required
for approval by the City Council and recording of the tract or parcel
map,
c) The street light construction and instal/ation details shall be shown
on the street improvement plans, The following information shall be
shown on the LLMD plans for reference only,
i) Location of all street lights to be maintained by the LLMD,
and
"
Ii)
The lumen or wattage of each street light to be maintained
by the LLMD.
( Ih,:'..I'l1..:nh .;.~(~ ~I.'lfir.~i J:.mg_OJr l."~.ili S~tl:.1'::~ rn:-:r:orJ1) [1[":111(:1 Ilks ()I.KUf) 'J I{ i 1l-:-94 Cl J' ')1'l-f~6 \\-;...l "J..: ,)( I'Jlm A..c
:WO il\(lrth llf\ I.'nk,':1lmt. OIl1.doc
\19lJlJ.09
~
..~
'f
1
Proiect: A reauestto subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 10.882
SQuare feet and a Variance to allow constrUction of a relaininlt wall ranlrinlt in heiltht from II feet to 26 feet
alanlt the southern baundarv of the site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
Page 6 of 12
d) The cost of installation of landscaping and irrigation system in the
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District shall be bonded as
part of the faithful performance, labor & materials, and warranty
bond required for approval by the City Council and recording of the
tract or parcel map,
All required maintenance districts shall be formed and bonded prior
to Map recording, (Note. Maintenance district formation requires a
minimum of 4 months after approval of plans,)
e)
f)
Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District.
The landscaping and irrigation system shall be installed in the
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District and accepted by the
City Engineer prior to application for occupancy of any house in the
subdivision,
g)
>
h) Prior to sale of each parcel, the Developer shall provide the City's
Real Property Section of the Public Works Division with a signed
copy of the "Notice of Assessment District" disclosure for each
property purchaser,
Utilities
4.
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the
serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and
cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or
institutional uses),
b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer
facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the
area can serve it.
c) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the
finished floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest
upstream manhole.
d) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be
constructed at the Developers expense,
e)
This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the
City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main
extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings,
(' !11'um...:nh J.nd ~cHjn;;.'i j';m!L;JT Lp~'ai S~:li,1g_) Tl'I::::l,'\rJI"j hn":l1ll,;1 1'11.::. CH.K[n -J J{ Il,:-rJ.1 Cl. I' '):i-lJ6 \\ C)l'i;lk 'll' Il.lhn .h~
~on n \onh \If \crdc:n\JrH' DI1J.doc
ti9lJl),{jt)
-)
Proiect: A reQuest to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 10.882
SQuare feet and a Variance to allow construction ofa retainin2 wall ran2in2 in bei2bt from 11 feet to 26 feet
a10n2 the southern boundarY of the site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
Page 7 ofl2
f) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements
provided as required,
g) A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility
cuts into existing streets.
j)
h) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on
either side of the street shall be placed underground in accordance
with Section 19.20,030 (non-subdivisions) or Section 19.30.110
(subdivisions) of the Development Code.
i) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City
Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the
Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code
Section 19.20.030 (non-subdivisions) or Section 19,30,110
(subdivisions),
Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be
maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to
City Standards and inspected under. a City On-Site Construction
Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developer's Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer will be required. This plan can
be incorporated in the grading plan, where practical.
=)
5. MaDDina
a) A Final/Parcel Map based upon field survey will be required,
b) All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer
prior to Map recordation.
c) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to,
building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks,
geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed with the City
Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592.
d) All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from the
following streets:
i) Palm Avenue
6. ImDrovement Como/etion
')
a)
Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District landscape and
i ;i',',.;1':::h .:'(: "t"iIJr.::!" ~i.lng_~r I,'~'a: :-;";~;1.'1C:.'i h:l~;1OlrJI> ;'l:~n~~'11 rk~ ()!.KU'J 1 R II ,~')";' ('I I' O:)-I)(J \\ I.:'it 'i;lk I)(/'ahn ,\...:
J()) :1 \.jrth Ilf\'.;nkrTkml _ IJBldoc
t)9'UlJi09
:')
Project: A reauestto subdivide 18AS acres into 44 residentiallors with a minimum lot size of 10.882
sauare feet and a Variance to allow construction of a retaininll wall raDllinll in hei"ht from I I feet to 26 feet
aloDIl the southern bollntl~rv of the site.
Case No. TR. 16794. CUP 08~6 & Variance 09~1
Page 8 of 12
irrigation plans for the entire project shall be completed, subject to
the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the Map recordation.
b) If the construction/installation of required improvements, including
landscaping and irrigation within the Landscape and Lighting
Maintenance District, are not completed prior to Map recordation,
an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed
by the developer and the City will be required,
c) If the required improvements are not proposed to be completed
prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, a deferred improvement
agreement in accordance with Section 19.30160 of the
Development Code will be required. If the agreement is approved,
an improvement certificate shall be placed on the Parcel Map,
stating that the required improvements will be completed upon
development. Applicable to Parcel Maps consisting of 4 or fewer
parcels only,
d) Street light energy fee to pay cost of street light energy for a period
of 4 years shall be paid, Exact amount shall be determined and
shall become payable prior to map recordation.
Street ImDrovement and Dedications
-~
7.
'\
a) All public streets and public easements within and adjacent to the
development shall be improved to City standards. Improvements
shall include combination curb and gutter, paving, access ramps,
street lights, sidewalks, and appurtenances, including, but not
limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications, relocation of
public or private facilities which interfere with new construction,
striping, and landscaping and irrigation in the Landscape and
Lighting Maintenance District, All improvements shall be
accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino
"Design Policies and Procedures. and City .Standard Drawings,.
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, Street lighting,
when required, shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with the City's "Street Lighting Policies and Procedures," Street
lighting shall be shown on street improvement plans except where
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
b) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-
way (R.W,) to provide the distance from street centerline to
property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation to the
street centerline shall be as follows:
( . n\'~- ~:r.~,lh ;:'1(! ~clfjn~_~ li..ng_Olr !..l,,;ai 'i"':lil:l~_'i rl't!lpOr"'JI") 1:1:\.'I11C( Ii],::,: CH.K(jf) ll{ I ')7')~ U, l' I~S-(j() \\ "':S{ i:J..: o,"I'..hI11h...:
2i)l) n \orth t)f\ cnkmunl . DRldoc
(i9:ljt),09
')
Proiect: A reauest to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residential lots wilb a minimum lot size of 10.882
sauare feet and a Variance to allow construction ofa retainin2 wall ranlrin2 in hei.ht from II feet to 26 feet
alon2 the southem boundary of lbe site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 &; Variance 09-01
9 fl2
Page 0
Street Name Rlaht of Wav(ft.) Curb Line(ftl
.
Palm Avenue 30 20
f)
c) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200 adjacent to
the site, Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb
and gutter, Construct approach and departure transitions for traffic
safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer.
d) Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City
Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb),
e) At all curb returns within and adjacent to the project site, construct
accessible curb ramps in accordance with Caltrans Standards to
comply with current ADA accessibility requirements, Dedicate
sufficient right-of-way at the comer to accommodate the ramp,
Construct Driveway Approaches per City Standard No, 203,
Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of the
approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter and
sidewalk,
~
g) All Curb retum radii shall be 25 feet minimum,
h) Construct all cul-de-sac's and knuckles in accordance with City
Standard Drawing No, 101,
i) The pavement on existing streets adjOining the site shall be
rehabilitated to centerline using a strategy approved by the City
Engineer,
j) Install Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City
Standard Nos, SL-1 and SL-2. Also, a separate light plan shall be
submitted in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street
Lighting Design Policies.
k) At least 28 feet of pavement shall be provided along streets
adjacent to the subdivision, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer,
I)
Two independent means of access to the project shall be provided.
Each shall have a minimum paved width of 24 feet and dedicated to
the City of San Bernardino, Additional width may be required for
drainage control and traffic safety,
')
{" j)<,~-..;l'1":I~t.; ~';d ~C(fJn:;i h.mg.:.lr I.\'(',l' S..:lt',,~S kl~n~If"'Jr~ 1:1:";11:('1 J il..;~ Or.KIVJ ] /{ i(,:-f).J. CIP (J,1j.{Jf, \h:-;t i..I..; oll'ahn An:
~I}li H\or1h \I/" \ cnk~nunl . DIU,due
09. u'). 09
Proiect: A reouestto subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 10.882
souare feet and a Variance to allow consauction of a rerainin2 waD ran2in2 in heilZht from II feet to 26 feet
alon2 the southern boundarv of the site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
0) Page 10 of12
8, Reauired Enaineerina Plans
~
a) A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:
. street improvement plans (may include street lights or street
lighting may be separate plan).
· sewer plans (Private sewers may be shown on on-site
improvement plan; public sewers must be on a separate plan
with profile).
· signing and striping plan (may be on sheets included in street
improvement plan),
· grading (may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan),
· on-site landscaping and irrigation,
· landscaping and irrigation in the Landscape and Lighting
Maintenance District, and
· other plans as required, Piecemeal submittal of various types of
plans for the same project will not be allowed.
· All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be
included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to
drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations)
b) The rough grading plan may be designed and submitted in
combination with the precise grading plan.
c) All improvement plans submitted for plan check shall be prepared
on the City's standard 24" x 36" sheets, A signature block
satisfactory to the City Engineer or his designee shall be provided,
d) After completion of plan checking, final mylar drawings. stamped
and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
e)
Electronic files of all improvement plans/drawings shall be
submitted to the City Engineer, The files shall be compatible with
AutoCAD 2000, and include a .DXF file of the project, Files shall
be on a CD and shall be submitted at the same time the final mylar
drawings are submitted for approval.
'\
( :i<,~ j~l'::ll, .;.,c1 "'cnm;:.-; l;,'.r.g .JT /.('\.,<,- S"::i:"CC:S J \.'I~i'l'rJl'j 1I1l1:ml'lllk~ O!.KlJ') j 1{ i ,,-:-r).j. ('LI~ I)~.()(J \\..::)t l,J~ tlJ' I'.dm :\...~
:;(/4) If .'\On.h\lf\'~nk;Tlont - DBldoc
09,U'M)9
}
ProieCI: A reQuesllO subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residentiallors with a minimum JOI size of 10.882
SQuare feel and a Variance to allow CODSlJUction of a retainin2 wall ranlrin2 in hei2ht from 11 feet to 26 feet
a100l1 the southern boundary of the site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
Page 11 of12
f) Copies of the City's design policies and procedures and standard
drawings are available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of
reproduction. They are also available at no charge at the Public
Works Web Site at htto://www.sbcitV.ora
9. Required EnQineerinQ Permits
a) Grading penni!.
b) On-site improvements construction penn it (except buildings - see
Development Services-Building Division).
c) On-site landscaping pennit.
d) Off-site improvement construction permit.
e) Off-site improvement LMD landscaping penn it.
10. Applicable Enaineerlna Fees
a)
1
All plan check, penn it, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on
the Public Works Fee Schedule, A deposit in the amount of 100%
of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required
at time of application for plan check, The amount of the fee is
subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more
than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan
checking,
b) The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter
and at htto://www.sbcitv.ora
c) Expeditious plan review is available, A non-refundable fee in the
amount of 125% of the estimated plan check fee for each set of
plans will be required at time of application for expedited plan
check, The amount of the fee is subject to adjustment if the
construction cost estimate varies more than 10% from the estimate
submitted with the application for plan checking.
11. Traffic Reauirements
a) Install a speed advisory sign (15 mph) W4(L T) on "B" Street prior to
hair pin tum on the property line of lots 9 and 10,
12. Public Works Occupancv Requirements for Tract Development.
",
a)
On-site landscaping (private areas) shall be installed and accepted
prior to release of gas utility and prior to final inspection.
:~"': J:;',"'::~h ..'~\~ ",...,I:r.,:'i ]'.lng_:.:.r I,~.I; "":~:;:1::S k:~")'H.'.Ji': ,:1\:n:CI I 11..::- Of XJ.ifJ[ [{ : (,-1)4 ("I P 'I.'i-l)(, \\ <:)[ 'i,d..; oJ; f'.lhn .\....:
100 II \orth \It' \ crd<:l11unl . I)BJdoc
119.UI),()()
)
'")
-..
Proiect: A reauestto subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residential lots with a minimuin lot size of 10.882
sauare feet and a Variance to allow conslIUctioo of a retainin2 wall ran2in2 in hei2ht from 11 feet to 26 feet
alo02 the southern boundarv of the site.
Case No. TR 16794. CUP 08-06 & Variance 09-01
Page 12 of12
b) The streets within any phase of the subdivision shall be base paved
(0.10 foot low) prior to delivery of construction materials to the site,
c) Prior to final inspection of the last three homes in the tract (or
phase). the final lift of pavement shall be installed,
d) Prior to final inspection and release of the last three homes in the
tract (or phase). the pavement on the streets adjacent to the tract
shall be rehabilitated. The method and extent of rehabilitation shall
be determined at time of final inspection by the City Engineer,
\ J )p~"J)"..:1Jh J.lld ~.::tmi:!:'I i'..ng.:Jf I.,'<'.~' S..:tl1n:,.'i I~'l~~\)r.ll~ i"ll~'n:t'[ j d..::; (){XJJiJ j 1{ (,-:-'J.J, ClI' 'is-f;f) \\..;~t, .I..: ';L i'.llm A\..;
~I)/l!t \.jrth ,,1'\ ~rd..;r:":un[ .. IlB.l.duc
'II) W.OI)
CITY'vF SAN BERNARDINO Flfu: DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
.A 1f
/li::A DE
o ~~.
Case: 7/1'f /(~'Nl
Date: .z... '1- 0~
RevieWed By: c,F.:J:./
-"'\.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
~ PrtlI/ido ..,. -.., sOl 0/ CtlNlnJction piano I. euiltfng and SlIIoty 101 Fino Cepelln""" Ule a' lime .1 plan ch_
Con_ I/Ie CiIy 0/ S... Bomanllno Are Cepellm"", "' (909) _.5585 101 Specillc de'eiled req......._.
Th. -eloper shall provide ,., edequate fino flow. Minimum fire flow noqulre""""s shalllle _ on square 'oo'ege, constl\ldion ","llIr., and _ure
Infonn.Uon Iupplfed by the developer and mu.t be Ivailable 2!12! to placing combuatibMi rNIleria1. on sile.
WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION:
~ The Ore protecaon watar service 'or Ihe area 01 thiI project I. provided by:
8 San Ilemardno MunicipeI W_llepet1menl-€nginHring (909) 384-5391
EUI VaItay Weter DIatna-englnMrtng (909) ll8B-a9118
o 0tIw Waf... pu- Phone:
'lfPUBUC FIRE PROTECTION FACILmES:
);n PuI>/i: finI h~ ... 18qund along "_ aI in....... IlOIlo e_ JOO ,... f." ComtllM:le, end muftl....identlal..... end .. inIenreIo "'" 10 _
/"" 500 IMlIor ___....,
ll( Ano hydront minimum now /aiel 0/ 1.500 gpn .. e 20 pol minimum __ _no are requlnocl lor _ _ muftI.....~ 4IllI_ IoltIlnun finI
hydront fIow..IeI 0/ 1.000 gpn .e 20 pol minimum __ _re... requinod'or -., e-.
!if Are hydront I)1le end _Iocallon - Ile jointfy dotennlned by "'" City 0/ San. ellmOldno Flrellepenmen, In oonjt.nClion wilIt "'" _ _. F'..
hydrant mal_ end inalaIelion .".. c:onfotrn '0 ,,.. _RIo endlpeCillcations 0/ I/Ie ...,... purveyor.
FJ' PuI>llc 'Ire h)lGanle. fino "-. end pubIlc ...,... 18cl_11eCHMIy 10 mMl Fire Cep.11menI noqui........1S ar. .,.. dev___. """'- ""'P , ~ end
7" sh" Ile lnsteIIed by the wal... purv_r or by"" developer., llle wale< purv_(. ciscretJon. eon_th. WIll.,. purveyor lnctIcated _lor -....,...,
infonnaUon.
ACCESS:
o Provtdo..., ."""rate. _'lid - 0/ ingreuI_I..,.. p_rty ...,'"""". The rout. shalf Ile paved, all.....,..r.
jlil Pn>VicIs on..... rood 10 - Du'IcI", lot finI_ "- _y _ ""va an ....._ drtYlng..._ 0/ nolleulllen 20 I... 0/.-
s__.
tz:I.' Extend -y 10 within ISO,... 01.. potltons 0/ .,.. ."'.""r wail 01.. single IlOry buildnge.
o Extend -y 10 within SO,... 0/ llle _ _ 0/ all multlple.etory bullctngo. .
o PrtlI/ido"NO PAIl ICING" s9ls -psrtdng 0/_ _ _ _",. c1e_ 0/ _ "'.dwayo 10 '_then "'" required _ Signs
.relo _ "I'IR. LAN_ PARION-.C. See. 15.1r.
. 0ea0-encI_ - not -- 500 'HI In IengIh end _ ""y. . minlmwn 40 fOOl radius tumoround.
The - 0/ all)/new __ (puIlUc .r prlY..o) IIId Ile submitted 10 "'" Fino !lepsnm"'llor app",.".,.
1<
SITE: F AN" "PI' P'uT'!'-TI.,.J (J''/::t'f'CMS_
a /\/1- _endl~"'IoIle_snd_priorIOCOtIIbus__
o Prlvote finI",...",. lhaIIllelnstelled 10 PlClecl HCh butfclng located more II1an ISO IMlfrom the culb line. No flt.llydranlll _ Ile -. 40 ,... 0/ sny
Ulortor -. The hydrants IIId Ile WelBarrolI)1le. willi ..,. 2li 1ncI1_ 4 Inch outlet. _ ~lId by"" Fire Oepsnm_ "'- ~ 10 finI
hydranra - be doslgnaled u e "NO PARIONQ" .... by peInttng ... 81nc11 _. nodlllfpe lor 15 '...in __ _ in lront 0/ "'" hydrant In ....".
m....., thIIl.... not Ile - by por1ted -. Lettoring 10 Ilein 10M. fI" Il\' Ii".
BUILDINGS:
rvf Adcha num...... .haU be inllaI'-d on Ihe buiklng at lhe front or othe7 approved location in such. manner u 10 be viaible fn::m thelrcnt8ge ...... (.om.
)"\ m.rci8I...d rnultt 'smiIy -- numerats Iha. Ile e _. tall. single lamily a_ numorels 'hall be 4 inch.. 'aI. The color 0/ "'" .........,. .haII con-
,_ willi "'" color 0I1Ile background.
o '-llIy eacII gu end _ mal.,.wilIt the number o/!he unit "_.
o Fire .ldJngu/sheno mUll be - prior 10 the -.; being occupiod. TIl. minimum raltng 'or any lire 'X1lngulsher Is 2A 101llC. __....- 0/
finI elllfnguishe.. ",... Ile...." IhaI no _ pert 0/ .,.. bulking is over 75 IHI travel distance from a finI.>dingute/ler.
o ~ - wilIt 18 or more units. - (motels) willi 20 or more unilll. or apsnm.... or hotelS (mo....) throe stortas or mono in ~..... Ile
~ willI.utomattc llre.P<lM*8 duignsd to NFPA s~
o AlIIlu11c1ngs..... 5.000 squ... I.... shaJllle equipped willi an automallc "ro sprtnker system dollgne<t 10 NFPA standards. This incIudoa ollls'*'9 buikingo
vacant OYer 385 dayw.
"'M Submit pIanI for the f.. protection sv-tem 10 1M Fira Oepal1ment prior to beginning construction 01 the system. Permit requJl8d.
n Tenant improvementa in .1 sptinklet'Wd buildings a.. to be approved by the Fir. Department prior to start ot construc:tton. Permit required.
o P",."lde ffnt ..nn (required Ihrauglloul). "'- mUll Ile approved by 'ho Fire Departmenl prto< 10 lIall 0/ installallon. Ponnll required.
o Fino Oeporlmenl_ to ~ sywt_1larq>ipo syolem, S"""be noquinodal Firellepllrlmlll'll app",."e<t localion.
8 Fir. Coda Panni noquired, lIpIlIy al 200 ..., 3n1 stroot. (909) 384-53811.
Fire Spri- monitortng required. PI.... mUll Ile applClllld by"" Fino Depallmonl prior 10 I"" stall 0' consll\Jcllon. Ponnll require
o 0a:tJpant LoecI.
.~
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
ORC/ERC Ca..: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16794 (SUBDIVISION NO. 06-31) & VARIANCE NO. 09-ll1
261-011-06,13.14
2005-101
DATE COMPILED: 9/112009
COMPILED BY: Brunson, Ted
Palm Avenue 45. LP
Bomstein Enterprises
A request to subdivide 18.45 Ie in~o 44 residential lots with a min lot size of 10,882 sq It and a Variance to allow a
retaining wall (11' - 26') along the southern boundary. The projed is located on the west side of Palm Ave. 200' north
of Verdemant Dr.
NUMBER OF UNITS; 0
LOCATION: West side of Palm Avenue, approximatel)l 200 feet north of Vardemant Drive
WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING:
APN NUMBER:
EPN NUMBER:
REVIEW OF PlANS:
OWNER:
DEVELOPER:
TYPE OF PROJECT;
CONTACT; Nevarez, Mike PHONE NUMBER; (909) 364-5092 FAX NUMBER; (909) 384-5532
No,.: All W.,., SetYic.. .,. Subject to the Rul.. Regulations 01 the Wa,.,. D.".rtment
~ Size of Main Adjacent th. Project 12" OJ.P. IN PALM AVE.
~ Approximate WatOf Pressure l!!Rll Elevadon of WatOf Slara9': ~ Hydrant Flow @ 2Opsl: 2723 oom
~ Type, Size. Location and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant 109-011 @PALM
~ Water Suppfy Study Required ~ Pressure Regulator Required on Customer Side of the Meter
o Offsite Water Facilities Required 0 Water Main Reimbursement Due
U Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
~ Network Hydraulic Analysis Required per Uniform Design Standards
Comments: . - DEVELOPER INSTAlLED AGREEMENT REQUIRED PRIOR TO MAIN EXTENSION
'. OEVELOPER WILL AlSO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MELVIN BOOSTER
STATION.
i WATER QUALITY CONTROL
CONTACT: Arrieta, Con PHONE NUMBER: (909) 384-5325
~ R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection for Domestic Service
~ Double Check Backftow Device Required at Service Connection for Fire and Irrigation
VI Backftow Device 10 be Inspected before Water Service can be Ac1fvated
o No Backftow DevIce is required at this time
'. WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS REQUIRED
FAX NUMBER: (909) 364-5928
SEWERCAPACITYINFORMAnON
CONTACT: Tllomsen. Neil PHONE NUMBER; (909) 384.5093 FAX NUMBER: (909) 384-5592
Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building Safety De/>>rtment Prior to luuance of the Building Permit
o Sewer Capacity Fee Applicabl. at this time
C Sewer Capadty Fee must b. paid to the Water Department for .Q Gallons Per Day: Equivalent Dwelling Units: .Q
~ Subject to RecalQJlatJon of Fee prior to the Issuance of Building Permit
C Breakdown Of Estimated Ganon. Per Day
COPY TO: Customer; Planning; Engineering
"
Tuesday, September 01,2009
EPM
Page 1 of 1
J
CITY OF SAN BER.'I'ARDINO
DEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
SCREENCHECK DRAFT INITIAL STL'DY
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF SA:\' BER'lARDI:\'O
I:\ITIAL STL'DY FOR
TE:\'T..\TIVE TRACT :'010, 16794
VARIANCE 09-01
Project Description and Location:
The proposed project will result in the subdivision of 18.45 acres into 44 lots. An on-site detention basin will
vccupy vne of ,he proposed lots (Lot 13) until such time upslope properties provide appropriate drainage
locilities. The residential lots will be minimally sized at 10,882 square feet, with an average lot area of 14,602
square feel. The project site is located northwest of the intersection of Palm Avenue and Verdemont Drive.
Associated site improvements include paved roadways and driveways, sidewalks, utilities, streetlights, and
landscaped areas. The project includes a variance to allow construCllon of a retaining wall (II to 26 feet in
height) along the southern boundary of the site.
~
May 7, 2009
PREPARED BY:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa A venue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781-9310
LSA Project Number GAD530
PREPARED FOR:
City of San Bernardino
Development Service Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
(909) 384-5057
REVIEWED BY:
InJependently reviewed. analyzed, and exercised judgment in making the determination, by [he City of San
Bemardlllo Developmen~Envlronmental Review Committee on April 30, 2009, pursuant to Section 21082 of
the California EnVironmental Quality Act (CEQA).
'\
IS I
').
--..
CITY OF SAN BER""ARDI:'\O
DEVELOPME~T SERVICES
SCREE:\'CHECK DRAFT I:\'ITlAL Sn:DY
rh< California Environm<ntal Quahty Act (CEQA) requtres the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal
must oblam Jis,r<tionary approval from a governm<ntal agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of
Ih< Imtial Study IS to d<t<rnline whether or not a proposal. not exempt from CEQA, quahfies for 3 :o.;<gative
D<c1aralion or Ifan Environm<ntal Impact R<port (ErR) must be prepared.
I. Project Title: Tentative Tract No. I 6794Nariance 09-01
2, Lead Agency :-;ame: City of San Bernardino
3. Address: 300 :o.iorth "D" Slreet
San Bernardino, Cahfornia 92418
~. Contact Person: Aron Liang, Senior Planner
5, Phone Number: (909) 384-5057, ext. 3332
6. Project Location (Address/Nearest cross-streets): North ofVerdemont Drive and west of Palm Avenue in
the City of San Bernardino. The proposed 18.45-acre project site encompasses Assessor's Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 0261-011-08, 0261-011-13, and 0261-011-14, and is situated upon a moderately southwest-sloping
alluvial fan at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. Elevation at the site ranges f..:.,.. 1,960 tv 2,030
feet above mean sea level (A..\!SL). The site is adjacent to undeveloped property on the north, south, and
west, and by developing residential uses on the east.
,
7, Project Sponsor:
Address:
Palm Avenue 45, L.P.
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 302
Los Angeles, Cahfornia 90025
8. General Plan Designation: The project site is designated RL (Residential Low) in the City of San
Bernardino (City) General Plan. Uses permitted in the RL designation include the development of low-
density, large-lot, single-family housing. Maximum density within the project site is 2.38 units per gross
acre.
9. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, inclUding, but not limited to, later phases
of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site feature necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets, if necessary): The proposed project would result in the subdivision of 18.45 acres into
44 single-family (numbered) residential lots. The project includes a variance to allow construction of a
retaining wall (II to 26 feet in height) along the southern boundary of the site. An on-site detention basin
will occupy one of the proposed lots (Lot 13) until such time upslope properties provide appropriate
drainage facilities. The project site is located north of Verdemont Drive and west of Palm A venue.
Associated site improvements include paved roadways and driveways, sidewalks, utilities, streetlights, block
walls along the southern and western property boundary, and landscaped areas. As required by the City, the
proposed project would be required to incorporate a Fuel Modification Area that would separate the
residemial uses from open space areas located on the northern porrions of the proJect site.
''\
The proJect site is located within the RL district. This district is imended to promote the development of
low-density, large-lot, single-family detached residential units with a minimum average lot size of 10,882
square feet up to 27,266 square feet. While portions of the residential lots consist of sloped areas, buildable
pad areas within the project site range from 5,484 to 14,084 square feet. Based on the gross acreage of the
pro).:ct site, Ihe r<sidemial density ofth< proposed development would be 2.38 lots per acre.
IS 2
)
CITY OF SA.'" BERNARDINO
DEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
SCREENCHECK DRAFT INITIAL STL'DY
Th~ d~sign of th~ proJ~ct will incorporate a concrete channel along the northern property boundary Ihat WIll
Int~rcept and route off-site storm and d~bris flows to Ihe proposed on-site det~ntion basin located on Lot IJ
(37.508 square feet [0.86 acre]) atlhe northwestern corner of Ihe property. An existing 54-inch RCP storm
drain in V~rdemont Driv~ Will be eXI~nded norlh on Palm Avenue 10 connect to detemion basin's discharge
outlet Slotted C:\-IP risers In the detention basin will retard discharge rates and provide desiltation of
intercepted flows.
Th~ residenllal lots will individually incorporate 500-square foot detemion basins to attenuate on-site post-
d~vdopment tlows, which WIll discharged via curb and gutter to Palm Avenue. Runoff would flow
southerly down Palm Avenue into the existing Palm Avenue Storm Drain System with !lows eventually
discharged imo Cable Creek, which is a San Bernardino Flood County Flood Control District drainage
system.
"'"
10, Surrounding Land Uses and Selling: The eastern portion of the project site has been previously used to
stockpile material from the development of adjacent properties. One dilapidated single-family residence
constructed in 1925 and a detached garage once occupied Ihe site. These structures have been previously
demolished. The property on which the vacant house was located is surrounded by mature trees. The project
site slopes toward the southwest and is dissected by ephemeral. drainage courses. Elevation at the site ranges
Ii-om 1,960 to 2,080 feet AMSL. The western and southern portions of the project site consist of gently
sloping hillside and annual grasses. which comprise a substantial portion of the developable area. The
northeastern portion of the site contains highly disturbed soli along with seasonal weeds, cobbles, rocks, and
some scattered debris. Adjacent land uses (Table A) include undeveloped residentially zoned property (RL;
Residential Low) to the west; existing residential development to the south, undeveloped property (RL) to
the north, and single-family residential uses to the east.
Location Land Use Designation Land Uses
On-site RL Former stockpile site, undeveloped
North RL Vacant land
South RL Vacant land
East RL Single-family residential
West RL Undeveloped (Approved ITM 17367)
Table A - General Plan Designation and Land Use
Within the Verdemom area, the RL District generally extends from the City limits in the north to !rvington
A venue in the south and from beyond Palm A venue on the east to Little League Drive on the west. As stated
previously, the RL District is intended to promote the development of single-family units on minimum-sized
lots of 10.800 square feet.
Within the project vicinity, existing residential development in the RL District (1O,800-square foot lot
minimums) includes the area north of Ohio Avenue and east of Palm Avenue; Escana Street and Ridge/ine
Avenu~ (north of Ohio Avenue); and the area located west of Palm Avenue and south of Ohio Avenue.
Approved development of minimum-sized at 1O,800-square foot lots includes IT:\-Is 16533 and 17367,
which are both located north of the future Verdemont Drive directly west of the project site.
Figure / identifies the project vicinity, while Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan.
"
IS 3
y
"
'\
CITY OF SA.'\' BER.\'ARDI:\'O
DEVELOP:\-IE:\'T SERVICES
SCREE:\'CHECK DRAFT I:\'ITlAL STUDY
II. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, finance appro"af. or participation
agreement):
. City of San Bernardino Approval of Development Permit and Tentative Tract :'vlap.
. City of San Bernardino Approval of Grading and Building Permit
. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. NPDES Section 402 Permit.
. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Streambed Alteration Agreement Section 1602
Permit.
The determination of whether impacts to drainages would Occur and/or the necessity of permits are subject
to verification by the California Department of Fish and Game.
IS 4
,
'-
<
I
I/~-~~""":'" .~...............~, . r! . .~'~'r:;;~ '~I;-k,. ~ ,:- -'-:.-
,:\'.".'7....../ " . \_~,.. r"'\-'..,,,, ::i"':_......,:' ...~.'.. ..:, :-
"'j '.~: ' '&" -~,' .-'-,,...:._.~..-:~-~'-
~j'r ., <0> ...,.-= ~ . L- ..".
,}/}<::..~':....N.~r~,.ZL ~::T '
.l'I.r~~..;.,:.'.-;,r. ,
Project Site ;"""":""P~ I. ';::.', . ,
-.. . -.- 'j .... _.,. I
. ~ ,- - ~ "', '."I~.qr; ,',..lr-'::: uf . ,
~ .:..;--.....,'.: _ _ :.:;1..\;- ':.::-:: ..~, .~j:'_,~-
" .. -"-'"-.:',.-j~<,.:.:.~_....{;I.'-':;t .
. .... .~'..J.":\:.""::J, ._..........- . ..,~/ ' ,,=
" ;,,-::---- - " ",. ,1....,. ..., ,. '..: '-,"., '.1' 'fi4' '0
:0..1-........... - ',", ~f :.:.c-,.....Olt'l"ltr:-_'..._,.,{,'... /.......
~~ ~'A.~.......'- \ ,;-;_...~.~'~'--r-r.y'-. ~'.
i l ~/",.,:~.(t~?lt#:~!-r
~., ,$'," ~"'/o t/ ~?;j~! . i "~~ )IC(;.~J...,,>.
J..,,~.'" - ........ .:s.:"1 _.j ;-f "'<( -~- _ .'_ ~ \;.:J'I~."':.II,~~;(:.,
" "f""'.fl':"t);fJ'~', I ...... : . ":-:' :".~:::"J,
jt) ~~ ,~lJ,fu~ . I : -h4- 'lI9.l~& ',t,
(joQ! -. Q.J' - ....../ ..... .P;C"'C~.L..''''.[~~,
.,~ ~.t.- ~ -.. -"~~!":-... I'~' AI ,"-"
.c.... ':'G}.1f.l" : . '..... .. ":-tri'&,-
'-.' ".". .:..,........ \....
,:' -, -fV€ 'fCiJ.':.;.-.r.--- -, '. f. ":.- ..-., ~ iI'
~7- ~~ ~~~:~':'.::i.i:::,~::~',~:~~. '"""'--~~- ~ ..,-$..t.', :"-f'"
'., -.;::Q ~, ,.
J. '....~--- Ijl '~ iJ
"... , <::.f i' '/41'_ ~u
-'. ;-,1':>,"./.;'f.~ . I
~ 1 - ....-...-' '. -,,:
'""=', . .."7,["<.. _ - -t.,
'.i;~'.~ ~X """0" f'.l P"col.t'O":~j
~~_. . /~
". /~:~.:-".( ~
....:.........: ....,..... ;
~;4"&, .. .
"J,: ....~! , ~"I~I',.
'ii."'.
Qi.
..
7. "~_'_
-=,~" ,_.r
, r-,,"""':::;~';'~'i~
'.~~.._~ .....
'.' '. ~
'->'~'r;\~':}r:
,~.~~ ':.:.:-::r,
:~~:
. '. . .\ij
tU"r
"",I. '.
-~~(':.j,'
"
.>":'~:f' '~
,
)
."
I
~~::. - -'
.
....,
.~
"..
,
I
'-
~.. - "'::. ,'. "
."
,
::1
"
-;,.
,)0....,
-.
'\
~.'-'
"
":,ocit.
,J.
..........-:,.~...
"\
'",-.'
I~
.. .:-,' ..
'....' ;'
" .
I
, .
.f
. ..
\....
O<l51n1
i
i
""..-4",lfnrJ I
CQ.UI/)' /
,
!
~\
..
':'.,J-. ,,:.::.,:;
. -. ,~"~J!.~~..'
..."f. \'.
'.,
)<
.... ,,-
."'.
,
l
}
.
,~"
"c(
.,
"
"
.,
i
.,
r~"
,
-""'-..
"
r.i'\ '"
~ .....\,
$
-.,or
Mn.u
L S A
:."
:"-"~ ~\
FIGURE I
~
'\
,
1.'::0,)
2,COO
FEET
T,"alh, Tracl 1679+
[nilial SI"d:I
Re,gional and Project Location
_"(H RCE I_SGS 1S' Qu~: Sail Bt"l1f2rJillo ,\onhIJ9961. I'M.'i CA; TIlUnlaS BraJ, 2007.
( ;, "J:~'. ,; I<cp.,;rh ;S'JOCJI"Jn,lItll!lj'Jd)J,lJi)
"')
~
'!" '(. T : T I ~ r '/ " T r
J, .... .. ~ ~.' J_..l .. ~
r"-ir---r -r-:r....:-....-:r F-r :,';.
~. l I'; J . .U: I .>//
4 3 ~ 2 .
13
CEfJ'l,$
a,.s,,..
y r r r
. . ~. ,
;-; .......,........ ,.-...-.. -,.-......-
l -1 I ;
j ..
11 10 9 e 7 6 5
{'I. "'"
---- ..
.. - . .
.~"": 'T-_
:. 39 3e 37 36 35 34 33
32
".
t....~.. ~.........
". "
i'<4t .........
"
'.
"
.'.
, "J...
:'/<~:"}- . r"..~
., ". ~''''''
....>~. . ~/1<r
'/.\
L S ^
~
.'\ 0 lea 200
fEeT
s,)r:){I_~E \IJj":C") (2';1]7); C-lUl1ly ~fSan O<:mJrJiau /:')1;")
It (~",D)3'; IJ Rq:tlrl~b",jie-'pIJn_llnJil:,1)7.')7)
...,
.,
:',..;;..t
."' ~- (.b.....
,. ~>..._. .f"'.oq.
,
:.('fAtll"':1Q1.
'.~': 4p/~
-".
FIGURE 2
T'nMi.. Tract 16794-
InillOl Stu<!J
Conceptual Site Plan
,"\
17
CITY OF SA..... nER;-.j.\RDll\'O
DEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
SCREE;-.jCHECK DRAFT r;-.jITIAL STL'DY
E'i\'IRO'i:\IE:',T.-\L FACTORS POTENTrALL Y .-\FFECTED
The environmental factor.; checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by [he checklist on the following pages.
o Aesthetics
o Biological Resources
o Hazards & Hazardous
:\/ateri<tis
o :\Iiner<tl Resources
o Public Services
o Agricullurc Resources
o Cultural Resources
o Hydrology/Wa[er Quality
o :\'oise .
o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of
Signific:mce
o Air Quality
o Geology/ Soils
OLand L'se/ Planning
o Population/ Housing
o Transportation/Circulation
Determination.
On the basis of this Initial Study, the City of San Bemardino. Environmental Review Committee finds:
Th<tt the proposed project COULD NOT have significant effect on [he environment. and a 0
:-':EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Th<tl al[hough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there 181
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
.'~
That the proposed project l\;lA Y have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIRONl\;IENTAL IJI,.IPACT REPORT is required.
o
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there 0
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the Proposed project.
~~
Signature
~)
pn~~:J l;M~
"
IS 7
;)
CITY OF SA~ BE&~ARDI~O
DEVELOP:\IE~T SERVICES
1~ITIAL STUDY
I POlenuolly I Less Thon Slgnlticont ! Less Thon !
I Significant , with \fwgatlon : Slgmfic:J.nt ~o
J. AESTHETICS - Woultlthe project: Impact Incorporated Impact lmpoct
, a) Have a substantial odverse elTect on a 0 0 0 0
sceniC vis[a JS identified in lhe City's
General Plan')
I
0 I 0 0 0
I b) Substantially damage scemc resources,
I including but not limited to trees, rock
I
outcroppings. and historic buildings
within a slate highway?
i
cJ Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 0
character of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new Source of substantial light or 0 0 0 0
glare, which would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime view of the area?
DisclIssion
,
La
The Verdemont area has been identified as an area that affords views of the Cajon Wash and the central
city area. The foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains are readily viewed from the northbound lanes
oflnterstate 215 (1-215), Little League Drive, and Kendall Drive. Views from southbound lanes ofI-215
and locations west of the freeway are partially obscured by intervening vegetation and structures.
Development (predominantly residential) within the Verdemont area is extending suburban uses into
foothill areas. As viewed north from Little League Drive (adjacent to 1-215), existing residential
structures and ongoing residential and public facility construction are visible in the vicinity of the
project site.
The proposed project would result in the development on 44 single-family reside.llial lots. The project
includes the construction of an on-site detention basin (Lot 13), interlocking block walls, and associated
infrastructure. While the proposed project would result in modifications to the existing topography. the
progression of the proposed lots from the site's southern boundary northward would generally follow
the existing natural topography. Upon development of the project site, the proposed residential units
would represent an incremental change in lhe visual character of the Verdemont area and the foothills of
the San Bernardino Mountains. The change in the visual character of the southern portion of the project
site is consistent with lhat resulting from existing and ongoing construction in the project vicinity.
The project would not significantly hinder views from the site or adjacent properties. The proposed
project would be required to comply with all City development and design standards applicable to new
residential development including, but not limited to. lhe siting of individual lots and structures,
malDtenance of views, landscaping, grading, construction, and lighting. These standards are required for
all similar development in the Verdemont area. Adherence to these standards would ensure impacts
related to scenic vistas or views would be reduced to a less than significant level. No mitigation for this
issue is required.
'...
IS 8
."",
.,
CITY OF SA:\' BER'\'ARDIl'iO
OEVELOP)IENT SERVICES
I:\'ITIAL sn:OY
I.b
The project SHe is predominantly undeveloped. Whtle mature trees would be removed to accommodate
the proposed dwelling units, these trees have not been identified as a signiticant scenic resource. Tw 0
vacant structures that once occupied the site (a single-family residence constructed in 1925 and an
. assOCiated detached garage) have been demolished. :-';0 on-site feature or vegetation has been identified
by the City as a scemc resource. Tlie project site is not located along a State scenic highway. I Due to the
absence of on-site scenic resources, a less than significant impact is anticipated to occur; therefore, no
mitigation for this issue is required.
I.c
For people living in close proximity to the project site, views of the existing landscape would be altered
by the development of the proposed residential uses. During construction, there would be several
temporary visual impacts, such as exposed earth and job-site equipment. These visual impacts are
temporary in nature and are considered to have a less than significant impact on surrounding uses.
J
The proposed project site is predominantly undeveloped. The western portion of the project site has an
assortment of annual grasses and is not disrurbed. The northeastern portion of the project site has been
heavily disrurbed with stockpiles of construction debris and scattered areas of weeds. Implementation of
the proposed project would result in the development of residential uses on the proposed project site.
The proposed project includes the installation of an interlocking block wall a along the southern
boundary of the project site ranging in height from II to 26 feet. The location and cross-section
illustration of the proposed interlocking block wall is depicted in figure 3A. The design and placement
of the interlocking blocks allow the incorporation of plant materials which, upon marurity, effectively
screen the walls. Figure 3B provides a simulated view of the proposed wall along the southern property
boundary. Figure 3C illustrates walls employing the same type of construction proposed to be installed
on site. As illustrated in Figures 3B-C, the vegetated interlocking block walls would not result in an
adverse aesthetic condition. A bench at the bottom of the wall provides access for any required
maintenance. The following mitigation has been identified to ensure no adverse aesthetic condition
results from the construction of the proposed interlocking block walls.
AES-l Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall provide to the City for
review and approval a landscape plan that identifies the type, amount, and location of
landscape material that will be incorporated into the block walls. The landscape material shall
be selected to I) provide adequate screening of the walls, and 2>' satisfy the fire resistance
requirements identified by the Cil'j.
The proposed project will replace the current weedy and debris strewn lot with a well designed project
that incorporates appropriate City mandated design elements. As the proposed project is subject to City
review and approval through the plan check process, the project's visual elements would be consistent
with the existing residential uses in the area. Adherence to City-required design standards for strucrures
and fearures, as well as the identified mitigation for proposed wall landscaping, would ensure that no
adverse effect on the visual quality of the site or surrounding area would occur; therefore, impacts
associated with this issue are mitigated to a less than significant level.
"
C(I OfSl.1I1 Bt}r/lw'dIlUJ Gt.1m:ml Plan, Figure C-J "SO:IIIC HiglmaysIRol/lt!l. .. The Planning CCnler. November 2005.
rs 9
1
~
\
CITY OF SA:\' BER.'\'ARDI:\'O
DEVELOP1IE:\'T SERVICES
1:\'ITlAL Sn:DY
I.d
Development of the proposed residential uses would necessitate the installation of outdoor lighting
necessary for the maintenance of public safety and security. Additionally, lighting sources associated
wllh residentIal uses include vehicle lights from project-related traffic. The City of San Bernardino has
established standards for the design. placement, and operation of Outdoor lighl1ng within its
. Development Code. I These standards identify the preferred lighting source and maximum lighting
intensity, dictate shielding requirements, and establish hours of operation. Because these standards are
imposed on all outdoor lighting sources and because such standards must be adhered to in order to
obtain project approval, these requirements are not considered mitigation. While the proposed
development would increase the number and distribution of light sources in the vicinity of the project.
adherence to the lighting standards established by the City would reduce potential impacts related to
light and glare impacts to a less than significant Jevel. No mitigation is required.
City of San Bernardino Development Code. Ch;Jpler 19.20.
IS 10
.....
, l!,
, ~
~
Bt
"
!
39
311
37
36
35
, ,
;34
. 33
,. ')
32
))
~. ;'.
"
\
L- Retaining wall
26' high at thi. point
"
"
~
'...... ~
',. ".1.
'-..... I;' .'1);'
t.., ~............ /"/~C,.....:g ....,/
4rA..... '....., 0'/,.. I""
~"tl.It/~ ........' c/lo .~"
i,.. ........,." '0
--......
......
".
o
90
180
FEET
Key Map
)
~A rURAL GROUND,
P!l
r.T-
I =/
I ,
I i
5' H I. WRO~HT
IRO~ FENCE~
~
PAC
, >:~.:;;>:'.>;
co
,..,
I
,.,
N
Wall Cross
Section
L S ^
FIGURE 3A
'\
.'l!I.;~".:E:.' \l;,pC.JI:';O;). C;,ull;o"jfS.U1 B..:m.lf.lul<ll:cr,l))
;< (;,~lJ5.~I; {; R.:pcm IS'I;gJ.-\_Wail_.\:s.:<:1 ,",.j Il,]'J,),IJ91
T,ntativ, Tract 16794
InitIal Stutfy
Key :vrJp Jnd WJIl Cross Section
...s~
~s
E~
0';;
"'-..
.~ .!r
O~
11]
i:: !';:
~ .C
2.'"
~-
- .
-0
~~
~"E
,~
"-"
~ .
o
15 ~
~~
",,0
"""
<il
M
<z.l
~
~
c..'J
-
t'-o
<
U')
--.J
.....{;>
0'> ~
"- -
<.0'"
::']
... :t::
" ~
"'-
~
.2
15
"
~
~
~
.9
:;;
:;
E
in
~
~
bJ)
~
'2
.@
u
~
t'
~
"'"
~
~
o
<il
~
~
u
..<:
;;
o
'"
00
"
a
;;
1l
9
~
~
~
!i:i
..
"
o
~
;;.
<5
6
M
13
<
;1
'"
10-17 Foot Verdura ~f1 (2 to 3yearsofgrowth)
25+ Foot Verdura ~/l (2 to 3yearsofgrowth)
30+ Foot Verdura ~Il (2 to 3years of growth)
L S ^
FIGURE 3C
Tentative Tract 16794-
Initial Stu<!J
Typical Wall Treatments
R:\GADS30\G\Reports\IS\fig3C _ wal1s.cdr (12110/08)
^)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOP:\IENT SERVICES
INITIAL Sn':DY
II. .\GRICL:L TL:RE RESOL:RCES- Would the POlenllally Less Than Significant Less Than
project: Significant with ~itlgation Significant ~o
I m..Qact Incorporated Impact Impact
") Convert Prime Farmland, enique Farmland 0 0 0 [8J
uf Slatewide Imparlance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland ylapping and Monitoring
:
Program of the California Resources
, Agency. 10 a non-agricultural use?
I b) Conflict with agricultural zomng, an 0 0 0 [8J
I i::xisting agricultural use, or Williamson
Act Conservation Contract?
Discussion
ll.a
Farmland maps are compiled by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and
\Ionitoring Program (FMMP), pursuant to the provisions of Section 65570 of the California
Government Code. These maps utilize data from the United States Department of Conservation (USDA)
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey and current land use information using
eight mapping categories and represent an inventory of agricultural res,ources within San Bernardino
County. The maps depict currently urbanized lands and a qualitative sequence of agricultural
designations. Maps and statistics use a process that integrates aerial photo interpretation, field mapping,
a computerized mapping system, and public review.
)
While land south of the project site is designated as "Grazing" or "Urban & Built-Up" land, the project
site itself is nol mapped by the FMMP. I Land directly south of the project site is designated as
"Grazing" land. Based on the designation of mapped areas adjacent to the project site, the topography of
the site, and the similarities in soil composition, it can be inferred that suitability of the site for
agricultural operations would be similar to that of adjacent areas. Based on this assumption, the project
site would be suited for grazing activities. However, it is not likely that Prime, Unique, or Statewide
Imponant Farmland is located on site. As no conversion of such farmland would occur, no impact
related to this issue would OCcur with the implementation of this project.
Il.b Williamson Act' contracts restrict land development of contract lands. The contracts typically limit land
use in contract lands to agriculture. recreation, and open space, unless otherwise stated in the contract.
The project site is not located within an area covered by a Williamson Act contract; therefore, no
cancellation or non-renewal action would occur. The project site is zoned RL by the City. Neither the
Site nor surrounding propenies are currently utilized or planned on being utilized for agricultural uses.
Development of the proposed on-site uses would not result in the conversion of Williamson Act contract
land or com'erston of agriculturally zoned land to a non-agricultural use. No impact related to these
issues would occur; therefore. no mitigation is required.
'\
C:Jlifoml;l D~p:.l.l1mcnl ofConscnalion. Farmland .\fapping and Monitoring ProgrJm. 201J.;'
Th..: \.Villi:.lmson Ac: 15 a procedure authorized unJer Slate law to preserve agricultural bods as well as open space. Property owners
l.'11Il.'ring into ;J \V illiamson Ac~ ContrJCI rccci'.c J. reduction in property ~axes in rc[um for agreeing to protcct,lhc land's open space
or ;l.;;nculturJI \"alucs.
IS 14
)
CITY OF SAN BER.'1ARDINO
OEVELOP:\IENT SERVICES
I~ITlAL sn:OY
"
I Potenl1ally I Less Than Significant Less Than
I Sigmficant with ,\litigation SignIficant :-'0
III. .-\IR QL\L1TY- Would the project: I Impact I Incornorated Imoact Imoact
J) Contlict with or obstruct implementation 0 0 0 C8J
of the applicable air quality plan? (South
Coast Air Basin)
I quality standard 0 C8J 0 0
b) Violate any aIr or
I contribute substantially to an eXtSting
I projected air quality violation based on
I the thresholds in the SCAQ~ID's "CEQA
Air Quality Handbook'?"
. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 C8J 0
I increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
I an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative
I thresholds for ozone precursors)?
I
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 C8J 0
pollutant concentrations?
I e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 C8J 0
I
I substantial number of people based on the
infonnation contained In the Project
I Description Fonn?
Discussion
II!. a The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is within the jurisdiction of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean
to the west and the San Gabriel. San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the nonh and east. It
Includes all of Orange County, the non-Antelope Valley ponions of Los Angeles County, and the non-
desert portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
The current regional air quality plan is the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) adopted by the
SCAQMD on July 13, 2007. The 2007 AQ~IP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM,.,
standards through a more focused control of sulfur oxides (SOx), directly emitted PM"" and nitrogen
oxides (NOx) supplemented with volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 2015. The 8-hour ozone control
strategy builds upon the P~I" strategy, augmented with additional :o.iOx and VOC reductions, to meet
the standard by 2024 assuming a bump-up is obtained. I The Basin is currently a federal and state non-
attainment area for PM 10 and ozone.
'~
The AQ.'vlP incorporates local General Plan land use assumptions and regional growth projections
developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to estimate stationary and
Fll1allIJ07 Air Quality ~lal1ag:cmcnt Plan. South Coast .-\ir Quality .\1anagemcnt District. June 2007. AJopted July 13.2007.
IS 15
)
CITY OF SAN BER."lARDINO
DEVELOP)IE~T SERVICES
I~ITlAL STl'DY
mobile source el11lSsions assocIated wllh projected populJtion and plJnned IJ/ld uses. If a new land use
IS .:onSlstent with the local General Plan and the regional growth projections adopted in the AQMP. then
the Jdded enusSlons generated by the new project has been evaluated and contaIned In AQ!\.IP and
'hlUld not contllct with or obstruct Implementation of the regional AQ:I,IP. Because the proposed
project is consistent with the development enviSIOned in the City's General Plan. it would not contlict
with or obstruct implementation of any of the control measures in the AQMP. :-.10 impact related to this
issue would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required.
IIl.b,
The SCAQMD has developed the CEQA Air Quality Handbook that establishes suggested significance
thresholds based on the volume of pollution emined. According to the Handbook, any project in the Basin
with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an
individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact:
. 55 Ibs. per day of ROC (reactive organic compounds) (75Ibs./day during construction);
. 5Slbs. per day of NO x (oxides of nitrogen) (100 Ibs./day during construction);
. 550 Ibs. per day of CO (carbon monoxide) (550 Ibs.lday during construction);
. 150 Ibs. per day ofPM,o (150 lbs./day during construction); and
. 150 Ibs. per day of SOX (oxides of sulfur) (150 lbs./day during construction).
"
COllstruction Emissions. Air quality impacts would occur during site preparation, including grading and
equipment exhaust. Major sources of emissions during grading and site preparation include exhaust
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated by construction
vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as by soil disturbances from grading
and tilling.
Grading and construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy-duty
construction vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions
during grading and construction activities envisioned on site would vary as construction activity levels
change. It is assumed that building construction would not begin until after grading is completed.
Therefore, there would be no overlap in emissions from grading or building construction. It is
anticipated that peak grading days would generate a larger amount of air pollutants than peak building
construction days.
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure of soils and
cut and fill operations. Dust generated daily during construction would vary substantially, depending on
the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions.
Based on similar construction projects, the emissions associated with site grading and the construction
are estimated in Table B.
'\
IS 16
)
~
."
CITY OF SAN BERi~ARDI~O
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
I~ITIAL Sn:DY
Table B - Summary of Emissions from Construction and Grading Operations
.
Pollutant Emissions (Ibs/day)
CO ROC 'lOx SOx p",. P:\olu
Construction EmisslOns 59 II 98 0.10 4,9 4.4
SC..\Q.\JD Construction Threshold 550 75 100 ISO ISO 55
Significant? .'li0 :\'0 :\'0 ,'10 :\'0 ;li0
Fugitive Dust Emissions - - - - 280 58
Pe:Jk GriJding Day Emissions without 285 63
\1itTgJtion 59 II 98 0.10
t Construction Emissions + Fugitive Dust)
Significanr without Mitigation? :\'0 :\'0 :\'0 '10 YES YES
Peak Grading Day Emissions with 33
Mitigation 59 II 98 0.10 145
(Construction Emissions + Fugitive Dust)
Significant with !\<Iillgalion? NO NO NO :-10 :-10 NO
Source: LSA AssocIates. Inc. 2007. Assumes operanon of the followmg: I tracked loader, I tracked dozer, I scraper, I
roller, and 2 miscellaneous pieces of equipment
P,'"I" derived from PM,. emissions based on factors published in the Final. Methodology 10 Calculate Particulate Matter
(PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006.
Equipment Exhaust During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary sources, heavy-
duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use would generate emissions.
Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction
activity levels change. The volume of construction equipment exhaust would not exceed SCAQMD
daily thresholds.
Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure
of soils and cut and fill operations. Dust generated daily during construction would vary substantially,
depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Approximately 285
pounds of PM,. per day would be generated from soil disturbance (without mitigation) during
construction. During peak grading days, daily total construction emissions without mitigation measures
would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for PM,.. All other emissions are below SCAQMD daily
thresholds. With the implementation of the standard conditions such as frequent watering (i.e.,
minimum twice a day), which reduce fugitive dust emissions by approximately 50 percent, fugitive dust
emissions from construction activities are expected to be reduced to approximately 140 pounds per day.
Combined with the nearly 5 pounds per day of PM,. generated by equipment exhaust, the total mitigated
dust emission of approximately 145 pounds per day would be below the SCAQMD threshold of 150
pounds per day. When properly coordinated. construction equipment emissions would not exceed the
daily thresholds for the criteria pollutants of:-,'Ox, ROC. CO, SOx, or PM".
In order to mitigate for construction-related air quality impacts. the City requtres the preparation of a
P~I,. management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works DiVIsion. In addition, the
project proponent shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into lhe project. Adherence to
these measures would reduce total daily construction emissions of PM" to below the SCAQMD
threshold. The other four air pollutant emissions would be below the daily thresholds established by the
SCAQ:\-lD without mitigation.
IS 17
-:\,'
/
CITY OF SA.'\' BER.'\'ARDL'\'O
DEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
I;\iITlAL STL"DY
6.
~ 7.
8.
9.
.\IR-I The project shall comply '''th the reqUtCements ofSC.-\Q~ID Rules -102 and -103. Fuglllve Dust,
which require the tmplementation of Reasonable Available Control ~Ieasures (RAC~) for all
lug1li,e dust sources. and the AQ~IP, which idenufies Best Available Control ~easures
(BAC~) and Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) for area sources and point sources.
respectively. This would include but would not be limited to the following actions:
I. The project proponent shall ensure thaI construction equIpment is properly maintained and
serviced to mmimize exhaust emissions.
2. The project proponent shall ensure that existing power sources are utilized where feasible
via temporary power lines to avoid on-site power generation.
3. The project proponent shall ensure that construction employees be infonned of ride sharing
and transit opponunities.
4. The project proponent shall ensure that any ponion of the site to be graded shall be
prewatered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
5. The project proponent shall ensure that watering of the site or other soil stabilization
methods shall be employed on an ongoing basis after the initiation of anyon-site grading
activity. Ponions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to
ensure that a crust is fonned on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each
workday
The project proponent shall ensure that all disturbed areas are treated to prevent erosion
until the site is constructed upon.
To reduce the potential for wind erosion, the project proponent shall ensure that landscaped
areas are installed as soon as possible.
The project proponent shall ensure that SCAQMD Rule 403 is adhered to, ensuring the
cleanup of construction-related din on approach routes to the project site.
The project proponent shall ensure that all grading activities are suspended during first and
second stage ozone episodes or when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.
10. All on-site structures shall conform to the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code.
AIR-2 The construction/grading documents for the proposed project shall identify the type of
equipment to be utilized during project grading. To ensure pollutant emissions do not exceed
SCAQMD daily thresholds. the mix of equipment utilized during construction activities shall
be similar to that identified in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. In the event a
project applicant elects to utilize an alternative mix of equipment; the project applicant shall,
prior to the issuance of grading pennits. submit to the City for review and approval, evidence
that emissions from any alternative mix of equipment do not exceed SCAQMD daily
thresholds.
Opera/iOllal Emissiolls. Long-tenn pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would
result from vehicular emissions and stationary emissions created through the consumption of fossil
luels. Additional emissions would result from the consumption of natural gas on site and generation of
electricity used by the residential units.
\
In addition, the CEQA Handbook indicates that changes in the vehicular traffic level of service (LOS) at
mtersections affected by a project could result in potential carbon monOXIde (CO) hotspots and potential
operations-related air quality impacts. Cumulative development in the Verdemont area, without
l111ligation, would cause two intersections in the viciOlty of the proposed project to operate at
IS 18
~
CITY OF SAN BER.'lARDINO
DEVELOP:\-IENT SERVICES
INITIAL Sn:DY
llnaccoptablo LOS. Do'dupmont 10 tho V ordomont Jroa is roquirod !O mJko f,ur-shJre comributtons for
trallic improvements necessary to accommodate proposed development. Because the installation of
these improvements, funded by fair-share contribution from various developers in the Verdemont area,
would alleviate unsatisfactory LOS conditions at impacted intersections, the proposed project would not
contribute to significant long-tenn CO-related impacts.
In addition, the CEQA Handbook indicates that changes in the vehicular traffic level of service (LOS) at
intersections affected by a project could result in potential carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots and potential
uperations-related air quality impacts. The proposed project will add 32 a.m. peale hour (7:00-9:00 a.m.)
and 43 p.m. peak hour (4:00-6:00 p.m.) trips. The number of trips generated by the on site uses would
not significantly impact intersection LOS conditions.
In accordance with SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board (CARB) directives for review of
air quality impacts from land use projects, build out year mobile source emissions were compared to
those from existing uses through the URBEMIS 2007 model using 2007 emission factors. The analysis
assesses the mobile source emissions generated by vehicles driving to and from the proposed land uses,
as well as area source emissions generated by project heating and electrical systems. As shown in Table
C, operational air quality emissions resulting from the proposed project are well below SCAQMD levels
of significance.
""
Pollutants (Ibs/day)
CO ROC NOx SOx PM,. PMu
Stationary Sources 0.45 2.6 I.I 0 0.030 0.030
Mobile Source 55.0 5.2 7.4 0.04 7.2 1.4
TOlal Operational Emissions 55.45 7.8 8.5 0.04 7.23 1.43
SCAQMD Threshold (Ibslday) 550 55 55 150 150 55
Sign/fleant? NO NO NO NO :'0/0 NO
Table C - Summary of Operatloul Emissions
Source; LSA Associates. Inf:, October 2007.
liLc As stated in the response to Checklist Question lIl.a, the project is in a non-attainment basin for PM,o
and ozone. The AQMP incorporates local General Plan land use assumptions and regional growth
projections developed by SCAG to estimate stationary and mobile source emissions associated with
projected population and planned land uses. The proposed project is consistent with the development
envisioned in the City's General Plan; therefore, the cumulative effects associated with development of
the proposed uses has already been addressed in the AQMP and impacts are considered to be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
lil.d Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than
the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-tenn health
care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescenl centers, retirement homes, schools. playgrounds,
child care centers, and athletic facilities. The project site is in an area that cUlTently is developed with
residential and other sensitive uses. The closest off-site sensitive land use to the project site is the
residential area adjacent east and south of the project site. Although the construction of the project site
would temporarily emit construction emissions, such emissions are short-tenn and would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to sensitive receptors issue are considered to be less
than significant. :-<0 mitigation is required.
'\
IS 19
)
,
"'
"'\
CITY OF SA:\' BER.\lARDI:\'O
DEVELOP;\IE:\'T SERVICES
I:\'ITIAL STL"DY
Ille Dunng constructtOn, Jlesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors.
AJdiltonally, the application of archttectural coatings and installation of asphalt may generale odors.
These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project boundaries. SCAQMD
Rules I 108 and I I I J identity standards regarding the applical10n of asphalt and architectural coatings,
respectively. Adherence to the standards identified in these rules would reduce temporary odor impacts
to a less than significant level.
Long-tenil objectionable odors are not expected to occur at the proposed project site. Outdoor activities
conducted at the proposed project would include typical residential activities, such as cooking and the
use of gas barbecue grills, neither of which would generate substantial objectionable odors. Solid waste
generated by the proposed on-site uses would be collected by a City or contracted waste hauler,
ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site uses would be adequately managed. Additionally, waste
receptacles and garbage areas would be designed and constructed per applicable City of San Bernardino
standards. For these reasons, impacts from objectionable odors generated by the project are considered
less than significant. No additional analysis of this specific issue is necessary. No mitigation is required.
IS 20
'"
)
CITY OF SAN BER.....ARDI:\'O
DEVELOP:HE:\'T SERVICES
I:\'ITlAL STL'DY
'"
, IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOL:RCES, Would Ibe Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than
Significant with .\fitigation Significant So
I projecl: Impact I nco",orated Impact Impact
, aJ Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 C8J 0 0
I
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any speCIes identified as a candidate,
, sensitive, or special status species in local or
, regional plans. policies, or regulations. or by
! the California Department of Fish and Game
I or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 C8J 0 0
I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
I community identified in local or regtOnal
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
Calitornia Department of Fish and Game or
(;,S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federaUy 0 0 0 C8J
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, fiUing hydrological
interruption, or other means?
I d) Interfere substantiaUy with the movement of 0 0 C8J 0
,
! any native resident or migratory wildlife
i corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conllict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0 ~ 0
I protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy of ordinance?
I t) Contlict with the provisions of an adopted 0 0 0 C8J
I Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
, Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local. regional, or state habitat I
~onservation plan? I
Discussion
IV,a Sensitive biological resources are those defined as (I) habitat area or vegetation communities that are
unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife; and (2) species thaI
have been given special recognition by federa', stale, or local government agencies and organizations
because of limited, declining, or threatened populations. The site burned in the faU of 2003. A biological
resource assessment of the project site was conducted in :\Iarch 2004 by E~VIRA. At the time of the
."larch 1004 repon, little if any vegetation was evident on site due to the burnmg of the site in 1003. ~o
species listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ((;SFWS) or Ihe
IS 21
.".~."
~
-'"
CITY OF SA~ BER.'1ARDI:\'O
OEVELOPME~T SERVICES
I~ITIAL sn:OY
CalifornIa Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) were observed dunng biologIcal surveys of the
project S1le.
Since then. vegelation has regrown, necessilating anolher site visit and evaluation of lhe potential for
impacls to sensitive plant species and habitats. A sile visit was made for evaluation of habitat and a
tDcused survey for :'\evm's barberry (Berberts nevinii) was conducted on June 19,1006. from 11:00
a.m. to 11:10 p.m. by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) staff biologists. The survey was conducted by
walking transects in areas of chaparral on the site. Transect widths varied from 30 to 80 feet. depending
upon visibility and habitat quality, During an October 1007 site review. the condition of the project site \
was substantially similar to that which existed in June 2006. The chaparral is dominated by chamise
(Adenostoma fascicldatum). The recovering Riversidean sage scrub is dominated by deecweed (Lotus
scoparius). Vegetation communities on site include non-native grassland, chaparral, and Riversidean
sage scrub, which are recovering from lire. Dominant species in the non-native grasslands include
stork's bill (Erodium spp.), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata).
The preferred habitat for the federally threatened San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriam!
pan-us; SBKR) is early successional phases of alluvial fan sage scrub. During the March 2004 and June
2006 biological assessments of the project site, no sign specilic to the SBKR was identilied. The project
site is at the top of an alluvial fan and consequently is not subject to flood initiated habitat rejuvenation.
In addition. the March 2004 biological assessment identilied that the site is outside the Iinal Critical
Habitat area set aside for the SBKR. Based on the results of the biological assessment, it was
determined that no SBKR occur on site.
)
The site is within an area that was originally designated by the USFWS as "critical habitat" for the
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; CAGN). That designation was
challenged and remanded (December 24, 2000). The USFWS subsequently proposed a revised
designation of "critical habitat" (April 24, 2003), which does not include the site. The site was visited to
determine if the vegetation had recovered sufficiently to provide habitat suitable for CAGN.
The site remains in the early stages of post-lire recovery and is consequently dominated by non-native
annual grasses. Small areas (less than 2 acres) are becoming reestablished as chamise chaparral and sage
scrub (dominated by deecweed). The vegetation is not suitable for California gnatcatcher and Nevin's
barberry was not observed on the project site. The absence of normal amounts of rainfall during recent
years has contributed to the slow revegetation of the site and adjacent areas; therefore, the site still does
not exhibit the habitat suitable for the California gnatcatcher.
One special interest plant species, Plummer's mariposa lily (ealochortus plummerae) was observed on
the site. A few individuals of this species were observed on the nonhern half of the site. This species is
not listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Acts but is ranked as "IB" by the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS). indicating lhat it is considered by CNPS to be rare. threatened, or
endangered in California and elsewhere. Given that this is not a listed species and is relatively common
in the region. the project would not have a substantial impact on this species; therefore, impacts to this
....... species would not be considered signilicant. .
.,
There are other species that. while not listed as threatened or endangered by the federal or state
governments, are published in watch-lists of declining or "sensitive" species. Based on the March 2004
biological assessment, eight sensitive plant species, thirteen sensitive wildlife species, and three
sensitive habitat types were identilied as potentially occurring on the project site; however, none of
thc.:se \\ as obst::rved on site during site reconnaissance.
IS 22
)
CITY OF SAN BER.'JARDINO
OEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
INITIAL sn:OY
.-\bandoned rodent burrows and debris piles have the potential to support nesting for burrowmg owl
(Athl'lIe cU//lcu/aria hYPlIgaea) while on-site trees provide the potential to support nesting raptor species
such as the red-tailed hawk (Butea Jamarcellsls) and white-tailed kite IElanlls leucurus). Cnder the
:\ligratory Bird Treaty Act (:\IBTA), raptor nests are protected from harm if they are present and
actively being utilized on a project site. :\olitigatioD :\of casu res 810-1 and 810-2 have been identified to
reduce biological resource impacts to a less than significant level.
810-1 If site clearing and grading activities occur during the raptor nesting season (late December
through July), a qualified (as determined by the City) biologist shall conduct a nesting bird
survey prior to any ground-disturbing activities. The nesting survey shall lake place over three
consecutive days one week prior to the start of ground-disturbing activity. Ground disturbance
shall not be permitted within 100 feet of any nesting activity. All site clearing and grading
shall conform to applicable provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
810-2 A focused survey for the western burrowing owl shall be conducted to determine the on-site
presence/absence of this species. The focused western burrowing owl may be conducled
concurrently with the nesting bird survey. Any western burrowing owls identified on site shall
be relocated prior to the commencement of grading activities. The relocation of any specimen
shall be conducted per applicable CDFG and/or USFWS procedures. Relocation of on-site
burrowing owls shall nol be permitted during the nesting season for this species.
"\
IV.b Habilats considered sensitive by federal or state resource agencies and olher groups are those that have
been depleted, are naturally uncommon, or support sensitive species. No riparian habitat is located
within the project limits. On-sile vegetation communities include non-native grassland, chaparral, and
Riversidean sage scrub, which are recovering from fire. The chaparral is dominated by chamise. The
recovering Riversidean sage scrub is dominated by deerweed. Dominant species in the non-native
grasslands include stork's bill. foxtail chess, and slender wild oat.
The project site is localed approximately 1.0 and 1.4 miles west and north (respectively) of proposed
critical habitat for the coaslal California gnatcalcher. No suitable California gnatcatcher habitat is
located on site. The site is not located within the federally designated critical habitat established for the
SBKR or other listed species. As slated in the response to Checklist Question IV.a, no sign of this
species was observed during the on-site biological assessments, and impacts are less than significant.
Due to the disturbed na'.ure of the project site and past fire damage, the development of the proposed
residential uses would not significanlly impact any sensitive natural community.
Effects to jurisdictional walers of the United Stales are regulaled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CW A). This permit is required prior to the
placement of fill material within any ACOE jurisdictional area. Prior to issuance of a Section 404
Pennit. a Section 401 water quality pennit musl be issued. Affected CDFG jurisdictional areas are
regulated by California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, which regulates allerations to streambeds of
lakes. A Streambed Alteration Agreement is required for any project that would divert or obstruct the
natural flow of water; change the bed, channel, or bank of a stream; or use any material from a
streambed.
'\
LSA conducted a jurisdictional delineation of the site. The examination of vegetation, soils, and
hydrology was conducted according to the ACOE three-parameter (vegetation, soils, and hydrology)
m~thod of wetland delineation (1987 :\fanual). The site was evaluated using aerial photographs to aid in
locating potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S.lstreambeds of the CDFG. An on-site examination of
th~ site was conducted on June 19, 2006. Conditions on site have not substantially changed in the
intervening months.
IS 23
"'
CITY OF SA.'i BERNARDINO
DEVELOP:\IENT SERVICES
INITIAL STL'DY
The slle slopes moderately (approxtmately 12.5%) from northeast to southwest and is traversed by two
ephemeral dramages. The sIte elevation ranges from approximately 1.960 feet at the southwestern end
of the project site to approxImately 2.080 feet at the northeastern end. Surface runoff from the site is
intercepted by residential development south of the site, passing through suburban neighborhoods for
approximately one mile and is carried through the municipal stonn drain system and discharged to
Cable Creek. Regional drainage is via Cable Creek, which is west of and downslope from the site, and
in turn flows to Cajon Creek and the Santa Ana River.
Drainage A is composed of three segments totaling approximately 1.065 linear leet and varies in width
from 1-3 feet with an average width of 2 feet (0.05 acre) (Figure 4). Flow is evident in the bed and
watennarks are not generally evident; therefore, the entire bed is presumed to be jurisdictional. The bed
is generally not vegetated and the channel lacks development of terraces, as is common with small
ephemeral channels in the region. Because of the general lack of riparian development, the federal
jurisdictional area matches the state jurisdictional area.
Drainage B is composed of a single segment, which totals approximately 835 linear feet and varies in
width from 1-3 feet with an average width of 2 feet (0.04 acre). Flow is evident in the bed and
watennarks are not generally evident; therefore, the entire bed is presumed to be jurisdictional. The bed
is generally not vegetated and the channel lacks development of terraces, as is common with small
ephemeral channels in the region. Because of the general lack of riparian development, the federal
jurisdictional area matches the state jurisdictional area.
""\
There are no features on site that exhibit indicators of all three parameters required for delinition as
"wetlands." The site lacks riparian vegetation and hydric soils. Drainage A and Drainage B exhibit
evidence of flow although there is little channel development (stream terraces, sinuosity). Both
drainages are waters of the U.S. and of the state. The completed delineation identified a total of 0.09
acre (3,900 square feet) of "waters of the U.S." None of this jurisdictional area constitutes "wetlands"
under Section 404 of the CW A. CDFG jurisdiction also totals 0.09 acre. The jurisdictional areas are
unvegetated ephemeral drainage channels, which continue off site to the Santa Ana River.
Tables D and E summarize the results of the jurisdictional delineation.
Jurisdictional Area Wetland Waters Adjacent Wetlands Non-Wetland Waters Total ACOE Jurisdiction
Drainage A - - 0.05 0.05
Drainage B - - 0.04 0.04
Tolal - - 0.09 0.09
Table 0 - Tract 16794-Jurisdictiolial Waters of the U,S. (Acres)
Drainages A and B satisfy the definition of a streambed by displaying a channel bed and banks. Riparian
vegetation was not present throughout the majority of the length of Drainages A and B.
.Iurisdictional Area Streambed Riparian Habitat Total COFG Jurisdiction
Dramage A 0.05 - 0.05
Drainage B 0.04 0.04
Total 0.09 0,09
Table E - Tract 16794-CDFG Jurisdictional Streambed and Riparian Habitat (Acres)
\
IS 24
)
CITY OF SA."I BERNARDINO
DEVELOP:\IE:"<T SERVICES
1:-iITIAL STt.:DY
D<\ dopm<nt 01 th< prupos<d proj<Ct woul<!.JmNct Q.09 acre of ACOE JIld CDFG jurtSdtcltonal Jr<as.
Impacts to Jurisdictional areas of this small sIze can be authorized through use of the ACOE :-.Iationwide
P<mllt \:-;WPj 29 and through nottfication to the CDFG of proposed Streambed Alteration. These
p<rmlts typically reqUIre mitigation of impacts at a ratio of 2: I for unvegetated drainages; that is, 0.18
acre of streamb<d needs to be created or an equivalent contribution made to a regional mitigation bank
or mitigation project In addition to these permits, the Regional Water Quality Control Board _ Santa
Ana Region (RWQCB) would need to issue a Water Quality Certification pursuant to the CWA Section
401 for use of the ACOE NWP 29. :\Iitigation Measure BIO-3 has been identified to reduce potential
impacts to jurisdictional waters to a less than significant level.
B10-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit evidence to the City
that impacts to on-site jurisdictional resources have been appropriately mitigated. The
developer shall compensate for the loss of jurisdictional resources by either creating non-
wetland Waters of the U.S.iStreambed or by providing alternative compensation for the loss of
jurisdictional areas. The type, location, and/or condition of any mitigation shall be established
through consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Califomia
Department of Fish and Game.
IV.c While the ephemeral drainages located within the project limits will be eliminated during the
construction of the proposed project. as previously stated, no federally protected wetlands arc located
within the project limits. No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore, no mitigation is
required.
1
,)
IV.d The proposed project is located at the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The site is bordered by
proposed and existing residential uses to the east and west. The project site is located at the northern
edge of existing development in the City and is situated at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains.
Due to its predominantly undeveloped condition, the project site may provide limited foraging ground
and localized movement for wildlife that uses the site as part of an east-west movement route at the base
of the foothills. The site is not part of a north-south movement route due to development to the south
that restricts wildlife movement
Indirect impacts (e.g., noise, fugitive dust, lighting, and water quality) to on-site biological resources
would be addressed through adherence to mitigation measures included in this Initial Study and/or
through compliance with established City guidelines. There would be an incremental loss to wildlife
habitat through the development of the proposed project. The expansion of development within foothill
areas in the City (including the proposed project) would contribute to the incremental encroaclunent on
natural areas; however, in light of the existing, approved, and planned development in the project
vicinity, impacts to regional wildlife movement associated with this project would be less than
significant.
The project site may be utilized by nesting birds during breeding season (March IS-September 15).
Adherence to :IolItigation :\Ieasure BIO-l would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than
significant level.
IV< The City has a tree removal policy that states that if more than five trees are to be removed a tree
removal permit application must be submitted to and approved by the City. J The City typically r::quires
a replacement ratio at I: I for all removed trees. The project would result in the removal of more than
five trees; therefore. a City tree removal pennit would be required. Adherence to City requirements
"
City of San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 15.14.
IS 25
)
-
,
'\
IV!"
CITY OF SA-'\' BER.'\'ARDINO
DEVELOP)IENT SERVICES
INITIAL STCDY
rdated 10 the remo\'al and or replacemem of Irees (tncluding a pre-permit tree survey) would reduce
potential Impacts assoClaled tree removal to a less than slgniticJ/ltlevel.
The project site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Narural Community Conservation
Plan. :0;0 Impact would occur with the implememation of the proposed project.
IS 26
L S ^
$
, 0 1110 ::00
-
FEET
;)
)
~~
j
2')
~
rAfh2'+
~V
/
;7'
FIGURE 4
o PROJECT BOl;;>IOARY
- jt;RISDICTJO;>lALAREA
(.'19 ACRES 1;>1 BOl;:-;OARY)
2'.,. WIDTH OF Jl;RISOICTrO;<;AL AREA
...
T,ntaliv. Tract 16i9+
In ilia I 51u&
On-Site Ephemeral Drainage.
SI)I:i{CE .\l.lpC<l (~[')r,('i. C,"-1J1ry OJr S;U\ OI:n1JlJUlO ~::V:6)
1{ (;, ,;;;' _'0; {~ R~p"'h 1:-. Jjll~ _1;1151l.:_i::fl'Jr3Inm....t 11:.1(; '/111
;)
CITY OF SA~ BER."ARDI~O
DE\'ELOP'IE~T SERVICES
I~ITIAL STl"DY
Y. CL:L TL:RAL RESOl'RCES, Woultlthe Potentially Less Than Sigmticant Less Than
Project: Significant with ~fi[igation Significant
Imo3Cl Incomoraled Imoact No Imoact
aJ Be developed In a sensitIve 0 , 0 C8J 0
archaeologIcal area as idenutied in lhe I
I I
City's General Plan" i
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 I C8J 0 0
, signilicance of an archaeological
! resource as defined in CEQA Section
I 15064.5?
I c) Cause a substantial adverse change in lbe 0 0 C8J 0
significance of a historic resource
I pursuant to CEQA Seclion 15064.5?
, 0 C8J 0 0
d) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
i paleontological resource or site unique to
geologic feature?
e) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 C8J 0
those interred outside fonnal cemeteries?
}
Discussion
V.a-c A "historic resource" includes. but is not limited to any object, building, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic. agricultural, educational, social. political, military, or cultural annals
of California. I CEQA mandates that Lead Agencies consider a resource to be "historically significant"
if it meets the criteria for.listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. Such resources meet
this requirement if they are (I) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California history, (2) associated with the lives of important persons in the past, (3)
embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, and/or (4)
represent the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic value.
A cultural resource assessment of the project site was prepared in July 2006. This assessment included a
records search through the San Bernardino Archaeological Infonnation Center (SBAIC) located at the
San Bernardino County :\1useum in Redlands; a review of National Register of Historic Places Index,
Office of Historic Preservation Directory of Properties; and a review of htstonc topographIC maps. To
supplement the records search and consultation. a pedestrian reconnaissance of the project site was
conducted.
Data from the SBAIC indicate twenty cultural resources surveys have been conducted within a one-mile
radius of the project site; however, none of these included any portion of the project site. TIlre. built
environment resources have been recorded within one mile of the project, the closest of which is located
,approximately Y. mile south. No additional cultural resources were identified during the record search.
hbhc R~:iources Code:. Secclon 5020. I lj).
[S 28
)
CITY OF SA:" BER'\1ARDINO
DEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
INITIAL STl'DY
:'\0 culturol resources were Idenllfied dunng the field survey; however, one stngle-f:llnily residence
constructed in 1925. presently in dilapidated condition, was identilied within the project limits. This
property included a detoched garage :md mature landscaping. The residence was heavily altered. with
the detached garage being ofo more recent origin (ca. 1960). Archival research conducted in June 2006
at the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office. Assessor's building records confinned that the
butldtng had been extensively altered. The odditlOnal features constructed tn the 1960s (three large
Jddillons to the north, east. and south elevations) :md 1966 (changing of the windows and covering of
the original wood siding in stucco) ore not connected with local historic personalities. lack historic
integrity, and are of common design and utility. TIle dwelling was not documented as a historical
building in the City's Department of Parks and Recreation site records. Based on the site's lack of
potential for archaeological/historic data and the loss of historic integrity, the project site did not meet
the delinition of a "historic resource" under CEQA. Subsequent to completion of the cultural resource
assessment, the on-site structures were demolished
There are no known unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the site, nor are there any religious
or sacred uses associated with the project site.
CEQA establishes that a significant effect on the environment would occur only where a project causes
a "substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource." Because no "historic resource"
has been identified within the project limits, no significant impact resulting from the development of the
project slle would occur.
'\
Based on City's General Plan EIR (Figure 5.4-2), the project site is located within an "Area ofConcem for
Archaeological Resources." While no significant on-site historic, archaeological, or paleontological
resource has been identified within the project limits, site clearing and 'grading activities may expose
previously undetected or unreported archaeological or paleontological resources. Adherence to the
following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant
level.
CUL-I In the event any archaeological. historical, or paleontological resource is uncovered during the
course of the project development, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall
be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified monitor.
Any such resource uncovered during the course of project related grading or construction shall
be recorded and/or removed per the recommendations identified in the archaeological and
paleontological resource assessments and/or applicable City and/or State regulations.
V.d Based on a previously prepared paleontological reSOurce assessment for a nearby residential
development (TIM 16533).' there is a low potential for paleontological resources north of the San
Andreas Fault and a moderate to high potential for such resources south of the fault. On-site ground-
disturbing activities may uncover previously undetected subsurface paleontological resources.
Adherence to :\Iitigation :\Ieasure CUL-I would reduce impacts to any as-of-yet undetennined
paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
V,e :-;0 evidence is in place to suggest the project site has been used for human bunals. The California
Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on site, no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a detennination of origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State regulations is required for all
development. a less than significant impact is anticipated to occur with the development of the project
sHe.
-'.,
.
hlll!l)/I[O/OKlcul Resfmrct!s .-lssl!sJ"/1/c.'1lI Report TL'tIllJlllIe Tract No. /6533, CR,\of TECH. ~o..'e01bcr 24.200-1.
IS 29
')
J
CITY OF SAN BER~ARDINO
DEVELOP:\IENT SERVICES
INITIAL Sn:DY
, \'/. GEOLOGY ..\:'I'D SOILS- Would the Po,enl1.lIy less Than Significant less Than I
project: SignIficant with Mitigation SignIficant !
Imo.ct Incoroorated Imoact :-';olmoact
. 0 0 ~ 0 I
a) Involve eanh movement (cut andior till) I i
based on intormation contained in lhe
Preliminary Project Description'.'
i b) Expose people or structures to substantial 0 ~ 0 0
:
i adverse etTects. including the risk of loss,
I injury, or death?
I c) Be located within and Alquist-Priolo 0 ~ 0 0
I Eanhquake Fault Zone?
J) Result in erosion, dust or the loss of 0 0 ~ 0
lopsoil?
:
e) Be located within an area subject to 0 0 0 0
landslides, mudslides, subsidence or
other similar hazards as identified in the
City's General Plan?
t) Be located within an area subject to 0 0 0 0
liquefaction as identified in the City's
I General Plan?
g) Modify any unique geological or 0 0 0 0
physical feature based on a site
survey/evaluation?
h) Result in erosion, dust, or unstable soil 0 0 0 0
conditions from excavation, grading, fill,
or other construction activities?
I i) Other: Development within Hillside 0 0 0 0
: y!anagement District on slopes in excess
, of 15 percent.
Dl~~.Cllssion
Vb Implementation of the proposed project would require on-site grading. The impon or export of eanh
would be subject to haul permits issued by the City. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
proponent would be required to prepare and submit detailed grading plans for the project site. These
plans must be prepared in conformance with the applicable standards of the City's Grading Ordinance
and the California Building Code (CBC). Adherence to the requirements of the City's Grading
Ordinance, CBC, measures identified in the geotechnical investigation, and conditions set forth in the
grading permit (including any necessary export requirements and haul permits) are tequired prior to the
'\ commencement of on-site cleanng and grading activities; thus, no sigDlficant grading-related impact
would Occur. Interlocking block walls along the southern and western project boundaries will measure
lS 30
)
,CITY OF SAN BERI\'ARDINO
OEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
I:\'ITIAL sn.:OY
from II 10 26 f""t In h",ght. and wlil b" constructed at a 4: I slope. Based on lhe characteristics of the
on-site soils idenlified in lhe soils report prepared for the project. the soil strength parameters are
adequate for the design and construction of the proposed wall using local soils as backfills compacted to
a minimum 80% I. The deSign and conslructtOn of any such wall would be in conformance with
"slablished City requlTements; therefore. no Impact associated with manufactured slopes would result
from development of the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
VI.b--c
Fault rupture is lhe most easily avoided seismic hazard. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act (A-P Act) mitigates fault rupture hazards by prohibiting the location of structures for human
occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The A-P Act requires the State Geologist to delineate
"Earthquake Fault Zones" along faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well defined." The boundary
of an "Earthquake Fault Zone" is generally 500 feet from major active faults and from 200 to 300 feet
from well defined minor faults. The mapping of active faults has been completed by the State Geologist.
These maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in developing
planning policies and controlling renovation or new construction.
)
Portions of the San Andreas Fault Zone and its associated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A-P
Zone) cross the northeastern portion of the project site (Figure 5). No buildable (flat) portion of any
residential lot is located within the San Andreas Fault Zone. In addition to the San Andreas Fault, the
Cucarnonga and San Jacinto Faults are located within 5.0 miles of the project site. Allor portions of J 7
lots (Lots 1-11 and Lots 30-34) are located within the A-P Zone identified for the San Andreas Fault
Zone. No active traces of faults have been identified within the project limits. Trenching conducted
during the geotechnical investigation extended onto Pleistocene-aged materials and .....encountered no
evidence which could be identified as fault induced offsets,'" Standard requirements for the transfer of
property located in A-P Zones require the disclosure to the purchasers of property (at the time of
purchase agreement and close of escrow) of the applicability of the A-P designation on such property, as
well as any restrictions on the development of structures within the A-P zone.
The maximum earthquake events on the San Andreas, Cucamonga, and San Jacinto Faults are estimated
at magnitudes of 7.4, 7.3, and 6.7, respectively. The City is situated in a seismically active area. Ground
shaking is expected to be the primary hazard likely to affect the project. According to the geotechnical
report prepared for the project site, earthquakes generated on the San Andreas, Cucamonga, and San
Jacinto Faults could result in maximum horizontal accelerations of between 0.35G and O.72G and with a
maximum duration of strong shaking 'exceeding 20 seconds. The project is located in Seismic Zone 4
and would be required to adhere to standards set forth in the CBC. The following mitigation measure
has been identified to reduce impacts related to these issues to a less than significant level.
GEO-l Prior to the issuance of building permits. the project proponent shall demonstrate to the City
that the siting, design and construction of all structures and facilities (including walls) witbin
the project limits are in accordance witb the regulations established in the California Building
Code, as well as the recommendations identified in tbe geotechnical investigation and the soils
and foundation evaluations prepared for tbe project site.
Vl.d The project site is identified as being located in an area susceptible to high winds,] whicb would
increase tbe potential for the erosion (by wind) of on-site soils. The Soil Survey of San Bernardino
Cmlllty Soulhweslern Pari. California /979, indicates three soil mapping units for the site. The mapped
\
:\UJ;S SOUlh\\~SI, Inc.. OpInion LClIerlSlte.soil SUIl.:lbiIiIY fur Reinlorced E3r1~. W;all (such.15 VeduJ':l Wall. K~ystonc Wall cle.), ~Iarch 19.1009.
ElIgllll!ering Geologic bm!s/igaliollfor AP:V 26/-011-G8, 12. & 14. tlte Gardner COIISlnlCtiOIl Site at (he IIortlr el/d o/Palm on tire
In:'st side. Soils Southwesl. Inc. July 12. 2006.
City of Sa" Bernardi"o Gel/eral Plal/. figure S-8 "Wind Hazards." NO\lemb~r 2005.
IS 31
)
CITY OF SA.:'1 BE&"iARDI:'10
DEVELOPME:>iT SERVICES
I:>iITIAL STUDY
elllts .lre TUJunga gravelly loamy sand. 0-9 percent slopes, Hanford coarse sandy loam, 9-15 percent
slopes. and Cieneba sandy loam, 9-15 percent slopes. These soils are generally well drained due to the
presence of sands on allUVial fans. There is a medium to high potential for erosion on Hanford soils and
a slight erosion potential for TUJunga soils. Where exposed by fire or construction, Cieneba soils exhibit
a high potential for erosion. I
In addition to these native soils. gravel, asphalt, concrete, and rocks were also found in ponions of the
project site. These are remnants from the nearby construction site. It is anticipated that any potential
effects related to this issue can be mitigated by conventional grading techniques and the implementation
of best management practices (B~IPs) as required by the State's General Construction Pennil.
Adherence to these standards and regulations would result in less than significant impacts.
Vl.e Geomorphic evidence of active landsliding was not observed on site. Two different generalized slope
areas (lib and IIIb) within the limits of the project site (General Plan Figure S-7) have been identified.
lib indicates an area of low relief with low to moderate landslide susceptibility. IIIb indicates an area of
moderate relief with low to moderate landslide susceptibility. Development would occur only on areas
with a low susceptibility to landslides. The project site is not located in an area susceptible to
liquefaction or subsidence (General Plan Figures S-5 and S-6). Compliance with the City of San
Bernardino, CBC construction standards, and geotechnical recommendations would reduce impacts
associated with landslides. subsidence, or other similar hazards to a less than significant level.
,
Vl.f Liquefaction is a phenomenon that OCcurs when strong eanhquake shaking causes soils to collapse from
a sudden loss of cohesion and undergo a transformation from a solid state to a liquefied state. This
happens in areas where the soils are saturated with groundwater. Loose soils with panicle size in the
medium sand to silt range are panicularly susceptible to liquefaction when subjected to seismic ground
shaking. Affected soils lose all strength during liquefaction and failure of building foundations can
occur. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where groundwater is present within 50 feet of the surface.
According to Figure S-5 in the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the project site is not located
within an area identified as highly or moderately highly susceptible to liquefaction. As indicated in the
soils and foundation evaluation repon. groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface
exploration of the site.2 The reponed depth of groundwater in the area is more than 50 feet below
existing ground level. Based on the depth to groundwater and the condition of underlying soil materials,
the potential for liquefaction is considered remote. Adherence to applicable City building requirements
is required by any development within the City; therefore, a less than significant impact related to this
issue is anticipated to occur.
Vl.g The project site is located along the foothills of the San Bemardino Mountains. The extent and character
of on-site topographic and natural features are typical of property in the project vicinity. As no unique or
physical, geologic, or topographic feature is located within the limits of the proposed project, no impact
associated with this issue is anticipated to occur.
Vl.h Development of the site is in excess of one acre; therefore, the proposed project is required to obtain
coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction
Activity (Construction General Permit. 99-08-DWQ). Under this permit. the development and
Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to address erosion and
discharge impacts associated with the proposed on-site construction activities. In addition to complying
."
Sol! Sur\'ey orSoll Bernardino COlll/ty, SOlllh....estem Part, California. United SIJ!CS D~p:lrtmcnt of Agricuhure. Soil Conservation
S~r\ICC, 1980.
Prl!iimillary Report of Soils and Foundation emit/a/ions Proposed Single Fanllly Tract /6794, Soils Soulbwesr. Inc, January 9,
2i;U(I.
IS 32
)
)
,
....;
CITY OF SA.\' BER.\'ARDI:\'O
DEVELOP:\lE:\'T SERVICES
1:\'ITrAL STl'DY
"Ith Ihe Constru,[]on General Penuu. the project proponent would comply wuh grading and erosten
,ontrol measures (including the prevenl10n of sedimental10n or damage to off-site property) set forth In
Chapter 15 of the City's ~luntcipal Code. Adherence to ~liligalioD ~[easures GEO-I and GEO-2 and
applicable provisions of the General Construction Pennit would reduce potential erosion impacts to a
less than significantleve/.
GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of grading pennits. the project proponent shall provide evidence to the
City that grading plans for the proposed development fully incorporate the recommendations
detailed in the soils and foundation report prepJred for the proposed project.
'v'1.t While located within the City's Hillside ~Ianagement Overlay District (HMOD), as detailed in Figure 6.
overall slopes throughout the project limits do not exceed 15 percent (15%). A key goal of the proposed
project is the development of the site in a manner that will complement the natural and visual character
of the City and its hillsides. This intent is achieved by ensuring that development does not create soil
erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. The
proposed project envisions an on-site residential density of 2.38 residential units per acre. Because the
proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan as well as the Development Code, no impact
related with this issue would occur. No mitigation is required.
IS 33
Sa"...,
"areas f:
alJl, .lone
}
'...... ~.;
.....)
-,
"-:7--~ _ ~
-' - .~ 11/.lJ!JJ__
I 12 .
13 I 11 10
wEllll, .1 - ,
I!.oSlN ">,( ,
"--l.
.....,.--~
~."'::; _:-..,::7
:-','~~
T ~ 1" : I,
I ' /.'
-.....--.........
"'--~
-.
J r
5 . r 3
,
I
~.
-I
I
9
d
;
.,<-'l.C:
...,.,~--
t'
~
.-:i,;>
."
-
,
39
38
37
38
.J~~
34
L
!W((lIl"
...:: ''''~~
r ..
."t:.
....::.,..
:'-'<.~..
oJ .. .-,:~~
.....
,
~
",
,
.'.
.......'~
..........,r
"'"
'/~.."'........
('. .......
'-&....:'1'
.',
If'
f,:'
,(.
.r. ,
'I.
--4/ "
oJ-.." '~.\.' -r
. /~<<"" It__
',- 1'.';;;'-" "~'~Jfo:
/\ -~'::," :~;;:~:.'~~
'.
.......
'......
,
,
,
$
,
j.)O
200
;-HT
L S ^
FIGURE 5
o PROJECT 1l0Ul'iDARY
L'SGS F"ults. 2003
Tcnlali" Tract 16794-
[nilial Sluq,
Alquist-Priolo
Special Study Zone
....
..\Jl1uist-Priolo Fault lone. 2002
;)\jf,KCE. M;IPCu IY07); Ccumy lJ(S.1fI Dem~d'no 120161. CJli/;:mIJ GClllc!;JCJI S'If'i<=y.1C02: f...SGS.1COJ
i{ .~.,C5~',\.; 11ep"n, IS IiI!' _.W_I.;nC'":'ld (12.1')",~)
'~
".';".,...-
I
~
"
.......
~..i:'.":'
-'.':;-,
'.
'-,_ -.'1", ~~
, '
",
"
).,\ .'....,.
. "",:,~
.' ....\ \~.:
'.
l_.~
,
...~.
"
--.
'"
""'.
.....
-,
.r.,_
'.'-:
'"
'.
---..
", ~ ,.
,..~!_:.~.~~.c
"
';'..
",
'-
t'l.
..~
:...........
'.''!
, '.
. '.'It '~'..
SLOPE -;' ASU:
"~1':1' A~} ....em
0.15 H.!j
-i~:-2!- u
'S:..:l!...- --o:r
".
'.
,'....... ,",
.........."'-.:.
>,
,
L SA
$
\ 1';'J :c,u
-
EET
FIGURE 6
SlJI,rh..T .\bpC012(JI.~); Counry<JfSJ/1 B..:m;1{Jmol~Ot)6J
r,ntat,v, r'ad /6794-
'n/llal Stu<!J
On-site Slop..
I{ G.IU!]I)'G !l.:purls 1.s'Jig6_~!"penJ"(JII)JI:YI,,]QJ
\
-,
CITY OF SA.'\' BER..'\'ARDINO
OEVELOP~IE:'I'T SERVICES
I:"ITIAL Sn;Oy
-;
VII. HAZARDS A:'iD :\1,1. TERIALS - Would Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than
the project: Significant with Mitlgation Significant
I Imoact Incorporated Imoact :-10 Imoact
, 0 0
, aJ Create significant hazard to the public or t:8J 0
the environment through routine transport.
use. or disposal of hazardous materials"
hi Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 t:8J 0 0
the environment through reasonably
I toreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
material into the environment?
cJ Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 t:8J 0
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
I substances, or waste within on-quarter
I mile of an existing or proposed school?
" ae ;uca,.d on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 t:8J
u)
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport 0 0 0 t:8J
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
, public airport or public use airport, would
I the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
I area?
I l) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 t:8J 0
mterfere with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
I g) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 t:8J
, 0 0
risk of loss. injury or death involving i
wildland fires. mcluding where wildlands
i are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
. residences are intermixed with wildlands?
I h) Other: Expose persons property to 0 0 t:8J 0
or
I significant risk, injury, or death involving
high winds?
[S 36
)
CITY OF SA."1 BER."IARDINO
OEVELOP:\OIENT SERVICES
1l'"ITlAL sn:Oy
Dis<..lIssiull
\'11 a
Il11pkm~nlauon of the proposed project would result In the development of the project site with
r~sidential uses. :-';0 manufacturing. industrial. or other uses that would utilize hazardous materials as
part of daily operations are included in the proposed project. Typical use of household hazardous
materials (e.g.. pesticides, fertilizer, solvents, cleaning products, and paints) would not result in the
significant transport. disposal. or release of hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to
the public or environmenl due to the small volumes present on site. Therefore. impacts related to this
issue are less than signiticant. No mitigation is required.
VILb
The proposed project does not allow for the use, storage, disposal or transport of large volumes of toxic.
flammable, explosive, or otherwise hazardous materials that could cause serious environmental damage
in the event of an accident. Land uses proposed for the project site would not present a hazard
associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances into the environmental. The project site is
not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List or on any City hazardous waste
material site. No obvious sign of hazardous waste use or dumping (e.g., drwns. containers. fluids, spills,
or discolored soils) or other evidence of hazardous materials were observed during the biological or
cultural resource surveys, or general site reconnaissance. No hazardous material condition has been
reported by the project applicant. Past soil disturbances and the passage of time would have diluted any
agricultural chemicals that may have been previously applied to the project site.
')
Because of their age, an Asbestos and Lead Survey Report' was prepared to assess whether the on-site
structures contained hazardous materials in the form of asbestos (e.g , insulation), lead (e.g., paint), or
other materials. Materials containing non-friable asbestos and lead were identified on site, The
previously demolition of the on-site structures required the removal of the hazardous materials
identified in the survey report. While the on-site structures have been demolished, to reduce the
significance in the unlikely event potentially hazardous materials are encountered during project
grading/construction, the following mitigation measure have been identified.
HAZ-l The City shall be notified immediately in the event malodorous or discolored soils, liquids,
containers, or other materials known or suspected to contain hazardous materials and/or
contaminants are encountered during on-site grading/construction. Earthmoving activities in
the vicinity of said material shall be halted until the extent and nature of the suspect material is
detennined by qualified personnel (as detennined by the City). The removal and/or disposal of
any such contaminants shall be in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal
standards.
Adherence to the above measures would reduce impacts rclated to the release of hazardous materials a
less than significant level.
\'IL" rhe project site is located within close proximity to a number of schools. The nearest school site is Palm
Avenue Elementary School. locatcd approximately 0.44 mile southeast of the project site. Other schools
in the project's vicinity include :-Iorth Verdemont Elementary located 0.80 mile southwest, Cesar
Chavez Middle School located 0.75 mile southwest. and Cajon High School located 3.6 miles southeast
of the project site. The proposed project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school. Additionally, the proposed residential uses would not include any activities that would emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances. or water. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is anticipated to occur. :-10 mitigation is required.
'\
Asbestos and Lead SlIrvey Report House and Garage al6920 Palm Avem,e in San Bernardino, CA., :\fasek Consulting
Se"ices, Inc.. Febnwry 5. 2007.
IS 37
)
CITY OF SA~ BER.'lARDINO
DEVELOP:\IE~T SERVICES
INITIAL STI:DY
VI!.d
Pursuanl 10 lhe California Government Code (Section 65962.5[E]). the project site is not listed in the
Slale of California Hazardous Wasle and Substances Site List (Cortese Iisl). I :-.10 impact related to this
issue would occur; therefore, no mItigation is required.
\'I!.e
The San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA) is located approximately ten miles southeast of the
project site. The project slle is not located within an Airport Influence Area' or within 2.0 miles of an
airport. :-';0 impact relaled 10 this issue would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required.
VI!.f
The proposed project. including all structures and facililies, will be designed, sited, constructed, and
maintained in accordance with applicable emergency response evacuation standards set by the City.
Construction activities. which may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic, will be required to implement
adequate and appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any
required road closures. No significant impact related to this issue would occur; therefore, no mitigation
is required.
VII,g
The project site is located in an urban-wildland interface area. The City has identified a Fire Overlay
District (FaD) to mitigate the spread of fire, to minimize property damage, and to reduce the risk to
public health and safety. Within the FaD, "Foothill Fire Zones" have been identified. The fIre hazard
within each zone varies based on slope, type of fuel present, and natural barriers. The zones are
identified as follows: J
')
. Fire ZOlle A - Extreme Hatard: Fire Zone A is determined based on slope. This zone includes
areas with slopes in excess of 30 percent.
. Fire ZOlle B - High Hatard: Fire Zone B is also determined based on slope. This zone includes
areas with slopes between IS percent and 30 percent.
. Fire Zone C -,lfoderate Hatard: Fire Zone C includes areas with slopes less than 15 percent.
. Fire Zone C - Abutting Wildlands: This includes lots on the perimeter of a tract that are adjacent to
wildlands. "Wildlands" are defined as any land that is essentially unimproved.
The portions of the project slated for development are located in Fire Zone C. Slopes on site do not
exceed 15 percent and abut unimproved wildland areas.
The construction of the proposed residential structures would be required to adhere to all applicable
slandards established in the City's Municipal and Development Codes. Furthermore, the design of the
project would be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino Fire Department (SBFD).
The pnmary wildfire lhreat to the proposed on-site uses is from heavy dry grass located to the north and
east. The project site and this highly flammable vegetation are periodically exposed to high intensity
winds from lhe north and northeast. Without adequale mitigation, lhe proposed project has the potential
to expose persons and structures to significant injury or loss of life or property from wildland fires. State
and City development standards include measures "to control lhe exposure to homes within the
urban/wIldland interface and/or otherwise reduce lhe spread of fire on or to developed properties, by
controlling the use of materials and melhods of construction" in the fire hazard areas. In response to the
"
flll:urdous Waste Sljb.~.(allce and Sites List (Cortese List), California Dep:mmcnl of Toxic Substance Control.
1~l\p: ','.\ '.\ ,":11\ irlJ.>rllrJl:,CI..'J.J,;m PUO!IC :"<..:al..:li,a~p. site accessed October 8.2007.
c,/)' 'JfSan Bt!rnardlf/o General Plan Figure UJ-4. City of San Bernardino, November I, 2005.
0..:\ c!opment Cude. Chapter 19.15.
IS 38
)
CITY OF SAN BER..'1ARDINO
DEVELOP:\-IENT SERVICES
1:\"ITlAL STT.:DY
October 2003 "Old Fire," the ~lunlclpal Code was amended in January 2004. I This amendment
cstablzshed Building Safety Enhancement Area (BSEA) standards (Municipal Code Chapter 15.11),
strengthening development requlCements \Vllhin Foothill Fire Zones. The City's Development Code
IChapter 19,15) Identities addlltOnal requlCements for development \Vllhm Foothill Fire Zones. These
;tandards include (but Jre not lzmited to) the creation of "defensible space" Jround the project.
prohibitions on the use of specitic building materials, and the imposition of more stringent construction
standards.
'"
A fuel management plalllfire risk analysis has been prepared for the proposed project.' Based on model
lire characteristics, the tire nsk analysis has estimated .....the Worst-cast catastrophic flCe on site." For
the purpose of this analysis, the worst-case fire scenario consisted of a fall fire during Santa Ana wind
conditions. The City requires a minimum fuel modification zone of I iO feet from any building pad or
structure. This zone further divided into three zones. The fire management plan prepared for the project
provides landscape prohibitions within each zone. The fire management plan has determined that the
project site will incorporate three zones (Zones I. 2, and 3). The distances and provisions included are
based on the model fire predictions based on the proposed project. Zone I (50 feet from all sides of
structures on all lots) is an irrigated wet zone ("defensible space"). Zone 2, from 51 to 100 feet on all
sides of structures/pads (except lots 26-31, which front !,alm Avenue), is an irrigated wet zone that
reduces flammable vegetation in the vicinity of structures. Zone 3 (10 I to 170 feet from structures)
consists of a thinning and fuel modification area. A 30-foot vegetation management zone is required
around the proposed on-site retention basin and along each side of the main road leading to structures.
Restrictions on the type and location of landscape material are provided for each zone. The fire
management plan includes provisions for the annual and ongoing maintenance of on-site vegetation.
The Fuel Modification Zones proposed for the project site are identified in Figure 7. The plan has been
approved by SBFD.
The proposed project and the properties adjacent are included in the City Fire Department's records for
regular weed abatement maintenance and are a part of the City's Weed Abatement Maintenance
Program.' These properties are monitored by the City on a regular basis to ensure that no less than a 50-
foot "dry-zone" buffer is established from the perimeter of the proposed project upon its construction,
This buffer is maintained by the individual property owner and compliance is enforced by the City of
San Bernardino.
A standard City requirement for the transfer of property in a high fire hazard zone is the disclosure to
the purchasers of property (at the time of purchase agreement and close of escrow) of the applicability
of the high fire hazard designation on the property, as well as any property development/maintenance
requirements for property in such a high fire hazard zone. The construction of the proposed residential
structures would be required to adhere to all applicable standards established by the City, including the
implementation of Fuel Modification Plan and new standards within the BSEA, as well as conditions
mandated by the SBFD (including, but not limited to. the sprinkling of on-site structures and a
prohibition on combustible units prior to the installation of fire hydrants and paved roadways). The
following measures have been identified to mitigate for potential wildland fire hazards:
'.
\LllllClpal C)de. Ch>lpter 15.IO{Foothill Fire Zone Building Standards).
I:I"~" ~l:gt:Ja/lO" '\/wwgel1l/!/11 Phm ll1ld CQUlSlrapl1ic Wildfire Risk Analysis Tental/lle Tract /6794, Scali Franklin Consulting,
S..:plember 9. 2008.
\Vriucn correspondence with Cit)' of San Bernardino Code Enforcemenl Deputy Director. Marianne Milligan December 12,2008.
[S 39
)
)
"
CITY OF SA..'\' BERNARDINO
DEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
I:-;ITIAL STl,;DY
HAZ-2 The project proponent shall Incorporate and or or be subject to appropnate and required (as
determined by the City) fire protection mdtor fuel modification features. Said features shall
Include I but not be Iimlled to) the tire protection! fuel management provisions detailed in the
Jpproved FireiVegetation ~anagement Plm md Catastrophic Wildfire Risk Analysis prepared
for the proposed project (September 2008), as well as the stmdards and requirements
identilied by the Fire Depanment.
With the implementation of the aforementioned measures and the City's standards for development
within the BSEA and compliance with the City's Weed Abatement Program, potential fire hazard
impacts associated with the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level.
.
Vll.h The City has periodic, extremely high winds, which have in the past resulted in significant propeny
damage, including roof and block wall damage, damaged power lines and traffic signals, and downed
trees. The most significant wind problems occur at the mouths of canyons and valleys extending
downslope from the San Bernardino Mountains. As identified in Figure S-7 of the City's General Plan,
the project site is located within a "High Wind Area." In this area. the City applies stringent conditions
for the construction of buildings and facilities. General Plan policies require that buildings and facilities
are designed and constructed to withstand" ... extreme wind velocities." The review of building design
during the plan check process would ensure that the proposed on-site structures and features are
appropriately designed to withstand anticipated winds that may occur in the project area. This review is
standard for all development within the City's "High Wind Area." Adherence to the design and
construction conditions identified during the design review process would ensure the proposed on-site
uses would provide adequate protection to propeny and persons during high wind events; therefore, no
significant impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is required.
IS 40
"
Page I of I
) John Egan
From: RONALD CARDUCCllrcarducci@cal-west.comJ
Sent: Tuesday, December 09. 2008 2:24 PM
To: John G. Egan
Subject: Pacific Street Cost Estimate
John:
After reviewing our Estimate for Pacific St. and the county recommendations, all we could
save is to reduce the number of cores we would take. However, to perform an analysis
similar to the county's, it would probably be best to obtain a similar number of sampling
locations on the rest of the project. So I think that we should leave the estimate unchanged.
The county had 19 sampling locations on about half the project and we will have only 10
locations on the other half. However we have experience with the soils in Highland.
Ron Carducci
"
-....
12/9/2008
)
J:AL-
AUDiT
Construction il1aterials Engineers
Testing & Impectioll
A DivisiOJl ofil1C!{/all, Anlgoll Geotechnical, IlIc.
CALIFORNIA. :-';EVi\DA
July I, 200S
J N 2~;~ ~(II.PI{J'
Enainecrin" Resources of Southern California, Inc.
'" "
1820 Commercentcr Circle
San Bernardino, CA 92408
ATTN:
Mr. John G. Egan, P.E.
RE: Pncific Street Rehabilitation Project (Citics of Highland and San
Bernardino, County of San Bernardino)
Proposal to Prcparc Pavement Rehabilitation Recommendations
.\
Dear John:
In accordance with the proposal information received from your otlice, we are
pleased to submit this proposal to perform a pavement evaluation and prepare
rehabilitation recommendations for Pacific Street, from Perris Hill Park Road in
the City of San Bernardino to Church A venue in the City of Highland. We have
reviewcd the project site. It is proposed to rchabilitate approximately 17,800
lineal feet or 3.37 miles.
We have been requested to provide recommendations for a ten year design and a
twenty yem design with rehabilitation altemates for conventional AC (HMA) and
rubberized Asph,tlt (RAC). On a project of this magnitude, the Caltrans
Rehabilitation procedure with ddleciion testing is a highly desirable approach. A
deflection criterion gives a more scientific approach to dcsign. An altcrnative
approach using the Asphalt Institute Method relies on more subjective data and
less field data.
Rehabilitation projccts generally arc designed on a ten year basis. To extend a ten
year design to twenty years usually cnds up as a complcte reconstruction of the
road. This is because the additional tratlic loading of the second ten years
incrcases the design Traffic Index.
Riverside County: 16801 Van Buren Boulevard. Riverside, CA 92504. Telephone (951) 776-0345.
Fax (951) 776-0395 '
Affiliates In Most Major Citios
.
Engineering Rcsources of Southern California, Inc.
July I, 200S
Page 2
Our scope of services would bc to perfon11 a ticld review of Pacitic Strcet,
identifying the number and extent of pavement deficiencies, and marking on the
pavemcnt In white paint thc areas of R&R. We would measure the length of the
proJcct and mcasure the road width at various locations and identify possible
locations of corcs for existing structural section thicknesses, Final core locations
would involve a rcvicw of the dcflection data. Thc IC1161\h would be measmed
with a roller tape.
While in thc tield, wc would sketch the locations of each of our field markings and
record the measurements. The physical location of caeh of the R&R areas would
bc tied into an adjacent lot either by house number or other idcntification. which
will match up with the assessor's maps that you give us.
In our offiec, we would sketch on maps you provide to us an Olrtlinc of each repair
area,. the recommended dimensions and its relationship to cither curb or' street
centerline. These maps would be included in our report. We would also provide a
tabulation of the repair areas giving the physical street address and the dimensions
and square footage. In turn, you would put on your plans the location and
dimcnsions of the repair area.
We would evaluate the deflection test results using Caltrans criteria and design the
stmetural section based on Structural Requirements, thickness to reduce reflective
cracking and rideability.
In our lab, we would measure the cores, evaluate subgrade soils with Sand,
Equivalent Tests and select representative samples for R-Value tests.
We will consider a minimum 0.10' standard overlay. Any additional thickness of
overlay would be based upon our field review and/or deflection test results. For
the structural section of R&R areas, we would consider a minimum 3" of asphalt
concrcte on 4" of aggrcgate base. Our recommendation would be based on the
actual Traffic Index and R- Value of the underlying soils. Consideration would be
given to crack repair and sealing, header cuts, grind and inlay 0.] O' AC, and bump
grinding.
We will identify one or two areas whcrc there is either a quarter crown or a low
centerline crown. Wc will draw cross sections and use them to devclop a
recommendation.
We will prepare a preliminary evaluation including comparative construction cost
cstimatcs for two altcrnativcs. This construction cost estimate is .not a complete
CAL-WESTCONSVLTANTS
"
)
Engineering Resources of Southcrn California, Inc.
July I. 200S
Page 3
cost eslimale. We will only mclude thc itcms directly related to pavcmcnt
rehabilitation. In preparing our cost estimatc we will secure reccnt prices from
local contractors and use these prices as the basis for dctern1ining the cost to use in
our construction cost. cvaluation. We do not regularly compute quantities for
bidding on projects. The quanti tics wc will use will be based on our evaluation of
thc site and is not to be considered accurate for bidding purposes, but will be used
as thc basic quantity for the alternatives in ordcr thatwe can make a comparison.
These quantities will includc computcr-generated data and will not necessarily be
based upon tield measurcmcnts. Our construction cost estimate is not a complete
cost estimate.
When our preliminary evaluation is completed. we would have a meeting with all
parties to the design to discuss rehabilitation alternatives.
Finally, we would review- the proposcd plans and specifications for the project and
provide our comments back to your office.
Our cost estimate to provide services on this project is $24,490. A copy of that
estimate is attached as Exhibit 1.
We can start our work upon receipt of your authorization and of the assessor's
maps from your office. We estimate it will take 13 weeks from the time we start
the work to the completion of our report. This could be affected by scheduling of
Deflection Testing and Team meetings and review times.
If you have any qu<;stions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very truly yours,
'W~~
Ronald F. Carducci, P.E.
Matelials Engineer'
, RFe: be\~45J.-,61 PitP Hlgnl:md PacIfic Slrc<:lRchahilll:ltlon Pr<Jl'':C(
Attachments -
CAL-WEST CONSULTANTS
u
"
H
"
~ .
." '"
1:" "<o:;J'
.c .0
o ","'
~"O~
O'~
~
"
.
..
C
.
..
...
"
.
C
o
U
..
.. -
~~
I ~
5'0 "
~ ~
>:"
""H
00
"'"
o~
.~ H
~
"
>
"
"
~
." "'
- "~
,:5 -0 ~ ~
O'l>li-j I
.ra@.....l.O
~ H <-
< c I'tS r--
~u
~
,
'"
~
"'
oJ
U
.
n
o
~
'"
H
-'"
.m
'0
""
~
~
~
>
."
a:
"
o
"
"
~ ~
" "
" ~
~H
o "~
~.Q '"
...... I'tS C
" .c 0
I\l lV'.-I 0
UO:~M
""'0
~ ~ "
. . .
7J j ~ r
:J CIl 0 .. : ei
o U U) I 3
U) U 111 t&J I 0
..-4.0:::,..:, I 0..
.....li-l HI2:
O.~ g::E I ~
1Il tt1...-l I
<U 0...j.J 10
oral ~
l-l 1.jJ I H
, .~ I '"
o "Tj .......t I:Z:
(I) C -o-l I 1-1
11l rtI .a I f-+-
a:...... ro I tIJ
tJI.g.~ g: I ~
C ...-1 0::: 0..
." '"
~
~~
. 0
"
.~ ,.,
CO"
" ""
"'u
"'H
"<>
.""
S I
..""
>'"
~ ~,
0.'"
.... ....
:zU
"'''' 0
H"JU
......OVl~
Ua:",
",,,
Ul
~ ~
'"
~ :z
i j ~
.. '"
.4J ~ en !-<
:l ~ ~ ~
~ i ~;::
8 ~ ~ ~
.. .. ~
.. ~ ....
fil ~ 5 8
I :I H U
a ;. ~
. a:
. ....
.~ en
.' :z
00
. U
" ,
o -'on
~I~f-o
~ S;g ",.
'....u
o
'"
....
'"
"
-'
'"
on
o
'"
o
a:
0.
Z
H
-'",
HCJ
"'",
~3
0:
0.
1-<1-< f-<
HV1(...C/l
zoot.J
::>u ....
on
,.
'"
"
:z
'"
>:
a:
"''''
.-l~
U'"
'"
u"'
"'<-
....'"
a:
""'
:zo
"'H
'"
'n
o
~
0.
a:
"0
z~
"'H
Ul
"
Z
H
a:
"'
'"
Z
H
"
Z
'"
V}
....
~
:z
::>
,.
,..
~
,..
:z
'"
::>
o
"-
on
"
,..
..., ,......<""1
aaocaoc.n
'-D '-D N 'Xl 0 U"') J'o
OM C"I ...... \'1..... '<1'
'"
..
Ul
>.
w
"
,
o
U
o
'" "
.~
~ ."
~
'.
"
"
o .
'"
~
"
~
V}
,.,
.0
'0
'" ~
'0
"" "~
>
o
~
0.
"" "
"'''''''
~
...c; I-ll-l lV
o C'I tJ'l >. l-I
.v c c ftl 0
HWWOU
00 00 LJ"I
t"'10\l1L1"'1
H '" H
H
;..'"
~
,,-,
00000...........0
H 0
\D N co O"l
""""'"
;u &
~ "
. ."
'" ~ w
C -.-I (!J
...-1 :> ill
" . '"
,~ '"
~
>
.
"
'"
~
"
-'
'"
H
'"
.
w ,
" .
'" ,"
>
, .
0:
"
'U
w
0' ~J
" E'
." ~
" ""
'" "
.
,...
o
"H
o
~ ""
~ III .jJ
U . 0
-0 IV C Q.I
-+ .n...........
rtI 0 0"+-1
.-l \..j C ru
[z..,o..41Q
" ~
~ . .
.....,,v .jJ
U C.rl
...-t .....t/)
" '"
.c 0
o '"
~
,..
'"
"
~
,~
"
.
w
~
>:
" ~
o ~
~ ~
oJ a.
o ..
Oa:
U
o
"'"
"~
," ""
~ ~
o "
U,..
w
o .
. '"
E .,
'. .
>H
~' "
0.>:
o
."
>:
,~
~
"
""
~
'"
o
o
'"
~
o
~
'"
""
'~ooaao<J)
'.(lONCOOON_
:"'.1':0...... I.!> a'I -; M
...... N rl......
'"
H
U"lOIOO'lO
N............O.-l
l-ll-ll-ll-l l-l... l-l
::t::t:X:r.:c::z::r:
..c: l-ll.-t l-l l-l lo-ll-l
UtJ'1010101O'llll
QJ c: C c c C .-I
I-<W41WWWU
0000000
NOCONr-COr-
H'" H
~
u "
o
, ,"
0"
-' '.
,
"'''
~
o >
,'"
o
~ 0
U 0
'" "
..-1.... ....J
<I) 111 0 3- .j.J
>,.j.J OJ III I-l
....-j 10-1 rl ...... 0
rO I'll ...... > a.
C ::l III IV Q)
~OO~"
'"
,~
H
~
o
,
~
""
>
'v
a:
o
~
M
0.
'"
"
o
" "
" 0
. "
u ~
~ ~
~ ~
," .
u a.
.11 .11
a. "
"'0.
~
.
"
"
."
"'"
o 0
'" ,~
.j..l l-l l..; l-l I-ll-l......
<-l ctl III III 1) III ~ 'tl
U l-I IV IV III III IV U
Q.lrUCCCCC'o-I
'n ~ 0-1 .0-1 '0-1 'M 'rt l-I
o W 0" t:1' O'l 0" I:j'l III
l-l \..l C c..: c: c C......
o..a..WCaJWW~U
'"
o
n
,-
"
~
'"
'"
o
o
o
'"
H
m
<>
-'
"
....
o
....
OJ
::>
'"
00
m "'
'"
"''''
HO
~ ~
"''''
ON
H
><
a:
o
,..
~
o
'",
'"
-'
"
"
.
.-.
~
>
~
~
0'.
'" ,
"
'" ~
" "
~ ,
"'0:
=
00
=00
~'"
~
~
'"
~
"'
x
...,
'"
""
o
H
~
'"
~
0.
"
.
.
"
.
u
= ~
. .
,
.~"
0..
0" u
. ,
'""
.""
,..
"..
')
u
"
H
H
~ .
,..'"
" ~
.c '"
u ~LIl
II Q.I ".N
+lJ.J......a\
C 0 III ...
. ~ ."
+l (;!) ..'~ ~
~~.olo.lro"l
.-0:>00
c: /jI.-t ~ I
o tU a3'~ ""
U I-l ....-I r-
< C tUl'""-
~ .. e U......
ra H , ."'
:t~a1~C1\
'''C .....
~ ~ " 0
'" . k
:> ~
6...... .~
c:~a:
o~
... H
o
...
>
'..
o
.
~
"
U
~
'~
o
k
0.
"
o
..
"
. .
... "
" ,.,
k H
o '..
'" .Q 0
..... I'U C
H.c 0
I'll Ql..... 0
u.o::; ~ ITI
"...'"
k ~ "
~ ~ ~
"5 ~ ~ I
::J U) 0 " )
o (J en I
tI) U QI [zJ I
..... a:,..] I
~~ HI
O"V g:E I
lI) m'rl J
Qlllo.j,.l ,
U ~
k "
:J' .,-.!
0"'...
to1 C......
~ . .Q
'" ... ~
..c::,...c:a..
/jIO'l Ql"a:
C -.-I 0::: a.. I
'rol.:C I
l.l .j.J....... I
lll...... C\O I
Q.I Q IV r>1 I
c: E I I
..... >. 411'1 I
Cl.u :> lI'l !
C -,..f ItS..,. I
W U 0. N j"
,...,...
ZU
"'''' 0
Hr,U
....OUl3:
U"''''
0.0
: Ii ~
I .;[.]
, '"
, .. Z
i ~. j ~
l ~ ~ U)
I .... & .....J
,~ '"
1".81-1
Ie::, f5
: 8 ~ ...
:" ..; ~
,., ..
! , j
i ~ ;
" ..
r .:
, ,
, ~
,
, .
'"
....
~
H
....
UI
'"
....
ZUI
00
....u
....
U
;:0
'"
....
UI
Z
o
U
D
'"
..JUI
...... I~t:;~
~ I 00
"( I-<U
M
0'
Z
H
..J",
HCJ
"'",
&j3
'"
.. I 0..
'"
....
'"
'"
..J
'"
UI
o
0.
o
c:
0.
,,,,
a;1~U"I
[zJrZO
31~"""
0, UI
0.,
~i
0'
""
....,
i'ii
H'
....,
UI'
""
,
,
:UI
" ....
,H
",Z
z,'"
H,
::1'
""
z ,
H'
",
Z,
"',
,
,
,
:.:
UI
'"
....
........ ....
....V>....cn
ZOow
;:ou ....
Je5L1l
I.......,.
~IU<l).
'" '"
Cl ULn
Z w~
~ ....'"
~
o
k
0.
'"
CJ'"
z".
W...
'"
,.
....
H
....
Z
",.
'"
o
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, 0
, ~
, k
, 0
" U
'"
"'
N
'"
"'
"'
'"
cro
~
H
c>
~
,~
UI
"'
N
'"
cro
'"
'"
~
'"
N
"'
'"
".
'"
"'
'"
"'
'"
'"
".
'"
M
.
w
'"
H
..J
'"
....
o
....
'"
z
;2
"
*
~
,
..,
.c
X
w
N
'"
o
N
~
'"
.
0.
~
.
"
.
"
~ ~
. .
,
._"
C1....
.""
"
'""
,..
'"
".
) J ~
u
....
~~
..e
'"
~~ '
""
~ ~e
! ;
..
U
Ill. ..
. Q ~ ja
i i~ n
~ ~I
n~~! d!
'~II!!""
1~11~; a
;UUfa
aUtdlii~
m l!Ic a..ll
I,..' P'
I II!" a
!i ;;;8
! ~
i I~
j
"
~
~
i
I
~
"
'"
h
a
!
~
"
B
~
..
s
~
R
..
~~
~!/j
...~~.,-.:~~~
00000000
.; "';.,.;...;.,.:..:,...:..:..:
i
i f S
i2 ." . 5
I Il
I 1 H I~l
j ij~dJ
'"
!:!'
'"
..
N '"
N
N NN ~
.. ..
2: ~CI
........
.....
N
N
t:!~N
..
..
N ..
N'" NNN
.......
~CD~
fONNCD I
!:!
...... ..
~~.,
:::::
~N
NNN
.,:....;..,:
...'"
:!:!:!
_NI')"
IIt.;Pi.;coi
....:....:...:.,..:.,..:
~N..
.......
...:..,.;:....:..;
....N(f)
~~c!lI! ,...,..:
........-... ...:..:
!l
~
!!
~
~
~
..
~
~
..
g
I
J
~
III
'"
..
~
1
11
I
i
9
I
'5
..
r
)
-..,
~ ~ ::r
"':;/ = =
.. .. ..
~e .. ~
..
..
~ ~ .. ,! ~ .... .... i! !! :l
"':;/ ~ = l:I ...
1=1 /::1 - I- - - I~ ;i
~e 1;4
..
'" g ffIIrr~ ~:s; ; ! lil nl~ 11m ~
~~ -"';: - ;; I;; ~ll:Il
llIe
~ ..
:i ~ ~
::J 5i
OJ I..
..
<> <>
is
15 ~ !!!
g~ I is; ,~~~ ; ! ~ Ri UI~
n .... "';: a
- - - :;,- ... ;7i
....
..
.... .... .. ~ .. .... III
...~ ....
"
- .. ........ ~~ ....~ ::. ~
:,r8
~ ~
... ..= .... .. N" .. .. ~ 2
i1..8 .... ....
....
!it::!
3 .... .... i
"...8
.. rlli/
~
OJ 1I~ ~.. ..:;! .. ~-~ ..~ ~ :;! ~ .... ...... :;! !
-
",8
I;; -;:
I~ ~ - -- .. - .. -- ..........- III
.... ..
11 I",~ 0 ,'Q
:~~ :! . I
J w :a li 1! f
(If :0 1'l E
!/llr'" " ~ I jJ
~ ~" JIl! d! '''''.i j
j~= ~i! .. ~ f - I'"
fH J'llIl J I i1l11~ 'Q
z l '" il~f j "" 'ii ~
0 J'! a3j ~
~ .. ~ I~m j
; I ~J ::~ll ..= '" 'j r ~IlIJ ;1 1
!J~~ . 1
0 OJ )0 "l! - Ii:!" [.J j~, h"'.. " .I~
~ ; I ! I.. ~ ~I" j 'aH"' ~1I11! _ 0
I i ilLtH 8 0 - if d '~
'" [~ !J! . "' c .t" 5" lC a..
~ " OJ '" " '"
..
'" ~~t&!"":~~~ -.... -"''''''11I) ...... -....
:,r' 0________ NNN .. ., .. CIIJ~~~~~ ~,.; ,..;:,.; .CIici
...!i NftNN....NNNN "'Nroi .. .... .. NNNNNN NN NN NNN
~ '
.
11
II
;:: I
~I
51
Ii
0/
I
;~
~ NGINElRING
-nESOURCES .
Of ..mOl UIIIG.....IIL
03017159 (#12)
June 17, 2009
Mr. Dennis Barton, Assistant Public Works Director
City of Highland
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
SUBJECT: PACIFIC STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT,
PROJECT NO. 01a09001, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PROPOSAL
Dear Dennis:
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., (ERSC), hereby submits our proposal
for construction management and inspection services concerning the Pacific Street Pavement
Rehabilitation Project, Project No. 01a09001, Phase I, as requested by the City. To assist
ERSC in the inspection efforts, we will utilize personnel from the firm of CA1- WEST
Consultants, a Division of Aragon Geotechnical, Inc.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project for which our construction services proposal is being made is that designated and
described as Phase I of the Pacific Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, and extends from
Perris Hill Park Road in the City of San Bernardino, easterly to Victoria A venue, a distance
of approximately 12,000 linear feet. The street right-of-way passes through three
jurisdictions, that of the City of San Bernardino, the County of San Bernardino, and the City
of Highland. City of Highland, we understand will be the lead agency for the project.
Work as designed has been divided into three areas with differing construction techniques.
Area Nos. I and 2, Perris Hill Park Road to Sterling Avenue, will involve pulverization of
existing pavement, grluJing and compaction of subgrade, and repaving with hot-mix asphalt
(HMA) and rubberized hot-mix asphalt (RHMA). Area No.3, extending from Sterling
A venue to Victoria A venue will entail construction by header cut cold planing, cold-in-place
recycling (CIR), some AC R&R, and overlay with RHMA. There will also be limited
amounts of concrete removal and replacement throughout the work. Asphaltic concrete
quantity is estimated at about 13,000 tons.
1820 (OllllllcrM!U (IICII
S'M 8rIMUDIMo, (A 92408-3430
(909) 890-1255
(909) 890-0995 FAI
"
)
03017159 (#12)
Mr. Dennis Barton, Assistant Public Works Director
June 17,2009
Page 2
Estimated cost for the project is $2,268,000 including a 15 percent contingency allowance.
An allowance of 50 working days is anticipated for the construction period. Of this, 40 days
are anticipated for actual pavement construction, the balance for striping, installation of
traffic loops and other miscellaneous work,
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Proposed construction services will involve contract administration and field inspection.
Contract administration will include award services, scheduling and conduct of pre-
construction meeting, preparation of weekly statement of days, and preparation of pay
estimates and contract change orders. Services will also include clarification and response to
contractor's request for infomiation, attendance at meetings, site visits by the construction
services manager, review of contractor payroll submittals, and post construction services
including final pay estimate and recommendation for acceptance, and preparation of record
drawings. Project Manager will be the undersigned; Construction Services Manager for the
project will be Ms. Ella Puke who served as project engineer during the design.
Inspection services for Area Nos. I and 2 will involve observation and monitoring of traffic
control measures, pulverization of the existing asphaltic concrete pavement, grading, and
compaction of the subgrade, construction of pulverized base in Area 2, and observation and
monitoring of the HMA and RHMA pavements, as well as miscellaneous concrete removal
and replacements.
Inspection services for Area 3 will involve observation and monitoring of traffic control
measures, AC removal and replacement, cold planing, CIR mix design and sample area
construction, final CIR process and RHMA overlay, as well as miscellaneous concrete
removal and replacements. Mr. George Herold, ERSC's Public Works Inspector for the City
will be responsible for observation and monitoring of traffic control measures, grading and
compacting of subgrade, construction of pulverized base, construction of asphaltic concrete
pavement and overlay, pavement striping, traffic loops reconstruction, and miscellaneous
concrete construction. Mr. Herold will also be responsible for assisting the Construction
Services Manager in measurement and preparation of quantity estimates for use in preparing
progress pay estimates.
In developing staffing requirements for the construction services, we have estimated the need
of about two hours per day for Project Manager and/or Construction Services Manager, plus
miscellaneous tasks and administrative/clerical. For field inspection, we estimate an average
of six hours per day plus miscellaneous tasks of %20 hours.
')
,,--':
03017159 (#12)
Mr. Dennis Barton, Assistant Public Works Director
June 17, 2009
Page 3
CAL- WEST Consultants will be responsible for review of contractor's submittals, the
CIR/ AC mix design, Contractor CIR test and measurement test reports, field inspection!
monitoring of AC pulverization and gradation quality control, header cut cold planing, AC
R&R, and CIR construction. Also, the firm will conduct material sampling and compaction
testing of the subgrade, base materials, AC and CIR, and conduct any needed plant
monitoring of rubberized hot-mix asphaltic concrete preparation, CAL- WEST will also re-
mark the AC R&R areas in Area 3. Specifics ofCAL-WEST's services and estimated fee of
$51,028 are contained in that firm's proposal, copy enclosed. Their effort is allocated for the
anticipated 40-day pavement construction period. It also contains an allowance of 80 hours
for batch plant inspection,
We do not anticipate the need nor have we proposed to conduct any field survey. It is our
understanding that the County will provide a list of centerline monuments to be encountered,
will tie-out those at risk and will reset and prepare the required documentation. Contractor
will be required to set centerline control to achieve the cross slope specified.
Proposed tasks, staffing requirements, and efforts required are indicated on tbe accompanying
spreadsheet. With this, estimated fee for the construction services proposed is $108,600.
Allocation oftbis estimate amount the three participants would be:
42.7%, or $46,372 for the City of San Bernardino
34%, or $36,924 for the County of San Bernardino
and 23.3%, or $25,304 for the City of Highland
We thank you for the opportunity of submitting ERSCs proposal for the services required to
complete the project. Should there be any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
~ohn G. Egan, P,E.
Principal Engineer
JGE:ma
enc.
S:\Highland. City of\030171 ~9'const mgmt services proposal. wpd
) I : I~ ! ;81 I ~ i~ ! I' :~. :~ Ii ;1 ~ .~ :~ I~il i~: ..
:~ ! I I Ii
'jil :~ . I ,I - r- I !
I I e i I -!J11 ! !" I Ii I;;
~,~ :"
Ii ! '51I~ ,~ ~Ilil!lilj~ ~i ~ , I it,~ i~ i~ :~i '~ ilii~
'i a~ ~ !i la I 1- :0; I ' 8
: ..0 I
:>'" i i
.. i
8 , I , ~
I Ii I... I I
I ,
i I
:> I
..
I-- ~ ;
.... I
u~
iI!"
ZiW
.~~~~ 5l~ ~ ~Ililjliljlii llill ~ Iii I ~ ~ ~ il1liJlU!
. ' U
-II a - -
-
~ J~! .. ...... - ~
~
! Ii ~ on I
I; b I
! i II ....'" I .. .. .. '" ~~
~ 131~
~
' zm ~ ~~ I
'h c'" 8 .. ..
'. I!J~ ~- . I
...tiS
W Ii c .
~J~j'-iI! him .. , ~ !:! .. R~
r~ ~ ffii I ..
~
~ ... 2~ U
il!U ~ ~ .. 8 0
!II ~ ~... .
I iI ... l;;1l/
~~ i II !:! - * .. .. .. .. .. !:! .. .. - .. 1:;8
!II ~ .. '"8 -...
iJ !l w_ ~
z ~g !Ii
W :
~ I~ .... III '" '" .. '" t;j
!II Ii
0
uf- "
u
f-
~
I i
II rt
. ~
I
i J~_
on
eo '''91 ..
~I!i ... ~ ~ i~
~~13.. :i~:;YI '~
;"'U::> ;;i"'w;s 2
~5ti u~~~ I
...Ill.. ....if
!II..... ...."'8
..gol;! gS"
~d~r- ~iI!~lii'-!i
f"'<o. ,~.. I(,~
, ,;;/
<I) _I~ :J1
!AI Cl:W :i:.
~ :w!Z u
fJ ~ 150; 1$
I-,~ C)N0~UJ (3
J~ Q Z ~ !r '+ fa ;~
1'~~~~!i!2"O: ilii
!(!JQ-l~~:! ~
II.. U ~ g $ ~ ~f- ~
~ct'.tiawt;d~ ~
i
I~ II
r ! I:>
~ .. /..
0: i ..
I ~, ,i'
LII
1'- Bi~i
I , Ii
e Ii ~
!!I ~ ~
I .. ~
Ii:
12
':! Ill!
'is ..
, i~ i~
Iii 'i j
~ !~ ~
i 13~ W
:f)o I:!
U ~ ll! i
I~
Ii
I j~
:I~ ~
...... ,
ee 8
~
i
I
,
I
9
J
OJ
'"
i
.. ..I
.. .. ... I..
~ 2 ;: ~ !:! :! :! ,
y
J:AL-
WEST
Construction Materials Engineers
Testing & Inspection
.oj DivisitJII tJfMedal/, AragQII GeoleclllliCllf, file,
CALIFOR7\lIA . NEVADA
June 16', 2009
j:'>l,2.'i4pJ(ri,PRP
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
18.20 Commercenter Circle
' , '
San Bernardino, CA 92408
ATTN:
Mr. John G. Egan. P.E.
RE: Proposal for Public Works Inspection, Materials Inspection,
Testing and Engineering for Phase I
Pacific St. Pavement Rehabilitation
Project Number 01a09001, Job Number }.017.159
City of Highland, California,
Dear John:
I
In accordance with your Request for Proposal of June 12, 20M, We have
Prepared this ptopos.aI to perfornl the work required in your RFP,
It is our understanding that your inspectOi" willpcrfonn all the basic
i'nspections for this publlc works project. Out inspectors will perfonn
Public Works Inspection for th~ Cold.In Place-Recycling (CrR); Header
Cuts,and AC Pulverization, This includes monitoring the Contractors
operations on the specific Item, keeping track of quantities, and
checldng wjth the engineer to resolve questions on the plans & specs.
This does not include inspecting any other of the contractor's concurrent
operations.
!
.
f
j
.
The attached cost estimate is based on a review of the plans and
specifications and our best estimate of the time need to perform the
services requested.
I
RlversldeCounly: 16801 Van Buren Bo0levard. Riverside; CA 92504. Telephone (951) 776'0345. F,ax (951)
776.0395
.
"
.
,
I
Affiliates in Most MaJor Cities
"
)
Engincel~ing Resources of SOllthclTrCalifornia, Inc,
June 16,2009
Pilge 2
Our cost estimate to provide the above described services on this project
is $51,028. A copy of that estimate is attached as Exhibit I.
Wc c'an start our workupon receipt. of your authorization.
If you have any questi0l1S, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very. truly YOUTS,
~
'Wb,)~ ~~~
Ronald F. Carducci, P.E.
Materials Engineer
. RfC: be\zS4'O,361 J>}{I' -Pacllk Strccl:l'avcrm,:nt RchahllJtatllln p'mJcc!
Attachment
CAL-WEST CONSULTANTS
f
I
I
I
I
f
j
,
.
I
I
,
,
.
t
I
, C'"
I ~~~
: ei 0-
l.i.i II aU
~,
. ~ I t:;!-o
. < I zo'"
f 2':Ju
I II ~! "'~
I { 0.1 ~ (ja I
! .i ! ~
I ~ I ~,~~
I~ ~ I ~ I I
~ '2 0
I~J ~1'11~~1
I ~ 11'" a ,
1~~21ii1~1~~1
ot.:;9d ~ ~foI')
J~~~'1I~ I
I ~ .,; U I I I
! ~!ffi ~, ' '" '
12 :E":' ~ I I' ~
I ~ '"O~ ~ ::l
"Q, >. 0' I
IJiao~ ~
~g~JI ~I
~~~~I15 ~ I
~ g/ i ~ ~ }
I~~!I I~ii!
l~j"'~1 ~~,i~, ~
" ~< o.",,~ _ _
i,2i~ ~~~ ~ 56
~<~~I g i:lC~ ~ [ ~,
~::if-oa: .. "~.$.5.s.Ei
[:1z"'o ,~oJl. Jl Jl
~B8~1 11~g:J 1 J ~g
U r:::J it'" ~ .,g co.,g. ~ J:! ~
I,.J ..c =.C1 .c _ .c 'C
'" I 0. Ii:'~ ~ ~ B ~ ~.
z ~ 15Q..a iS~5"'3~
O;;! -"-"'2"920..
() :> ~<~B~~~~~
"
)
u
.s
j
Ol
u
'2
.c
:i ~ . S
='5"'QV"I
:! u ~ ~.
-oCQ('ll1l"l
~ = = .- ;3;
~'~~~Q
U ~ :1......0
~"''''''''
f." "'= C <U t'
~ ~ cu u_
~ ~ > u"V:;
=~-"OO\.
u <::I i:ii-
~::E~~
u'a.....~
.~ ~
';
i5
<
~ I ~~~
c , I- CI:l..,.
~IOO-
ic-u
o
o
o
'"
><
<
a
o
~
~
~
:Ii
~
'"
'"
o
o
:Ii
~
'"
'"
o
~;
'"
o
'"
'"
N
o
...
"1
o
N
l
.SO
-;
>
~
o
'"
q
o
.;
:E .~
...::0:
~
'"
'"
O~
~~
i!'"
- '"
-eN
,.;
i ~ !
l';b ,
i ~ I
'1, '
!
I
I
I
i
~
~
o
..
10
I '
10
i
I
I~
I !
1 ~ I
101
/- j
101
10
I I
I
I
f
I
i
i
10
II
~i"
, 15
.... a
~!~
,_ I"
'": 2i
'....
!~
:....
1 .
:z
:0
i~
I~
I~
,~
1<
,::0:
~iS8~
oo_~_
...,...,...;101')
..
ga;:
- ..
..
..~
"":0
. .
~;;; .
~~:i:
'.
.c .
~-=
....::0:
t--MOO
N~
'"
~
-
"
.~
ii
C
.
>
;f
'"
=
'C
"
"
'"
5
~
~
<II c: ~
";jj ~.5
~.:: e-
, -
~t.8"~ ~o
~-g:3~
J;~tCi
'"
'"
,.;
'"
~
~
o
'"
o
o
'"
~
N
,~
iN
I
10
'0
!
i
g
!-o
~
'"
- '"
1:::"-
e::
~ !'.
w~
. ~
l! S
~Jl
- .
- e
8u
;:: ..:. ...;
..=:: ~"".
;::0"';" !:o!
~'i~
;a~a::
)
<J
oS
)
..
u
.2
!l1i :!;
BB~(G
"3~.:Q';;lt1
~ C C .- v
;'~~ES
u.a :=..9..0
"",<~~!=:
V)_~<'lI~::::
.~:-; >.." '"
."':1-"1:10-
l.u 0':;;; '-"
~:E~~
u '0 - ==
" '"
"
"::::J
.,
6
<
,
r
i
i
i
I
u
I .~
I .~
~
I :g
.c
I.s u
, e ~
..,2.=
I' ~ ~
u ~
I, j ~
-;;;! t CJ'\
I :::I ~~
I ~ "''': iil
~~9C3
1 11 ~8 ~
'''' Q.,:ll:
, i! 'u
I . ." '"
~h:i2
I ~ :.Q, 0..
'S :E - ~
I g '0 ~ :;
I .~ ~1i ..,.
!~cJo~
i . .. .
i!i ~L:
I ~ aa q
i u ~~ ~
! ~ g I
' "' ~
I "' 0
i g; ~ I
I <:> "'
1:=;~m~~I'
,~ < <
'! ;gO
I' ~ <E ~
~::gf-- 0::
I :l: ~ f8 ~
j"" ;::u 0
I U' U ....
, '" '"
I'i ;
u >
"
..
.
.c
'"
'"
g
N
.,.;
-''''
<....-
...."'...
00-
....u
u
"
.;:
,
i t~~
I ~ en..,
I el 0-
~IOU
;31
;i 'I !2 ~
on "'u
itl
01 ' '"
f ~'::J~I
I:;: j u ,
~ I I
r ~ I ~a I
o _
;(l I ~ I ~~ Ii
,~ e;
III~!I
112 i ,
I", I
~ I ~ I
illiG 1
~I~ I
"' ~ I
I
I u
:~
jf
I j
'0
.
u
Ii
i~
I 0
,~
'"
~
'"
o
.
Ii .
....:i:
..c:i ~
~ .-:;
....~
N~8
..,
.Q
"I
"
5
"
:!l
~
>.
.<;:: ~
. "
d~
s....
,.:J u
s...
... &4:j
~.c",
:E~~
"'@'"
~ '"
N _
<A-....;-"""
...
'"
'"
o
...
o
..
'"
o
.;
" 0
o
i
,
I~
I
i~
i
i
,
o
o
;i
~
'"
'"
'"
'"
:!;
.."
...
OOOOON
'VXlV'lXl-Xl.....
N-NNOO_
\A""'''''''''''''''';lA
...
~~~~
-""'N_
... .....
Vl"'l'<tV'l
0000
.
:;;
~
.~
..
,
CI
."
"
.
.
;;;
~
.~
~
Co
!i
u
"" "" "l ~
~~~~~
..d i3
u -
~j
NN-NNO
"'..
N
"
.
.
'"
"
.2
~ 'I.l
'S ~
e'"
09'0
~~
.~'~
<Il 5 ~ ~
i-i o"g
-; s. e:O
~L3"~ g:a ~
u '0 Ci.- c. rJ
~">~~'"
~~o::~~~
.
,
o
u
3
"8
.
i
ij
.C
~
;f
..;
N
'"
'"
...;
..
O~x058a:;;;
~("'.~8NN 'n
""_...,;....-r-:r-. ""
""""""loI'tlo"t
'"
'"
o
..
g;(lgx
("1 NC"'I:;;
vt bOlt..., t.I't
o
o
~
0.....1"1'
"';N...o-o
o
...
I~
I~
!
."
~
C
u
.c
.c
,
'"
oIij
rj
o:i
~
....
'U
~<
">' :I)
. "OI""'lIoCOOOOO:ii
':r-. ("1....0000 ~
e~ -
0"';
II
<
~
;>00
~~o
'" "'l '" '"
~~~~~:E~
" " "'"
..c..c..cu
~~~-=
............::;
;i
....
g
'"
'"
on
'"
"a
u
....
~ ~
fi "~ g
o~!-~~
."_ c ~ -g -.=".::
"2 -< ~ ~ tl
2 "2 u g!- f-o
:9 ,:j);"e"~ g
U<ii >>":;; &tl u
...0: c '" co ~
c c.!l.sc.c.
~ "9 0 .... S S
o ~sa88
~~~sS:~.:;a"
-a:B ~";< 'B -a-g,]
<i5o~.a1<~i
.!I
u
~
U
..
-a
<
--i
o
;>
'"
--i
N
...
8::<
';0
"'~
...
JC!
'0
I
I'"
~~
o
o
N
o
o
- ~
t:15
~'::
GS ~I)
~
g
~
on
~ ~
aJi
~ 8
yU
g~';;
N'":' W
~ ~.~
;a.... a..
)
'. v
oS
::;
u
'2
:l ~ . ~
= - ~."
S ~ 2: ~ .
"3 ~ ~ ~ ~
a'OuE$
UO~~.g-o
'::I c::l - "
h.q;; car--
~ _>1'Il .:::
~ <; U It"l
~ "E.;:; ~ ~
~~~~
U:": ~ - >
. 0 iii
=
.~ .
.,
is
<
'" '
g'
"I
~j;i~~
" I ....0"'..
, 0 -
~ f-U
I
I I ~~~
! ' el 0 ~
1 Lij I aU
I .... ,
I < ,
- 0 II:: f-
I J ~ I s8 I
III 0, ,,, I
"0' g: I ~ ' ~ a
.d:; j < j U/
I .~ 1 ~ I
I~' 1;I~al
I~I ;(l1'~I~~1
I~tf ~.e;
1~~~'.1~1"'01
v:I CI)~ ~ < <:>..
1'- u - ::= z...
. ~ ~9 ~ l.l.lwot
r ~. ~~ ~ ta-
I J]~ j I I
I ~ ~~ ~. , ~
/'C :i!- -II z /
.! ~~~. I'"
IJi~~~ ~,.
Im#11111
'/1 'I I
i m ~ I I
3 ~~ ~ '
i < 0
t..lf-~o ~
t; :i12~ ~
~ .oII!:f-o a:
:l: z'" 0
~ @8 ~
r 1 II
u
"
5'
<l:
if
[ ~ ~
" '0 5 .
". ~ Co
-0 .~ ~
I ~ ~ ~
.5 ';; S
ti ,S'~
..~ ~H
Jj ':4 8 "S
.; tliuo
g~i~
... '" I"
".. "
'" ,'"
~ ,..
I
1
I
I
I
o
.,;
;;j
~Ji
.u
~
"
'"
"'N
..-
"
I I",
118
I"':
1~
I,
I!
I I
! !
i!
i i
Ii
Ii
II
I i I
I I I
::!/!::! II::!
./1
I ~ I' i ~
I '
I q I. q
o II ~
I,' q Ii q
'" 'I '"
I I,
II"
i/
II
, I
II
II
I! g
I....
, is
!.I,<
, '",
I' j <:>
I
, !
I!
II
I I
II
- '"
1::""
1'3~
:r: ~
>< "
"'0::
;i
....
r:
'"
'"
'"
H
E.,;
. .
8u
g,;,;;
~';'~
:;:7; :4
>,Q,..,Q"
,
FEE SCHEDULE
MEDALL. ARAG6N. GEOtECHNfCAL..INc.(MAG) & CAL.WEST CONSULTANTS (CWC) provides consulting services in the fields of so,ls
'\ and f6undc:Jtioll' engihperilig, engineering geolog-y, ,earthquake engineerin~.. fault studies, m;:lterral testing, aroundw;ller geoloQy .1nd
"environmental sludies. Compensation for services will be based on the fOllowIng fee schedule,
$144<00
$.132,00
$200.00
$ 36.00
5160.00
519000
. . ... 5200.00
515000
5200.00
5156.00
5.120.00
5120.00
$ 11.00
$. 18,00.
5250 00
$260.00
$ 90M
$ 80.00
$ 8000
$ 6000
.......... $ 80.00
....... $ 80.00
$200,00
$ 90.00
$130.00.
$130.00
$ 90.00
.$100.00
$ 95.00
513000
$17500
.. $9000
...... Quote
Quote
510000
$ 50.00
$270.00
$300.00
$.13000
. . . . . , 575.00/hr<
LABORATORY TESTING
Sell & Aggregate-
Camp:action T~st (6- di~me_ter mold) A~TM 0 155'7 -M,ethod C
Compacti,on Test"j4- diam. mold) ASTM 0' 1~57-MethodsA&B'
Consolidation Test. A'STM 0 2435.-Melhod.A-.
Time .Consolid<:illorr Test.(pel incramerit)
Dired Shear Tesr (drive-tube Sample) ,
Direct Shear Test (remolded sample)
direcI Shear peSt'(resi!:lual)
.ExQanslon Index Jest _"ASTM 0 ~a.29. . .. ; . " .. .
'HyarOmelerAnalYSiS'(E>:cluding.Sieve). A&TM 0 422
Relative Oensity . cA'Test 21:6 " .. . .
Liquid~ Limit (LLt & Plastic Lirnil.(pl}' ASTM 0-4318
Sieve AnalYSIS (Fine,& Coars'el.~STM'C 1.36. . . . .
Moisture Content Oelermi.nation -.A:,STMD 22,16 . . .
~.,ais'ture-Densjty Test - ASn.~,- 02937, .. .. ... . . . .
.RfV'alue Test (~!1Ii'e:atec:j):- C~ Tesf 301 or ASTM 2844 .
R~Value-Test (treated-)- CA Test 301 ,or ASTM:2844: ,..
SaM Equ,ivaJent Test - dA Test 217' . . _. . . . . . . , . .
Specific Gravity & Absorpi~on. Fine. ASTI\jfC 126
Speciffc'G'ra_vitY&Ab$or:pJiQn. Coarse-. ASTM C 127'
Sulfate Con lent Test '.
Wash 'Sieve Analysis (20O:si~ve' Only! .
Absolu'te, Specific Gravlty-. Fihe"5 CA Test 208- .
Lightweight PieceSfof Aggregale_ - ASTM C' '23:
Clay Lumps: &- Friable P:artfc:l~s . ASTM C 142 .,....
flat.Df EIOf'!ga~ Particles ~ ASTM Gl4-791 ... . . '. .'.
P~r~n~ Crus!led Pii.rtiCles,- CA Te$1-.205: .,.
S,oun.dneS~(t?-CyC.~~iu'm SiJlfoilterper sieve ~ ASTM G 88 . . .
Organic lmpuilties in S~rKt... AS:TM.c; llq
Dlmib.ility. Test. CA Te5(228. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cleanness Value. CA Tesf227 .....
'.LA Rattler f5ElO'R!!v,) -,ASTM C ;131 &: C 53'S
DIY RocJded l)f1HWeight - ~STM 0:29 ,
Permeabilily Test -.ASTM .. .:. . , .
Triaxlal_ ComJjtes5'ion Te~h AS'!M
Corrosion T esl
RocttPoinlLoad Tesl ,... ,_".
. UnC;:O,n'ffned'CompressIQn :rest
Gallf(Jry1ia-~eating Ra.l!o Tes.t . .
S~e~fr~'Giavfly-ASTM D8~ ".;. ,... .... . .
OU,-er:SpecialTests. ..'.....,...,... _..._.,._.,....,.
C:;orter,.te &: Masonry
Conaele Compressive Strenglbt(Tested. or HOld) ASTM C39
Mortar'Comp. Stretlgth-(Tested &, tioid)_. uee STD. 24-22
Gr.oufComp. Sfrength-(Jested.&.Hoid)'.;lJ.BC'SrO. -24-28 "
Sp(tci~!i=. Gra~ity-of ~ore.- ASTM ~ 6:42
Concrete .Care (fndudirig IiLmming)" ASJM c 42
ConcreleF-lex..Slrength- (e~CH).ASTM C'7-B & C 293
Concrete Shrinkage Bars. .c~et 013) Asnlc 151: . . . . . . . . .
Concrete Trial Batch. AST:M C ,192
Asphal(
Exu-af:;tion & Gr~da!ian . ASTM 0 ~jjt & 05444 .
Ignition Overt ('"arri:!CliQO Factor - A~T~ 0 f?307
Unli Weigh'l (S~D) - ASTMD 2726
Unil Weight (ParaffinC:oaiedr AS:rM 0 2726 . . . .
Air Vo.id Uet"errmination -A~TM 0 ':)203 .
\tarshall Stability & Unil'Weight (Se( of 3)' ASTM
RiceSpecifiC'Gravity-ASTM.D2Q41.. .......
Ten'sile Sfre_.nglh ~~tlo-~ASTM f>4lJ67 ",. . , .
CEmtrifiJge~Kerosene EQuivaleAf ~ CA TE$-T30;J : .
S_-Value-CA T.eSf3d4 ...... .'. :.... _.'..
swe:li T~st-(diive-tutle.sample) - eA Test ,305 . . . .
MVS Tes-t ~ CA Te':tl30t
Asph'oilfCo!lcrete Mix Design -, MA8SHAl.L or tlVEEM
_ Cere Measurements _ ASTM 0 3549 lEach)
>ces'-notjndude SpeCimen 'Fabrication.
. ~II r;os'ts. are fOli samp!es and/or ~pecir)1ens' delivered to our latloralory.
5 25.00
5 25.00
$ 25.00
$ 15.00
5 45.00
$ 90.00
5350.00
Quote
$250.00
5200.00
$ 2~00
$ 35.00
$ 90.00
5200.00
$120.00
$600 00
5200.0Q
$225.00
$180.00
5240.00
Quote
$ 15.00
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL STAFF
Principal Engineer
Principal Geologist
Senior Engineer
Senior Geologist
Project E.ngineer
Project Geolcigis\ . .
Slaff Engineer
Slatt Geologist. . .... .,..
Project ManagenSupervising Technician
SenloJ Technician (Prevailing Wage) ..
Senior Tectlnj~a.n (SOIIlConcr~te/St.ee')'
Laboralory Technician.
OraftspersoR "
GeoteChnical Assistant
Technical Word Processing
Forensic ConsultIng (4 hrs. minimum) . .
PUbijc Works Inspector " . .
'Public Works Inspector (Prevailing Wag~)
Uilrasonic Testing
S14C.OO/hr
,. .$140 OiJ/hr
5119 GO,hr.
$l1{) CO; hr.
$1 OS C'lOitH
:)105 COihr
S 85 00ihr .
. , 5 85 OQ/hr
's 8S GO/tlr.
5 85,OOihr
S i"~ OQ,hr
.. , . . . . . .. S 75.00,h;..
..... .. ..., -. S .75.00lhr
S 45 OO/hr..
. . ..5 4500/hr.
5250 OO/hr,
. . . , 5 85 ElOihr.
S 90.00thr
S 850OJhr.
Overtime for technical personnel WfJfbe charged 'allhe base rate limes 1 5 per
hour for time:i" exces.s,ol'8 hours, but less Ihan 12 tlours, per-day, Saturdays.
Sundays. and holidays. Time- ovtlr 1-2 hours per day will be ch<lrged 'al the
base rate times 2. There:is,a .minimum charge of4.tlC;>ufS'.
liMIT OF PROPOSAL VAl'Il'TY
This prOposal is 'valid. .lor 60 days. MAG & 'CWC resel'ves the ligM 10
renegotiate the-fee'and COmpletion-data if'aulhoriza"tion is not received wilhin.
60 days.
EXPENSES
Project relatedexpenses.-will be invoiced as-follows.
<.1) 041-of.pocket expenses, (travel. telephone., <Jenal phOlogfajJl:!s, special
equipment rental, supplies., expendable items) an'J $Ul:lCOf!lm.ctms at
cos1 plus 20 %.
.(:2) Reproduction: $0._30 per page,: 5l0.oo pel" blue print; postago elf cost.
Facsimile TransmissiOn: $7'50 (up to 10 pages)
'(3). Travel time: at 1l1e /Jotlrly rate-shown: abo\le, portal to portal
(4:)' FQf werk, wpidl requires, 'overnight fodging away from ~ome, a per diem
.charge will be m~.de appropriate to Ine area, basel1 on.actu:!1 costs plus
.20%.
(5) Charges for use' of field vehides,st::irldard sartlJ?ling; tool~. and rout.ne
field testing. equipment S40.00/dav, or S'0.55 per mile, whichever is
greater. Mileage rate Is Subject to change if gasoline costs iDcrease
signjficantlYt
(6) [aboratcfry scfm,ples will be stored (or 39 days at no charg~ If ranger .
stoFage'i~ requirec:f, a storage fee will be charged.
"(7) fncfinomeler usage. Arcos! plus'15c,~. Seismograph usage' $150.00/d.d)"
INVO'CING
Invoice~ Will be issued biweekly, or monthly and are p3yaote upon
presentation ot invoice, or: in accOrdance With the terms of rhecontract, If
differeM. lllleresl ot 1 '/1 % per month, but not exceeding the m.1)(imum rale
allowed bylaw,. will be paYable. on any amounts not POlid in 3(::cordance Wlttl
lhe biliing terms. Payments thereafter will be appli,ed first t'o the ~cnued
interest and.then to.tha-principal unpaid amount. Ahy iJltomey's fees or ott'.er
costs Incurredln COllecting any delinquentamoun'i shall be paid bY.lhc client.
EFFECTIVE,
July 1~ 2006 (changes_ cortlmerisumte fo labor lXll'il rT1;J5' f)rilnade 'NIl/lout
notice).
Medall;Arago" Geotechncal, hio. & Cal-West Consl,dtants
)
")
~. _. . . ,.'~ ....... "'
\'\'....;,;...A-;.-: .:.>,- . '1'0 f~-z..../. ' . V :' -,- ;... ,>'" <_-.~ :.'....~ N.."j.~~""~ ~., ',' .....~....
--_......"":f~:; ::' ".... ~.<.:.d.'" .'., .,.<;., .'. ," '.. ...//<<> .....~,:j(~;.
I..-;"",,,:.~,\.o.~:.-. .,,~ .'~- ':":'~ i-"i;..,~",::,.:'$:~:- .~.,:~" '.;.::;.:.;..... /X.;..'::-:'';,-::':-'; . "~<>~':'~
'.'........J... ...,~,/ " ',~"l:':\;'.~" .,~ . ..... ...==-z:~.... " ", _ ,/ .... I _ _'_
.~;.~-.:.. .~. , 't':;,'-l. .r....._.__..~ "";",,..- , -__"_,, "';'.,_ .,. '7'-~' .. ,.'
~,..-,., //':'fill::'" 'I' -'-...- :iJ'~ ...-~...", ,....,}-'- I ....1.-.....',,".... _",-,-- I "
~J>-:~~.",>,,:f~: -: '; ,..\-..""t..-!-~.1:-~..-,- -, ~~..~ l""'~~-t:.- _-.,~ ,-..... 'J,~:..:..;__/ /~..
.V.: ....~ . /~ 121 " j.JI"' , r II . ,},. '. '", _, ':1 .
!'.:!!~.~.. ';"';~13'> ,h";' :.......-/'..1 'lo.,l~ 9 . 8' d, '1 .. 8' ~""5 p~' J 'l'."_.'..' '':/ /,
/ JF'fItS::.''-; - ~ .J .r _'_.;-; /;
. ."/./"IIAS.,. .'.:.j~' j' I I J,
r' ., /, ':--....,.v,A:. - L..J II
,.-:' ";':0<<';<<.;.,,';<' . ... __nOn .nn_. nt ';
t-~:~;$~;0~~~:~>"_.: "'~ '.. - ~. ~I " /'
..t.;:.f~tJ ,; 1';- I_h__~~ .. +--- --f -. ~~:~~i:""!".
!:!~- t"'o'j" - I 'I " I 39 39 37 36 35' 34 33 32 31 .'./ _~...
V(::; ~' .5 .. "-
k?'::: : , .::\ . ....,,,.
r::::.,: I.... :".','.. ". ....
k;:7~~. ' \, '~";~h; '.:' :'. ....::,:...... .
I..' 'I",,"\.. .
:=, .. .'\ .' .,'-::>..... ~"';o....: .......... 41
l.., -.. X'. ..j! '. _.:. 42
\:$;..:..~;<:,>-~, 1...;:'-.... 4J
: ~<.:j~~:~~~~.~:~~~~~e-,=>~~::.;?;~.'j.~..~:;....;.:.,;.;,:.....;.... 44
I <:~~':':/;/;/.."" . .,:~~C..,;I,:".~... i . _ ~",
~(W'l"~!,j ...........~../... 41..,..~_',.'~J...""- ......
","-." :"'.' '"ll:..:"Lt.-.,~ ,. '.... _'. -....;;.
..; :,:,.':'1-:l___~..1 :-J~,~' ~.: "'" ," .......
,I. :::;:'::"'Z~.-' _.,',~.("'~,",_.'",~;-",,, .......
~//<< d~, ','~ ' ".<j7)b...o ~;:~ ~:=.~.'~~.'.~.,.
..... ~.r-:.,,<t~..<;~v'-;~ ~,";....../ .~-". ..,.....". '~
..." "~( ;;:;;.;.:.., ::>~ti:;;Z;~":~"
'....:.~.(v,;&"" s.,......'!... ;:,_'.)'
"""X",,"..' :s., './ 26
"<'~.$:,;~.~,,:. " ~ ....w
'-"4;... '.. ,(
>f;::'N< .~,....'
-,-,<.(..~,?
"'-::.;
~
40
30
29
28
Z7
~,:
"
".
L!:O~NO
"
."'t.
~
WfQ) .....'..11<<.... t:lfY
'..
'.
r..?!"'1
,",'Ol""-..
n.''''~IONI
f' ~."1
SI'WCT~
~
;;.~.;'1....'!
&I- WEl zo'&
,.
r~<!,l...
. .'v.tf->
L S A
~
'\ 0 I.Jll 200
FrET
FIGURE 7
"Iii ,( ~ '.;,Ip(: '':'.''''1,: '_-~'r:J:l\1 ,:(SJ.I\ 3.:mJrJlIlu I:C,;61
Tentative Trad 16794-
Initial St"<!y
Fuel Modification Zones
.1. (.'.i~_ 1<_ '\'1:<1'-1.> ,:) l;o;~_"'~lUll>.l_m,Jl'}I'~'J")')i
)
CITY OF SA:\' BER..'1ARDI~O
DEVELOP:\IE:\'T SERVICES
I:\'ITIAL STl"DY
"l/I HYDROLOGY -\:\'D W -\ TER
i Potentially Less Than Slgnlticant I Less Than
.......
. . Sigmficant with \fitlgauon Sigmficant :
QLAUTY: Would the project: Impact Inc~orated l'!!!>'lct :\'0 Impact
i a) Violate any water quality stahdards or 0 0 ~ 0
waste discharge requirements'?
,
I b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies 0 0 ~ 0
, or interfere substantially wIth groundwater
I recharge such that there would be a net
delicit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
, the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby
, wells would drop to a level which would
I not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
, 0 0 ~ 0
I c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
, tld'ough Ii.. alt.ration of the course of a
I stream or river, in a manner, which would
, result in substantial erosion or siltation on
, site or off site during construction?
,
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 ~ 0
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
I manner, which would result in flooding on
l site or off site?
I eJ Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 ~ 0
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
post-construction polluted runoff, such as
from areas of material storage, vehicle or I
equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste I
handling, hazardous materials handling or i
: storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or I
, other outdoor areas'? I
,
, 0
~) Otherwise substantially degr:ide water 0 ~ 0
quality or beneliclal uses?
,
h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 ~
structures, which would impede or redIrect
tlood tlows?
....
IS 42
)
CITY OF SAN BER.'\'ARDINO
OEVELOP:\-IENT SERVICES
INITIAL sn:OY
\"11/. HYDROLOGY A,'iD WATER Po[ennally I Less Than Slgmticanr Less Than
QL:ALlTY: Would lhe projecl: Significant with .\1iugation Slb'l1ificant
Impact Incomerated Imeacl Nel~cl
i I) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 !:8J
nsk of loss. injury, or death involving
I flooding as a result of a levee or dam'!
i
,
I J) Expose people or propeny to inundation by 0 0 !:8J 0
I
I seiche. tsunami. or mud/low'!
Disc/lssion
VlI!.a
COllstmction-Related Impacts. Construction of the preposed development will require grading and
excavation activities. which may allow eroded soils and other pollutants to enter the storm drain system.
Pollutants such as sediment. nutrients. heavy metals, toxic organics, trash and debris, and contaminants
may be conveyed by storm runoff of impermeable surfaces (e.g., parking lots). The City implements
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for surface water discharge for
all qualifying projects, including the project site. The development of the property will result in the
improvement of the site, including buildings and other impervious surfaces. The developer will be
required to retain 100-year storm flows on site. The City Engineer requires the preparation of hydrology
analysis to assure that on-site retention or detention is sufficient to accomplish this requirement.
')
Any construction project resulting in the disturbance of LO acre or more requires an NPDES pennit.
Additionally, the City has prepared a Storm Waler Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that details the
Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction to mitigale
construction-related water quality impacts. Development of the project .site is in excess of one acre;
therefore, the project is required to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit. During the construction
period, the project would use a series of BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation. These measures
may include the use of gravel bags, silt fences, hay bales, check dams, hydroseed, and soil binders. The
construction contractor would be required to operate and maintain these controls throughout lhe
duration of on-site activities. In addition, the construction contractor would be required to actively
maintain the SWPPP and an inspection log. Both the SWPPP and inspection log are required to be on
site al all times in the event a site inspection is conducted by City or representatives of the RWQCB.
With implementation of the eroslOlIIsedimentatiolllpollution control measures required in the NPDES
construction permit, short.term construction.related water quality impacts would be reduced to below a
level of significance.
Operational Water Quality Impacts. Runoff from landscaped areas would result in elevated levels of
phosphorous, nitrogen, and suspended solids. Oil and other hydrocarbons from vehicles arc also
expected in stormwater runoff. Nutrients Irom this runoff could promote algae growth in local drainage
ways as well as contribute to degradation of surface water quality.
,
Pollutant concentrations in urban runoff are extremely variable and are dependent on storm inlensity,
land use. elapsed time since previous storms, and the volume of runoff generated in a given area that
reaches a receiving water body. The pOlential water quality impacts are similarly variable and relaled to
the increase in the peak runoff, the type and extent of new urban uses, and the sensilivity of the
receiving water. Development of the project could result in increased peak /low and pollutant loads in
the local drainage ways.
[S 43
)
CITY OF SAN BER.~ARDL'liO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
I:\'ITIAL sn:DY
Sinc. :00-1, post-construellon unpacts assoCIated with urban runoff have been addressed through the
pr.paratlOn of Wat.r Quality \!Jnagement Pions (WQ:'IP). :"ew d.velopment projects sub milled for
approval after june I, 200-1, are reqUIred to submit a project-specific WQ:'IP prior to the tirst
discrellonary project approval or pennit. I The project-specific WQMP' must identifY B\1Ps (including
design criteria for treatment control) that are applicable to the project site. The primary objective of the
WQMP, by addressing site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs apphed on a project-
specific and/or sub-regional or regional basis, is to ensure that the land use approval and pennitting
process of the City would minimize the cumulative regional impact of urban runoff The WQMP would
be required to be incorporated by reference or attached to the project's SWPPP as the Post-Conslnlction
\!Jnagement Plan.
The proposed project would incorporate on-site drainage that would have hydrodynamic infrastructure
components that would meet the City's water quality requirements. Submittal of a Notice of Intent
(NO!) is a standard requirement of all development that disturbs more than one acre of land, The
proposed project's SWPPP and WQMP have been submitted to and approved by the City's Water
Quality Compliance Officer. For development of the site to occur, the construction plans and project
design will incorporate the measures identified in the SWPPP and WQMP. Compliance with the
measures identified in the SWPPP and WQMP would reduce the potential construction and operational
water quality impacts associated with the proposed development to a less than significant level.
Adherence to the measures detailed in the approved SWPPP and WQMP, as well as compliance with
NPDES pennit requirements, would ensure no project-related water quality impact would result from
development of the project site as proposed. No mitigation is required.
)
VIIJ.b Based on consumption rate of 546 gallons per day per residence,' the domestic water demand for the
proposed u residential uses would total approximately 23,478 gallons per day. The San Bernardino
Municipal Water Depanment's (SBMWD) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Update
(December 2005) documents water supply reliability and outlines water use efficiency measures
adopted to ensure adequate water supply in the service area. Included in the UWMP is an estimate of
future needs based on population growth in the City. With the exception of the Verdemont area, the City
is predominantly built out; therefore, development such as the proposed project will likely malee up the
future growth in the City. The UWMP identifies additional customers between 2005 and 20 I 0, based on
the amount of vacant land remaining in the City. As the proposed project is consistent with existing land
use designations utilized to detennine future water demand, the proposed 43 residential units would be
included in the SBMWD's detennination of future water demand.
The SBMWD produces its water supply from groundwater wells located throughout its service area,
Recharge of the aquifer is generally through local precipitation and by stream /low from rain and
snowmelt from the San Bernardino Mountains watershed. Direct additions to or withdrawals of
groundwater via wells are not elements of this project. The project site is located within the Bunker Hill
Groundwater Basin of the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed. While development of the proposed
reSidential uses and associated infrastructure will result in the installation of impenneable surfaces,
compared to the size of the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin (80,443 acres),' the partial loss of less than
penneable surface area within the project site is not significant. Since 1972, in excess of 150,000 acre-
feet of imported State Project Water has been recharged into the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin, which
San Bernardino Count}' Stormw:l!.:r Program, ",\-Iodel Water Quality \1anagcmcnl Plan," rcviscJ June 2005.
Prehmmary Wat.r Quality :l<lanagement Plan, for Tract :-10. 16794, MAPCO Inc., :l<lay 2008.
City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Departmenr. Customer Service Depilrtment. July 2006.
C.lllfomiJ Department of Water Resources. 1994.
IS 44
)
CITY OF SAN BER.'\'ARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL Sn;DY
has the ""pacllY to provIde 70,000 acre-feet (22.83 billion gallons) of water per year.' The S8:-'IWD
distributes 16.66 billion gallons of water annually. The proposed project represents a negligible loss of
permeable surface area for the 8unker Hill Groundwater 8asin and an incremental increase in demand
within the Bunker Hill Groundwater 8asin.
The proposed project would not contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge as proposed by development of the project. Therefore, no sIgnificant impact to
groundwater resources would occur. ~o mitigation is required.
Vlll."-e Currently, two on-site features drain the property. Dramage A [otals approximately 1,065 linear feet and
varies in width from 1-3 feet with an average width of 2 feel. Drainage B is composed of a single
segment, which totals approximately 835 linear feet and varies in width from 1-3 feet with an average
width of 2 feet.
The City of San 8ernardino Public Works Division administers storm drain and flood control facilities
within the City. The storm drain system has been divided into sub-areas within the City based upon the
San 8ernardino County Flood Control District's Comprehensive Storm Drain Plans. The project is
located within Storm Drain Sub-Area 4, which corresponds to a portion of Comprehensive Storm Drain
Plan No.7, which COVers the northwesterly portion of the City. Development of the project site would
increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the form of building pads, driveways, and roadways,
"'.
)
The design of the project will incorporate a concrete channel along the northern property boundlU)' that
will intercept and route off-site storm and debris flows to the proposed on-site detention basin located
on Lot 13 at the northwestern corner of the property. An existing 54-inch RCP storm drain in
Verdemont Drive will be extended north on Palm Avenue to connect to detention basin's discharge
outlet. Slotted CMP risers in the detention basin will retard discharge rates and provide desiltation of
intercepted flows. The residential lots will individually incorporate 500-square foot detention basins to
attenuate on-site post-development flows, which will discharged via curb and gutter to Palm Avenue.
Runoff would flow southerly down Palm Avenue into the existing Palm Avenue Storm Drain System
with flows eventually discharged into Cable Creek, which is a San Bernardino Flood County Flood
Control District drainage system. Pre-development peale discharge from the project site during a six-
hour 100-year storm totals 54.02 cubic feet per second (cfs). 8ased on the discussion contained within
the preliminlU)' drainage srudy, l the project site's proposed drainage system would result in post-
development peale discharge of 41. 71 cfs during similar storm event, an approximately 23 percent
reduction in off-site discharge. Even with the project's contribution to flows onto Palm Avenue, storm
discharge will not exceed the curb-to-curb capacity of Palm A Venue.
Approvals of drainage features/improvements are made through the plan check process. As part of this
process, all project-related drainage features would be required to meet the City's development
standards. Erosion, sedimentation, and siltation impacts are adequately addressed through adherence to
measures identified in the approved SWPPP and WQ:-'IP, and compliance WIth :-;PDES permit
requirements. 8ecause the project would be required to design and install drainage systems according to
standards and provisions Set forth by the City, and would be required to adhere to the previously
referenced mitigation, impacts related to this issue are anticipated to be less than significant.
VllLf The installation of impermeable surfaces, such as buildings and pavement, generally increase the
velocity and volume of surface runoff. As urban runoff flows over lawns, gardens, sidewalks and
streets, it carries off pollutants such as automobile oil and antifreeze, pesticides, pet waste, and litter into
,
One acre-fOOl equals appro:\imalely 326,000 .:;allon5. 70.000 acre. feet equals approximJlcly 12.820.0QO.lJOO g;llJons.
Pn:/l1l/1l1lJry flyJroiugy Report Tract .vo. /6i94, .\tAPeD. June 18,2007.
IS 45
)
CITY OF SA.'\' BER1'1ARDI~O
DEVELOP;\IENT SERVICES
INITIAL STl"DY
lhe stornl dram sYSlem. The storm dram system collects water from the streets and trmsports ,t directly
or indirectly to local water supplies and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Crban runoff from the storm
drams is typically not tiltered or treated.
Pursuant to the CW A. persons or companies found guilty of dumping my thing into storm drains can be
tined up to $25,000 per day. Federal environmental regulations based on the CWA require the control of
pollutants from ~unicipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), construction sites and industrial
activities. MS4s include drainage systems owned and maintained by the City of San Bernardino.
Discharges from such sources were brought within the NPDES permit process by the 1987 Clean Water
Act amendments and the subsequent 1990 promulgation of stormwater regulations by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Because the project proponent would be required to adhere to storm
drainage requirements found within the NPDES pennit process as well as provisions required by the
City of San Bernardino, a less than significant impact related to this issue is anticipated to occur with
the implementation of the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
VIILh As the proposed project is not located within an area identified as being subject to /lood hazards, either
by the City of San Bernardino or the Federal Emergency Management Agency,' it would not place
housing or buildings within a /lood hazard area and would not impede or redirect /lood /lows. No
impact related to this issue is anticipated to occur with the implementation of the proposed project. No
mitigation is required.
VlII.i
Flood control in the City provides an integrated approach to manage regional and local drainage /lows.
This system includes debris basins, storm channels, and levees. The project site is not located within the
potential inundation area of Seven Oaks Dam.2 No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore,
no mitigation is required.
")
VIIL) The project site is not located near or immediately adjacent to a lake or ocean; therefore, it is unlikely
that the project site would be subject to inundation by a seiche (a wave or oscillation of the surface of
water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin) or tsunami. A mudslide (also known as a mud/low) occurs
when there is fast-moving water and a great volume of sediment and debris surges down a slope, stream,
canyon, arroyo, or gulch with tremendous force. They are similar to /lash /loods and can occur suddenly
without time for adequate warning. Mudflows can ruin substantial improvements with the force of the
/low itself and the burying or erosion of improvements by mud and debris. The project site is identified
as being in an area of moderate relief with a low to moderate landslide susceptibility. The design of the
project will incorporate a concrete channel along the northern property boundary that will intercept and
route off-site storm and debris /lows to the proposed on-site detention basin located on Lot 13 at the
northwestern comer of the property. In the event that a mud/low does occur, the concrete channel and
on-site debris basins would be able to capture /lows from. By adherence to the California Building Code
and applicable City requirements, impacts related to mud/lows would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
.,
FI,}oJ Zone X. FE~1A QJ Flood Doua. Federal Emergency ~1anagemcnt Agency. 1996 tFlood Insurance Rate .\lap 06071Ci9JOE.
\Iarch 18. 1996.)
/-IlY vfSall B~mardmo GetJeruJ Plein. Figure S-2 "Se...en Oaks Dam Inundation," ~o\lember 2005.
IS 46
)
CITY OF SA~ BERNARDINO
DEVELOP)lE~T SERVICES
I~ITIAL STUDY
""
Potenually Less Than Significant Less Than
IX. LA:'IID L"SE AND PLAl'l:'llING. Would Ibe Significant with Mitigation Significant
, Imoact IncoTl>orated Imoacl No Imoact
Droiecl?
J) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 !8J
cOlTununiry?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 !8J 0
policy, or regulation of an agency wltb
Jurisdiction over the projecI (including, bul
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coaslal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
I avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effeCI?
c) Conflicl with any applicable habital 0 0 !8J 0
conservation plan or narural community
conservation plan?
d) Be developed within the Hillside 0 0 !8J 0
Managemenl Overlay DistricI?
e) Be developed with Foothill Fire Zones A 0 0 !8J 0
and B, or C as identified in the City's
I General Plan?
I
, Be developed within the Airport Influence 0 0 0 !8J
t)
I Area as adopled by the San Bernardino
Intemalional Airport Authority?
DisCllssion
IX.a Single-family residenlial uses are localed directly east of the project site, while single-family residential
developmenl is approved on property directly west oflhe projecl sile. Land located to the easl, west, and
soulh of the proposed projecl sile are also designaled "RL" (Residential Low); Iherefore, developmenl
of the proposed residenlial uses is consiSlenl wilh on-site and adjacenl land use designations. A vacant
dwelling unil currently exists on the easlem projecl boundary; however, this dwelling unil is proposed 10
be demolished prior to the development of the project site. Development of the proposed project is fully
conslstenl with existing land use in the project area and would not physically divide existing
neighborhoods or the currenl pallem of development. :-/0 impact related to this issue would occur;
therefore, no mitigalion is required.
IX.b The projecI site is located within the RL districl. This district is intended to promote the developmenl of
low-density, large-lol, single-family detached residential units wilh a minimum 101 size of 10,882 square
feel. The RL district allows a maximum density of 3.1 units per gross acre. Development of the
proposed project would resull in the conslruction and occupation of up to 43 single-family residential
dwellings. Based on the gross acreage of the projecI site, the residential density of the proposed
development would be 2.38 residential units per acre. Because the proposed project would be developed
IS 47
')
."
IX.f
"
CITY OF SAN BER;'1ARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
consIstent \\ Ith the slandards established by the Cll)' in lIs Development Code, no impact rdated to thIS
ISsue would occur. :'>0 mitigation IS required.
IX.c.
The project site does nOllie wlthlll a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan
area; therefore, no conllict with such plans would result from the development of the proposed on-site
ese. :-';0 'mpact related to thts issue would occur. :-<0 mitigation is reqUIred.
IXd
Please refer to Ihe Response to Question \lLi.
IX.e
Portions of the project site slated for development contain existing natuml slopes that do not exceed 15
percent adjacent to wildland areas. The proposed project is located in Fire Zone C I Without adequate
mitigation, the proposed project has the potential to expose persons and structures to signilicant injury
or loss of life or property from wildland lires. State and City development standards include measures
"to control the exposure to homes within the urban/wildland interface and/or otherwise reduce the
spread of lire on or to developed properties, by controlling the use of materials and methods of
construction" in the lire hazard areas.
The proposed project and the properties adjacent are included in the City Fire Department's records for
regular weed abatement maintenance and are a part of the City's Weed Abatement Maintenance
Program.2 These properties are monitored by the City on a regular basis to ensure that no less than a 50-
foot "dry-zone" buffer is established from the perimeter of the proposed project upon its constructiolL
The construction of the proposed residential structures would be required to adhere to all applicable
standards established by the City, including the implementation of Fuel Modilication Plan and standards
within the BSEA, as well as conditions mandated by the SBFD (including, but not limited to, the
sprinkling of on-site structures, and a prohibition on combustible units prior to the installation of lire
hydrants and paved roadways). As required by the City, the proposed project would have a Fuel
:\lodilication Area to buffer the development from the abutting wildlands. These plans typically incl~de
"fuel load reduction" (removal of flammable vegetation), creation of defensible space near structures,
and the installation of drought-tolerant groundcover. With the implementalion of the :\olitlgatloD
Measures HAZ-2, Ihe City's slandards for development within the BSEA, and enforcement of the
City's weed abatement program, potential impacts from this project with regard to exposure .to tires
would be lowered to a level ofIess than signilicant.
Please refer to the Response to Question VI!.e.
G..:ncfJI Plan Figure $-9 "Fire Hazard Areas:' City of San Bernardino. :";ovcmber 2005.
Wnl!~n correspondence wlIh City iJfS;m Bernardino Code Enforcement Dl.'puty Director. .\.fariannc ~tllllgan December 12.1U08.
IS 48
)
CITY OF SA~ BER."'1ARDI~O
DEVELOP)IE~T SERVICES
I:'ilTIAL STt:DY
X. .\II.'iERAL RESOl'RCES. Would lhe POlenllally Less Than Significant Less Than
projecl: I - Significant with Mitigation SIgnIficant
I n~Eact Incorporaled Impact ~o Imoact
a) Result in the loss of availability of known 0 0 0 tzl
mineral resource thaI would be of value to
I the region and the residents of the slate'?
, Result in the loss of locally impol1ant 0 0 0 tzl
b)
I mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan or other land use'?
i c) Be located in a Mineral Resource Zone as 0 0 0 tzl
I adopted by the State Mining Geology
I
I Board an identified in the City's General
I Plan'?
Discussion
"'
X.a-c Natural sand and gravel deposils in Cajon Wash, Lytle Creek, Wann Creek, City Creek, and the Santa
Ana River contain the bulk of the City's aggregate resources. Based on Exhibit NRC-3 (Mineral
Resource Zone Map) in the City of San Bernardino General Plan, proposed project site is not within an
~IRZ-II or MRZ-2' Zone. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability ofa known
mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state. The proposed
project would not result in the loss of availability of a 10cally-impol1ant mineral resource recovery sile
delineated on the Cily General Plan. No mineral extraclion aClivilies occur on sile. BecaUSe of the size
and localion of the project site, and the absence of any identified on-site mineral resource, developmenl
of the project sile would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally
important mineral resource recovery site. No impacl relaled to Ihis issue would occur.
Construction of the proposed residential dwellings and related infrastructure would require the USe of
concrete, aggregate, asphalt, and other materials. These resources are commercially available in the
southem California region with few or no constrainls. Because of the general availability of construction
materials (including aggregate) and the limited scale of the proposed project, no adverse impact related
to the availability of these resources or the resource base from which they are derived would occur.
" \IRZ-1 is defined as an area where: aUcqUJIC geological infoMnation inJicJtcs that no signitic:lIlt mineral Jeposits arc present. or
where it is judged that little likelihood exists for (heir presence.
\IRZ.2 is Jdinc:d as an area where geological data show that significant measured. or m..JicateJ resources Jrc present.
IS 49
')
CITY OF SAN BER.~ARDI:'i'O
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
I:'i'ITIAL STL"DY
.",
POlentially I Less Than Sigmficant Less Than :
XI. :\OISE, Would the project result in: Slgnl!icant I with .\titigauon SignIficant
I~act I Incorporated Impact '101~act
, 3) Exposure of persons or generation of 0 ! (g) 0 0
nOise levels In excess standards I
, established in the City's General Plan or
Development Code. or applicable I
, standards of olher agencies? ,
I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 (g) 0
I exceSSive groundbome vibration or
I ground borne noise levels?
j c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 (g) 0
j ambient noise level in the project vicinity
above existing without the project?
d) A substantial or periodic increase in 0 0 (g) 0
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an aitport 0 0 0 (g)
, land use plan or Airport Influence area,
I would the project expose people residing
l or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
Discussion
XLa The project site is located in a developing area of the City. Single-family residential development is
proposed west, east, and south of the project site. The City specifies the maximum acceptable exterior
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) for residential uses in the City shal: not exceed 65 decibels
(dB) while interior noise levels shall not exceed CNEL 45 dB. The CNEL is a 24-hour A-weighted
average sound level from midnight to midnight obtained after the addition of 5 decibels (dB) to sound
levels occurring between 7:00 p.m, and 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB to the sound levels occurring between
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. I The 5 dB and 10 dB penalties .added to the evening and nighttime hours
account for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during these time periods. Based on noise analyses
prepared for similar projects. noise from construction equipment typically generates approximately 68
dB at 100 feet from the area where it operates. If two pieces of equipment are used, the "typical"
construction noise measurements of the maximum hourly average noise levels are expected to be
approximately 72 dB at 100 feet from the point of origin. These noise sources would decrease at a rate
of 6 dB per doubling of distance; therefore, at 200 feet, construction noise would decrease to 66 dB; at
400 feet, the noise would decrease to 60 dB; etc.
....
The on-site structure would be demolished during construction of the proposed project. The nearest
nOISe-sensitive uses to the proposed project are single-family residences located east of the project site.
These residences are located approximately 100 feet east of the project's eastern boundary. Based on
C:t} OrsJn D..:m~njjno Gcncr;11 Plan, Clupter 1-1, \,Qise Element. \'O\lcmbcr I. 2005.
[550
J
CITY OF SA:"I BER.'\'ARDINO
OEVELOP~IE:"IT SERVICES
1:\'ITIAL sn.:OY
tillS dIstance and the level of typIcal constructIon nOIse, extenor nOIse levels at the nearest sens,tIve
receptor would approximate 72 dBA A 24 dB outdoor to indoor noise reduction with windows closed ,s
tYPIcally assumed to represent interior noise levels where measurements are not available. Combined,
distance and structure attenuation (windows closed) would result in interior noise levels of
approximately 48 dB at 100 feet from the property boundary. ~oise attenuation afforded by typical
construction practices (with windows open) is approximately 15 dB; therefore, construction noise at the
nearest sensitive receptor would reach approximately 57 dB (with windows open). This short-term noise
Impact would exceed the City's noise standard of 45 dB(A) for interior noise to nearby residences. The
following mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential construction noise impacts to a less
than significant level.
~OS-I On-site construction activities shall be restricted to the hours pennitted under the City's
~unicipal Code.
N08-2 Prior to the issuance of grading pennits, the project proponent shall demonstrate to the City
that all construction vehicles have mufflers and shall be maintained in good operating order at
all times.
:\'OS-3 Prior to the issuance of grading pennits, the project proponent shall demonstrate to the City
that all trucks waiting to be loaded or unloaded with construction material shall not be left to
idle for more than 10 minutes.
:'IIOS-4 Prior to the issuance of grading pennits, the project proponent shall demonstrate to the City
that all stationary noise-generating sources, such as air compressors are located as far as
possible from existing residential uses.
) Adherence to Mitigation Measures .'lOS-I through N08-4 would reduce short-term noise impacts to a
less than significant level.
Xl. b Vibration refers to groundbome noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost
exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion
may be discemable but without the effect associated with the shaking of a building there is less of a
reaction. Typical sources of groundbome vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile
driving, and operating heavy duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic
on rough roads. Problems with groundbome vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized
to areas within about 100 feet from the vibration source. When roadways are smooth, vibration from
trafflc, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for this project that the roadway surface
would be smooth enough that groundbome vibration from street traffic would not exceed the impact
criteria. In addition, any groundbome noise or vibration would occur only intermittently during grading
and construction of the proposed on-site uses. Any potential impact associated with groundborne noise
or vibration would be short-term and less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Xl.c The project site is not located in an area where the existing or future noise levels exceed the 65 dB
exterior standard established by the City. ~oise increases are anticipated to result from vehicle activity,
residential noise (e.g., lawnmowers, etc.) and human activity (e.g., children playing, dogs barking). The
nOIse resulting from the long-term occupation of the proposed residential uses IS antiCIpated to be
similar to that of adjacent developing residential areas and would not result in a substantial permanent
increase in existing ambient noise levels. No significant long-term noise impacts would occur. No
mitigation is required.
.....
IS 51
)
)
"
CITY OF SAN BEa.'\'ARDINO
DEVELOP:\IENT SERVICES
INITIAL STl'DY
:'\1..1 fhe resIdential nature of the project lunlls the potential temporary or pen odic mcrease to the USe of
sirens from emergency vehIcles. The noise generated by such uses is necessary to ensure the health and
safety of general public. A less than significant impact is anticipated. :-';0 mitigation IS required.
Xl.e-f The nearest airport to the project site is San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA), located
appro.,imately 10 miles southeast of the site. As indicated in the City of San Bernardino's General Plan
(Figure LL'-4), the project site is not located wllhin the SBIA's Planning Boundaries, or within the noise
contours identified for this air facility. The development and occupation of the residential dwellings
would not expose residents to excessive noise airport-related noise levels. No impact related to this issue
\'-'ould occur; therefore, no mitigation is required.
IS 52
)
CITY OF SA~ BER."I/ARDI~O
DEVELOP~IE~T SERVICES
I:-iITIAL Sn:DY
XIl.I'OPL"LATIO:'i A:-iD HOl'SI;\oG. Would Potennally Less Than Significant Less Than
I the project: Slgn,ficant with Mitigation SignIficant
, Impact Incomorated Impact No Imoact
I a) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 0
i directly (e.g., by proposing new homes
i and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through I
extension of roads or other
infrastructure?) I
b) Remove existing housing and displace 0 0 0 0
substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
Xll.a Based on the California Department of Finance's 2008 Estimates,' the average household size in the
City is 3.35 persons per dwelling unit. Based on this factor, and assuming every resident of the
development is a new resident of the City, the proposed project may cause a population increase of up to
144 people. In a city encompassing nearly 70.0 square miles and a population of approximately 205,493
persons, the addition of the proposed single-family residences and up to 144 persons is a relatively small
proj ect.
""
In the unlikely event every residence in the proposed development is occupied by new residents to the
City, the 144 new residents would increase the City's current population by 0.07 percent. The most
recently reported growth forecasts for the City estimate a 2010 population of 213,318 persons. The
population growth that may result from the development of the proposed project is within the growth
anticipated for the City by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)'.
Based on the established land use designation and the ongoing pattern of development in the Verelemont
area, the development of the site and adjacent areas has been anticipated by the City. The proposed
project is located directly adjacent to existing, approved, and/or planned residential development.
Roadway and utility infrastructure required for the proposed project would connect to features that serve
(or would serve) existing and/or approved development; therefore, no direct or indirect growth resulting
from the installation of on-site infrastructure would OCCUf. While the proposed project would result in
the construction and occupation of residential uses on land that is mostly undeveloped, it does not
include any long-term employment-generating uses. Due to the relatively small size of the development;
the existing land use designation of the project site and surrounding properties; the pattern of adjacent
development; and the presence of existing and/or planned Infrastructure, potential Impacts related to this
ISSU~ are less than significant. No mitigation is required.
XII.b The project site is undeveloped. Two on-site structures (a vacant dwelling unit and detached
garage/accessory structure) have been demolished. These structures were not identified as being part of
the City's affordable housing inventory. The development of the proposed project would not cause a
',\. St:1tc of California. Department of Finance. E-5 City/County POpul':lIion and Housing Estimates. 2007, R~....iscd 2001 -2008. wilh
2000 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California. J3nuary 2008.
!;l;jl~ '..\ \\ \\-;....i.l".~~L"()\ fOrCl.:J:lt dm\ nload... t''I(..:d. RTPl): CllvL~\ eJ. xl'l, site accessed December 29, 2008.
IS 53
'")
CITY OF SA.... BERNARDINO
DEVELOP:\IE:\'T SERVICES
INITIAL Sn;DY
loss of e:ustIng housmg, or the dIsplacement of c:xlstmg residents. :'\"0 impact would result ti-om
development of the proposed proJect; therefore. no mitigation is required.
,
"
IS 54
}
CITY OF SAN BER..'\'ARDINO
OEVELOP:\IENT SERVICES
I~ITIAL Sn;OY
XIIJ. Pl"BLlC SERVICES. Would the POlen"ally ! Less Than Significant Less Than
Slgruficant with Mitigation Significant
, project: Impact Incornorated Imoact No Impact
.
0) Result In substantial adverse physical
'mpacts assocIated w,th the provIsIOn of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
Cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
rations, response times. or other
performance objectives for any of the
I public services?
I Fire protection, including medical aid? 0 ~ 0 0
; Police protection? 0 0 ~ 0
Schools? 0 0 ~ 0
Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 ~ 0
Other govemmental services? 0 0 ~ 0
.,
DisclIssion
XIII.a
Fire Protection and Medical Aid, New development within the City creates new demands for emergency
fire services either by increasing the amount of services needed in a particular area of the City or by
increasing the types of services required for an area. The level of required service increases as a result of
growth, the number of square feet served, and the number of persons requiring fife services. San
Bernardino Fire Department (SBFD) staff levels and the number and type of equipment must increase to
accommodate the increase in the number of service calls and to provide adequate ..rvice to the City. New
development would proportionally increase the need for the construction of new facilities to house any
added staff and equipment. The City has adopted "Fire Department Service Delivery Management and
Planning Standards," which establish standards for the delivery of fife services. These standards include,
but are not limited to, providing a response time of five minutes or less on 90 percent of fire calls. The
Verdemont Fire Station has been constructed, but L':te funding of ongoing operation and maintenance will
require fair-share contributions from new development projects.
"
F're prevention, fire protection, and emergency medical assistance in the City of San Bernardino are
provided by the SBFD. Portions of the project site were burned during the October 2003 "Old Fire."
The portions of the project slated for development are located in Fire Zone C. Currently, the SBFD
responds to calls within the project area from the Verdemont Fire Station (Station 232), located at 6065
Palm Avenue in San Bernardino. Station 232 is located approximately 2.8 miles southwest of the
project. This station is staffed by three firetighters (including a paramedic) and responds to an average
of six calls per day (an average call volume for stations in the project area). Support for Station 232
would be supplied as required by other City stations. Any response to vegetation fires would be
augmented by California Department of Forestry and the Cnited States Forest Service. Assuming a 25
mph speed, average response time to the prOject site would be 6.8 minutes. Per the Fire Management
IS 55
)
CITY OF SAN BER.."JARDINO
DEVELOP:\-IENT SERVICES
INITIAL STVDY
Pbn prepared for the proposed project. when considenng Ihe proposed construction safeguJrds JlJd fire
management requirements to be Imposed on the proposed development, adequate fire service response
to Ihe project site can be provided.
The proposed project will nOl result in JlJ increase in demand for fire protection services sufficient to
require the construction of new fire servIce facilities. :-.Iew development in the service Jrea of the
Verdemont Fire Station is required to pay for a ponion of the costs of the operation and maintenance of
the Verdemont Fire Station. ReqUiring this mitigation will help offset the additional demand caused by
the new development, and is an appropnate means to accomplish the mitigation of potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts under CEQA. The following mitigation measure is required
to offset the cost of operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station:
PBS-! Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the City that
appropriate (as determined by the City) fair-share funding commitment has been made to offset
the cost of operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station. The funding, a one-time
fair-share contribution equivalent to the Community Facilities District :-.10. 1033 "in-lieu fee"
established by Resolution No. 2004-107 of the Mayor and Common Council, will mitigate the
long-term impact of the project on emergency services of the Fire Department. As an
alternative, an irrevocable agreement to annex the project site to Community Facilities District
No. 1033 would satisfY this obligation.
1
Development of the proposed residential uses may incrementally increase the demand for fire protection
services. The proposed project would be designed and constructed per applicable fire
prevention/protection standards, including the determination of the water supply to meet fire /low
requirements. Additionally, the project proponent would be required to pay fair-share cost for the
operation and maintenance of the Verdemont Fire Station. Adherence to standards and regulations
contained in the City's municipal and development codes and the payment of required fees would reduce
potential impacts related to the provision of tire protection services to a less than significantleve!.
Emergency medical services to the project site would be provided by American Medical Response
(AMR). Each ambulance unit is staffed by one emergency medical technician (EMT) and one
paramedic. Paramedics are permitted to administer drugs, initiate airway treatments, and employ
defibrillation equipment. While the medical facility to which patients would be transponed would vary
depending on the severity of the incident, the most likely medical facility to accept patients from the
proposed residential development is the San Bernardino Community Hospital. The hospital is a full-
service medical facility located approximately 5.3 miles to the southeast of the project site.
Development of the proposed residential uses may increase the demand for emergency medical and
health services; however, these services are demand responsive. meaning that they are generally
proVIded upon demand. The proposed project would be required to meet conditions required by the City
of San Bernardino. Adherence to any such requirements would reduce potential impacts related to this
issue to a less than significant leveL
"
Police Protection. Police protection services are provided by the City of San Bernardino Police
Depanment (SBPD). The nearest police station to the project site is the Nonhern District Office located
at 941 West Kendall Drive, approximately 4.0 miles away from the site. The proposed project will not
result in an increase in demand for police protection services sufficient to require the construction of
new police facilities. Development of the proposed residential uses may result in an incremental
increase in demand for police protection services. The proposed project would be designed per
applicable standards required by the SBPD for new development. Standard fees required for
development 10 the area include the "Law Enforcement and Fire Suppression Facilities, Equipment, and
Vehicles Fee" which must be paid prior to the issJr.lnce of building permits. Additionally, the project
IS 56
)
CITY OF SA.'l BER.'lARDINO
DEVELOP~IENT SERVICES
INITIAL STl:DY
proponent would be requIred [0 pay requIred tees to oifset law enforcement Impacts that may result
from the development and occupation of the proposed residential uses. Adherence to these standards
Jnd the payment of requIred fees would reduce potential impacts related to the provision of police
protection services to a less than s'gniticant level.
School Facilities. The proposed project is located within the San Bernardino City enified School
District (District.) The District has identified the following student generation factors for residential
development: grades K-5. 0.4216 studenlidwelling unit; grades 6-8, 0.1777 student/dwelling units; and
grades 9-12, 0.1713 studenlidwelling unit. Based on these factors, the proposed development would
contribute up to 18 students in grades K-5, 8 students in grades 6-8, and 7 students in grades 9-12 to
[he District's student population. Schools that currently serve the project area include Palm Avenue
(6565 North Palm Avenue) and North Verdemont (3555 Meyers Road) Elementary Schools, Cesar E.
Chavez Middle School (6650 Magnolia Avenue), and Cajon High School (1200 Hill Drive). Palm
A venue Elementary is located approximately 0.44 mile southwest of the project site and hosts a student
population of approximately 764 children. I North Verdemont Elementary is located approximately 0.80
mile southwest and hosts a student population of approximately 548.2 Cesar E. Chavez Middle School is
located about 0.75 mile southwest of the project site and is anticipated to host approximately 1376
students. J Cajon High School, which supports a student population of approximately 2,774 students, is
located 3.6 miles southeast of the project site.'
')
The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for school services sufficient to require the
construction of new police facilities. Assessment fees for residential and commercial development are
required by the District. Currently, the District assesses Alternative School Facility Fees (Level 2 Fees)
of $5.24 per square foot of assessable space for new residential development.' Per California
Government Code (~ 65995[h]), "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement
leVIed or imposed ... are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts ... on the
provision of adequate school facilities." The addition of up to 24 students to the District, which would
result from the development of the proposed project, would not significantly impact the District's ability
to provide acceptable school services. With the payment of the District's required development fee, a
less than significant impact on school facilities and services would occur.
Other Services. The project site is located within a portion of the City that is rapidly being urbanized.
A.djacent properties have been developed with single-family residential uses or have been designated
(and approved) for residential developments. The service and utilities required to construct and occupy
the proposed residential uses are typical of those required for other urban areas in the City. Based on the
number of persons anticipated to occupy the project site and the nature of uses proposed, no significant
increase in demand for maintenance of public roadways and/or utility infrastructure is anticipated. As
such. impacts related to this issue are less than significant.
The project would be required to adhere to standards and provisions set forth by the City in the event
that the proposed project would affect other governmental services. Standard fees required for
development in the area include: Libraries Facilities and Collection Fee; Aquatic Facilities Fee; Public
\oleeting Facilities Fee; Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Parkland Improvement Fee; which
5ell/)ol Accoulllabiliry Report Card. Palm AI-"e"ue Elemefllary School. 2006-2007 Sclloo/ Year. San Bernardino City Unified School
Dlslncr.
~dlUo' Accounrabllity Report Card, ,vorth Verdemonl Elemen/ary School. 2006-2076 School rear, San Bernardino City L'mficd
School Dlstnct
Sr.-:'lOul ,-!ccowl/ublllty Report Card, Cesar E. Clw\'e: .\/iddle School, lOO6-J007 School Year, San Bernardino Cuy Lmlil.:d School
..... DIstrict.
SdlOol Accolllltability Report Curd, Cajo" High School, 2006-2007 School Year, San Bernardino City Unified School District.
R~'gl//ar Jleering afthe Board ofEJuc(J/iol1, San Bernardino City L'nified School District .~farch 7, 2006.
IS 57
)
CITY OF SA..'I' BERNARDINO
OEVELOP:\IENT SERVICES
INITIAL sn:OY
Illust b< paid prior to th< Issuanc< of pCrl11lts. B<caus< adh<renc< to these standards and provIsions IS
r<4ulred of all development projects. less than significant 'mpacts related to this Issue are anticipated to
uccur with the development of the project site.
The proposed project's effect on recreational services is discussed in the Response to Questions XIV.a-
b.
"",
,
IS 58
)
CITY OF SA:\' BER.'1ARDI:\'O
DEVELOP~IE:\'T SERVICES
I:\'ITlAL STl'DY
, Potennally Less Than Slgmficant Less Than
I SI,b'mficant with .\1itigauon Significant
XIV, RECREATION, Would the proposal: Impact Incorporated Impact :-10 Impact
J) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 [gJ 0
i regional parks or other recreational
, tacilities?
I
I b) I ncl ude recreational facilities or require 0 0 [gJ 0
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have
. an adverse physical effect on the
i environment?
Discussion
XIV.a-b Existing park facilities in the vicinity of the project site include the AI Guhin Park and Littlefield Shultis
Memorial Park. These two parks are 28 acres and IS acres in size and are located approximately 0.88
mile to the southwest and 1.75 miles to the southeast of the project site. Both parks are equipped with
ball fields, picnic facilities, play equipment, walking track, and benches. Two other sports facilities, the
Little League Western Park and the Blast Soccer Complex cater to group sports and are only open to
these groups for use. Additionally, the San Bernardino National Forest offers a variety of hiking,
equestrian, and picnic facilities and is located north of the project site.
"'\
The proposed project does not include the anyon-site recreational amenities. In the event only new
residents of the City resided on site, and funher assuming these residents frequented local park facilities,
it follows that the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand for park facilities, As
required by the City, the project proponent would pay additional park fees to offset any potential impact
relative to the provision of park and recreation facilities. The City of San Bernardino has adopted
provisions to (Subdivision Regulations-19.30.320 Parks and Recreation Facilities) requiring the
dedication of 5 acres parkland for every 1,000 residents, or payment of a fee in lieu of such dedication.
Based on this requirement and assuming a project population of up to 144 persons, the proposed project
would be requrred to provide either 0.72 acre of park;and or the equivalent fees. As required by the City,
the project proponent would pay additional park fees to offset potential impacts relative to the provision
of park and recreation facilities. Payment of required park fees and constructiOn/dedication of the
proposed 0.72 acre of parkland would ensure that a less than significant impact to parks or other
recreational facilities would occur. No mitigation is required.
"
[S 59
)
",
-,
CITY OF SA-'\' BERNARDINO
DEVELOP:\OIENT SERVICES
INITIAL STt:DY
XV. TRANSPORTA TlONiCIRCLLA TlON. Potenllally i Less Than Significant Less Than
Would the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant
, Impact IncoflJorated Impact No Impact
I traffic, . which 0 0 k2J 0
, a) Cause an increase in IS
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
! load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result m a substantial increase in either the
nomber of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
: intersections)?
I b) Exceed, either individually or 0 0 k2J 0
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
I c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 k2J
I
! including an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to 0 0 0 [8]
i design feature (e.g., sharp curves of
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
I uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
I e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 k2J 0
t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 k2J
I g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or 0 0 0 [8]
I programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
I racks) supporting alternative transportation?
I
Discussion:
XV.a-b As indicated in Table F, the proposed project is expected to generate 32 trips during the a.m. peak
hour, 43 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 412 daily trips.
Table F - Project Trip Generation
II A.M. Peak Hour P..\1. Peak Hour Dolly Trips
I l.nd Use: 32 Single Family Residences In Out Total In Out Total Total
TripS/L'nit. 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.65 0.36 1.01 9.57
I Trip Gt:nt:ration 8 24 32 28 15 43 412
,
..- ..
. lb[~s b':b(:d on lanJJ L:.e lw - :Sm~lc FJmlly Detached Houslnll from InstItute 01 Tr:msportJtlOn Engineers.
Source; LSA ,\s$oci.:ltc:s. Inc., OCloCe-r 2007.
IS 60
)
CITY OF SA..'\' BER.'\'ARDINO
DEVELOP:\-IENT SERVICES
1:'iITlAL Sn:DY
Because the project is required to receive approval from the City during the plan check process as
outlined by the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department and because the project is a relatively
small residential development. Il is not anticipated that traffic generated by the proposed project would
cause a substantial increase when compared with existing traffic volumes.
While the proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic, it stiJl contributes to
cumulative traffic volumes in the project area. As a standard condition of project approval, development
in the Verdemont area is required to make fair-share contributions ("Local and Regional Circulation
Systems Fee") for traffic improvements necessary to accommodate proposed development prior to
issuance of permits. Because the instaJlation of these improvements, funded by fair-share contribution
from various developers in the Verdemont area, would aJleviate unsatisfactory LOS conditions at
affected intersections, no significant impact would occur.
XV.c The nearest aiiport to the project site is San Bernardino International Aiiport, located approximately ten
miles southeast of the project site. The nature and type of development proposed for the project site
would not impact the frequency or pattern of air traffic at San Bernardino International Aiiport.
Therefore, no impact would occur with the development of the project site.
"""\
XV.d AJI proposed projects within the City of San Bernardino are required to adhere to the City of San
Bernardino Public Works Department's policies and guidelines as contained in the Traffic Engineering
Design Policies and Procedures. These policies and guidelines dictate the construction of additional
roadway infrastructure as well as procedures for submittal, review, and approval of the project's
circulation system. The design of roadways must provide adequate distance and traffic control
measures. This provision is normally realized through proper signalization and signal sequencing to
facilitate roadway traffic flows. The design of aJl roadways and intersections within the project site
would incoiporate design standards tailored specificaJly to site access requirements. Adherence to
applicable requirements of the City (e.g., street widths, corner radii, and intersection control) would
ensure that the roadway improvements proposed as part of the project do not create a substantial
increase in hazards due to a design features. Adherence to applicable City standards would ensure that
no significant roadway design- or hazard-related impact occurs.
The proposed project would be located within an area of the planned for the development of residential
uses. Vehicular use is expected to consist of passenger vehicles and light trucks. No long-term heavy-
duty truck use is anticipated. No industrial, commercial, or agricultural use is located within the project
vicinity; therefore, no incompatibility with existing or future traffic would occur.
XV.e. Standard requirements of the City Fire Department would prohibit development of the project site until
such time as two dedicated, aJl-weather access routes have been constructed. The proposed project
mcludes the construction of roadways that would provide access to the individual lots within the
Jevelopment. These roads would access the Palm A venue at two points along the eastern boundary of
the project site.
"
The design, construction, and maintenance of structure, roadways, and facilities must comply with
applicable City standards related to emergency access and evacuation plans. Any construction activity
that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate and appropriate
measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures.
Adherence to applicable City access control measures would reduce potential impacts related to this
issue to a less than significant leveL
IS 61
)
-'J
"
CITY OF SA~ BER."ARDI~O
DEVELOP;\IE:'<JT SERVICES
I:\'ITIAL STL'DY
:\\'.f The CII)' of San Bernardino parking standards' requirement for single.f:ul1Il)' dwellings IS a l111nllllum
of two covered spaces within a closed garage per unit. aecause the proposed prOject would be required
to provtde resldentlJl parking In a number and fonn requlfed by the City. no impact related to this issue
would occur.
:\V.g The proposed project would comply with all City development policies. standards, and programs
pertaining to supporting alternative modes of transportation; therefore, no impact related to this issue
would occur.
Ct' 'J(S;,m B..:m:..lrdmo Dc:\'<.:iopm~nl CoJe, ChOlpt.:r ItJ.24.
IS 62
,<..;
)
CITY OF SA.'1 BERNARDINO
DEVELOP~IENTSERVICES
INITIAL STt:DY
J) Excet:d wastewater tre:.ument
requirements of the Santa -\na Regional
Potennally Less Than Signlticanl I Less Than
SIgn! ficant \\11th ~llt1gation Significant
1m act Inco orated 1m act ~o 1m act
0 0 !:8J 0
, XVI. L:T1LlTIES. Would the project:
")
,
\Ii ater Quality Control Board" I I
b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 !:8J 0
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 !:8J 0
new stonn water drainage facilities or
expanSiOn of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 0 0 !:8J 0
serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in detennination by the wastewater 0 0 !:8J 0
, treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacIty to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 !:8J 0
pennitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local 0 0 0 (gJ
I statutes and regulations related to solid
I waste?
I
Discussion
XV!.a Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), lhe Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) issues :'olational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (:-.'PDES) pennits to regulate waste
discharges to waters of the U.S. Walers of lhe U.S. including rivers, lakes, and lheir tributary waters.
Waste discharges include discharges of stonnwater and construction project discharges. The City has a
pennit from the RWQCB for all wastewater generated within its boundaries. As evidenced by its current
resident,,1 land use designation, the City has planned for the development of lhe project site with
residential units, mcluding the :;eneration of wastewater. Because the project proponent would be
reqUired to adhere to wastewalcr discharge requiremenls found within the :'olPDES pennit process as
IS 63
)
CITY OF SA~ BER~ARDI~O
DEVELOP;\IENT SERVICES
INITIAL STl'DY
well JS proVisions required by the City of SJn Bernardino, J less ,han s.gmticant 'mpact related to Ihls
issue would result from impkmentanon of the proposed project.
XV!.b The proposed project includes ,he construcnon of water distribution and wastewater conveyance
lacilities. These new facilities would tie into existing or planned facilities in the project area. The
construction of the new conveyance facilities would occur during the development of the project site
and all related impacts to the environment would be mitigated along with the other impacts from the
project construction; therefore, impacts related to the installation and operation of wet utility
infrastructure would be less than significant.
XV!.c Please refer to the response to the response to Checklist Questions VlII.c~.
XV!.d The proposed project does not trigger the requirement for preparation of a water supply assessment (i.e..
a residential development exceeding 500 residential units) as established in Sections 10910-10912 of
the California Water Code. Water service to the project site would be provided by the SBMWD. which
serves the majority of the City. Based on a standard usage of546 gallons (0.0016 acre-foot) per day per
household. I the proposed project would require 23.478 gallons (0.072 acre-foot) of water per day.'
Annual domestic water demand would total 5.28 million gallons (19.3 acre-feet) per year. As identified
in the City's 2005 UWMP, in December 2005 the City had a current supply of 45.501 acre-feet per
year' and a total demand of 43.970 acre-feet per year: leaving a surplus of approximately 1.531 acre-
feet per year. The water demanded for the project site (26.28 acre-feet per year) represents
approximately 1.7 percent of the total existing surplus water supply; therefore. it is anticipated that there
is sufficient water supply to service the proposed project site. The proposed project would not create
additional demand on the local or regional water supply and distribution system sufficient to require the
construction of new facilities.
)
It is anticipated the water utilities would connect to existing or future waler lines in proposed project
roadways, Prior to the issuance of building pennits. the project applicant would be required to satisfy
SBMWD requirements related to the payment of fees and/or the provision of adequate water facilities.
The SBFD requires a fire tlow demand of 1.000 gpm that can be maintained for two hours, All facilities
would be designed. installed. and maintained to meet SBMWD standards for domestic water supply and
SBFD standard for fire flow. Prior to development. the project applicant would be required to obtain
evidence that the proposed project's water demands can be met by the SBMWD. Adherence to these
requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level.
No mitigation is required.
XV!.e Wastewater conveyance and treatment services would be provided by the SBMWD. Existing sewer
mains are currently located within Palm A venue and would be installed within the project site to
accommodate development of the project site. Wastewater tlows from the project would be conveyed to
and processed by facilities at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Facility (WRP) located at 399
Chandler PI~ce in the City of San Bernardino. This facility is operated by SB~IWD, which provides
combined domestic and industrial wastewater treatment services to the Cities of San Bernardino and
Lorna Linda. as well as the East Valley Water District (EVWD) and Patton State Hospital. The WRP
has a design capacity of 33 million gallons per day (mgd). Current intlow to the WRP is approximately
26-28 mgd. resulting in 5-7 mgd of surplus capacity. The proposed project is anticipated to generate
City of San Bernardino \funicipal Waler Departmenl. Customer Service DcpartmcnI. July 2006.
5-U, gallons (0.(>16 acre.foot) per Jay per household "l 43 households 0:: 2J,4i8 gallons (0.072 :J.crc-root).
T;.oble 5-1,2005 L'rban Waler Management Plan. Cily of San Bernardino MuniCIpal Water Department December 2005.
Tahl~ 3-3,2005 L'rban W:lter ~1anagcment PLan. City of San Bernardino ~unjclpal Water Departmem. December 2005.
IS 64
)
CITY OF SA.'1 BER.'1ARDI~O
DEVELOP:\IE~T SERVICES
1~ITIAL Sn:DY
approx'Olatoly 10,664 gallons of wastowator por day, r which roprosonts loss than ono percont (0.21 %) of
the surplus dally capacity at the WRP.
The proposed project would not create additional demand on wastewater capacity sufficient to require
the construction of new facilities. Prior to the issuance of building permlls, the project applicant would
be required to satisfy SBMWD requIrements related to the payment of fees andior the provision of
adequate wastewater facilities. All facilities would be designed, installed, and maintained to meet
SBMWD standards. :-<0 significant impact related to the provision of sewer or wastewater treatment
services would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required.
XVl.f
The City of San Bernardino would provide solid waste collection services to the project site. Solid waste
collection is a "demand-responsive" service and current levels can be expanded and funded through user
fees. Based on a solid waste generation of 12.23 pounds per household per day,' the proposed project is
anticipated to generate approximately 73 tons of waste per year (0.26 ton/day). Solid waste from the
proposed project would be collected by the City of San Bernardino Refuse Department. Non-recyclable
solid waste from the proposed project would be collected and transported to the San Timoteo Solid
Waste Disposal Site, located in the City of Redlands. The San Timoteo landfill is permitted to accept a
maximum of 1,000 tons of solid waste per day.' Average daily disposal rates at this landfill totals 580
tonS/day' with a surplus capacity of approximately 420 tons/day. The amount of solid waste generated
daily from the proposed on-site uses represents approximately 0.06 percent of the current daily surplus
capacity of the San Timoteo Solid Waste Disposal Site.
"1
Service fees would be charged to individual property owners when service is initiated. As substantial
daily surplus capacity exists at this landfill, development of the proposed project would not significantly
impact current operation or the expected lifetime of this facilities or the impact the ability of the Refuse
Department to provide service; therefore, potential impacts associated with this issue are less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
XVl.g
The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18
(California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991) and other local, state, and federal
solid waste disposal standards. Because the proposed project is required to these regulations, no impacts
related to this issue are anticipated to occur.
,
.":-tS gallons.day,rcsidence: Ri'r,:erside CowlIY Existmg Selling Report. LSA Associates, Inc., March 2000.
(11.13 poundS/household/day x 43 households '"' 525.9 pounds per <by), California Integrated Waste Management Board. Solid Waste
111/0I"llWI'-01l System Datahase, \\ \~ ',\ ,,'it, mh."::l "11\. ~\\ i-;, site accessed on September 26. 2007.
Cllllomia lntegrJted Waste Management Board. Solid Waste Inform.lIion Sysh::m. \\ ',\ \\,l..:I',~ njh_~',J.'20\ ,'.~ I". SilC :Jcccsscd on
S'p'cmbcr 26, 2007.
5;,.tn B~manJjno Solid Waste ~Ianagcmcnt Di..islon. communication with Brooks W~bb. February 2J unJ 25, 2U04.
IS 65
)
CITY OF SA:" BER.'I'ARDINO
DEVELOP:\IE:'IT SERVICES
1:'IITlAL STl"DY
"
Potenllal/y I Less Than Significant Less Than i
X\"II. .\I.-\~D"\TORY FI~Dl:\'GS OF i
SIG:'I'IFIC"\:'iCE. SIgnificant I with ~itjgation Sigmficant
Imnact Incornoraled Imoact :o.;olmnact
,
I aj Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 0
degrade the quality of the environment.
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate imponant
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 0
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
i projects, and the effects of probable future
I projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 0
effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings. either directly or
indirectly?
Discussion
XVI.a
No endangered or threatened species were identified on site during the biological resource surveys. As
staled in Section III, development of the proposed project would not cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels or restrict the movement/distribution of a rare or endangered
species. Development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of approximately 18.45
acres of open space to residential uses. The proposed project would not impact any threatened or
endangered species or habitat. Impacts to migratory birds, the burrowing owl. and nesting bird species
would be mitigated to a less than significant level with adherence to :\Iitigation :\Ieasures 810-1 and
810-2. which require nesling surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities, as well as limitations on
construction in the event nesting species are present on-site. Impacts to on-site biological resources are
reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to the identified mitigation measures.
"
Based on the site's lack of potential for archaeologicaJ/historic data and the loss of historic integrity, the
residence does not meet the definition of a "historic resource" under CEQA. In addition, the sile is not
connected with local historic personalities, lacks historic integrity, and is of common design and utility.
There are no known unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the site, nor are there any religious
or sacred uses associated with the project site. The previously demolished structures were not identified
as a "historic resource" and were not eligible for listing In either the National Register of Historic Places
IS 66
)
CITY OF SAN BER.'\'ARDINO
DEVELOP:\IENT SERVICES
I:"iITIAL Sn'DY
uC [ht: CJlifomia Rt:glslt:r of Historic Resources; therefore. no significant impact resujting from the:
Jevelopment of resIdential uses would occur. :\olitlgation :\teasure CL'L-l has been identified to
mItigate pOlentlal Impacts associaled with lhe discovery of as-of-yet undelected subsurface cultural
andior paleontological resources during excavation operations. Adherence to lhe measure identified
would reduce potential impacts associaled with cultural, historic, or paleontological resources to a less
than significant level.
XVl.b
The proposed project site is located wilhin an.area has been designaled by the City for residential uses.
While short-tenn construction-relaled alt quality and noise impacts would result from construction of
the proposed residential uses, adherence 10 the miligation measures identified in this Initial Study would
reduce these impacts 10 a less than significant level. Other impacts related to biological resources,
geologic and soil conditions, hydrology and waler quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and
archaeological/paleontological resources are similarly reduced to a less than significant level through
the implementation of mitigalion measures and the adherence to established City-mandated design and
construction standards.
""'\
The cumulative effects resulting from build out of the City's General Plan were previously identified in
the General Plan EIR. The type, scale, and location of the proposed project is consistent with City's
General Plan and zoning designation and is compatible with the pattern of development that has been
approved for adjacent properties. Because of this consistency, the potential cumulative environmental
etTects of lhe proposed project would faU within the impacts identified in the City's General Plan EIR.
As no cumulative impact greater than that identified in the General Plan EIR would result from either
the construction or occupation of the proposed residential uses, a less than significant impact is
anticipated to occur.
XV!.c
As detailed in lhe preceding responses, development of the proposed project would not result, either
directly or indirectly, in adverse effects to human beings. No impacts are anticipated to occur with the
implementation of the proposed project.
."
IS 67
)
')
"
CITY OF SA;>; BER.'<ARDI;>;O
DEVELOP:\IE:'iT SERVICES
I:'iITlAL STl"DY
REFERE:';CES
'.
I. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map.
, .-Isbestos and Lead Survey Report House and Garage at 6910 Palm Avenue in San Bernardino.
CA., Masek Consulting Services, Inc., February 5, 2007.
3. California Department of Conservation, Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004.
-I. California Department of Finance, E-5 City,County Population and Housing Estimates, 2007, revised 2001-
2007. with 2000 DRU Benchmark, January 2008.
5. California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Hazardous Waste Substance and Sites List (Cortese
L,st), sIte accessed October 8. 2007.
o. California Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System Database. site accessed
on July 26, 2006.
7. California Public Resources Code, ~5020.1(j)
8. City of San Bernardino, Development Code (Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code).
9. City of San Bernardino, General Plan, November 1,2005.
10. City of San Bernardino, General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map.
II. City of San Bernardino, General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
]2. City of San Bernardino, Municipal Code, Sections 15.10, 15.34.
13. City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, Customer Service Department, July 2006.
14. City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, Urban Water ~lanagement Plan, December 2005.
]5. CR.'vI TECH. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Tentative Tract No. 16533, November 24,
2004.
16. ENVlRA, General Biological Resources Assessment Palm Avenue Site 16794, March 10,2004.
17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), Panel
0607]C7930E, March 18, 1996.
18. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7" Edition, 2003.
19. LSA Associates Inc., Cultural Resources Assessment, July 20, 2006.
20. LSA Associates, Inc., Delineation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and
Game Jurisdictional Areas Tract 16794, July 31, 2006.
21. LSA Associates, Inc. Review of General Biological Resources Assessment, Palm Avenue Site IT 16794
Verdemont. San Bernardino County, California, July 6, 2006.
22. ~IAPCO Inc., Preliminary Hydrology Report Tract No. 16794, June 18,2007.
23. MAPCO Inc., Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Tract No. 16794, May 2008.
24. San Bernardino City Unified School District, Regular Meeting of the Board of Education, March 7, 2006.
25. San Bernardino City Unified School District, School Accountability Report Card. Cajon Hill School. 2006-
2007 Sclzool Year.
26. San Bernardino City Unified School District, Sclzool Accountability Report Card, Cesar Chavez Middle
Sclzool, 2006-2007 Sclzool Year.
27. San Bernardino City Unified School District, School Accountability Report Card. North Verdemolll
Elementary Sclzool, 2006-2007 Sclzool Year.
:3. San Bernardino City Cnitled School District, Sclzool Accountability Report Card, Palm Av""ue ElementQlY
Sclzool, 1006-2007 Sclzool Year.
29. San Bernardino County Stonnwater Program, ~Iodel Water Quality ~ranagement Plan, June 2005.
30. SCOll Franklin Consulting, FireNegetation ~Ianagement Plan and Catastrophic Wildfire Risk Analysis
Tentative Tract 16794, September 9, 2008.
31. Soils Southwest, Inc., Preliminary Report of Soils and Foundation Evaluations for Proposed Single Family
Tract 16794, September 9, 2008.
32. Soils Southwest, Inc., Engineering Geologic Investigation for APN 261-01/.08, 12, & 14, the Gardner
Construction Site at the north end of Palm on the west side. July 12.2006.
33. Soils Southwest, Inc., Opinion Letter/site-soil suitability for Reinforced Earth Wall (such as Vedura Wall,
Keystone Wall etc.), ~rarch 19.2009.
IS 68
)
)
"
.....;
CITY OF SA:\' BER'IARDI.:\'O
DEVELOP:\IE.:\'T SERVICES
I:\'ITIAL STl"DY
3-l. South Coast Air Quality \lanagomont District, CEQA .-\Ir QualIty Handbook, 1993.
35. South Coast Air Quality \!anagement District, Final 2007 Air QualIty Management Plan, adopted July 13,
2007.
36. Southern CalIfornia Association of Governments, Population Projections,
http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecastldownloadsiexcevRTP07 _ CityLevel.xls, site accessed December 29, 2009.
37. Cmted States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Bernardino County,
Southwestern Part, CalIfornia, 1980.
IS 69
)
APPENDICES
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMl\-lENTS
'1
....
Letter A
10
Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa ADa Regiun
Unj. S. ..\diUU
S"/,,'Y1ryjt,,.
!,-",',,,,,,,"'r,'fJ; 1....>t<!~.:,t'H1
j';')'" \h,. ;<'1'..1 Sin.: '.('.c,. .1,..ro.J,;. t:&':C'XUa ir2jfJl .U..l!
,""..!tIC :q.!l) "E.2..I:-tI. FAX:9" ",:it f.;':'!. TDD('i~l: 'S2"H!1
......w ',."."+,.J;;,r"-:.,:. ~Ov.'~Il.lLi&.-.a
~
~~
~.gl
..\rnold SCh......tztftre:f'I"
(.""~lGI
\1ay 12, 2C09
-"'..:' ~ ~-'I .
. .' ~ : ' ,
. "~~l,
Aaron Laing, Senior Pianner
City of San Bernardino
Development Services Department
30e No. 0 Street
San Bemardino CA. 92418
';':1'1.( J:- :.;. ..-: ..>..::i,.':./"';.....~~
;::';-1/::'1..(;( -.-:.:, ' !=:~':;.\'I,:':';:'S
'I:-::r-:\.;..~.;=N~-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16794/ SUBDIVISION 06-31
Dear Mr. Laing:
"agiona! Board Sl<lfl has :Jrieny reviewed the City's Notice of Intent to adopt a mitigated negat~Jc
declaration (MND) for the referenced subdivision (project). We have the following comments on !he
pro_ecfs Initial Study (IS) and proposed MND.
,
IS pages 43 and 44 discuss the need for the project to address construction and operafional water
quality impacts a~d to be conducted according to a water quality management plan (WQMP).
However, exhibits in the IS fail to identify or locate any proposed structural best management
practices (BMPs). Structural BMPs are almost certain to be necessary to comply with the water
quality requirements identified in the IS. Board staff requests that the adopted MNO include exhibits
and other .nformation that shows the location of proposed operational structural BMPs and
domonslrates that a WQMP for the project has been prepared. Including this information in the
adopted MND wll aid In consideration of the proponent's application for Section 401 certification.
A-1
'/'Ie note that ear.h ind,vidual residential lot lS proposed to include" SOD square foot detention basin
as part of a project-wide storm water runoff flow control BMP. Due to uncertainties about the
maintenance, long-lerm availability and function of 10t-IAvel resident-controlled BMPs, Board staff
opposes the" U$O. The project WOMP and MND should identify appropriate, project-level structural
water quality BMPs, preferably operated and controlled by a public agency, particularly those
intended to address concerns related to storm waler runoff water quality and fiow control.
Regional Board staff encourage all land development and redeveiopment projects be carried out in a
manner that Implements the State Water Resources Cont,ol 9oard's policy supporting the use of low
impaot developrr-ent (LID) techniques, and the Local Government Commission's The Ahwahnee A.2
Principles and The Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource EffiCient Land Use. This project should
be encouraged to apply planning and design features that Incorporate LID and Ahwahnee principles_
If you have any questions, please contact me at madelson,'lilwaterbaords.ca.oov or 951 782-3234, or
Glenn Robertson. this office's CEOA coordinator at qrobertsonf.i)Vlalcrbo;lI1::s.~a.gov or 951 782-
3259.
Sincerely,
! I" (:
\ il''''' \1 ry.......JJ ~
.j 'i \~ '-"""~f.JL_
Mark G. Adelson, Chief
Regiona! Plannmg Programs Section
""
California ./:.'Il\:;rnumenta/ PrtJIed;un Agt!lIc.Y
.......
... . .'lA"IClI;'(J,nr
'"tI.;t
}
LETTER A
California Regional Quality Control Board. Santa Ana Region
:\Iark G. Adelson. Chief, Regional Planning Programs Section
:\Iay 12. 2009
In its comment letter dated May 12, 2009, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
requests that the Initial Study provide additional details and references to the Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) document on file with the city related to the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) in the project's design.
Response to Comment A-I:
As stated on page 43 of the Initial Study, .... . During the construction period, the project would
use a series of BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation. These measures may include the use of
gravel bags, silt fences, hay bales, check dams, hydroseed, and soil binders. The construction
contractor would be required to operate and maintain these controls throughout the duration of
on-site activities. In addition, the construction contractor would be required to actively maintain
the S WPPP and an inspection log."
)
The project's operational BMPs are appropriately identified in the project's WQMP, which has
been submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the City's (independent) water quality consultant.
These BMP's consist of both broader treatments e.g. bioswales, debris basins, and underground
filtration systems that will be regulated and maintained by the city via a Landscape Maintenance
and Drainage District, in addition to, on-site BMPs in the form of bioswales and individual lot
systems. The Initial Study states, .... . For development of the site to occur, the construction plans
and project design will incorporate the measures identified in the SWPPP and WQMP."
Reference has been made in the RWQCB letter to methods and procedures for water quality
practices that are applied to regional areas of the South Coast basin and projects with broader
scopes and impacts than the subdivision proposed. As stated in the Initial Study, the project
applicant is required to obtain the necessary permits and clearances for the jurisdictional matters
identified in this study. These permits will be over and above any permits required by the City of
San Bernardino and apart from any review or involvement with city staff other than compliance
,'erification. It is reasonable to anticipate that detailed operational BMPs will be established
during the consultation with the appropriate agencies who may exercise permit authority over the
proposed project.
For the purpose of the Initial Study the vehicle for addressing the water quality issues and proper
BMPs for the proposed subdivision is the preliminary WQMP document. Based on the totality of
information presented in the WQMP, and the approval of the WQMP by the City, it is reasonable
to anticipate that the project includes BMPs that provide an appropriate level of water quality
protection. As the WQMP will be made available along with the IS to appropriate pennitting
agencies, revision of the IS to restate the fmdings of the WQMP is not warranted.
'"
)
Response to Comment A-2:
The Ahwahnee Principles referenced by the CRWQCB identify broader regional and community
wide planning policies that encourage integrated communities, a diverse range of housing
opportunities, and the appropriate preservation of natural resources and provision of open space.
Due to the limited scale of the project as well as its location, the regional and community level
policies referenced by the commenter are generally not applicable to the proposed project.
."
",
OB-ll-Z0DI
"
.) .
)
08:50.. F,oo-CITY OF SAN BER"AROI"O
California NlItural Resources Aaencv
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
hllD://www dfQ.ClI.oov
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-200
Ontario, CA 91164
(909) 464-0167
+10138.5155 T-B4. POOI/DOB
ARNOW SCHWARZ1!NEGGER. Governor
DONALD KOCH, Dir&etor
Letter B
HD4
fi
OO[gj~~~~~[Q)
June 8, 2009
CITY OF SAN Il.EANAIIDINO
DEVELOPMENT SEIlVICES
OEPAIITMEHT
Aron liang, Senior Planner
City of San Bernardino
Development Service Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(909) 384-5057
Re: Negative Declaration - Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01
SCH No. 2009051035
Dear Mr. Liang:
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) thanks you for the
opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration for the Tentative Tract No.
16794. The Department is responding as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife
resources [Fish and Game Code sections 71'.7(a) and 1802 and the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CECA) section 15386] and as a
Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CECA Guidelines
section 15381), such as a Streambed Alteration Agreement or a California
Endangered Species Inc:idental Take Permit (Fish and Game Code Sections 2080
and 2080.1).
The project site is located In the Verdemont area of the City of San Bernardino,
east of the 1-215. The City of San Bernardino is located in southern San
Bernardino County and Is bounded by the Citles of Rlalto and Fontana to the west,
Colton and Highland to the south, Highland to the east. and the San Bernardino
National Forest to the north and northeast.
The project proposal is to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 lots. an on-site detention
basin. an 11 foot to 26 foot high retaining wall on the south, and associated
infrastructure. The site is currently undeveloped and was burned in the 2003 fires.
In keeping with its mandate, the Department will focus its comments on issues
relating to native plants and animals and jurisdictional waters. The Department has
the (ollowing concerns: 1) the Negative Declaration doesn't adequately identify
Conserving CaCifomia. 's 'V1/i{i{[ife Since 1870
.....:
~
)
lH HOOI 01 :50.. Fr.~1TY OF SAN eEIlHAROIHO . +1013845155
Pag1l20f5
City of San Bemardino - Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01
SCH No. 2009051035
T-B44 P 003/00& H04
potential impacts and mitigation measures to sensitive biological resources due to
timing of surveys, 3) potential impacts to National Forest land from weed
abatement or other fire abatement measures, and 4) no mitigation for the loss of
jurisdictional waters of the State was provided.
Biological Resources
Habitat assessments were conducted on-site in 2004 and 2006. The habitat
assessments concluded that the site was not suitable for the coastal Ca/ifomia
gnatcatcher (Polioptils cal/tom/as califomlaa) (CAGN) or the San Bemardino
kangaroo rat (Dipodomys meniami parvus) (SBKR). The site bumed in 2003.
Although there was no vegetation on site In March 2004. the consultants estimated
that there were eight sensitive plant species, thirteen sensitive wildlife species, and
three sensitive habitat types.
)
The Department is concemed that the surveys in 2004 and 2006 do not provide an
adequate assessment of the site due to liming of the surveys. The surveys in 2004
were done four months after the fall 2003 fires and the site did not have an
adequate time to recover. In regards to the 2006 surveys, they were conducted
during the heat of day between the hours of 11 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. which will not
accurately reflect the species composition at the site. Most species would be active
in the early morning or evening.
B-1
The Department is concemed that surveys may not adequately assess potential
impacts to listed and/or sensitive species. The Department recommends surveying
the site for sensitive plants and animals during the appropriate time of day and
season. The CECA document should identify any sensitive plant and animal
species and their associated habitats that are found on the site. If any a,'e found,
appropriate mitigation measures should be provided to offset Impacts to those
species. A survey for sensitive species of mammals, such as the Los Angeles
pocket mouse (Perognathus/ongimembris bffJvinasus), Northwestem San Diego
pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fal/ax fallax), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma
lepida intermedia), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (L6fJus califomicus
bennett/I) should be conducted to determine whether trapping is warranted.
The Department is also concerned that the Negative Declaration did not present a
fire management plan showing whether or not impacts from fire clearance activities
would occur solely on the subdivision property. The document should clarify if
there will be impacts to the adjacent National Forest Service lands as a result of B-2
fuel modification areas for the development. The Department recommends
including a fire management plan in the document showing that no impacts will
occur on Forest Service lands and providing a buffer between the project and
National Forest.
II!mlDI
)
01-1 HOOI 08:10.. FrorClTY OF SAN BERNARDINO +1013841151
Page 3 of 5
City of San Bemardino - Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01
SCH No. 2009051035
T-IU P 004100& H04
State Jurisdictional Waters
The jurisdictional delineation conducted on the site determined 0.09 acres of
Department jurisdiction would be impacted. The Negative Declaration states what
typically occurs as mitigation for impacts to State waters but does not provide
mitigation measures to compensate for the impacts.
"""
l
The Department recommends the Negative Declaration clearly describe potential
temporary and permanent impacts to State jurisdictional streams and associated
riparian habitat and appropriate mitigation measures to offset those impacts. The
Department opposes the elimination of drainages and their associated habitats
and we recommend avoiding stream and riparian habitat to the greatest extent
possibie. Arly unavoidable impacts should be compensated with the creation
and/or restoration of in-kind habitat either on-site or off-site at a minimum 3: 1
replacement-to-impact ratio.
Because impacts will occur to a State jurisdictional stream, the project applicant is
required to notify the Department, pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and
Game Code. The Departmenfs issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for
a project that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA) will
require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a responsible agency.
The Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, may consider the local
jurisdiction's (lead agency) Negative Declaration for the project
However, if the CEQA documents do not fully identify potential impacts to lakes,
streams, and associated resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation,
monitoring and reporting commitments, additional CEQA documentation will be
required prior to execution (signing) of the Streambed Alteration Agreement In
order to avoid deleys or repetition of the CECA process, potential impacts to a
stream, as welles avoidance and mitigation measures, need to be discussed
within this CECA document.
B-3
Section 151370 of the CEQA guidelines includes a definition of mitigation. It states
that mitigation Includes:
1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not laking a certain action or parts of
an action,
2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation.
3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
impacted environment,
4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the fife of the action,
,
)
O.-II-ZCOg OS:50.. FrOll-C1TY OF SIJI BUM~ROIMO +SOUS4l155
Page 4 of 5
City of San Bernardino - Tentative Tract No. 16794. Variance 09-01
SCH No. 2009051035
T-84~ P oOl/oaS F-l0~
5) Compensating for the Impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
The Negative Declaration did not provide specific mitigation measures for these
resources. In the absence of this analysis in CECA documents, the Department
believes that it cannot fulfill its obligations as a Trustee and Responsible Agency
for fish and wildlife resources. Pennit negotiations conducted after and outside of
the CECA process deprive the public of its rights to know what project impacts are
and how they are being mitigated as per Section 15002. Also, because mitigation
to offset the impacts were not identified in the CECA document. the Department
does not believe that the Lead Agency can make the detennination that impacts to
jurisdictional drainages andlor riparian habitat are "less than significant" without
knowing what the specific mitigation measures are that will reduce those impacts.
Therefore, the Department recommends the Lead Agency Include mitigation
measures for jurisdictional impacts in a re-circulated Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
')
The following infonnation wNI be required for the processing of a Streambed
Alteration Agreement and the Department recommends incorporating the following
in the Negative Declaration to avoid subsequent CECA documentation and project
delays:
1)
2)
3)
Delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be
temporarily and/or pennanently impacted by the proposed project
(inetude an estimate of impact to each habitat type);
Discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project impacts; and
Discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the
project impacts to a level of inslgniffcance.
Additional mitigation requirements through the Department's Streambed Alteration
Agreement process may be required depending on the quality of habitat impacted.
proposed mitigation. project design, and other factors. We recommend submitting
a notification ear1y on, since modification of the proposed project may be required
to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To obtain a Streambed
Alteration Agreement notification package, please call (562) 590-5880.
,
mmmII
}~
B-4
)
".
J6-11-200; 08:5101 F,,,,-Cm OF SAN 9ERNAI0INO +8QUU1155
Page 5 of 5
City of San Bemardino - Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01
SCH No. 2009051035
T-U( P 006/006 H04
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please contact Robin Maloney-Rames
at (909) 980-38~ 8, if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
/1L~~
Mary Grady
Staff Environmental ScientIst
cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento
Michael Flores, DFG, Ontario
"
Letter B
)
LETTER B
California Department of Fish and Game
:\olary Grady, Starr Environmental Scientist
June 8, 2008
Response to Comment B-1
......
As stated in the IS. "... eight sensitive plant species, thirteen sensitive wildlife species, and three
sensitive habitat types were identified as potentially [emphasis added] occurring on the project
site." Appendix A of the 2006 biological resource survey identified the special interest species
that could occur in the project area. This information presented in tabular form listed those special
interest species, status, habitat and distribution, activity period, and probability for occurrence
within the project limits. As detailed in this appendix, habitat on-site suitable for the special status
species was detennined to either be absent, or of low or marginal quality for all but two species;
Plummer's Mariposa lily (present) and the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (moderate
probability of occurrence.) While a few individuals of the Plummer's Mariposa lily were
observed on the northern half of the site, this species is not listed under the S tate or Federal
Endangered Species Acts but is ranked as "IB" by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS),
indicating that it is considered by CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and
elsewhere. Given that this is not a listed species and is relatively common in the region, the
project would not have a substantial impact on this species; therefore, impacts to this species
would not be considered significant. No evidence of the on-site presence of the San Diego black-
tailed jackrabbit (a diurnal species) was identified during the 2006 or 2007 visits to the site. Due
to the limited potential (generally through the absence of appropriate habitat) for the species cited
by the commentor, it is reasonable to conclude that the resource surveys conducted in 2004, 2006,
and field review conducted in 2007 accurately reflect the biological condition of the project site.
Through Mitigation Measures BIO-l and BI0-2, the Initial Study recognizes that additional
nesting bird and burrowing owl surveys are required prior to development of the project site. To
ensure that impacts to sensitive plant species are appropriately addressed, the City has identified
additional mitigation. This mitigation, BIO-4, shall read as follows:
BIO-4: Prior to the issuance of grading pennits, the project applicant shall submit
evidence to the City that a sensitive plant survey has been conducted. The
sensitive plant survey shall be conducted to conform to the survey requirements
identified by the California Department of Fish and Game and/or US Fish and
Wildlife service. In the event sensitive plant species are identified on-site, the
project applicant shall provide evidence to the City that such impacts have been
appropriately addressed per requirements of the California Department of Fish
and Game and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Because these surveys are required prior to site clearance and grading and because the mitigation
includes provisions for avoidance, relocation, and/or mitigation of any sensitive biological
resource, it is reasonable to conclude no significant biological resource impact would result from
the development of the proposed project.
"
)
Response to Comment 8-2
The property north of the project site is privately owned land, and is neither owned nor managed
by the National Forest Service. The proposed project and the properties adjacent are included in
the City Fire Department's records for regular weed abatement maintenance and are a part of the
City's Weed Abatement Maintenance Program. These properties are monitored by the City on a
regular basis to ensure that no less than a 50-foot "dty-zone" buffer is established from the
perimeter of the proposed project upon its construction. This buffer is maintained by the
individual property owner and compliance is enforced by the City of San Bernardino.
The project applicant has prepared a fuel management plan/fIre risk analysis which estimates,
..... the worst-cast catastrophic fIre on site," which for the purpose of this analysis, the worst-case
fIre scenario consisted of a fall fIre during Santa Ana wind conditions. The plan includes
restrictions on the type and location of landscape material utilized within the project limits. The
IS (Figure 7) has identifIed the Fuel ModifIcation Zones that have been proposed by the project
applicant and approved by the San Bernardino Fire Department.
As the fuel management activities that occur north of the project site would occur on private land,
and because existing and future fuel management activities both on- and off-site will subject to
provisions of the approved fuel management plan as well as the City's Weed Abatement
Maintenance Program, it is reasonable to conclude that no signifIcant impact to property under
the control of the National Forest Service would occur. No revision of the analysis in the Initial
Study is warranted.
."
Response to Comment B-3
The Initial Study clearly identifIes that the proposed project would impact 0.09 acre of land that is
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and/or the California Department of
Fish and Game. As stated in Mitigation Measure BI0-3, "... The developer shall compensate for
the loss of jurisdictional resources by either creating non-wetland Waters of the U.S.lStreambed
or by providing alternative compensation for the loss of jurisdictional areas. The type, location,
and/or condition of any mitigation shall be established through consultation with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department ofFish and Game."
The commentor correctly cites that CEQA Guidelines (~15370) identifIes various mitigation
options. While the amount of potential jurisdictional areas impacted by development of the
proposed project would be minimal, the mitigation measure identifIed in the Initial Study allows
for flexibility in the determination of amount, location, and type of mitigation provided. The
Initial Study recognizes, .....streambed needs to be created or an equivalent contribution made to
a regional mitigation bank or mitigation project." As evidence for the provision of satisfactory
mitigation is a condition for issuance of the project-specifIc grading permits, it is reasonable to
conclude that the mitigation requirements of the appropriate regulatory agencies will be
appropriately addressed and mitigated prior to any disturbance of the potential on-site
jurisdictional areas. 1Il0 revision of the analysis in the Initial Study is warranted.
,
'-';
)
Response to Comment B-4
The Initial Study identifies mitigation to offset potential project-related impacts to on-site species
or jurisdictional areas. Additionally, mitigation has been incorporated into the Final Initial Study
to address potential impacts to sensitive plant species. As stated previously, the measures
identified in the Initial Study require additional nesting bird and burrowing owl surveys;
completion of a sensitive plant survey; as well as the establishment of satisfactory mitigation for
jurisdictional impacts prior to the initiation of grading pennits, site clearance, or ground
disturbing activities. As these requirements will be completed prior to disturbance of the project
site, it is reasonable to conclude all potential impact to on-site biological resources will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
"1
...
)
:\Udlado.
ID
AES-I
AIR-I
.,
-)
"
:\oIITIGA nON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRA1\1
City of San Bernardino
TTM 16794
MldladoD Tell
Mtlhod orVortft..dOD
Review of landscape
plan by the City
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the project
applicant shall provide to the
City for review 3Ild approval a
landscape plan that identifies
the type, amount, and location
of landscape material that will
be incorporated into the block
walls. The landscape material
shall be selected to 1) provide
adequate screening of the
walls. and 2) satisfy the fire
resistance requirements
identified by the City.
The project shall comply with Submittal of a Fugitive
the requirements of SCAQMD Dust Control Plan that
Rules 402 and 403. Fugitive requires implementation
Dust, which require the of the measures
implementation of Reasonable identified in AIR-l
Available Control Measures
(RACM) for all fugitive dust
sources, and the AQMP,
which identifies Best
Available Control Measures
(BACM) and Best Available
Control Technologies (BACT)
for area sources and point
sources, respectively. This
would include but would not
be limited to the following
actions:
I. The project proponent shall
ensure that construction
equipment is properly
maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. The project proponent shalJ
ensure that existing power
sources are utilized where
feasible via temporary power
lines to avoid on~sile power
generation.
3. The project proponent shall
ensure mal construction
employees be infonncd of ride
sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. The project proponent shall
ensure that an'y portion of the
site 10 be ';"ded shall be
TImID, or
Vortft...do.
Prior to
issuance of
grading
pennit
Prior to
issuance of
gt1Iding
permit
Vortl'ylD'
Pam. .
City
Planner
or
Designee
City
Planner
or
Designee
ATTACHMENT F
v ortft..do.
Dolo
~)
Mldpdo.
ID
..."'"
AIR-Z
'.,
~Ud..doa Tat
prewalcred 10 a depth of three
feet prior to the onsel of
grading activities.
S. Th. project proponent shall
ensure that watering of the site
or other soil stabilization
methods shall be employed on
an ongoing basis after the
initiation of anyon-site
grading activity. Portions of
the site that are actively being
graded shall he watered
regularly to ensure that a crust
is fonned on the ground
surfac.. and shall he watered
at the end of each workday.
6. Th. project proponent shall
ensure that all disturbed areas
are treated to prevent erosion
until the site is constructed
upon.
7. To reduce the potential fOT
wind erosion, the project
proponent shall ensure that
landscaped an:as an: installed
as soon as possible.
8. Th. project proponent shall
ensure that SCAQMD Rul.
403 is adhered to, ensuring the
cleanup of construction-
related dirt on approach routes
to the project site.
9. Th. project proponent shall
cnsunl that all grading
activities are suspended during
first and second stage ozone
episodes or when wind speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour.
10. All on-site structures shall
confonn to the energy use
guidelines in Title 24 of the
California Administrative
Code.
The construction/grading
documents for the proposed
project shall id.ntify the type
of equipment to be utilized
during project grading. To
ensure pollutant emissions do
not .xc.... SCAQMD daily
thresholds, the mix of
equipment utilized during
construction ac:tivities shaJl be
similar to that identified in the
Initial Study prq>ared for the
nronosed nro;ecL In the event
~.lhod of VerlllcadoD
Submittal to the City of
equipment mix to be
utilized during
construction and (as
necessary), evidence
that emissions greater
than those identified in
the IS ~ occur
during con~nKtion
activities.
TImlDl of
VerlllcadoD
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit
Vcrll'ylal
PI':'"
City
Planner
or
Designee
Verillcadoa
Olte
)
M1dpdoa
lD
810-1
.~.
-'1
810-2
810-3
'\,
M1dpdoa Text
a project applicant elects to
utilize an alternative mix of
equipment; the project
applicant shall, prior to the
issuance of grading permits.
submit to the City for review
and approval, evidence that
emissions from any alternative
mix of equipment do not
exceed SCAQMD daily
thresholds.
If site clearing and grading
activities occur during the
raptor nesting season (late
December through July), a
qualified (as detennined by
the City) biologist shall
conduct a nesting bird survey
prior to any ground.disturbing
activities. The nesting survey
shall take place over three
consecutive days one week
prior to the start of ground-
disturbing activity. Ground
disturbance shaH not be
permitted within 100 feet of
any nesting activity. AIJ site
clearing and grading shall
contann to applicable
provisions of the Migratory
Bird Treatv Act.
A focused survey for the
western burrowing owl shall
be conducted to determine the
on-site presence/absence of
this species. The focused
western burrowing owl may
be conducted concUJ1'ently
with the nesting bird survey.
Any western burrowing owls
identified on site shall be
relocated prior to the
conuncncement of grading
activities. The relocation of
any specimen shall be
conducted per applicable
CDFG andlor USFWS
procedures. Relocation of on-
site burrowing owls shall not
be ~tted dunng the
nesrina season for this S'DCCies.
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the project
applicant shaJl submit
evidence to the City that
impacts to on.site
jurisdictional resources have
been appropriately mitigated.
The develoner shall
:\ftlhod orVerincadoa
Completion and
submittal to the City of a
nesting bird survey
Completion and
submittal of a bWTOwing
owl survey
Submittal to the City of
evidence identifying that
the appropriate
pennitslauthorizations
have been obtained for
impacts to jurisdictional
are...
TImlaI or
Verlncadoa
Prior to
clearance or
ground
disturbing
activities
Prior to
clearance or
ground
disturbing
activities
Prior to the
issuance of
grading
permits
Verifylal
PIr1Y
City
Planner
or
Designee
City
Planner
or
Designee
City
Planner
or
designee
Verillcodol
Dllt
)
Mldpdoa
10
.~
"/
CUL.l
GEO-I
"
Mldpdoa Tnt
810-4
compensate for the loss of
jurisdictional resources by
either creating non-wetland
Walen of the U.S.lSlreambed
or by providing ahemalive
compensation for the loss of
jurisdictional areas. The type.
location, and/or condition of
any mitigation shall be
eslablished through
consultation with the United
Stales Fish and Wildlife
Service and the California
Deoanmcnt of Fish and Game.
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the project
applicant shall submit
evidence Co the City that a
sensitive plant survey has been
conducted. The sensitive plant
survey shall be conducted to
conform to the survey
requirements identified by the
California Depanment of Fish
and Game and/or US Fish and
Wildlife seMce. In the event
sensitive. plant species are
identified on-site. the project
applicant shall provide
evidence to the City that such
impacts have been
appropriately addressed per
requirements of the California
Department of Fish and Game
and/or US Fish and Wildlife
Semee.
In- thc-- event- any
archaeological. historical. or
paleontological resource is
uncovered during the course
of the project development.
ground-disturbing activities in
the vicinity of the find shall be
redirected until the natun: and
extent of the find can be
evaluated by a qualified
monitor. Any such resource
uncovered during the course
of project related grading or
construction shall be recorded
and/or removed per the
~onunendationsidentified in
the archaeological and
paleontolagical resaurce
assessments and/or appJicabJe
Cirv and/or State n:llUlstions.
Prior to the issuance of
building pennits. the project
nrononent shall demonstrate to
Melhod orVoriBcadoa
Subminal to the City of
evidence identifying that
the sensitive plant
survey has been
conducted and that any
identified impacts have
been appropriately
addn:ssed.
I) Inclusion of language
in the construction
documents that requires
mandates compliance
with this measure, and
2)Subntinalofevidence
to the City that
construction workcn
have been infonned of
actions to be taken in the
event any suspected
archeological, historical,
or paleontological
resource is encountered
during on-site
construction activities.
Subminal of project
plans to the City for
review and annroval
Tlmlal of
VoriBcadoa
Prior to the
issuance of
grading
permits
Prior to the
approval of
grading
permits
Prior to the
issuance of
huildin.
Vertrylal
Pam.
City
Planner
or
designee
City
Planner
or
designee
City
Building
and
VulfIcadoa
Dale
,
~Udgldo.
ID
GE0-2
HAZ-l
-)
HAZ-2
\
~Udpdo. Ten
the Ciry that the siting. design
and construction of all
structures and f3Cilities
(including walls) within the
project limits are in
accordance with the
regulations established in the
California Building Code. as
well as the recommendations
identified in the geotechnical
investigation and the soils and
foundation evaluations
Drenared for the croiect site.
Prior to the issuance of
gnding pennits. the project
proponent shall provide
evidence to the City that
gnuling plans for the proposed
development fully incorporate
the recommendations detailed
in the soils and foundation
repon prepared for the
proposed project
The City shall be notified
immediately in the event
malodorous or discolored
soils. liquids, containen. or
other materials known or
suspected to contain hazardous
materials and/or contaminants
are encountered during on.site
gradin&,construction.
Earthmoving activities in the
vicinity of said material shall
be halted until the extenl and
nature of the suspect material
is detennined by qualified
personnel (as detemtined by
the City). The removal and/or
disposal of any sll(:h
contaminants shall be in
accordance with aU applicable
local, state, and federal
standatds.
The project proponent shaIJ
incorporate and/or or be
subject to appropriate and
required (as detennined by the
City) fire protection andior
fuel modification features.
Said features shall include (but
not be limited to) the fire
protectioDlfuel management
provisions detailed in the
approved FireIV egelation
Management Plan and
Catastrophic Wildfire Risk
Analysis prepared for the
proposed project (September
20081, as well as the standards
~Ielbod orVtriOcadoB
Submittal of gnuling
plans to the City for
review and approval
I) Inclusion of language
in the constIUCtion
documents that
mandates compliance
with this measure, and
2) Submittal of evidence
to the City that
construction workers
have been infonned of
actions that must be
taken in the event any
suspected hazardous
material is encountered
during on-site
construction activities.
SubminaJ of projl:tt
plans to the City for
review and approval
TImlDl or
VeriOcado.
penruts
Prior to the
issuance of
gnuling
pennits
Prior to the
issuance of
grading
permits
Prior to the
issuance of
building
pennits
Veril)1Jll
Plrw -
Safety
Official
or
designee
City
Building
and
Safety
Official
or
designee
City
Planner
or
designee
City Fire
Marshall
VerIlIcadoa
Dllo
-.,
1
"
M1dpdoD M1dpdoD Te.. TImlaI of Verlf)'\D1 VerilladoD
ID :\Iethod orVerilleldoD VerillcadoD PI':'" Dlte
and requirements identified by
the Fire Drnartment.
:-10501 On.slle construction activities I) The con~tJon Prior to the City
shall be resaicted to the hours documents shall identify issuance of Planner
penrutted under the City's the hours ID which grading and or
Municipal Code. grading and construction building designee
activities C3n occur pennits
2} Submittal of evidence
10 the City thai
construction workers
have been infonned of
hours in which
construction activities
may occur
:-10502 Prior 10 the issuance of The requirement that all Prior to the City
grading pennits, the project on.sitc equipment be issuance of Planner
proponent shall demonstrate to properly maintained to grading and or
the City that aU construction limit noise shall be building designee
vehicles have mufflers and included in construction pennits
shall be maintained in good docwnents
oDeratina order at all times.
N0503 Prior to the issuance of The requirement Prior to the City
grading permits, the project limiting idling times to issuance of Planner
proponent shall demonstrate to 10 minutes or less shall grading and or
the City that all trucks waiting be inc:luded in building designee
to be loaded or unloaded with construction documents permits
construction material shall not
be left 10 idle for more than 10
minutes.
NOS-4 Prior 10 the issuance of Submittal to the City for Prior to the City
grading pennits, the project review and approval of issuance of Building
proponent shall demonsttate to plan(s) identifying the grading or official or
the City that all stationary location of stationary building designee
noise-generating sources, such noise-generating permits
as air compresson are located equipment.
as far as possible from existing
residential uses.
PB5o! Prior to issuance of building Submittal to the City Prior to City
permits, the developer shall tha~ I) the fair share issuance of Planner
provide evidence to the City funding commitment occupancy or
thaI appropriate (as has been made Q[, 2) permits designee
determined by the City) fair- submittal to the City of
share funding commitment has evidence that the project
been made to offset the cost of site has been annexed
operation and maintenance of into Conununity
the Verdemont Fire Station. Facilities District No.
The funding, a one-time fair- 1033
share contribution equivalent
to the Community facilities
District No. 1033 "in.lieu fee"
established by Resolution No.
2004-107 of the Mayor and
Common Counc:i~ will
mitigate the long-tenn impact
of the project on emergency
services of the Fire
Depanment. As an alternative.
an irrevocable agreement to
annex the Droiect site to
")
~UdlldoD M1dpdoD Te.t nmm. or Verify\D. Verl1loadol
ID :vrethod orVerlftoadOD VertftoadoD PI"" Date
Conunwuty Faclliues DisU!ct
:-/0. 1033 would satisfy this
obli1l8tion.
")
",
ATTACHMENT G
')
VARIANCE REQUEST
TTM 16794
FINDINGS
1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of
this Development Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical land use classification;
The subject property is located in an area of the city that has unique topographic
features and natural slope (6 to 14%). The subject property is also restricted to
public access to the north, south and west. .
1
The subject property is unique in its setting along the Rancho Muscupiabe Section
Line. Commencing at Bailey Creek and heading in a northwesterly direction
along this 'section line' every parcel/common ownership ofland extends from
Verdemont Drive to the abutting National Forrest botmdary. The only exception
to this are the parcels of land located at the northwesterly intersection of
Verdemont Drive and Palm Avenue. At this location there are/were four (4)
separate parcels under three (3) individual ownerships. The Applicant has
acquired 1 of these parcels thus reducing the common ownerships to only two (2)
property owners. The applicant has made a good faith attempt to acquire the 4.43
acre parcel (APN 0261-011-09) that fronts onto Verdemont Drive in order to
combine this parcel with the subject property. This acquisition would have
resulted in the proposed project having 'frontage adjacent to Verdemont Drive.
This circumstance would have allowed for the project to be developed without the
use of the proposed retaining wall, similar to the series of projects previously
approved by the city (TTM 17812, 16533, 17367, 14352) as depicted in the
attached exhibit.
Due to these circumstances and the existing site conditions the construction of the
retaining wall is necessary to facilitate the appropriate internal site grading and
internal public street layout. Due to the physical location ofthe subject property
without approval of the Variance the property owner will be deprived of the
highest and best use as permitted by the City's Development Code and General
Plan.
"\
1
.
--,
2. Tbat granting tbe Variance is necessary for tbe preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property rigbt possessed by otber property in tbe same
vicinity and land use district and denied to tbe property for wbicb tbe
Variance is sougbt;
The type of wall system proposed has been utilized within similar situations in the
Verdemont Community and northern hillside areas of the city's 'east valley'.
There are examples of this wall system within residential projects located within
Y., Y, and I mile of the subject property. These existing examples range in height
between 4 feet to 15 feet. In other areas of the city walls of this nature are
proposed in excess of 30 feet (recently recorded Tract 14112). In permitting the
type and location of the proposed retaining wall system the property owner will
be able to obtain similar property development rights as other properties located
within the Residential Low (RL) Land Use District. Without the approval of the
Variance request the proposed project would not be able to subdivide the subject
property in an efficient manner and provide for the logical extension of public
utilities. .
3. Tbat granting tbe Variance will not be materiaUy detrimental to tbe public
bealth, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in
sucb vicinity and land use district in wbich the property is located;
="\
The proposed retaining wall and site design will be completed in compliance with
the city's Development Code, Municipal Code and applicable ordinances and
State requirements. As such, the resulting conditions will adhere to the proper
level of public health and safety requirements. All improvements shall be
designed and constructed by licensed professionals particular to the design of
these engineered wall systems. These wall systems are utilized throughout
California in areas of public buildings, roadways and State Highways, hotels and
major shopping centers, as well as, residential communities. Inotherwords, these
engineered wall systems are commonplace for their particular application of
addressing critical areas of grade changes of real property due to constraints and
physical limitations.
4. Tbat granting the Variance does not constitute a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon otber properties in tbe vicinity and
land use district in wbicb sucb property is located;
By granting the Variance request there will in no way be established a precedent
or special consideration / privilege that will limit the ability for other similar site
conditions and property from requesting consideration from the city for
development rights of the same nature being requested with this application.
'"
2
,
)
5. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject
parcel;
The granting of the Variance application is required to allow the proposed use and
obtain property development rights that are expressly prohibited within the RL
Land Use Residential District without the granting of said Variance for
construction of walls exceeding 6 feet in height.
6. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan;
The granting of the Variance application will not extend benefits to the subject
property that are inconsistent with the General Plan. The benefit's derived by the
granting of the Variance application will assist in addressing city policies, such
as:
. Provide residential housing for local workforce needs.
. Complete the construction of fragmented local infrastructure to enhance
transportation and utility service.
. Eliminate blight and redevelop older residential housing stock.
Goal
.,
Facilitate the development of a variety of types of housing to meet the needs of all
income levels in the City of San Bernardino
Policies
Accommodate the production of new housing units on currently vacant or
underutilized land at densities and standards designated in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan.
Goal
Develop attractive, safe, and comfortable single family neighborhoods.
Policies
Require new and in-fill development to be of compatible scale and massing as
existing development yet allow the flexibility to accommodate unique
architecture, colors, and materials in individual projects. (LU-I)
"
3
.
)
""
~
I
I
II
/
:* I
, ./
'//
~
1,1):';::
'iii ;1>'
'''I' -0
'j! 118
\'-.
J,
!~..
,-
.
1/