Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout29-Development Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Developement Services Department Memorandum TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: Valerie C. Ross, Director THROUGH: Charles Mc Neely, City Manager SUBJECT: Item 29: Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 (Appeal No. 09-02) DATE: December 17, 2009 COPIES: Rachel Clark, City Clerk; James F. Penman, City Attorney Background: On December 7, 2009, the Mayor and Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02. The project is a proposal for a 44-lot residential subdivision on the west side of Palm Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Verdemont Drive, in the RL, Residential Low Land Use District. The variance approved by the Planning Commission would allow a Verdura retaining wall of varying heights, up to a maximum of 26 feet. Public testimony and the Council comments at the appeal hearing were focused primarily on the Verdura wall. Concerns were raised about the aesthetic quality of the wall, potential maintenance problems, slope stability and potential liability issues for the City that could be caused by the attractive nuisance of a climbable wall. The matter was continued to December 21, 2009, to allow time for the applicant to consider design alternatives, and for staff to return with answers to the questions that came up during the December 7, 2009 hearing. In response to concerns voiced by the Council, and at the request of Councilman Kelley, the applicant has analyzed several potential design alternatives, and has submitted a modification to TTM No. 16794 that maintains the standard maximum wall height of eight feet, eliminating the need for a variance. The modified TTM is in substantial conformance to the TTM approved by the Planning Commission. It maintains the same circulation pattern, lot configuration and grading design of the approved subdivision map, except that a standard 8-foot decorative retaining wall is proposed instead of the previous Verdura wall design. The standard retaining wall will not be climbable, and landscaping to deter graffiti is required in the revised conditions of approval. This design modification is a compromise solution proposed by the applicant to address all of the concerns raised at the December 7, 2009 Council meeting. -4rZq -0'V e'a-t"P [2 ,z1- i Memo to MCC—TTM No. 16794 December 17,2009 Page 2 The revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 is attached, along with the recommended conditions of approval, revised to require the standard maximum wall height of eight feet, and to eliminate references to a variance. Recommended Motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission approval of Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16794, based on the findings of fact in the Planning Commission staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval recommended by the Planning Commission, as revised to eliminate the variance request. Attachments: Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 Conditions of Approval i qqY Vol* R g 9s6R`s��j� s! s Ci$ Rr.?5ssa �¢ - ge Y c @ a3 YY �3 z O xs - �wn a s _ s u �pp q yy ww 1:wa r a r $ �Y 6 @w b b h b$ >y &« .. C w Y Y Y3 Q $a><w �dd� w w p d $a" $ $ `° _g ggaP= $ y @a �x s8 g � y � $y " e g � ? g� $€ q ft, pg a € H 741x' H L $ �'"R: � g q Pei W Q m n --I Z.§.@_gb 4 ° ee'd5 „y� gCy8 �` Y`{ pis f � Y $�� g" s ' $n 7,MseSfe $ YY gY s._ a $ . &s_ Y� a a = '- 4 L1a§ e$ Ja °�N � j' R - s~ s sy U i sIP deg 3. �r ,I 3 _. �$ .�wg'se_W_s��' '- '. Yea: P.S=� z @ s�?= �° �_� s se ? R ¢ MIN � fit® ��-,q� w ��7� " �" di� �g °J 4 �a��F��a���.�$ � �� ��� w��b °4 s�1 H H EY S79ss 's'o=gam ��'.aFa aRa V Y- i _YRtlWbgO E Finn ! EOFAA! WH! 2 oat ,a �""sass"RSe'w$:r i$sa?$saee'sab9�=:A?eE:::6�aE"sia o d7 @a , Op a a. N/ WZ r r 0mF cj W 'a ® C11 a R p3 A _ G3 LU WW Ns OD 9h o y 9 tj / 4 z� .m N s / yya�� 5% W N @ C, b W bi (mss to g� Y J 4 `j R v� N d C° W �- Ms Cycy ET. - u e $ /og �� °k°`a �� ! ,y. ` n N4a .gym n All a ° G i0 11./AGO " 0 NO[LL'Od m ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 (SUB No. 06-31) 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 10,875 square feet on the project site located on the west side of Palm Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Verdemont Drive, in the RL, Residential Low land use district. 2. Within two years of this approval, the filing of the final 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: December 21,2011 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 of the 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 "attorney's fees" for the purpose of this condition. 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. 7TM 16794 Conditions of Approval MCC Hearing Date: 12.21.2009 Page 2 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 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. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, 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 shall certify the elevation of the building pads to the City Engineer prior to construction of the building foundations. 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. The owner/applicant shall provide written disclosures to prospective homebuyers that the subdivision is within a Foothill Fire Zone Overlay (Zone B - High Fire Hazard). The written disclosure shall include property maintenance provisions established by the Fire Department and in the project's Fuel Modification Plan. 10. The retaining wall and outward-facing slopes on lots 14—26, and any other perimeter landscaping and fuel modification areas on the project site that are outside of individual homeowner-maintained fenced yards shall be included in a Landscape Maintenance District for maintenance. TTM 16794 Conditions of Approval MCC Hearing Date: 12.21.2009 Page 3 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 shall be released no sooner than one year after occupancy of the tract and only after such time as the survival of the landscaping has been verified by City staff. 12. The project landscape planting plan, to be submitted for review with the Development Permit application for construction of homes on the project site, shall incorporate climbing vines and cascading plant materials designed to cover the surface of the retaining wall abutting lots 14—26,to deter graffiti. 13. The retaining wall along the southern boundary of the site shall not exceed eight feet in height, and shall be constructed of slump stone or split face block. All other solid fencing on the project site shall be constructed of slump stone or split face block. Both sides of all free-standing walls shall have the decorative finish. 14. Development of residential units on the site of TTM 16794 shall require approval of a Development Permit Type 3 application, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. 15. The location, materials, and design details of all fencing and landscaping shall be reviewed concurrently with the Development Permit for construction of residential units, and shall incorporate the design standards in Section 19.20.030(8)(D) of the Development Code, as well as details specified in this approval. 16. Development of Tentative Tract Map 16794 shall be subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment F to the Planning Commission Staff Report) incorporated herein by reference as conditions of approval. 17. 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. 18. This permit or approval is also subject to Attachment D to the Planning Commission staff report, incorporated herein by reference as the conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: a. Public Works b. Fire Department C. Water Department End of Conditions of Approval i OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK RACHEL G.CLARK-CITY CLERK 300 North"D"Street•San Bernardino•CA 92418-0001 909.384.5002•Fax: 909.384.5158 www.sbcity.org San Bernar ino $M December 22, 2009 Mr. Richard Hernandez 6941 N. Melvin Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92407 Dear Mr. Hernandez: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on December 21, 2009, the following action was taken relative to Appeal No. 09-02 - an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02, 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: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council independently review, analyze and exercise independent judgment in its consideration of the Initial Study and in making its determination, and that the Mayor and Common Council: 1. With respect to the Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16794, the Mayor and Council finds that recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 because: a) The project revisions, which have been made in response to written and verbal comments on the project's effects, cause no new impacts and cause no greater impacts than those already assessed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and b) The conditions of project approval which have been revised or added as a result of the project revisions are not mitigation measures required by CEQA. 2. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachments E and F to the Planning Commission Staff Report); and CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTED SHARED VALUES: Integrity•Accountability•Respect for Human Dignity•Honesty Mr. Richard Hernandez Page 2 December 22, 2009 3. Approve Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements recommended by the Planning Commission, as revised to eliminate the variance request. The time within which judicial review of the decision must be sought is governed by the provisions of Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk's office. Sincerely, q"a b. Ct.*AA Rachel G. Clark City Clerk RGC:Ils pc: Development Services Eric Borstein, Borstein Enterprises, 12301 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 302, Los Angeles, CA 90025 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK RACHEL G.CLARK-CITY CLERK 300 North"D"Street•San Bernardino•CA 92418-0001 909.384.5002•Fax: 909.384.5158 www.sbcity.org San Bernar ino SM December 8, 2009 Mr. Richard Hernandez 6941 N. Melvin Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92407 Dear Mr. Hernandez: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on December 7, 2009, the following action was taken relative to Appeal No. 09-02 - an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02, 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: That the matter be continued to the Council/Commission meeting of December 21, 2009, at 4:30 p.m. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk's office. Sincerely, Rachel G. Clark City Clerk i RGC:Ils pc: Development Services Eric Borstein, Borstein Enterprises, 12301 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 302, Los Angeles, CA 90025 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTED SHARED VALUES: Integrity•Accountability •Respect for Human Dignity•Honesty f 3 9 i �� ll[��NA ! CITY OF SAN ZERNARD INO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL�e'iI I 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 Dept: Development Services family residential subdivision on 18.45 acres, with a Date: November 30, 2009 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) 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 Tentative 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: N/A Source: (Acct.No.) Acct. Description: Finance: Council Notes: I ' Agenda Item No. -- �i��0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT 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. (Exhibit 1) Applicant: Owner: Appellant: Eric Borstein Palm Avenue 45 LP Richard Hernandez Borstein Enterprises 12301 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 302 6941 North Melvin Avenue 12301 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 302 Los Angeles, CA 90025 San Bernardino, CA 92407 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310-582-1991 909-997-1623 310-582-1991 Background: The subject of this appeal (Exhibit 2) is the Planning Commission approval of TTM 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 11 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 of TTM 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, staff 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, Longville, Munoz 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, Munoz 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 final 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 Impact: 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 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. a P laccmeol Q 43q 3 IZ-7-01 Exhibits: 1. Location Map 2. Appeal Application 3. Planning Commission Record of Action and Staff Report 4 I i EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 11/16/2009 PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16794 S VARIANCE 09-02 NORTH any Project Site Melvin Avenue r� r Huntington Drive Magnolia Avenue fir r Verdemont Drive Palm Avenue 1 j Copyright r 09-24-2009 05:57pm From-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPT 9093845080 EXHIBIT 2 CITE'OF SAY BERIVARDIVO Developrnent Services Department, Planning Division 300 North"D"Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 San Berllar lna Phone (909) 384-5057 • Fax (909)384-5080 Web address: www.sbcity.org APPLICATION FOR APPEAL APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one) M Development Services Director 13 Development/Environmental Review Committee X Planning Commission Case nurrtber(s):�_�"j toy] & 7 5 1 c2, 09—0 2.. Project address'<'EN-,"4 L -1Vt4<x tb. iV)7qLj v WLe_ No, Oq-() Appellant's name: l—k CAAV t Appellant's address: `I( rACMA MELAIrtl M. 2407 Appellant's phone: q(A-(4q7-I(aQ Appellant's e-mail address: 1='�1 ic-�l4YFL Yht}or;.c;a� Contact person's name: lG /�nnEZ Contact person's address: taAN�E Contact person's phone:__ I-Amf- Contact person's e-mail address: t Pursuant to Section 19,52,100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application form within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal tiling fee. Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor 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 Dater appeal filed: eceived by: t 11/04 00-24-2000 05:57pm From-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPT 9083845080 7-544 P :03/003 F-512 REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR IN APPEAL Specific action being appealed and the date of that action: sD _ "�`'� St t�l.c,E FAMt��t k ESt N�7tl I,oTS S1� A M%"A ,M&A& lztl 517-E TO r.-M\ nc �TAININIa rA,,AA ?cd C�F� Aex�F �Z� Specific grounds for the appeal: + F,-AA .USE -rb ��,y �F-( p�u, 5,��r\►; J V C51,t x P',LM0N1 Of GGIWV\�S5►c .5; +,AO 1�N¢� ' :J�,�cf� M rtl t� AC-TCC- � '�l IT J3'T _ y�C►�tyVio Vc�E A�fr� Action sought: Z)V-N` E- NCB %,yj q-o Additional information: . LA(_V, 2-EFj� C�;MI+�\���;.,$�1— �c�E�vt ttr �NL�� UN�vc��,TY l�►wy Signature of appellant: Date: 10 - ::-5 -i/A � z 1jX4 T�Nt�NA��'Ib - r> CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO EXHIBIT 3 bF.D o 1 STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ~ PROJECT 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 Low land use district. ACTION: APPROVED Meeting Date: September 23, 2009 The Planning Commission: l.) 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 Monitoring/Reporting 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: Dun, Heasley, Longville, Munoz and Sauerbrun Nays: Coute and Mulvihill Abstain: Eble and Rawls Absent: 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. Terri Rahhal, Deputy Director/City Planner Date cc: Case File, Department File, Building/Plan Check, Public Works/Engineering ,f ; PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 (Subdivision No. 06-31) and Variance No. 09-02 AGENDA ITEM: 1 HEARING DATE: September 23, 2009 WARD: 5 OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Palm Avenue 45, LP Borstein Enterprises David Mlynarski 2730 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 300 2730 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 300 MAPCO Santa Monica, CA 90404 Santa Monica, CA 90404413 Mackay Drive 310.582.1991 310.582.1991 San Bernardino, CA 92408 909.384.7464 REQUEST/LOCATION: 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: ❑ Not Subject to CEQA ❑ Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332— In-fill Development ❑ No Significant Effects ® Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ® Approval ® Conditions ❑ Denial ❑ Continuance to: Hearing Date: 9.13.1009 1T1V 16794(Sub 06-31) & Variance 09-02 Page 2 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 11 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. 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 15-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 The subject site consists of 3 parcels and is accessible from Palm Avenue. 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 ITM 16794(Sub 06-31) & Variance 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. Abutting the project site to the south and north are vacant properties in the RL district. Abutting 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 (CEQA) The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study (Attachment 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 Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment F) incorporated by reference in the Conditions of Approval. j BACKGROUND The proposed Tentative Tract .Map was reviewed by the Development/Environmental Review s 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 abutting 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: 3 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 Avenue approximately 900 feet west in a "U"pattern connecting back to Palm Avenue. Hearing Date: 9.13.2009 77'111 16794(Sub 06-31) & Variance 09-01 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 13) 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 Supply 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 irrigated 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. 3 Hearing Date: 9.23.2009 7TM 16794(Sub 06-31) & Variance 09-02 Page 5 TABLE A—DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT CODE GENERAL PLAN Permitted 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. max. Lot Width 74 feet- interior lots 60 feet- interior lots n/a 115 feet- corner lots 66 feet- corner lots Lot Depth 115 feet 100 feet min. n/a 1 Wall Height 26 feet O 8 feet(max.) n/a 1 Access 2 standard means 2 standard means I Consistent { (*)A Variance is requested to permit 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 ro osed subdivision is consistent with the P P 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 of a 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 Attachment 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. x Hearing Date:9.23.2009 TT W 16794(Sub 06-31) & 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 dimensions 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. S. 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 Monitoring/Reporting 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. 1 Hearing Date: 9.23.1009 7TII 16794(Sub 06-31) & 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—VAMANCE 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 Avenue in the RL land use district. 2. 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 Hearing Date: 9.23.2009 TTM 16794(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. 6. 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: 9.23.2009 7TM 16794(Sub 06-31) & 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: 1) 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, (&A�)�. �Jo Valerie C. Ross Director, D elopment Services Ji Aron Liang Senior Planner Attachment A Location Map Attachment B Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 Attachment C Conditions of Approval Attachment D Standard Requirements Attachment E Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment F Mitigated Monitoring/Reporting Program Attachment G Applicant's Variance Findings ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 09/23/2009 PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16794 & VARIANCE 09-02 NORTH .!/ ! ..11�� � ! ;! •,' , ,tt'� � ,,f��!!!�i!/'yv�l�'� yx ' X. / / /y�j/11i/r�l/f!�y� F�/ /! jflf., J �:iif�% !✓+, 1. !. ./• Project Site , '< // , r {yf Melvin Avenue , Huntington Drive ' Magnolia Avenue 'G !// rr ryy/�/�`'� t,.t,'•%' Ih j ! ! '/ I t} ,, ` , ' r.�%` _ ;• �'i4;.x%�=t Verdemont Drive tf w r Palm Avenue If f �'', 3 '� .�.+�.� •8ft .. /, /. !�%, ^._/�sls'�i ! l/ ' i!/ll4f •vim /jf, '' // � �..,*.. ,v �r ! g' '��i'� ! �!� •' 'I �� °�� '; I � � ..ei ,yj I; �� !� �� �� �' ! ! �g� z 111 � z ,1� i .� rt {�g�.,�=��"1 �t �= �• ;'� 1 • • flit' /�' �! S�S ! °� 1 y• 1 li ��. " w ��\�% � t� /� �•.9i�f�0e�� �! �! �E Ali �3 �� i .� !� �!? a pA! Iz�O: as •it ! F �i 9�:°Iljej�•i .� al '�� fiq 1`11 �1 11 1g� �jg_a �11 !!!, tl fall "/� •/' I =� I' 'f !;, o / � - E t 9 }}t 1 1 t. .�, .• � - i �■ � 667 � I ■ . a IF i �? ° �1lt° i3�3 ?! '•liE�itPli it1111ti1i/ii!!/I/tl!l.ltttl::1 1 • it .�g/�3 .�•�i t��rr� �!_��_�� ••a_aa=aaaauaao°ut.tu.aaaaauzzza° � ° y 1'IfIiI///!1!Ilt11II1/ti/i1SQQti1!!11lii Ei// �1 '��� 91tYar.....a.ae aaeeaaaaaaaaaaeddaa__eeaea:°..° �I $ !---------atanaatauaaasaaauauaauauzzzaz ai O lit TA i O z 06 IZI 4F ok W a ! •C \1v(J f n Wj it C-4 / N! �f �> no •y � o j / O! � � //� N• � � h �ta y 1 �'= fat 5 /`y. I•I� �+ `' jig �0�C11�iCd 9� ed .V^ w . :-x - Z w a r. Lu to -- Z U) r w 0o W $ J 11.. !Y ^g ti cs s: es 4 -I CI` Z Q N U cc Z W 2 > J _ , Q 0�0 N U N i a Uy g °I8 e e� 111 j °O �r3fY� � i:tir O /Pa 10 � r1 � p 00 Nil I $ � O I I r ! 0 pp I i CNO - N °O 00 cn I L.L 1 p , �. ' �' 000 QQC . O , �' ' O° , GWeI �•� O° ( / / ' °° 0 000 L N / 0O 0 00 ' i 7 0 j I j / � %' 00 / ° y 00 I I 1 1 co 100�yII� o 00 om � °o 00 I ch 0o 00 , 00 m °o° o M /If rn 010 r ce'i `o / i 00 c0 �_�1p s' 0, I, 0 O \\� 0000 i / O 00 00 ' 0°0° / 01 0 _ 0 000000 o o , o 000 0 I ■ ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 (SUB No. 06-31) & Variance No. 09-02 1. 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 of Verdemont 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 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 of the 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. f TTM 16784& 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 transformers, 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. 7T'M 16784& VAR 09-02 Hearing Date:9.23.2009 Page 3 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 of the 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. Landscaping, and drip irrigation shall be installed with suitable soil to support drought tolerant, fre resistant landscape materials as the wall is constructed. Uniform coverage of 50% of the wall shall be established prior to acceptance of the walls and grading. A detailed planting plan for the verdure wall shall be submitted for approval with the Development Permit for the project site.* and The 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 fence/post 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 owner/applicant 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. TTM 16784& 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 by the Planninz Commission 9123109 ! ATTACHMENT D CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Development Services Department — Public Works Division Standard Requirements Description: 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. Applicant: 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. Drainage 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. c) 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 Project: 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 southem boundary 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 outletted 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.sbcity.orq— Departments — Development Services — Public Works for templates to use in the preparation of this plan. g) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. The applicant is directed to the City's web page at www.sbcity.org - Departments — Development Services — Public Works for templates to use in the preparation of this plan. h) The City Engineer, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve the WQMP and the SWPPP. i) A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" 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. Grading and Landscaping 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. b) 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 u: llocuinemi and Scttings'liang_arl.ocai Settings Temporary Interact files OIX U9':hR 16794 CUP n8-00 West side of Palm:\ve 20 ti North of-Verdemont-OF;.fduc 09,09"09 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet alone the southern boundary of the site. Case No. TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 3 of 12 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) 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. g) 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. 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". C:'1)ocu Inc III s and SeI tin gs'Jiang or LcKal Set ungs,Tctnpurary Internet I Iles 0 1.Kf39'1R 16794 CUP 08-06�kest side of I'aIin Ave 2!)f)11,'North of Verdemont-URJ.dix lit 0,09 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southern boundary of the site Case No.TR 16794,CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 1 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. 1) 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 material. n) 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. o) 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. 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. Ak ( Document-,and set tinpoiang ar Local Settings'rcInpor-ar} Intcmet Files'OLKI19`I-R 1(,794 ('l'p 03-06 West side of Palm:wC 20)fl North of Vemernont-DfUdoc 09109;09 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southern boundary of the site. Case No. TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 5 of 12 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. Landscape and Lighting 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 installation 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. C: Do:urnn*i and Seitimci'liang ar Local scthnp temporary Intemet HicsOLKIJ9 1 K l 0794 ('1111 08-06 Nest iide of Palm A%e 20o It North Hof verdemont-DR.I.doc 09:U9109 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southem boundary of the site. C_ase 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. e) 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.) f) Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District. g) 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. n) 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. 4. Utilities a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (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 Developer's expense. e) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. C Documentvand Set tin ri Iiung a I.,�caI lettings Ccinporary Intenict I Iles 01 K139 I R 107,94 CUP OS-06 West iItie of Palm ANC 2W It North of S'erdcmont-DIU.doc 09109i09 t I Project: A request to subdivide 18.45 acres into 44 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 10,882 l t 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. Case No. TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 7 of 12 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. 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). j) Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and inspected under a City On-Site Construction Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developers Engineer and approved by the City Engineer will be required. This plan can be incorporated in the grading plan, where practical. 5. Mapping 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 ji) Palm Avenue r 6. Improvement Completion a) Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District landscape and 1 C: Ik+cuments and Settings hang_ur Local Sethn,s Lernp.,r it Internet 1 files OL.K139.1 R 10794 CI:N ON-06%k est side of Pahn Ave IM 11 North of vademont-DIUdoc o9,09/09 Project: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 southem boundary of the site. Case No.TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 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. 7. Street Improvement and Dedications 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: t�y C: Docu nenu and Seitings Jiang._ar Local Settings Tcmpurury Internet t Ic:'01X139 3 R 10794 CUP 08-06 11 est iide uC Pahn Ave 2W R North of Verdemunt •D131.doc U9,091i 09 Project: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. Case No. TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 9 of 12 Street Name Right of Way(ft.) Curb Line(ft) Palm Avenue 30 20 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 corner to accommodate the ramp. f) 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 return 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. 1) 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 F drainage control and traffic safety. C: Documents and Sciting,liana._arLocxl settings Ictnporiry Intcnut 111cs(1LK119 1R 10794 ('L:1't)5-Ofi'�cst,idc of Palm:1vc 11.00 it North ot'VeRICinOnt-DR.I.doc 1 02 09109 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet alone the southem boundary of the site Case No. TR 16794 CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 10 of 12 8. Required Engineering 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 Documents at id Sotinrs'liang a Local Settings fcmporary IntcmcI I ilea 01X139 f14 I6794 (A.1'08-00 west side ofPa lip.%ve 21)0 I't North of Verdemont-DBJ.d(x 091 69109 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southern boundary of the site Case No. TR 16794,CUP 08-06& Variance 09-01 Page 11 of 12 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 http://www.sbcity.ora 9. Required Engineering Permits a) Grading permit. b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division). c) On-site landscaping permit. d) Off-site improvement construction permit. e) Off-site improvement LIVID landscaping permit. 10. Applicable Engineering Fees a) All plan check, permit, 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 http://www.sbcity.org 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 Requirements a) Install a speed advisory sign (15 mph) W4(LT) on "B" Street prior to hair pin turn on the property line of lots 9 and 10. 12. Public Works Occupancy 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. C, Doc urncnti and Settings Bang_ar Local Scu mp I cmporar}Inmllct I tics 0LK139 l Jl I(''94 CL:N OS-1)0 best iide or Pahn:\ 2W 11 North ulAcrdcmunt-mutluc o9.U9,09 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 of a retaining wall rangin in n height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southem boundary of the site. Case No. TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 12 of 12 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. C: Docarnaui-and Set tin gs);.ingar Local Suttinp I cmpurary Intumct I ilus OLK139'TK 1 0794 CIA,ns-06 %1 cst iide of Palm A%C 200 Il Nonh of 4 erdemunt-wu.duc 09109/09 ATTACHMENT D CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Development Services Department — Public Works Division Standard Requirements Description: 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. Applicant: 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. Drainage 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. c) 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 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southem boundary of the site. Case No_.T_R 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 outletted 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.sbcity.org— Departments — Development Services — Public Works for templates to use in the preparation of this plan. g) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. The applicant is directed to the City's web page at www.sbcity.org — Departments — Development Services — Public Works for templates to use in the preparation of this plan. h) The City Engineer, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve the WQMP and the SWPPP. i) A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" 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. Grading and Landscapinq 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. b) 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 C:llcxumcnts a;.d Scuin i Lang nr.Lucal Setlin's`I cmporjiy intcmet I iles OLK(39`(R 10794 CLIP 08-06 West side of Palm:\vc 2W 11 North oPverdemont-1)111.doc 09/09"09 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 of a retaining wall raneing in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southem boundary of the site Case No. TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 3 for exterior pads from the ad elevations shown on the of 12 tentative ent ative 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) 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. g) 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. 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'-611 . C. Documenti and.Srtiin6i Jiang ar Local Settings'ICmpurary Internet I ilcs(YRIO I R 1(,794 (T it OS-00�4cst i,dc of Palm aye '0t)ti�onh of�'eniemunt-UR.I.duc O9,U9.q9 Project: 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 southem boundary of the site Case No. TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 4 of 12 r' 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. 1) 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 material. n) 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. o) 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. 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. C: Docurrr.aui and semngs Itang._ar Local seuings lcnnporjr}Intanct I deN QIX139'I It 10794 Ct;Y ug-06 best ride ref I'ahn Avc ?Or) it North ot'verdemont-DIIJ.doc; 0909109 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southern boundary of the site Case No. TR 167_9_4,CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 5 of 12 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. Landscape and Lighting 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 installation 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. U: Documcnti and Settirr�s liang_arLocal Settings lonporary L•itcnut I ilcs 01-K119 7R 1 1,794 C(:P 0S-Oh% cst stdc of l'ahn Ave 200 11,North of A erdernunt-1)131.doc 09,U9,09 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southem boundary 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. e) 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.) f) Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District. g) 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. 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. i 4. Utilities a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (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 Developer's expense. e) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. C:Documents and Settincs liang arLocal Seuu;g "lemporary Inter ct files OI.K139 I K lo-094 Cl1'OJ-0(i�kcst vde of P:;Im Axe I-M fT North of Verdc nont-1)131.dix (i9-091 09 Project: 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 I 1 feet to 26 feet alone the southem boundary of the site Case No. TR 16794,CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 7 of 12 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. 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). j) Sewers within private streets car 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. Mappinq 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. Improvement Completion r a) Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District landscape and I C: Docwnatti and 1 cemngi lianc,arLocal Settings roni)omry intcnict I ib_,O(XIJ9 1R i o'94 <'l..I't18-06 1kest iide ui l'alln AVC i 200 It tiunh o1'Ver(iemunt-1)1.1.duc E 09109;09 l i Project: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 southem boundary of the site Case No. TR 167_94, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 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. 7. Street Improvement and Dedications 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: C: Documents and Set tingi Iiang_ar'Local Scuings Icinporiry Intcntct HIcs O1.KB9 1R 16794 0,1108-00 b�Cst side oi*Pal IF A\C 2W R\orth of%er&Tnunt-mu(I c 09"U9,09 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southern boundary of the site Case No.TR 16794 CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 9 of 12 Street Name Right of Way(ft.) Curb Line(ft) Palm Avenue 30 20 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 corner 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 return 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. 1) 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. (': Ik c ,r i;t, r,i tietung;hang ar Locai hwngs li•mnurai} InMnut{iks(.)I.K139+7R 10 7194 Cl:p n-S-(}h 1Geit side of 1'ahn Ave Voilh of%erdemont-1)I31.dcx 09,U9,()9 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet alone the southern boundary of the site Case No. TR 16794,CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 i Page 10 of 12 8. Required En-gineering 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. 1k1cwnenti xid Settings hangar Local Setting:;lrmporary htternet I iks0 1.Kl19,(K I0794 CUP t1$-06 14cyt side of 1'ahn:lve 2W 11 North of Verdemont-D[Udoc 09,01);09 t Project: 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 southem boundary of the site Case No. TR 16794 CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 11 of 12 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 hfp://www.sbcitY.org 9. Required Engineering Permits a) Grading permit. b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division). c) On-site landscaping permit. d) Off-site improvement construction permit. e) Off-site improvement LIVID landscaping permit. 10. Applicable Engineering Fees a) All plan check, permit, 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 hfp://www.sbcity.org 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 Requirements a) Install a speed advisory sign (15 mph) W4(LT) on "B" Street prior to hair pin turn on the property line of lots 9 and 10. 12. Public Works Occupancy 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. C! Documcnls and Settings Jiang ar I.oca;S,anngs IvirpomI intcntct I dc.M.KID I R It,794 C(A'05-06 41cst vde ul'PaIIn Ave 201 11 North of A'erdcmont-mutim 09,09109 f 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 of a retaining wall ranging in height from 11 feet to 26 feet along the southern boundary of the site Case No. TR 16794, CUP 08-06&Variance 09-01 Page 12 of 12 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. U: Docurnaiti and Settingsliang,_ar LiK•al Sewngs Icrnporary Internet I Iles OIXIJ9 1 R 10794 CI AI()S-O6 44cst sale or'l'ahn Ave 200(1 North oO,erdcmont-D13J.doc U9.W09 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS case: Date: ' —' c_ -^ r� � p ���..... Revlewed By:GENERAL REQUIREMENTS LJProvide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at(909)384.5585 for specific daetailed requirements.p�check. The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage,construction features,and exposure information supplied by the developer and must be available prior to placing combustible materials on site. WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION: The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by: ❑ San Bernardino Municipal Water Departmenl---Engineering (909)384-5391 ❑ East Valley Water District--Engineering (909)888.8986 ❑ Other Water purveyor. Phone: *PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES: Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not to exceed 500 feet for residential areas. Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas.Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for residential areas. Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire D hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and apartment In conjunction with the water purveyor.Fire water Purveyor.Public fire hydrants,fire services,and public water facilities necessary s specifications FI a Department requirements are the developers T' shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion.Contact the water purveyor d ab for a responsibility and information. P You indicated above for additional ACCESS: Provide two separate,dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance.The-Notes shall be paved,all weather. Provide an access road to each building or fire structed width. 9 apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of urtob- (� Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings. ❑ Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings. ❑ Provide"NO PARKING'signs whenever parking of vehicles would are to read"FlRE LANE--NO PARKING—M,C.Sec.15.1@ Possible reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width Signs Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shag have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround. The names of any new streets(public or private)shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. SITE: /-AN0 X)AC PcoT>`<-r/or� Oy3'YCMS_ Alf access roads and streets/are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction. ❑ Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any exterior wag.The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type,with one 234 inch and 4 inch outlet,and approved by the Fire Department. Areas adjacent to fire hydrants shall be designated as a'NO PARKING'zone try painting an 8 inch wide,red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant In such a manner that 4 will not be blocked by parked vehicles Lettering to be in white 6"by 3Y. BUILDINGS: (R( Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage street Cam- 7 mer:ial and multi family address numerals shag be 6 inches tall,single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall.The color of the numerals shall con- trast with the color of the background. ❑ identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit 4 serves. ❑ Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher Is 2A 1 OB/C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. ❑ Apartment houses with 16 or more units,hotels(motels)with 20 or more units,or apartments or hotels(motels)three stories or more In height shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards. ❑ All buildings,over 5,000 square feet,shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinker system designed to NFPA standards.This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days. Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system.Permit required. ❑ Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction.Permit required ❑ Provide fire alarm(required throughout).Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation. Permit required. 8 Fire eMrtment connection to sprinkler system/standpipe system,shall be required at Fire D Fire Code Permit required,apply at 200 east 3rd street,(909)384-5388. apartment approved location. Fire Sprinkler monitoring required Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to the start of construc ion.Permit required ❑ Occupant Load Note:The applicant must request,in writing,any changes to Fire Department requirements. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: PP. c - ;NE ro p / RE Z.o qE A1r3 t:7 p r.r. A L` rWA g /4/5 �r�. /� / �7 //CQ Cs/ 10 Fo �L Fi n.�/ tilt. a/ff T!/E A/9 ZOlc-- A&! T n�F L/i�//%5 IZV ( 11Vr F/k PQc~��yloN Pi AN = tom /,A, FPa 170(O:L0:1) R��viRr✓o /./l7/�y,47loN f-/F��v,¢�S f -------.--_ SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DRC/ERC Case: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16794(SUBDIVISION NO.06-31)&VARIANCE NO.09-01 APN NUMBER: 261-011-08, 13, 14 EPN NUMBER: 2005-101 DATE COMPILED: 9/1/2009 REVIEW OF PLANS: COMPILED BY: Brunson,Ted OWNER: Palm Avenue 45,LP DEVELOPER: Bornstein Enterprises TYPE OF PROJECT: A request to subdivide 18.45 ac into 44 residential lots with a min lot size of 10,882 sq ft and a Variance to allow a retaining wall(1 V-26')along the southern boundary. The project is located on the west side of Palm Ave.200'north of Verdemont Dr. NUMBER OF UNITS: 0 LOCATION: West side of Palm Avenue,approximately 200 feet north of Verdemont Drive WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING: CONTACT: Nevarez,Mike PHONE NUMBER: (909)384-5092 FAX NUMBER: (909)384-5532 Note:All Water Services are Subject to the Rules Regulations of the Water Department ] Size of Main Adjacent the Project 12"D.I.P.IN PALM AVE. ,] Approximate Water Pressure 84 psi Elevation of Water Storage: 2100 Hydrant Flow® 20psi: 2723 aom ] Type,Size,Location and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant 109-011 ®PALM ] Water Supply Study Required Pressure Regulator Required on Customer Side of the Meter ❑ Offsite Water Facilities Required ❑ Water Main Reimbursement Due ❑ 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 ' DEVELOPER WILL ALSO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MELVIN BOOSTER STATION. '-WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS REQUIRED WATER QUALITY CONTROL CONTACT: Arrieta,Con PHONE NUMBER: (909)384-5325 FAX NUMBER: (909)384-5928 ,] R.P.P.Backflow Device Required at Service Connection for Domestic Service ] Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection for Fire and Irrigation ] Backflow Device to be Inspected before Water Service can be Activated ❑ No Backflow Device is required at this time SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomsen,Neil PHONE NUMBER: (909)384-5093 FAX NUMBER: (909)384-5592 Note:Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit ❑ Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at this time ❑ Sewer Capacity Fee must be paid to the Water Department for 0 Gallons Per Day: Equivalent Dwelling Units: 0 Subject to Recalculation of Fee prior to the Issuance of Building Permit ❑ Breakdown Of Estimated Gallons Per Day COPY TO: Customer; Planning; Engineering Tuesday, September 01,2009 EP Page 11 of 1 i CITY OF SAN BERLNARDINO ATTACHMENT E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCREENCHECK DRAFT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SAY BERNARDINO INITIAL STUDY FOR TENTATIVE TRACT Yo. 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 occupy one of the proposed lots (Lot 13) until such time upslope properties provide appropriate drainage facilities. The residential lots will be minimally sized at 10,882 square feet, with an average lot area of I4,602 square feet. 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 construction of a retaining wall (11 to 26 feet in height) along the southern boundary of the site. May 7,2009 PREPARED BY: LSA Associates,Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, 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: Independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised judgment in making the determination, by the City of San Bernardino Development,Environmental Review Committee on April 30, 2009, pursuant to Section 21082 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). IS I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCREENCHECK DRAFT INITIAL STUDY File California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualities for a Negative Declaration or if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. 1. Project Title: Tentative Tract No. 16794Nariance 09-01 3. Lead Agency Name: City of San Bernardino 3. Address: 300 North"D"Street San Bernardino, California 92418 4. Contact Person: Aron Liang,Senior Planner 5. Phone Number: (909) 384-5057,ext. 3332 6. Project Location (Address/Nearest cross-streets): North of Verdemont 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 I-i', 1,960 "u 2,020 feet above mean sea level (A.MSL). The site is adjacent to undeveloped property on the north, south, and west, and by developing residential uses on the east. 7. Project Sponsor: Palm Avenue 45,L.P. Address: 12301 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 302 Los Angeles, California 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 (I 1 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 Avenue. Associated site improvements include paved roadways and driveways,sidewalks, utilities, streetlights, block «alts 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 residential uses from open space areas located on the northern portions of the project site. The project site is located within the RL district. This district is intended 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 project site, the residential density of the proposed development would be 2.38 lots per acre. IS 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCREENCHECK DRAFT INITIAL STUDY 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 flows to the proposed on-site detention basin located on Lot 13 (37,508 square feet [0.86 acre]) 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. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 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 the 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 from 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 soil 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. Table A—General Plan Designation and Land Use 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 TTM 17367) Within the Verdemont area, the RL District generally extends from the City limits in the north to Irvington Avenue in the south and from beyond Palm Avenue 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 (10,800-square foot lot minimums) includes the area north of Ohio Avenue and east of Palm Avenue; Escana Street and Ridgeline Avenue (north of Ohio Avenue); and the area located west of Palm Avenue and south of Ohio Avenue. Approved development of minimum-sized at 10,800-square foot lots includes TTN1s 16533 and 17367, which are both located north of the future Verdemont Drive directly west of the project site. Figure I identifies the project vicinity,while Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan. IS 3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCREENCHECK DRAFT INITIAL STUDY 11. Other agreement): whose approval is required (e.g., permits, finance approval, or participation • City of San Bernardino Approval of Development Permit and Tentative Tract Map. • 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. 9 [4 1 3 f ti 4' IS 4 I ?flvU r ` i. ,Ill ''J" "�tir; j � ! • Kew ! - .. � �� � _�; t • .� Project Site �� Cp'= '. .• — ' _..17, J, �2 -' t >.4, • ten, A�' j---7 ` MIA - r w �0y.' Q,.t+q��r'�=i' -[I 1893,.. p: Are �q, fqi !I f �NT . •`�.\ '�,`` (�' a •; ' i ` '-' .(/ •,. •( fir:' ; ��'b` '� . ' A ra'demont \ r ,,,� ti', r . '•,. ',± _ Theo v Percolation We+ .'r Basin% Regional Location Los Angeles Project Location --� •y:. :, '_' - r`>,.ter..=•=+ Cover .E_ -s'• e _�i"• Sun Bem-lMo •• ""`�:!ii� Cormry r r'• .. on ercolaU l � � !. A�• �Q �t �.' , Base -- — cr, 1 Z , orrrrree`�� (� c�rnrn (_-� 777 ?f,� �! 20 1 r• t MILES FIGURE I ti o t,coo 2.000 7enutiL'e Trutt 16794 MINE{ FEET Initial Stud SOi_RCE:(,SGS7.5'Quad:Sall Bem ardino North 0996).t98S CA;Thomas©ros.2007. Regional and Project Location R.GAp.}q.t;Rcpurts•IS�locauoo.rrad(10161107) `l ( 7 • r r Y r I Y �Y 11.1+ rr. T' Tvr rrrT . 13 12 j 1 f CEBRts 11 10 9 8 7 1 6 I .IJ r r PASIN .. 4 3 • 2 -. #» 39 38 37 38 35 34 33 32 31 : 30 ., I 18 as F 44 28 „ w r 20 ; > 7. 21 27 / J~ 22 rR 23 elt £p�., -, 28 w R•,�� }d!' LSD FIGURE 2 o 100 200 FEET Tentative Tract 16794 SOI;1(l"E:\IapCo(2007):County of San Bernardino(2006) Initial Stu o R:GAD530 G'Rcpon;VS•eife—plan.mxd(12i07/07) Conceptual Site Plan I CITi, OF SAN BERNAIWINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCREENCHECK DRAFT INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED � The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning Materials E] Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Public Services ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination. On the basis of this Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino, Environmental Review Committee finds: That the proposed project COULD NOT have significant effect on the environment, and a ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 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 MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT he a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) O 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 ntcasures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name IS 7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than L AESTHETICS— Would the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ® ❑ scenic vista as identified in the City's General Plan? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, I ncluding but not limited to trees, rock El outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual El ® ❑ character of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or [� glare, which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime view of the area? Discussion I.a 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 of Interstate 215 (I-215), Little League Drive, and Kendall Drive. Views from southbound lanes of I-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 I-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 residential 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 the 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 that 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, the siting of individual lots and structures, maintenance 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 SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Lb The project site is predominantly undeveloped. While mature trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed dwelling units, these trees have not been identified as a significant scenic resource. Two vacant structures that once occupied the site (a single-family residence constructed in 1925 and an associated detached garage) have been demolished. No on-site feature or vegetation has been identified by the City as a scenic resource. The project site is not located along a State scenic highway.' 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. Lc 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. The proposed project site is predominantly undeveloped. The western portion of the project site has an assortment of annual grasses and is not disturbed. The northeastern portion of the project site has been heavily disturbed 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 11 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 maturity, 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 313-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 mamtenance.The following mitigation has been identified to ensure no adverse aesthetic condition results from the construction of the proposed interlocking block walls. AES-1 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 1) provide adequate screening of the walls, and 2) satisfy the fire resistance requirements identified by the City. 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 structures and features, 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. ' Gly of San Bernarehno General Plan, Figure C-I "Scenic HighvcnysiRotrles,"The Planning Center,November 2005. IS 9 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Ld 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 with 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 lighting within its Development Code.' 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 level. No mitigation is required. City of San Qemardino Development Code,Chapter 19.20. IS 10 B �--f B 1 i `f y 39 38 37 36 35 34 , 33 32 . A. 16 40 17 41 42 29 w'`•-cam i•s 43 44 2 Retaining wall 21 26'high at this point ''� \. 27 r- \ > 25 }��\ 28 fio q/ Retaining wall r' ! \ 11'high at this point 90 180 ...``. .r FEE? '. ' " Ke Y Viewpoint Ma p 5' H1. WROUGHT IRON FENCE P/L PAC 04 N Cn� I 1 4 N '4ATJFRAI GROUND j l 1 4' Wall Cross Section L S A FIGURE 3A Tentative t to tract 16794 So)1iItCE:.1LipCo f2007);Cuuniv()f S:m 13cmardino(2006) Initial stu y K G:1D33uGRcp0mlS'lig3.q Wall_Xstct.msdf03/30109) Key Map and Nall Cross Section M o O C ? L A o y a•o � c c o tC ` d f' (� If1 S z z S y: ;; « ,._ t �+y ,�i c �• 1.,ti t t I y. All Ake v x n t 1� j.. MINJIF IIA} a AA, cry J a 10-17 Foot Verdura Wall(2 to 3years ofgromth) w s 25+Foot Verdura Wall(2 to 3years ofgromth) 30+Foot Verdura Wall(2 to 3years ofgromth) �i y L S A FIGURE 3C Tentative Tract 16794 Initial Study Typical Wall Treatments R:\GAD530\G\Reports\1S\fig3C_walls.edr(12/10/08) i • i • CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES- Would the Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than project: Significant with Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring I Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with agricultural zoning, an existing agricultural use, or Williamson ❑ Act Conservation Contract? Discussion II.a Farmland maps are compiled by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 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 (MRCS) soil survey and current land use information using eight snapping categories and represent an inventory of agricultural resources 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 not mapped by the FMMP.' 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 Important 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 Ac t2 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 properties 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 conversion of agriculturally zoned land to a non-agricultural use. No impact related to these issues would occur; therefore,no mitigation is required. California Department of Conservation,Farmland,Mapping and Monitoring Program,2004. The Williamson Act is a procedure authorized under State law to preserve agricultural lands as well as open space. Property owners entering into a Williamson Act contract receive a reduction in property taxes in return for agreeing to protect the land's open space ur agricultural values. IS 14 i CITY OF SAY BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than III.AIR QUALITY- Would the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant No Im act ]nco orated Im act Im act a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation I of the applicable air quality plan? (South Coast Air Basin) b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ contribute substantially to an existing projected air quality violation based on the thresholds in the SCAQMD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook?" c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ® El concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ substantial anti al nu mb e r of people ple based on the ❑ information contained in the Project Description Form? Discussion III.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 north and east. It includes all of Orange County, the non-Antelope Valley portions of Los Angeles County, and the non- desert portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The current regional air quality plan is the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQ,MP) adopted by the SCAQN1D on July 13, 2007. The 2007 AQN1P proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of sulfur oxides (SOx), directly emitted PM2.5, and nitrogen oxides (NOx)supplemented with volatile organic compounds (VOC)by 2015. The 8-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOx and VOC reductions, to meet the standard by 2024 assuming a bump-up is obtained.' The Basin is currently a federal and state non- attainment area for PM10 and ozone. The AQMP incorporates local General Plan land use assumptions and regional growth projections developed by the Southern California Association of Governments ('SLAG) to estimate stationary and Final 2007 Air Quality Jianagcment Plan,South Coast Air Quality Management District,June 2007.Adopted July 13,2007. IS 15 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY mobile source emissions associated with projected population and planned land uses. If a new land use is consistent with the local General Plan and the regional growth projections adopted in the AQMP, then the added emissions generated by the new project has been evaluated and contained in AQ.N IP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional AQ�IP. Because the proposed project is consistent with the development envisioned in the City's General Plan, it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any of the control measures in the AQMP. No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore,no mitigation is required. Ill.b. The SCAQMD has developed the CEQA Air Quality Handbook that establishes suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted. According to the Handbook, any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact: • 55 lbs.per day of ROC(reactive organic compounds)(75 lbs./day during construction); • 55 lbs.per day of NOx(oxides of nitrogen)(100 lbs./day during construction); • 550 lbs.per day of CO(carbon monoxide)(550 lbs./day during construction); • 150 lbs.per day ofPMio(150 lbs./day during construction);and • 150 lbs.per day of SOx(oxides of sulfur)(150 lbs./day during construction). Construction 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 fr and om grading filling. 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. `z IS 16 , CITY OF SAY BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Table B—Summary of Emissions from Construction and Grading Operations Pollutant Emissions(lbs/day) CO ROC NOx sox PM,o P GIs Construction Emissions 59 11 98 0.10 4.9 4.4 SC.aQMD Construction Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55 Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO Fugitive Dust Emissions _ — — — 280 58 Peak Grading Day Emissions without Mitigation 59 II 98 0.10 285 (Construction Emissions+Fugitive Dust) 63 Significant without Mitigation? NO NO NO NO YES YES Peak Grading Day Emissions with Mitigation 59 11 98 0.10 145 (Construction Emissions+Fugitive Dust) 33 Significant with Mitigation? NO NO NO YO NO NO Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 2007. Assumes operation of the following: 1 tracked loader, 1 tracked dozer, 1 scraper, 1 roller,and 2 miscellaneous pieces of equipment. PM,.s derived from PM,o emissions based on factors published in the Final - Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM)2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds,October 2006. Equipment ExItaust. 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 PMto 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,o. 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,o 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 NOx, ROC, CO, SOx, or PM,o. In order to mitigate for construction-related air quality impacts, the City requires the preparation of a PM,o management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division. In addition, the project proponent shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project. Adherence to these measures would reduce total daily construction emissions of PM,o to below the SCAQMD threshold. The other four air pollutant emissions would be below the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD without mitigation. IS 17 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY AIR-1 The project shall comply with the requirements of SCAQ,NID Rules 402 and 403, Fugitive Dust, which require the implementation of Reasonable Available Control Measures (RACM) for all fugitive dust sources, and the AQNIP, which identities Best Available Control Measures (BALM) 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: 1. The project proponent shall ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained and serviced to minimize 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 informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. The project proponent shall ensure that any portion 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 any on-site grading activity. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each workday 6. The project proponent shall ensure that all disturbed areas are treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. 7. To reduce the potential for wind erosion, the project proponent shall ensure that landscaped areas are installed as soon as possible. 8. The project proponent shall ensure that SCAQMD Rule 403 is adhered to, ensuring the cleanup of construction-related dirt on approach routes to the project site. 9. 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 permits, submit to the City for review and approval, evidence that emissions from any alternative mix of equipment do not exceed SCAQiVID daily thresholds. Operational Emissions. Long-term pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would result from vehicular emissions and stationary emissions created through the consumption of fossil fuels. 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 intersections affected by a project could result in potential carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots and potential y, operations-related air quality impacts. Cumulative development in the Verdemont area, without mitigation, would cause two intersections in the vicinity of the ro osed P P project to operate at IS 18 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY unacceptable LOS. Development in the Verdemont area is required to make fair-share contributions for traffic 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-term 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 operations-related air quality impacts. The proposed project will add 32 a.m. peak 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 SCAQNfD 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. Table C—Summary of OperatioUal Emissions Pollutants(lbs/day) CO ROC NOx sox PM, PM. EStationary urces :s 0.45 2.6 1.1 0 0.030 0.030 e 55.0 5.2 7.4 0.04 7.2 1.4 nal Emissions 55.45 7.g 8.5 0.04 7.23 1.43 eshold(lbs/day) 550 55 55 55 NO NO NO NO Source:LSA Associates,Inc.October 2007 NO III.c As stated in the response to Checklist Question III.a, the project is in a non-attainment basin for PMto 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. f II.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-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. The project site is in an area that currently 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-term and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to sensitive receptors issue are considered to be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 1 IS 19 CITY OF SAY BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY II(.e During construction, diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. Additionally, the application of architectural coatings and installation of asphalt may generate odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project boundaries. SCAQMD Rules 1103 and 1 113 identity standards regarding the application 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-tern 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 BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY j IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than project: Significant with Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporated fm act Im act a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on ® ❑ ❑ any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or I regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ® ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional PI policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Ic) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ® El native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ® ❑ protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy of ordinance? t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted El ❑ El Conservation Plan, Natural I Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion IV.a Sensitive biological resources are those defined as (1) habitat area or vegetation communities that are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife; and (2) species that have been given special recognition by federal, state, or local government agencies and organizations because of limited,declining, or threatened populations. The site burned in the fall of 2003. A biological resource assessment of the project site was conducted in March 2004 by ENVIRA. At the time of the March 2004 report, little if any vegetation was evident on site due to the burning of the site in 2003. No species listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the IS 21 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) were observed during biological surveys of the project site. Since then, vegetation has regrown, necessitating another site visit and evaluation of the potential for impacts to sensitive plant species and habitats. A site visit was made for evaluation of habitat and a focused survey for Nevin's barberry (Berberts nevinii) was conducted on June 19, 2006, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:20 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 2007 site review, the condition of the project site was substantially similar to that which existed in June 2006. The chaparral is dominated by chamise (A(lenostoina fasciculatum). The recovering Riversidean sage scrub is dominated by deerweed (Lotus scoparius). Vegetation communities on site include non-native grassland, chaparral, and Riversidean sage scrub, which are recovering from fire. 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 merriami parvus; 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 specific to the SBKR was identified. 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 identified that the site is outside the final 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-fire 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 deerweed). 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 (Calochortus plummerae) was observed on the site. A few individuals of this species were observed on the northern half of the site. This species is not listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Acts but is ranked as "113" by the California Native Plant Society (CLAPS), indicating that it is considered by CLAPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Given that this is not a listed species and is relatively common I n the region, the project would not have a substantial impact on this species; therefore, impacts to this y species would not be considered significant. , 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 identified as potentially occurring on the project site; however, none of these ktas observed on site during site reconnaissance. IS 22 i CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY :abandoned rodent burrows and debris piles have the potential to support nesting for burrowing owl (.4thene cunicularia htpugaea) while on-site trees provide the potential to support nesting raptor species such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo./amaicensis) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leacurus). Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 0,113TA), raptor nests are protected from harm if they are present and actively being utilized on a project site. Mitigation Measures BI0-1 and BIO-2 have been identified to reduce biological resource impacts to a less than significant level. 13I0-1 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 take 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. BIO-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 conducted 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 not be permitted during the nesting season for this species. IV.b Habitats considered sensitive by federal or state resource agencies and other groups are those that have been depleted, are naturally uncommon, or support sensitive species. No riparian habitat is located within the project limits. On-site 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 located approximately 1.0 and 1.4 miles west and north (respectively) of proposed critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. 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 stated 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 significantly impact any sensitive natural community. Effects to jurisdictional waters of the United States are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). This permit is required prior to the placement of fill material within any ACOE jurisdictional area. Prior to issuance of a Section 404 Permit, a Section 401 water quality permit must be issued. Affected CDFG jurisdictional areas are regulated by California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, which regulates alterations 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) method of wetland delineation (1987 Manual). The site was evaluated using aerial photographs to aid in locating potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S./streambeds of the CDFG. An on-site examination of the site was conducted on June 19, 2006. Conditions on site have not substantially changed in the intervening months. IS 23 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY The site slopes moderately (approximately 12.5%) from northeast to southwest and is traversed by two ephemeral drainages. 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 storm 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 feet 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 watermarks 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 J urisdictional 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 watermarks 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 definition 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 CWA. 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. Table D—Tract 16794-Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.(Acres) Jurisdictional Area Wetland Waters Adjacent Wetlands Non-Wetland Waters Total ACOE Jurisdiction Drainage A — — 0.05 0.05 Drainage B — — 0.04 Total — 0.04 0.09 0.09 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. Table E—Tract 16794-CDFG Jurisdictional Streambed and Riparian Habitat(Acres) .jurisdictional Area Streambed Riparian Drainage A 0.05 Drainage B 0.04 Total 0.09 IS 24 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Deg elopment of Elie proposed project would impact_Q.09 acre of ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas. Impacts to jurisdictional areas of this small size can be authorized through use of the ACOE Nationwide Permit (N WP) 29 and through notification to the CDFG of proposed Streambed Alteration. These permits typically require mitigation of impacts at a ratio of 2:1 for unvegetated drainages; that is, 0.18 acre of streambed 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. Mitigation Measure BI0-3 has been identified to reduce potential impacts to jurisdictional waters to a less than significant level. BI0-3 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./Streambed 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 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 are located within the project limits. No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. I VA 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 encroachment 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 (1,larch 15—September 15). Adherence to Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. I� e 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.' The City typically requires a replacement ratio at 1:1 for all removed trees. The project would result in the removal of more than five trees; therefore, a City tree removal permit would be required. Adherence to City requirements City of San Bernardino Municipal Code,Section 15.34. IS 25 CITY OF SAN BER.YARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY related to the removal and,or replacement of trees (including a pre-permit tree survey) would reduce potential impacts associated tree removal to a less than significant level. l V.f The project site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. No impact would occur with the implementation of the proposed project. z ,t IS 26 j J I 21 2' 2' A 2' B 2' I L S A FIGURE 4 0 PROJECT BOUNDARY — JURISDICTIONAL AREA o — loo .00 (.99ACRES IN BOUNDARY) 2'\4 WIDTH OFJURISDICTIONAL AREA FEET Tentative Tract 16'9:t SO(,RCE -%T ('OOG);County o(S:m Bernardino(,(.(,h) Initial Study R'i;.1L: ui;Ro>„n, , , „ On-Site Ephemera! Drainages CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than j Project: Significant with Mitigation Significant Im act Inco orated Im act No Im act a) Be developed in a sensitive archaeological area as identified in the City's General Plan? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the j significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5? c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El Sig of a historic resource i pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5? d) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique El ipaleontological resource or site unique to geologic feature? e) Disturb any human remains, including ® ❑ t interred out hose side formal 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. 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 (1) 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 Information Center (SBAIC) located at the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands; a review of National Register of Historic Places Index, Office of Historic Preservation Directory of Properties; and a review of historic 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. Three built environment resources have been recorded within one mile of the project, the closest of which is located approximately %4 mile south. No additional cultural resources were identified during the record search. 1 Public Resources Code,Section 5020.1(j). IS 28 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY No cultural resources were identified during the field survey; however, one single-family residence constructed in 1925, presently in dilapidated condition, was identified within the project limits. This property included a detached garage and mature landscaping. The residence was heavily altered, with the detached garage being of a more recent origin (ca. 1960). Archival research conducted in June 2006 at the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office. Assessor's building records confirmed that the building had been extensively altered. The additional features constructed in the 1960s (three large additions to the north, east, and south elevations) and 1966 (changing of the windows and covering of the original wood siding in stucco) are not connected with local historic personalities, lack historic integrity, and are of common design and utility. The 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 definition 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 site would occur. Based on City's General Plan EIR(Figure 5.4-2), the project site is located-within an"Area of Concern 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 following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts related ed to this issue to a less Adherence to the level. significant CUL-1 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 (TTM 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 Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to any as-of-yet undetermined paleontological resources to a less than significant level. V.e No evidence is in place to suggest the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State regulations is required for all development, a less than significant impact is anticipated to occur with the development of the project site. 'S y i'uicoiuologtcal Resaares:tssesslnew Report Tcntauve Traci,Vo. 16533,CRtit TECH,November 24,2004. IS 29 CITY OF SAN BERNARDI O DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS- Would the Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than project: Significant with Mitigation Significant Im act [nco orated Im act No Im act a) Involve earth movement (cut and/or till) ❑ ® ❑ based on information contained in the i i Preliminary Project Description? Ib) Expose people or structures to substantial ❑ I adverse effects, including the risk of loss, ® ❑ ❑ injury,or death? I c) Be located within and Alquist-Priolo ❑ ® El ❑ Earthquake Fault Zone? d) Result in erosion, dust or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? e) Be located within an area subject to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ landslides, mudslides, subsidence or other similar hazards as identified in the City's General Plan? f) Be located within an area subject to El ® El as identified in the City's General Plan? g) Modify any unique geological or ❑ ❑ ❑ physical feature based on a site survey/evaluation? h) Result in erosion, dust, or unstable soil ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conditions from excavation, grading, fill, or other construction activities? i) Other: Development within Hillside ❑ ® El I Management District on slopes in excess ❑ i of 15 percent. Discussion VI.a Implementation of the proposed project would require on-site grading. The import or export of earth would be subject to haul permits issued by the City. Prior to the issuance of grading permits 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 required prior to the commencement of on-site clearing and grading activities; thus, no significant grading-related impact would occur. Interlocking block walls along the southern and western project boundaries will measure IS 30 i CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY from 11 to 26 feet in height, and will be constructed at a 4:1 slope. Based on the characteristics of the on-site soils identified in the 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%1. The design and construction of any such wall would be in conformance with established City requirements; 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 the 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 Cucamonga and San Jacinto Faults are located within 5.0 miles of the project site. All or portions of 17 lots (Lots IA I 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. ,2 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 0.72G 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-1 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) 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 prepared for the project site. VIA The project site is identified as being located in an area susceptible to high winds, which would increase the potential for the erosion (by wind) of on-site soils. The Soil Survey of San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California 1979, indicates three soil mapping units for the site. The mapped Sot is South«cst,Inc.,opinion Lettensite-soil suitability for Reinforced Earth Wall(such as Vedura Wall,Keystone W111 etc.),March 19,2009. F,ngnneering Geologic hi vestigation for,,t PN 261-011-08, 12, & 14, the Gardner Constniction Site at the north end of Palm on the west side. Soils Southwest,Inc,July 12,2006. jt 3 Crtj'of San Bernardino General Plan, Figure S-3"Wind Hazards,"November 2005. IS 31 CITY OF SAN BEXNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY units are 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.' In addition to these native soils, gravel, asphalt, concrete, and rocks were also found in portions 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 (BMPs) as required by the State's General Construction Permit. Adherence to these standards and regulations would result in less than significant impacts. VI.e Geomorphic evidence of active landsliding was not observed on site. Two different generalized slope areas (IIb and IIIb) within the limits of the project site (General Plan Figure S-7) have been identified. IIb 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. VI.f Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when strong earthquake shaking causes soils to collapse from a sudden loss of cohesion and undergo a transformation from a solid state to a liquefied state. This happens in areas where the soils are saturated with groundwater. Loose soils with particle size in the medium sand to silt range are particularly susceptible to liquefaction when subjected to seismic oun 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 report, groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface exploration of the site.2 The reported 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. VI.g The project site is located along the foothills of the San Bernardino 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. VI.Ii 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 Soil.Survey of Salt Bernardino County, Soutlrkestern Part, California, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Preliminary Report of.Soils and Foundation Evaluations Proposed Single Family Tract 16794, Soils Southwest, Inc, January 9, _'006. IS 32 CITY OF SAN BERVARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY «ith the Construction General Permit, the project proponent would comply with grading and erosion control measures (including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property) set forth in Chapter 15 of the City's ,Municipal Code. Adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and CEO-2 and applicable provisions of the General Construction Permit would reduce potential erosion impacts to a less than significant level. GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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 prepared for the proposed project. While located within the City's Hillside Management 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 San gndreaS FaWt zone '-1 13 12 II 1 10 DEBRIS 8 -I j -j i 3 2 r �I•�ir I� �: I H 39 38 37 38 I 35 34 33 , 32 31 t i 15, 1T wY 41 42 �19 r f 18' 4- 1 43 19., 1-1 22 IT- t? '•1cr 24 ;t ' '►ne ti 200 — �M- -- FET L S A FIGURE 5 0 PROJECT BOUNDARY — USGS Faults.2003 Tcrtatiue Tract 16-9¢ !_ Mquist-Priolo Fault Tone,2002 Initial Study SOURCE.MapCo(2007);County of San Bemardino(2006),Califomia Geological Survey,2002;USGS,2003 Al9uist-Priolo R G.1pS lii RcpunslS'4ig3_,�P zone.mxd(12/IQi08) Special Study Zone t l 1 yam': SY� < } • v .'1} '`L. Y v'R73'' 0 ae ',;.. t �.♦t ~sir �C'9'yyl"„ .'l'I�12+��1r�. .; fly �}+ ., .� �;- t >. h� �,► ��. elk. t„' Z A , ® l � r r r l � I r.rxu.z CITY OF SAN BERYARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VII. HAZARDS AND MATERIALS- Would Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than i the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant i Im act Inco orated Im act No lm act a) Create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle El ® 0 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within on-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ,1) 3e lucaied on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled a pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project I area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? jg) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving '.vildland fires, including where wildlands I are adjacent to urbanized areas or where e I residences are intermixed with wildlands? h) Other: Expose persons or property to ® El risk, injury, or death involving high wind I' g s. F I t IS 36 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Discussion V11-a Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of the project site with residential uses. No 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 environment due to the small volumes present on site. Therefore, impacts related to this issue are less than significant. No mitigation is required. VII.b 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., drums, 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-1 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 determined by qualified personnel (as determined 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 related to the release of hazardous materials a less than significant level. VlI.c fhe project site is located within close proximity to a number of schools. The nearest school site is Palm Avenue Elementary School, located approximately 0.44 mile southeast of the project site. Other schools in the project's vicinity include North 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. No mitigation is required. Asbestos and Lead Survey Report House and Garage at 6920 Palm Avenue in San Bernardino, C.4., Masek Consulting f Services, Inc., February 5,2007. IS 37 i CITY OF SAN BEXNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VII.d Pursuant to the California Government Code (Section 65962.5[E]), the project site is not listed in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese list).t No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. VILe The San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA) is located approximately ten miles southeast of the project site. The project site is not located within an Airport Influence Areal or within 2.0 miles of an airport. No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore,no mitigation is required. VII.f The proposed project, including all structures and facilities, 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. VIl.g The project site is located in an urban-wildland interface area. The City has identified a Fire Overlay District (FOD) to mitigate the spread of fire, to minimize property damage, and to reduce the risk to public health and safety. Within the FOD, "Foothill Fire Zones" have been identified. The fire hazard r within each zone varies based on slope, type of fuel present, and natural barriers. The zones are identified as follows:3 • Fire Zone A — Extreme Hazard: Fire Zone A is determined based on slope. This zone includes areas with slopes in excess of 30 percent. • Fire Zane B — High Hazard. Fire Zone B is also determined based on slope. This zone includes areas with slopes between 15 percent and 30 percent. • Fire Zone C—Afoderate Hazard: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 standards 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 primary wildfire threat 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 the north and northeast. Without adequate mitigation, the 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 the exposure to homes within the urban/wildland interface and/or otherwise reduce the spread of fire on or to developed properties, by controlling the use of materials and methods of construction" in the fire hazard areas. In response to the Hazardous Waste Substance and Sires List (Cortese List), California Department of Toxic Substance Control, I;ttp: �,�.�;�iru>tur.Jts,c ca.,aa public 5rarch.a,p,site accessed October 8,2007. C'ay,of.San Bernardino General Plan Figure LLL4,City of San Bernardino,November I,2005. Dc,elopment Code,Chapter 19.15. IS 38 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY October 2003 "Old Fire," the Municipal Code was amended in January 2004.' This amendment established Building Safety Enhancement Area (BSEA) standards (Municipal Code Chapter 15.11), strengthening development requirements within Foothill Fire Zones. The City's Development Code (Chapter 19.15) identifies additional requirements for development within Foothill Fire Zones. These standards include (but are not limited to) the creation of "defensible space" around the project, prohibitions on the use of specific building materials, and the imposition of more stringent construction standards. A fuel management plan/fire risk analysis has been prepared for the proposed project.'- Based on model fire characteristics, the fire risk analysis has estimated "...the worst-cast catastrophic fire 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 170 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 1, 2, and 3). The distances and provisions included are based on the model fire predictions based on the proposed project. Zone 1 (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 Palm Avenue), is an irrigated wet zone that reduces flammable vegetation in the vicinity of structures. Zone 3 (101 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: Municipal Code,Chapter 15.10(Foothill Fire Zone Building Standards). /-ure,begetatron ,ttanagetnew Pan and Catastrophic Wildfire Risk Analysis Tentative Tract 16794, Scott Franklin Consulting, September 9,2008. Written correspondence with City of San Bernardino Code Enforcement Deputy Director, Marianne Nfilligan December 12,2008. IS 39 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY HAZ-2 The project proponent shall incorporate and,or or be subject to appropriate and required (as determined by the City) fire protection and/or fuel modification features. Said features shall include Ibut not be limited to) the fire protection/fuel management provisions detailed in the approved Fire/Vegetation Management Plan and Catastrophic Wildfire Risk Analysis prepared for the proposed project (September 2008), as well as the standards and requirements identified by the Fire Department. 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 property 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 property and persons during high wind events; therefore, no significant impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is required. IS 40 - Page 1 of 1 John Egan From: RONALD CARDUCCI [rcarducci @cal-west.coml 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 Construction Materials Engineers MISTTesting & Inspection A Division ofMedall, ,1rgor1 Geotechuical, Irtc. CA1, 1FORNIA • NEVADA July 1, 2008 1 N 2.1 1 ;bl.l'kP Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. 1820 Commercer►ter Circle San Bernardino, CA 92408 ATTN: Mr. John G. Egan, P.E. RE: Pacific Street Rehabilitation Project (Cities of Highland and San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino) Proposal to Prepare Pavement Rehabilitation Recommendations Dear John: In accordance with the proposal information received from your office, 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 Avenue in the City of Highland. We have reviewed the project site. It is proposed to rehabilitate approximately 17,800 lineal feet or 3.37 miles. We have been requested to provide recommendations for a ten year design and a twenty year design with rehabilitation alternates for conventional AC (HMA) and rubberized. Asphalt (RA.C). On a project of this magnitude, the Caltrans Rehabilitation procedure with deflection testing is a highly desirable approach. A deflection criterion, gives a more scientific approach to design. An alternative approach using the Asphalt Institute Method relies on more subjective data and less field data. Rehabilitation projects generally are designed on a ten year basis. To extend a ten year design to twenty years usually ends up as a complete reconstruction of the road. This is because the additional traffic loading of the second ten years increases 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 Cities I Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. July 1, 2008 Page 2 Our scope of services would be to perform a field review of Pacific Street, identifying the number and extent of pavement deficiencies, and marking on. the pavement in white paint the areas of R&R. We would measure the length of the project and measure the road width at various locations and identify possible locations of cores for existing structural section thicknesses. Final core locations would involve a review of the deflection data. The length would be measured with a roller tape. _ While in the field., we would sketch the locations of each of our field markings and record the measurements. The physical location of each of the R&R areas would. be tied into an adjacent lot either by house number or other identification, which well'match up with the assessor's maps that you give us. In our office, we would sketch on maps you provide to us an outline of each repair area,.the recommended dimensions and its relationship to either curb or'street centerline: These reaps 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 dimensions of the repair area. We would evaluate the deflection test results using Cal-trans criteria and design the structural 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 concrete on 4" of aggregate 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 0.10' AC, and bump grinding. We will identify one or two areas where there is either a quarter crown or a low centerline crown. We will draw cross sections and use them to develop a recommendation. We will prepare a preliminary evaluation including comparative construction cost estimates for two alternatives. This constriction cost estimate is,not a complete CAL-WEST CONSULTANTS Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. July 1, 2005 ~ Page 3 cost estimate. We will only include the items directly related to pavement rehabilitation. In preparing our cost estimate we will secure recent prices from local contractors and use these prices as the basis for determining the cost to use in our construction cost. evaluation. We do not regularly compute quantities for bidding on projects. The quantities we will use will be based on our evaluation of the site and is not to be considered accurate for bidding purposes, but will be used as the-basic quantity for the alternatives in order that we can make a comparison. These quantities will include computer-generated data and will not necessarily be based upon field measurci-n;nts. 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 proposed plans and specifications for the project and provide our comments back to your office. Our cost estimate to provide services on this proiect 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 questions,please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Ronald F. CardUCC1,P.E. Materials Engineer RFC: bC\2353.361 PRP Highland Pacific 9trcet.keliahihmUon Project Attachments CAL-WEST CONSULTANTS CO 0 0a0000In �n a00000Ln i Ln C) C3 'k I O I I I'D kO N 00 O if1 0) 1 iD W O N W W N r•I 1 r^ O C) yJ M I N Ln '-1 H ^ O l p p •, I h 1 EU H I 1 I W 1 O I I I I I 1 H I N 1 a W 1 m • I 1 Q• a I 1 I I I W I I I I aJ l a I I I U I a I I •� EW., 1 I I I W O O Ln I I O Cl �f1 1,•I t I M O to I I tT ifl I a I H H H I H N r-I 1 I N a 1 Hcn wi 1 O I 1 1 C a l z O O w 1. rl I I O p U H I I iJ p, 1 aro) a r I•l a G t I o ON Ch I 1 1 1 w In 1 a I . A rn I to l U 1 U 1 0 0 1 0 ,~ I •� ro C I C I 1 I I H ro Q), u to o n U j °c i Ln o to co va roM ro : I C +� b H in j �r b i r i. 0 r1 0 '.i pn [ >~ a >a -C . 0 41 4.1 i a r C7'Ln j 0 a) i o vi In Ln fA b rn. 1 N U N V3 1 3 1 w o 0ca i a ww --,. a i O •14 a i i o � N 0 >? 0 CD d) Cla is 44 1 1 U ro w 1 °. l a I ro I I o 1 I .I 2a j U-) 75(d g i U') LO o nrno i rn G 1 0 'd •-Y I M -H I M N o ,--t y r i ' U j ) -roi ro i cHn i i 0 i rt m P° v°' °-' ' tr d,v'°� I w l 1 a I I a r v r. '14 1 c •14 7a ) I I N I H x 4-1 '-I 1 I to I H N N L/ N li 14 N H W- () a) W O b I I xxxxxxx O p I G O ci ro ro C W a I OA 4J > In I z I ] I U tT Ut >r N >r to U cr 0 tP IT M a) W W C -H m a. Y H 1 1 0 C G ro o ro • a) C G C C G r+ N I W U a.tV 1 W I, I H W W D U 0 .a H W W w W W U .i -> I .'Z U 1 H I E'•� O O O O O 14 rl 00 O O O 0 0 0 O O N a I W W • O 10 1 F, I W N W 01 N O 00 N rte• a0 r .--1 b I a 0 tn3 I W I z I U-a W I 1 I a i i g a u C V) a 3 14 0 H . I Ita 1 1 tP a) ;J a) O 40 -ri C O I .� 2 I I G •'I a) •rl a ro 41 O F ED 1 `l.. I Y •'1 a y N ail '-1 U aJ 5 1 0 w I 1 ro �, ,.1 a (a •.4 fa C > w P I 10 o w l I > a) ro C 3 w -.i 0 14 o U) I I a) a) 3 •� ro O U 1L H 1 I S4 -H N .y., S4 rl fa G a) N >+ 1 I I a to -'I a) a) > 4-3 4-1 W a N U -0 to a O a 1 1 a) tJ+ a) ro U I -rl N 4-J F 1 0 W N I to 1 W ,a C Ei• x H I U .�' H W I I F.., G N I-I (0 a) a) 11 •14 '-1 ►i W (1) .H 1.1 '4 •.I O O aJ I Et .t I I —4 al y m) a 0 .11 O a) ro ro w > CL pq G I '� N I I U O •'I a) >a ro fC I W zo 1 I 14 HtnH � tJ a •14 < alna a a °1 . +- 0 r 1 C tT 0 C a) O+ C (a w I I w H I I 4 C I Grl O a C O 1 1 1 1 1 > » N I H p.H i I U W O U W •i >1 u I !P U I I N •rl I 1J yJ }t N 1., N {•1 ,-t a a) U to•^I a) al U 1 N a) a) a) 0 U W a I a H I I b a) c di C w E (0 a) (a C c C C • 1. > (� .I 1 '-I •n•rl .-1-'1 w (D a) .n a-'i -4 -H -A -.I W a) O tYl w N (0 > .i O a) 0 tJ+ tT lT 0% a) � `✓ AF I O I I .r, N G a) O W to .,A I � U I I WaWOUHaE aa•wwwwwU na ANN I I I I I O I I I • I I < F , H � N u) ur I I Z I I 1 1 l a w I I I I I.H U 1 I I I I J 3 I I I al G] 1 i a I H u) r. In I 1 C I z O O W l 1 I .� Orj) I D U N • ' � G. t I I I I ro ro p I , I I C "•i a4 1 N i i• a s � � ° I O1 C i.-.-1 ro c I U7 f U u} I , O 1 0 ro N .j O,., 1 Z I W I r I � U a � O U I >4 a) C 1 I 1 I I •G 1 l�-I ca�i t,/,) 0 I l a I I I o q •d.rn O U 1 3 1 W O� 1 0 C N pHq ro 1 Q a 0.Oi I I 1 1 ,0 la M I N ro •rl I I ~ I I I q •O O O I a) p. J-� I I p'' I I I N W 0 I V� O U , ? ' •rl I 0 -0 I I W .d'1 I 1 0 1 0 N �4 I N I I I aim ro v I ro v [ 'N 04 l 1 I I a I la 1 -N 1.J.,-. ; I N 1 a) W C � 1 1 M 1 00 -� i 0 m i i " f ro 00 a' I -H >i a) M z , W 1 C �Q I ✓T J-) > N I z I m 'N H I W U LL N I w I I - •.fl I I W 1 p I > I F N .. J z I H t o I z U z I N I. ro i uaw3 I W A D 1 UI I I I W i 1 a I w I I I F I q o C7 I I 1 0 I H 0 4 W U N W i H Em I 3 Hu I V I I o N I o I y I C p I I 1 u .a N I I v1 I a w I � I 1 I 0 I c-n U r' I O 1 ti U I U I i n n • N.yl N v v h N N 74 LU o 40b CL P- NN N O N1 N O U p oo aa o Cp app p p� 88 1� — N M M H N Oy NN [ --N V! � N N O qo N N N p 1-' N opri) y J V W W. a. a a v d SI �w aW pppoppo app yop �y �p J 01 W N N M X11 N N O O�1 M N p N O M ch 2 J lf�O cif 0 op N �, 3` v ~ y y N N LL 0 U. y w }} d w N N W W O r U w W F^ N y W�' ao $ a N N N N N N (p FOB w 30 �Z� � 1 to Ir m W Z a► z Z LLF a!• N lh 0020QmW toUyro- p Q V a O N N N N (p } J W y W y_ Q O N m N Y N N N O W m N 0 O CO N N co z w $ W w N > a o N JCL N N w W h H � y y m O � � g � LL _c _c m n Z a m .R �U m 01 5 =-a a � E a = � E lu M w H m2 m.7 e: li C FAO U c� NC7 �' 2 c� N "z 0 c p A is W } 4 d W y m y c_ Zm� ytU °D c `y�U °� ',446 p W Vj LL a v o ZL �gv U �y O O c q)F- LL E Q'r c2 �' in �a . O m �—�,w = �� °d �' o �.3 y c -1b= m Y. 3U A �� _ c u� p N = ..S t� 0. 4 c m w Q$ L °/ $ m ':z a a Y m m E E vt = m c mU � UawUu as �� � � »a �I 'ociinu =if z � � . ._ E c M a „ a a �z a �i y �v a;w a ►- a c (Y �Nl'1 ? Nfph _ m FQ O 9 9 OOp00 � � NC7 NNN NNN -v cq q 1p i A r W J pnj �y S O N N n a H O M 1(f � N N Y J A n m V1 F N vi N (� n Q O N H N N co f- ►- w N N CN m 0 N N N N N ~ N N O A >F N N N y N N U xd o 0 KW D (sp► ((pp (fpp to N � /7 ti7 N_ N N e/► N W N � N NNN C", n N N N ON J 00 N<O 7 O N 19 N Ucl N � O N N ? 7 N V N V O N H Q 00 tD t0 co tO N 10 w /p O g = 3 q w N U.W A N aNa Uao N V/ O N tD IL U.z N ch d N_ O (D V O tp ? •! l7 O Q O O Q tO Q O N O ap O Vf W � N I i iA aD � a i w U W w y m w C H IN C •N c C E mg _ 1 O a 7v aro �8m d� U b 7 = o YU�C 7 C m E y; a U o ad L c E w N a g m I �L a ' (0 L d c pqN Z.�N tL w n A F o N gp b{ Em o � if S O co 0 q _ _n uUi (A U a u fA�= O t) Y L , L.s ` 0 �Q V mS y W ov 3S Q m � p !_ � U � m mtnp E � � b °^ c?m ar Y. m O nCg�zrn 2Q U i�z Y Lea c to �-o � 'o = cam -a a d H w � Qmaom Wa$ a a i v �s' Y .- NtO A OOl .- NP') O U1 Q Q O r r .-- — .- r �-N C7 '- ry Q H Z NN N .N NN NN NN N C4 O b t0 fD tD co Ip tp A f�A A tq dp - = N N N H N N (V N N N N N N N N N N N N ` N iNGINEERING ESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNI&INC. 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. 0109001, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PROPOSAL Dear Dennis: Engineering Resources of Southern California,Inc., (ERSQ, hereby submits our proposal for construction management and inspection services concerning the Pacific Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, Project No. ola09001, Phase 1, as requested by the City. To assist ERSC in the inspection efforts, we will utilize personnel from the firm of CAL-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 Avenue, 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. 1 and 2, Perris Hill Park Road to Sterling Avenue, will involve pulverization of existing pavement, grading and compaction of subgrade, and repaving with hot-mix asphalt (HMA) and rubberized hot-mix asphalt (RHMA). Area No. 3, extending from Sterling Avenue to Victoria Avenue 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 COMMERCENTER CIRCLE SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92408-3430 (909)890-1255 (909)890.0995 FAX 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 information, 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. Etta Pulce who served as project engineer during the design. Inspection services for Area Nos. 1 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. a 03017159 (#12) y 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 of CAL-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 the accompanying spreadsheet. With this, estimated fee for the construction services proposed is $108,600. Allocation of this 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 ERSC's proposal for the services required to complete the project. Should there be any questions,please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, John G. Egan, P.E. Principal Engineer JGE:ma enc. SMighland,City 00301715Tconst mgmt services pro posal.wpd • y ^H O � n f/l I I D W �� w»St O MMNN N7 y y N N N N s WES o Jdm H � � �1 C3 0 W C C y F- O W V LL W 00 `W Y N oo z W I H � H N M�O �W O O� =3 ar S W 9 z- to ION O p �m LL $ v W J F.2 U-)IL N t�S Q O g O O W�Z JZN lN7N O �AApp U N nJ U Wj' LL S H f w O1 z z w `nyN ro v c ao W z v n a1� Z ~ ' N •-n W 3 `^ h z C4 U a 0 �O V N N U a� N N O�3 ro F � 0 f1' >IF- §! U y W 8 O w a' Z zza'�wa '7' �co z IUt�A ODU� Ut`y �w (1Ny�W (� dl y LL -F 9 Q Q pI~wy U��y I� 2 5(?yw gL y ~ZpU UzO I¢�Opm �w� f I� a W Q W Ip 3 O J �UQa ~wa~ w y O�c�rc—cg '� y U p W ►- � 00 � � aan zaz y >wo�� F �w .w 0 0 ;�rcyUwv�Uac — a a W 0 � U U N ioC d V is O Y 4� �••• N H � ' O/ O' ' � ^ ^ 10 �f1 tp n m r !/1 Lm Construction Materials Engineers Testing & Inspection A Division Of Medall,Arag un Gedachnical,..Grc. CALJhORNIA r NEVADA June 16, 2009 is Engineering Resources of Southern Californ_ia; .Inc. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, CA 92408. # t ATTN: Mr. John G. Egan, P.E. � U Proposal for Ptchlic Works Inspection, Materials. Inspection, Testing.and Engineering for Phase I Pacific St. Pavement.Rehabilitation Project.Number ola09001,. Job Number 3-01.7. 159 City of Highland; California Dear John: 1 In accordance with your. Request fair Proposal of June 12, 2009; we have prepared this proposal to p.erfom1 the:work regttired in your .IZFi'. It is our understanding• that your inspector will -perlbrm. all the basic inspections for this public works project. Out inspectors. will perform Public Works Inspection for the, Cold-fn Place-Recycling (C.IK); Header Cuts, and.. AC Pulverization. This includes monitoring the Contractors operations on the specific Item,. keeping track- of quantities, and { checking with the engineer to resolve questions on the- plans & specs. This does not include in-specting any-other of the contractor-'s concurrent operations. The attached cost estimate is, based on a review , of the plants an � specifications and our- best estimate of the time' need to perform; the t Services requested. M. Riverside County: 16801 Van Buien BoOegard � Riverside;.CA 92504 4 Telephone,(951)776=034:5 Fax(95.1')' 776-0395 Affiliates in Most Major Cities Engineering Resources of Southern-Ca.l forma, Inc: June, 16, 2009 Nage 2 Our cast estimate to provide the above described services on this project is $51.,028,. A copy of that estivate is attached as.Exhibit 1. � We can start our Work,upon receipt of your authorization. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Vcr y.truly yours,. Rongld R Cazdn�;ci, 1 ,E. Materials Engineer a It 0 be\2540,361 rkl�.l� �' ac hc:Strrct J.avcrttcnt RchaMlitrtiun,PriilcU Attachment i C4L-WEST CQN.SULTANTS t S 1 I O p°p a 00 I 7 I „ 100 '-' I I I i i �0 u9 II I i I z Q I � i ! Cd I j S I olu ? ol I o n 5 N ^ny. I. � o o Ln I In V7 I y � V O M PQ U co I I ( W a 00 L U O > I o n U I ! ogo ( 3 i F=HA IWUON III I 3 � I y '" I ��... .. LQ r4 kn o' I I (7 x wi I CQ o al 1 3 3 3 3 oiA o i z c c G b F I F J A ' U W ti 4 lu I d U o 0 0 V) _ � OG O ] a c .c � a •� I � a T � ' v: ZO oL °" Lo o D o ro W �u7v ou � u � ¢' � Ucnx r., Q I � v, VIIIw� p.. r: N CDC O C V1 7O ' M $ QOO69 v1 M I 'AM`s i dd9 bN9 bN9� W9, � b9 d I L (-• f»u�61)tm.vi N tn En I ESo � Ma I ! N Q I Gr. ° O O O ^ N Rr ' O 7 a U + I p I I 60q C U P M V h i 'O O I UM I w p o *K M 4 ol o ! 0 v , Da y u o ° w G O ! CG4 p 4J N y Gl F F- N N r7r Q ! � og o � r� � F � �, � E•" FFF � FF cu W U O N ! ` " � F U ,- F ran ( d u �V z .. 7 I ! NVO O a N N •-• N M O a E C M O O O O O O O N 00 00 O O CIS � aw3 � wlo, I ti o IZ ai i i a o ) b f _ a C U CIO 11 lu o � � F go ¢ � •� a a� G o �� �0 �4 �V N .o O - C F C U d n �.V U I QC U Q N > u Lz O C K y d d F N > gr U O a 3 IV E 04 cj Q C ° o n. � a x E r G o v o u aa- 20 ,E I ` • i ( I f f. ji � U 1 v � ti O I ' ( a o ! ° f , M W 77 C ❑ G � � �- � T 04 W I 'd m xCIO a ci 1 � �8M • I � � � ' i ao ° f I " iii � � f 00 • u aa3 f, w ► p` 1 1 f 3 z vFi 0a F � 3 a 1 Gov 3 I 1 , OU W g U ri G. FEE SCHEDULE MEDALL•,ARA136RdEOTECHNICAL,,IN,C.'(MAG).&CAL-WEST CONSULTANTS(CWC)provides consulting services in the fields of soils and. foundation engineering, engineering geologyi earthquake engineering,, fault, studies, material testing, groundwater geology and environmental.studies. Compensation for services will be based on the following fee schedule:. LABORATORY TESTING PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL STAFF Soil&Aggregate, Principal Engineer. ....... Compaction Test(.6"diameter mold)ASTM•D 1557-Method C ,.... $?44,00' Principal.Geologist .... . . .,,• .. . ...' ' '' . S140.00/hr. Compaction Test'(4"diam.mold)ASTM D'1 5577methbds A&B •. 5140 00lhr 1.3200 Senior Engineer S119 00'hr. Consolidation Test'-ASTM D 2435•-:Method:A. -••• •• •• • $200.00 Senior Geologis4 ,........,. OOrhr.. Tirne.Consolidatiorr Test. a"r increment .... ''''' '''' ••• ' (P ) : $ 36.00 Project Engineer ;...,. ..... S105 00/hr Direct Shear Test(drive-tube sample). '...'' • � �•••-•�•.... .. 51'60.00 Project Geologist.„,.,, .... $t05 OOrhr._ Direct Shear Test(remolded sampled ''''' ' 5190 00 Staff Engineer $ 85 00/hr Direct Shear Test(residual) S200.00 Staff Geologist ... Expansion index Test ASTM D 4829 ''''''•°••• •• • • ••••••••• S 8 5150:00 Project Manager/Supervising Technician 5 OOihr. Hydrometer Analysis,(E>icluding sieve)-ASTM©"422 ........,. $200.00 Senior Technician S 8.5'00/hr. Relative.Density-CA'Tesf 21.6 (Prevailing Wage) ..,.. .. S 85-00/hr ... 5156.00 Seniof TechniGa,(Soil/.Concrete/Steel), $ r5 00,'hr Liquid.Limit(LL)&Plastic Umit.(PL}-ASTM D•431a 5120.00 Laboratory Technician. ..... . -Sieve Analysis(Fine.&Coarse); ASTM C 1.36. ............ S120.00 Draftsperson .,.,,,, , , ,, '' S 75.00ihr.. S •75.00/hr Moisture Content Determination-,/gSTM'D 22.16......I.. .. $ 1.1.00 Geotechnical Assistant . Moisture-Density Test ASTM D 2937 . '' S 45 00/hr.. •: .••..,.. $, 1800 Technical Word Processing ......,,, S 45 00/h r. R-Value Test(untreated) CA Test 301 or ASTM 2844 ,., $250 00' -R-1 (treated)-CA Test 301 or ASTM:2844 Forensic Consulting(4 his.minimum)....,,,,,,, $250 00ihr. 5260.00 Public Works"Inspector ...... S 8500lhr. Saad Equivalent Test_G Lion- ine $ 90:00' Public Works Inspector(Prevailing Wagg) . .,,,,,,, S 90.00/hr Specific,Gravity&Absorption-Fine-ASTM C t28 ... • ...... $ 80.00 Ultrasonic Testing.... 5 85 00 1hr. Specific G'ravity8 Absorption-Coarse,-ASTM ASTM C 127' $ 80 00' Sulfate Content Test .. : ., ,•, ,,,-, $ 6000 Overtime for technical personhel will.be charged al the base rate times 1 5 per Wash Sieve Analysiss(200 sieve only).. $ 6000 hour for time'in excess of'8 hours,but less than 12 hours, per day,.Saturdays„ Absolute;Speafic Gravity Fihew CA Test 208 ..., , •.....r $ 80`00 Sundays and holidays, Time over 12 hours per day will be charged'at the Lightweight Piecesrof Aggregate,-•ASTM'C'123 .,...... $200:00 base rate times 2. There-is.a minimum charge of4,hours, Clay Lumps:&Friable Particles-ASTM C 142 .,,,,,, $ 90;00 Flat•or Elongated Particles-ASTM D 4791 .,...:, $130.00' Percent Crushed Particles CA Test 205' .....,:... LIMIT OF PROPOSAL VALIDITY Soundness(5-Cyd Sbdium Sulfate)per sieve,ASTM C 88...;., $190.00 renegotiate the'fee and completion date Nif'aut or is onr ssnotereceived within. Organic.lmpurjties in Sand>AS:T'M.-C­4,0 .- , ,,.,,, , ,,,,, _$100.00 60 days. Durability:Test CA Test 228' .. .. .............. $ 95:00 Cleanness Value CA Test 227 „„,,,,,;,,,,, , $130:00 LA Rattler(50Q,Rev) .ASTM C 131 EXPENSES ....... S1T5.00 Project related expenses will be invoiced as follows. OryRodded Unit Weight ASTM C-729 $ 9000 (1) Out-of. Permeability Test ASTM r„•; ,,• quote pocket expenses,.(travel,telephone,•agnal phojographs,special Triakiaf Compression'Test. ASTM egwpment rental,supplies,.expendable items)and Subcontractors at Corrosion Test quote cost plus 20%. $100t00 .(2j Reproduction:$0,30 per page,,ST0.00 per blue print;postago at cost. Rock.Point.Load Test ..... . .. ....... ............... .... $ 50:00 p p 9 Unconfined Compression Test •. "''' Facsimile Transmission:$T 56(up to 10 pages) Califgrnra Beann ,Ratio Test $270.00 (3). Travel time:at the hourly rate shown above,aortal to portal ty 9 _ : . .•• r ,..,.. $300.06 (4) For work.which tequires ovemight fudging away from home,a per diem Specific GIa . ASTM D 854 $130 00 "�" charge Will be made a Other"Speaaf Tests• .. ... .. ......... 575.00/hr, appropriate to the area,based on•actual costs plus .20%. Concrete 8 Masonry (5) Charges for use'of'.fieid vehicles..Standard sampling:tools,and routine Concrete Compressive Strength"(Tested or Hold) ASTM C39 ..... $ .25.00 Mortar Comp.Strength'(Tested 8 fluid):•IJBC STD..24-22' ...... $ 25.00 field testing,equiliment: $40.00/day, or$0.55 pec mile, tivhiehever is Grouf Comp..Strength'(Tested:&;Hold)•-•IJQC STD.24-28 .•..-., $ 25:00 greater. Mileage rate Is subject to..change if gasoline costs increase SpecifG Gravity of Core:ASTM C F42 .......... .... significantly; Concrete Core(Includ rig Incoming)ASTFA c 42 $ 75.06 (6) Laboratory samples will be stored for 30 days at no charge If longer Concrete Flex..Strengtti•(eacti),ASTM C 78&C 293 $ 45.00 storage-is required,a storage fee will bei charged. Concrete Shrinkage Bars (set of 3)ASTfi1 C 157..... ., .,`,' $ 90.00 (7) iiidinometer usage.At costplus•15%,Seismograph usage $150.00/hay Concrete Trial Batch-ASTM C.192 $350.00 Quote INVOICING Asphalt Invoices will be issued biweekly,Extraction&Gradation-ASTM D 6.367&D 5444 .,.,,, $250.00 Y. or monthly and are payable ,.,pan Ignition Oven Correction Factor-ASTM D 11307 .' presentation of invoice•or.in accordance•with the terns of file contract, if, Unit Weight(SSD)-.ASTM D 27.2.6. .... . ,. $200.00 different: In :ot 1'/�;�°per month,but not exceedirig the maximum rate •-•-• ••••• .. $. 25.00 allowed by law,.will be payable,on any amounts not paid in accordance with Unit Weight(Paratfiion-ASTM ASTM D 2726..... $ 39600, the billing terms. Payments thereafter will be applied first to the accrued Air Void Determination-.ASTM D 3203 .. ......s . $ 90.00 interest arid-then to'the-principal unpaid.am Unt. Allyattorney's fees or other Mansholt Stability i Unit Weight(Set of.3j'ASTM . $200,00 costs Incurred in collecting any delinquent.amouni shall be paid'by the client. Rice Specific Gravity-ASTM:132041 $120.00 T'ensilc Strength Ratio-ASTM 13.4867 ..,,, ,., $600 00 Centrifuge-Kerosene Equivaldnf-CA TE,ST.303 ;. $200.00, EFFECTIVE; S-ValUe Cn T,ev 304 $225:00 July 1,.2006 (changes:commerisurate.to labor cost may be.made withouC Swell Test(drrive-tube-samplej-CA Test 305 ...... ,. $180.00 notice). MV.S Test:CA Test 307 $240.00 Asph'alf"Concrete Mix Design-MARSHAL;L orH•VEEM quote 'J Core.Measurements,ASTM D 3549(Each) $ 15.00 Does notjnclude Specimen'Fabrication. All costs are for samples and/or specimens,delivered,to our laboratory. Medall;.Aragon Geotechncal; Inc. & Cal-West Consultants ,y.�`� 1<., ♦ .. ti; L` 117. �y�. .-L -i�t �4 t t� tL�4•i - / Jr { �,r1-4 N. ray 39 38 37 36 I 35 34 33 32 31 iyti{ - Lq , t••A I` •, ' 40 ! '! -17 41 29 44 28 \� 42 r rr I -'fCJC 'F/ ti 1'�r r t�^ '. :•,; i ,,,ter .jf :. 4. 3.-71 is� ~ fT A., ^`..., WEm aaATEYENT BY GTr rMom "j ZONE f so-WCT LONE 60 WET LONE t . �'ftifry►iG I LSD FIGURE 7 ti I00 200 FEET 7entatit;e Tract 1679¢ Initial Study COI•KCE MapCo t_iuYl:County of San 3emardtno(2006) <. Fuel Modification Zones G.tU:.iq.;itppotts IS�.tig7_iiteimul.msJ10V20:U9) I i _ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially I Less Than Significant Less Than QUALITY: Would the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or E waste discharge requirements'? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies El 0 or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including i through die alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site during construction? _6 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 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 manner, which would result in flooding on site or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of post-construction polluted runoff, such as from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor areas'? �) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality or beneficial uses? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area [] structures, which would impede or redirect y flood flows? 1S 42 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VI 11. Ni'DROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than QUALITY: Would the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of a levee or dam'? j) Expose people or property to inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion VIII.a Construction-Related Impacts. Construction of the proposed 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 1.0 acre or more requires an NPDES permit. Additionally, the City has prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that details the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction to mitigate 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 the 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 at all times in the event a site inspection is conducted by City or representatives of the RWQCB. With implementation of the erosionisedimentatiorvpollution 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 are also expected in stormwater runoff. Nutrients from 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 intensity, land use, elapsed time since previous storms, and the volume of runoff generated in a given area that reaches a receiving water body. The potential water quality impacts are similarly variable and related to the increase in the peak runoff, the type and extent of new urban uses, and the sensitivity of the receiving water. Development of the project could result in increased peak flow and pollutant loads in the local drainage ways. IS 43 , CITY OF SAN BER.NARDI NO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Since 2004, post-construction impacts associated with urban runoff have been addressed through the preparation of Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP). New development projects submitted for approval after June 1, 2004, are required to submit a project-specific WQMP prior to the first discretionary project approval or permit.t The project-specific WQMP'- must identify BMPs (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 applied on a project- specific and/or sub-regional or regional basis, is to ensure that the land use approval and permitting 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-Construction Management 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 (NOI) 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 permit requirements, would ensure no project-related water quality impact would result from development of the project site as proposed.No mitigation is required. VIII.b Based on consumption rate of 546 gallons per day per residence,3 the domestic water demand for the proposed u residential uses would total approximately 23,478 gallons per day. The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department'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 make up the future growth in the City. The UWMP identifies additional customers between 2005 and 2010,based on the amount of vacant land remaining in the City. As the proposed project is consistent with existing land use designations utilized to determine future water demand, the proposed 43 residential units would be included in the SBMWD's determination 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 flow 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 impermeable surfaces, compared to the size of the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin (80,443 acres),a the partial loss of less than permeable 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 Sun ©emardino County Stormwater Program,"Model Water Quality.Management Plan,"revised June 2005. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, for Tract No. 16794, MAPCO 1nc., ",lay 2008. City of San Bernardino,Municipal Water Department,Customer Service Department,July 2006. California Department of Water Resources, 1994. IS 44 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEV ELOP. IENT'SERVICES INITIAL STUDY has the capacity to provide 70,000 acre-feet (22.33 billion gallons) of water per year.' The SB,*vIWD distributes 16.66 billion gallons of water annually. The proposed project represents a negligible loss of permeable surface area for the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin and an incremental increase in demand within the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin. 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. No mitigation is required. 'v'lll.c—e Currently, two on-site features drain the property. Drainage A totals approximately 1,065 linear feet and varies in width from 1-3 feet with an average width of 2 feet. 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 Bernardino 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 Bernardino 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 boundary 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 peak discharge from the project site during a six- hour 100-year storm totals 54.02 cubic feet per second (cfs). Based on the discussion contained within the preliminary drainage study,2 the project site's proposed drainage system would result in post- development peak discharge of 41.71 cfs during similar stoma 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 Avenue. 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,'v1P, and compliance with NPDES permit requirements. Because 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. V1II1 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-foot equals approximately 326,000 gallons. 70,000 acre-feet equals approximately 22,320,000,000 gallons. Prelinunaty Hydrology Report Tract No. 16794, MAPCO,June 18,2007. IS 45 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY the storm drain system. The storm drain system collects water from the streets and transports it directly or indirectly to local water supplies and eventually the Pacific Ocean. urban runoff from the storm drains is typically not filtered or treated. Pursuant to the CWA, persons or companies found guilty of dumping anything 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 Municipal 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 permit 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. VIII.h As the proposed project is not located within an area identified as being subject to flood hazards, either by the City of San Bernardino or the Federal Emergency Management Agency,' it would not place housing or buildings within a flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact related to this issue is anticipated to occur with the implementation of the proposed project. No mitigation is required. VIII.i Flood control in the City provides an integrated approach to manage regional and local drainage flows. This system includes debris basins, storm channels, and levees. The project site is not located within the potential inundation area of Seven Oaks Dam.Z No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. VIII.j 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 mudflow) 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 flash floods and can occur suddenly without time for adequate warning. Mudflows can ruin substantial improvements with the force of the flow 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 flows to the proposed on-site detention basin located on Lot 13 at the northwestern corner of the property. In the event that a mudflow does occur, the concrete channel and on-site debris basins would be able to capture flows from. By adherence to the California Building Code and applicable City requirements, impacts related to mudflows would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Flood Zone X, FEMA Q3 Flood Data, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996(Flood Insurance Rate Map 06071C7930E, %larch 18, 1996.) CaY vl San 3ernardtno General Plan, Figure S-2"Seven Oaks Dam Inundation,"November 2005. IS 46 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Significant with,Mitigation Significant project? Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established El El 0 Z conununity? j b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with J urisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? d) Be developed within the Hillside ❑ [� ® ❑ Management Overlay District? e) Be developed with Foothill Fire Zones A ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and B, or C as identified in the City's General Plan? f) Be developed within the Airport Influence ❑ Area as adopted by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority? Discussion IX.a Single-family residential uses are located directly east of the project site, while single-family residential development is approved on property directly west of the project site. Land located to the east, west,and south of the proposed project site are also designated "RL" (Residential Low); therefore, development of the proposed residential uses is consistent with on-site and adjacent land use designations. A vacant dwelling unit currently exists on the eastern project boundary; however, this dwelling unit is proposed to be demolished prior to the development of the project site. Development of the proposed project is fully consistent with existing land use in the project area and would not physically divide existing neighborhoods or the current pattern of development. No impact related to this issue would occur; therefore,no mitigation is required. IX.b The project site is located within the RL district. This district is intended to promote the development of low-density, large-lot, single-family detached residential units with a minimum lot size of 10,882 square feet. The RL district allows a maximum density of 3.1 units per gross acre. Development of the proposed project would result in the construction and occupation of up to 43 single-family residential dwellings. Based on the gross acreage of the project site, the residential density of the proposed development would be 2.38 residential units per acre. Because the proposed project would be developed IS d7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY consistent with the standards established by the City in its Development Code, no impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is required. IX.c. The project site does not lie within a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan area; therefore, no conflict with such plans would result from the development of the proposed on-site ase. No impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is required. IX.d Please refer to the Response to Question VI.i. IX.e Portions of the project site slated for development contain existing natural slopes that do not exceed 15 percent adjacent to wildland areas. The proposed project is located in Fire Zone C.t Without adequate mitigation, the 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 the exposure to homes within the urban/wildland interface and/or otherwise reduce the spread of fire on or to developed properties, by controlling the use of materials and methods of construction" in the fire 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.Z 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. 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 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). As required by the City, the proposed project would have a Fuel Modification Area to buffer the development from the abutting wildlands. These plans typically include "fuel load reduction" (removal of flammable vegetation), creation of defensible space near structures, and the installation of drought-tolerant groundcover. With the implementation of the Mitigation Measures HAZ-2, the City's standards for development within the BSEA, and enforcement of the City's weed abatement program, potential impacts from this project with regard to exposure to fires would be lowered to a level of less than significant. IX.f Please refer to the Response to Question VII.e. 'r4 General Plan Figure S-9"Fire Hazard Areas,"City of San Bemardino, November 2005. Writtcn correspondence with City of San Bemardino Code Enforcement Deputy Director,Marianne Nfilligan December 12.2008. IS 48 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than project: Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of known [� mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of locally important 7 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan or other land use? c) Be located in a Mineral Resource Zone as El adopted by the State :Mining Geology Board an identified in the City's General Plan'? Discussion X.a—c Natural sand and gravel deposits in Cajon Wash, Lytle Creek, Warm 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 MRZ-1 t or MRZ-22 Zone. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a 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 locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the City General Plan. No mineral extraction activities occur on site. Because of the size and location of the project site, and the absence.of any identified on-site mineral resource, development of the project site would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impact related to this 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 southern California region with few or no constraints. 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. MRZ-1 is defined as an area where adequate geological information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. %IRZ-2 is defined as an area where geological data show that significant measured or indicated resources are present. IS 49 _ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than I. NOISE. Would the project result in: Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons or generation of noise levels in excess standards established in the City's General Plan or Development Code, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ® F1 excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in El E ambient noise level in the project vicinity above existing without the project? d) A substantial or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport El z land use plan or Airport Influence area, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion ? 1.a 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 shall 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.' 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 City of San Bernardino General Plan,Chapter 14,Noise Element,November 1,2005. IS 50 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY this distance and the level of typical construction noise, exterior noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor would approximate 72 dBA. A 24 dB outdoor to indoor noise reduction with windows closed is 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. Noise 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. NOS-1 On-site construction activities shall be restricted to the hours permitted under the City's Municipal Code. NOS-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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. NOS-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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. NOS4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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 NOS-1 through NOS-4 would reduce short-term noise impacts to a less than significant level. XI.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 discernable 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 traffic, 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 groundbome 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. Noise 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 BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY \I.d Fhe residential nature of the project limits the potential temporary or periodic increase 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. No mitigation is required. ` l.e—f The nearest airport to the project site is San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA), located approximately 10 miles southeast of the site. As indicated in the City of San Bernardino's General Plan (Figure LU-4), the project site is not located within 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 would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. IS 52 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY YII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than the project: Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No tm act a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure?) I b) Remove existing housing and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion \II.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 project. 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)Z. Based on the established land use designation and the ongoing pattern of development in the Verdemont 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 occur. 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 issue 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 State of California, Department of Finance. E-5 City County Population and Housing Estimates, 2007, Revised 2001-2008, with 2000 DRU Benchmark.Sacramento,California.January 2008. '_,i�: •� �4.�ra .ea. c�� tixeca�t.�luunluacis rr�el,RTPO' OuL.ex el.xls,site accessed December 29,2008. IS 53 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY loss of existing housing, or the displacement of existing residents. No impact would result from development of the proposed project; therefore,no mitigation is required. r 1 IS 54 CITY OF SAY BERVARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY \III. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than project: Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact [nco orated impact No Im act a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, I in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? Fire protection,including medical aid? ® El i Police protection? EJ 0 Schools? El 0 Parks or other recreational facilities? El Other governmental services? El Discussion 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 fire 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 s,-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 fire 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 the funding of ongoing operation and maintenance will require fair-share contributions from new development projects. Fire 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 firefighters (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 United States Forest Service. Assuming a 25 mph speed, average response time to the project site would be 6.8 minutes. Per the Fire Management lS 55 CITY OF SAM BERPIARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Plan prepared for the proposed project, when considering the proposed construction safeguards and fire management requirements to be imposed on the proposed development, adequate fire service response to the project site can be provided. The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for fire protection services sufficient to require the construction of new fire service facilities. New development in the service area of the Verdemont Fire Station is required to pay for a portion 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 appropriate 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-1 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 No. 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. 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 flow 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 fire protection services to a less than significant level. 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 transported 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 Department(SBPD). The nearest police station to the project site is the Northern 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 in the area include the "Law Enforcement and Fire Suppression Facilities, Equipment, and ' Vehicles Fee" which must be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project IS 56 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LNITIAL STUDY proponent would be required to pay required fees to offset law enforcement impacts that may result from the development and occupation of the proposed residential uses. Adherence to these standards and the payment of required fees would reduce potential impacts related to the provision of police protection services to a less than significant level. School Facilities. The proposed project is located within the San Bernardino City Unified School District (District.) The District has identified the following student generation factors for residential development: grades K-5, 0.4216 student/dwelling unit; grades 6-8, 0.1777 student/dwelling units; and grades 9-12, 0.1713 student/dwelling 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 the 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 Avenue Elementary is located approximately 0.44 mile southwest of the project site and hosts a student population of approximately 764 children.' 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.3 Cajon High School, which supports a student population of approximately 2,774 students, is located 3.6 miles southeast of the project site.4 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 developments 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. Adjacent 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 Meeting Facilities Fee; Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Parkland Improvement Fee; which School Accountability Report Card, Palm Avenue Elementary School, 2006-2007 School Year,San Bernardino City Unified School District. School Accountability Report Card, ,North Verdemont Elementary School, 2006-2076 School Year, San Bernardino City Unified School District. school Accountability Report Card, Cesar E. Chavez'fiddle School, 2006-2007 School Year, San Bernardino City Unified School District. 4 School Accountability Report Card, Cajon High School, 2006-2007School Year, San Bernardino City Unified School District. ilrgular.tfeeting ofthe Board of Education,San Bernardino City Unified School District March 7,2006. IS 57 , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY must be paid prior to the issuance of permits. Because adherence to these standards and provisions is required of all development projects, less than significant impacts related to this issue are anticipated to occur 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 SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than \IV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Significant i with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ® 0 regional parks or other recreational facilities'? I b) Include recreational facilities or require ® El the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion XIV.a–b Existing park facilities in the vicinity of the project site include the Al Guhin Park and Littlefield Shultis Memorial Park. These two parks are 28 acres and 15 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 any on-site recreational amenities. In the event only new residents of the City resided on site, and further 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 required to provide either 0.72 acre of parktand 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. IS 59 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than \V. TRA.�ISPORT:�TIONiCIRCCLATION. Significant with Mitigation Significant Would the project: 1 Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is El ® El substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, El j including an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to design feature (e.g., sharp curves of dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? El Z g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or E 0 N . programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)supporting alternative transportation? Discussion: X%'.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 A. I.Peak Hour PAT. Peak Hour Daily Trips Land Use:32 Single Family Residences In Out Total In Out Total Total Trips/Unit- 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.65 0.36 1.01 9.57 Trip Generation 8 I 24 32 28 IS i3 412 'Rates based on Land Use 210—"Single Family Detached Housing"from Institute of Transportation Engineers. Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,October 2007. IS 60 _. ... .... . .... ........_..._....... CITY OF SAP1 BEILNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY 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, it 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 still 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 installation of these improvements, funded by fair-share contribution from various developers in the Verdemont area, would alleviate unsatisfactory LOS conditions at affected intersections, no significant impact would occur. XV.c The nearest airport to the project site is San Bernardino International Airport, 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 Airport. Therefore,no impact would occur with the development of the project site. XV.d All 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 all roadways and intersections within the project site would incorporate design standards tailored specifically 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, all-weather access routes have been constructed. The proposed project includes the construction of roadways that would provide access to the individual lots within the development. These roads would access the Palm Avenue 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 I ssue to a less than significant level. IS 61 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY \%'.f The City of San Bernardino parking standards' requirement for single-family dwellings is a minimum of two covered spaces within a closed garage per unit. Because the proposed project would be required to provide residential parking in a number and form required 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. Cry ot`San Bemardmo Dev,:lopment Code,Chapter 10.24. IS 62 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially g Less Than Significant Less Than XVI. UTILITIES. Would the project: Significant with 1\4 ifigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment ® E requirements of the Santa Ana Regional i Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in determination by the wastewater j 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ® (� permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid i waste? Discussion XVI.a Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to regulate waste discharges to waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. including rivers, lakes, and their tributary waters. Waste discharges include discharges of stormwater and construction project discharges. The City has a permit from the RWQCB for all wastewater generated within its boundaries. As evidenced by its current residential land use designation, the City has planned for the development of the project site with residential units, including the generation of wastewater. Because the project proponent would be required to adhere to wastewater discharge requirements found within the NPDES permit process as IS 63 CITY OF SAY BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY well as provisions required by the City of San Bernardino, a less than significant impact related to this issue would result from implementation of the proposed project. XVI.b The proposed project includes the construction of water distribution and wastewater conveyance facilities. 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. XVi.c Please refer to the response to the response to Checklist Questions VIII.c—e. XVI.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 of 546 gallons (0.0016 acre-foot)per day per household,' the proposed project would require 23,478 gallons (0.072 acre-foot) of water per day.z 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,4 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 water lines in proposed project roadways. Prior to the issuance of building permits, 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 flow 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. XVI.e Wastewater conveyance and treatment services would be provided by the SBMWD. Existing sewer mains are currently located within Palm Avenue and would be installed within the project site to accommodate development of the project site. Wastewater flows from the project would be conveyed to and processed by facilities at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Facility (WRP) located at 399 Chandler Place in the City of San Bernardino. This facility is operated by SBMWD, which provides combined domestic and industrial wastewater treatment services to the Cities of San Bernardino and Loma Linda, as well as the East Valley Water District (EVWD) and Patton State Hospital. The WRP has a design capacity of 33 million gallons per day (mgd). Current inflow to the WRP is approximately 26-28 mgd, resulting in 5-7 mgd of surplus capacity. The proposed project is anticipated to generate City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department,Customer Service Department,July 2006. 546 gallons(0.016 acre-foot)per day per household Y 43 households=23,478 gallons(0.072 acre-foot). Table 5-I,2005 Urban Water Management Plan,City of San Bemardino Municipal Water Department,December 2005. T;ihle 3-3, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan,City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department,December 2005. IS 64 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY approximately 10,664 gallons of wastewater per day,' which represents less than one percent (0?1%) of the surplus daily 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 permits, the project applicant would be required to satisfy SBMWD requirements related to the payment of fees and/or the provision of adequate wastewater facilities. All facilities would be designed, installed, and maintained to meet SBMWD standards. No significant impact related to the provision of sewer or wastewater treatment services would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. XVI.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,2 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. 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. XVI.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. 2.33 gallons,day;residence:Riverside County Existing Setting Report, LSA Associates,Inc.,March 2000. (12.23 poundsihousehold/day x 43 households = 525.9 pounds per day), California Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System Database, . . .ci inh..a n., is-,site accessed on September 26,2007. Calilomia Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System, «.<<c.c;.�n;i�. ,, o�.;. i , site accessed on September 26,2007. San Bernardino Solid Waste Management Division,communication with Brooks Webb,February 23 and 25,2004. IS 65 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than SIGNIFICANCE. Significant I with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to ® 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 j restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are El individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental 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 stated in Section I1I, 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 Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, which require nesting 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 archaeological/historic data and the loss of historic integrity, the residence does not meet the definition of a "historic resource" under CEQA. In addition, the site 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 SAY BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES f INITIAL STUDY or the California Register of Historic Resources; therefore, no significant impact resulting from the development of residential uses would occur. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been identified to mitigate potential impacts associated with the discovery of as-of-yet undetected subsurface cultural and/or paleontological resources during excavation operations. Adherence to the measure identified would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural, historic, or paleontological resources to a less than significant level. X VI.b The proposed project site is located within an area has been designated by the City for residential uses. While short-term construction-related air quality and noise impacts would result from construction of the proposed residential uses,adherence to the mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Other impacts related to biological resources, geologic and soil conditions, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and archaeological/paleontological resources are similarly reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation 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 effects of the proposed project would fall 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. XVi.c As detailed in the preceding responses, development of the ro osed project would P P p � d 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. 1 IS 67 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY REFERENCES 1. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map. 2. Isbestos and Lead Survey Report House and Garage at 6920 Palm Avenue in San Bernardino, CI., Masek Consulting Services, Inc., February 5, 2007. 3. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and 'Vlonitoring Program, 2004, 4. 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 List), site accessed October S. 2007. 6. California Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System Database, site accessed on July 26,2006. 7. California Public Resources Code, §5020.10) 8. City of San Bernardino,Development Code(Title 19 of the San Bemardino 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. 11. City of San Bernardino, General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report(EIR). 12. City of San Bernardino, Municipal Code, Sections 15.10, 15.34. 13. City of San Bemardino Municipal Water Department, Customer Service Department,July 2006. 14. City of San Bemardinn Municipal Water Department, Urban Water:Management Plan, December 2005. 15. CRM TECH, Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Tentative Tract No. 16533, November 24, 2004. 16. ENVIRA,General Biological Resources Assessment Palm Avenue Site 16794,March 10,2004. 17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), Panel 06071C7930E,March 18, 1996. 18. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation, 71'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 TT 16794 Verdemont, San Bernardino County, California,July 6,2006. 22. ;MAPCO 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 School Year. 26. San Bernardino City Unified School District, School Accountability Report Card, Cesar Chavez Middle School, 2006-2007 School Year. 27. San Bernardino City Unified School District, School Accountability Report Card iVorth Verdemont Elementary School, 2006-2007 School Year. S. San Bernardino City United School District, School Accountability Report Card, Palm Avenue Elementary School, ?006-2007 School Year. 29. San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, Model Water Quality Management Plan, June 2005. 30. Scott Franklin Consulting, Fire/Vegetation Management 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 261-011-08, 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.), March 19, 2009. IS 68 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A INITIAL STUDY 34. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 35. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, adopted July 13, 2007. 36. Southern California Association of Governments, Population Projections, littp://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloadsiexceURTP07_CityLevei.xls, site accessed December 29, 2009. 37. United 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 COMMENTS MIMI"Mu California Regional Water Quality Control Board A Santa Ana )legion t 3 73'Main)lied $u•ta W.3nt[iidc,C4EfPxn:a 92501 3348 1hrm 951}'.F2.<130-FAX(951' >31 P'AS-TDD 551)'52.1221 Lands S..�dao�s Arnold 5chwarzenr=er ,Ycrrrmry flr 1-•w,.•.r^+a'h_ran's tlf�;ov.;euial^.a /srnrru May 12, 2009 Aaron Laing, Senior Planner City of San Bernardino Development Services Department 30C No. D Street San Bernardino CA, 92418 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 167941 SUBDIVISION 06-31 Dear Mr. Laing-. :Regional Board staff has oriefly reviewed the City's Notice of Intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (MND)for the referenced subdivision (project).We have the following comments on the pro,ect's Initial Study(IS) and proposed MND. IS pages 43 and 44 discuss the need for the project to address construction and operational water quality impacts and 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 NIND include exhibits and other information that shows the location of proposed operational structural BMPs and demonstrates that a WQMP for the project has been prepared. Including this information in the A-1 adopted MND w 11 aid in consideration of the proponent's application for Section 401 certification. We note that eadi individual residential lot is proposed to include a 500 square foot detention basin as part of a project-wide storm water runoff flow control BMP. Due to uncertainties about the maintenance, long-term availability and function of lot-lPVel resident-controlled BMPs, Board staff opposes their use. The project WQMP and MND should identify appropriate, project-level structural water quality BV1Ps, preferably operated and controlled by a public agency, particularly those intended to address concerns related to storm water runoff water quality and flow control. Regional Board staff encourage all land development and redevelopment projects be carried out in a manner that implements the State Water Resources Control Board's policy supporting the use of law impact development(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 madelson4y� aterbaords.ca.gov or 951 782-3234, or Glenn Robertson, this office's CEQA coordinator, at r1robertsonl2vratorboards.ca.gov or 951 782- .3259. Sincerely, 0f 1 ar•k�G. Adelson t:hief� ~' Regional Planning Programs Section California Ell viroll men tat Prolec•tiun A ti encv .y L� Re .l'd;ap-r LETTER A California Regional Quality Control Board,Santa Ana Region Mark G.Adelson,Chief,Regional Planning Programs Section .Nlay 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-1: 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 permitting agencies, revision of the IS to restate the findings of the WQMP is not warranted. l 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. ' G6-t1-2008 08;5034 Fr;m-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO +8083845155 T-844 P.002/006 F-304 California Natural Resources Auncy ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DONALD KOCH,Director ` http;/�www dfg.ca,QOv Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite G200 Ontario, CA 91764 (409)484-0167 AN i a 21119 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 8, 2009 DEPARTMENT Aron Liang, Senior Planner City of San Bernardino Development Service Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 (909) 384-5057 Re: Negative Declaration —Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01 SCH No. 2009051033 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 711.7(a) and 1 802 and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA)section 15386] and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines section 15381), such as a Streambed Alteration Agreement or a Califomia Endangered Species Incidental 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 Bemardino is located in southern San Bernardino County and Is bounded by the Cities of Rialto 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 following concerns: 1) the Negative Declaration doesn't adequately identify Conse,a ng CaCf-ornia's Tfhldf{ e.Since 1870 70-11-2009 00:50aa FrorrCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO +8083845155 T-844 P.003/006 F-304 Page 2 of 5 City of San Bemardino—Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01 SCH No. 2009051035 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 California gnatcatcher (Polloptila califnmica califomica) (CAGN) or the San Bernardino kangaroo rat(Dipodomys merriami parvus) (SBKR). The site burned 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 concerned that the surveys in 2004 and 2006 do not provide an adequate assessment of the site due to timing 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 B-1 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_ The Department is concerned 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 CEQA document should identify any sensitive plant and animal species and their associated habitats that are found on the site. If any are 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 longimembris brevinasus), Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus califomicus bennetth) should be conducted to determine whether trapping is warranted. The Department is also concemed 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. 06-13-2009 08:50am From-CITY 11 SAN BEPNAROINO +9093845155 1-844 P 004/006 F-304 Page 3 of 5 City of San Bemardino—Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01 S C H No. 2009 05 1 035 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. 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 possible. Any 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 at seq. of the Fish and Game Code. The Department's issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for a project that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) will g-3 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 delays or repetition of the CEQA process, potential impacts to a stream, as well as avoidance and mitigation measures, need to be discussed within this CEQA document. Section 151370 of the CEQA guidelines includes a definition of mitigation. It states that mitigation includes: 1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking 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, 06-11-2000 08,50am From-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO +9093845155 T-844 P 005/006 F-304 Page 4 of 5 City of San Bernardino—Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01 SCH No. 2009051035 5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. B-3 The Negative Declaration did not provide specific mitigation measures for these resources. In the absence of this analysis in CEQA documents, the Department believes that it cannot fulfill Its obligations as a Trustee and Responsible Agency for fish and wildlife resources. Permit negotiations conducted after and outside of the CEQA 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 CEQA document, the Department does not believe that the Lead Agency can make the determination that impacts to jurisdictional drainages and/or 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 information will be required for the processing of a Streambed Alteration Agreement and the Department recommends incorporating the following in the Negative Declaration to avoid subsequent CEQA documentation and project delays: -134 1) Delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be temporarily and/or permanently impacted by the proposed project (include an estimate of impact to each habitat type); 2) Discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project impacts; and 3) Discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project impacts to a level of insignificance. 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 early 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. i MIMMOM 06-11-2009 08:51 am From-CITY OF SAN 3ERNARDINO +9093845155 T-844 P 006/006 F-304 Page 5 of 5 City of San Demardino—Tentative Tract No. 16794, Variance 09-01 SCH No. 2009051035 Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please contact Robin Maloney-Rames at (909) 980-381.8, if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Mary Grady Staff Environmental Scientist cc., State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Michael Flores, OFG, Ontario LETTER B California Department of Fish and Game Mary Grady,Staff 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 determined 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 State 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 BI0-1 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,BI04,shall read as follows: BI04: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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 B-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 "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. The project applicant has prepared a fuel management plarvfire 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. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the California Department of Fish and Game. As stated in Mitigation Measure 13I0-3, "...The developer shall compensate for the loss of jurisdictional resources by either creating non-wetland Waters of the U.S./Streambed 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 of Fish 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. No revision of the analysis in the Initial Study is warranted. Response to Comment B4 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 permits, 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. 4 ATTACHMENT F MITIGATION MONITORLNG AND REPORTLVG PROGRAM City of San Bernardino TTM 16794 :Mitigation Mitigation Text Timing of Verifying Verification ID Method of Verification Verification Party Date AES-1 Prior to the issuance of Review of landscape Prior to City grading permits, the project plan by the City issuance of Planner grading or applicant shall provide to the permit Designee 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 1) provide adequate screening of the walls, and 2) satisfy the fire resistance requirements identified by the City. AIR-1 The project shall comply with Submittal of a Fugitive Prior to City the requirements of SCAQMD Dust Control Plan that issuance of Planner Rules 402 and 403, Fugitive requires implementation grading or Dust, which require the of the measures permit Designee implementation of Reasonable identified in AIR-I 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: 1. The project proponent shall ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained and serviced to minimize 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 informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. The project proponent shall ensure that any portion of the site to be graded shall be Mitigation Mitigation Text Timing of Verifying Verification ID Method of Verification Verification Party Date 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 any on-site grading activity. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each workday. 6. The project proponent shall ensure that all disturbed areas are treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. 7. To reduce the potential for wind erosion, the project proponent shall ensure that landscaped areas are installed as soon as possible. 'i 8. The project proponent shall J ensure that SCAQMD Rule 403 is adhered to,ensuring the cleanup of construction- related dirt on approach routes to the project site. 9. 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 for the Submittal to the City of Prior to City The co e equipment mix to be issuance of Planner documents for the proposed d utilized during grading or project shall identify the type construction and of equipment to be utilized (as permit Designee during project grading. To necessary), evidence that emissions greater ensure pollutant emissions do than those identified in not exceed SCAQMD daily the It will not occur thresholds, the mix of during construction equipment utilized during activities. construction activities shall be similar to that identified in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. In the event i Mitigation Mitigation Text Timing of Verifying Verification 1D Method of Verification Verification Party Date 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. 13I0-1 If site clearing and grading Completion and Prior to City activities occur during the submittal to the City of a clearance or Planner raptor nesting season (late nesting bird survey ground or December through July), a disturbing Designee qualified (as determined by activities 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 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. 13I0-2 A focused survey for the Completion and Prior to City western burrowing owl shall submittal of a burrowing clearance or Planner be conducted to determine the owl survey ground or on-site presence/absence of disturbing Designee this species. The focused activities western burrowing owl may be conducted 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 not be permitted during the ne—sting season for this species. BIO-3 Prior to the issuance of Submittal to the City of Prior to the City grading permits, the project evidence identifying that issuance of Planner applicant shall submit the appropriate grading or evidence to the City that permits/authorizations permits designee impacts to on-site have been obtained for jurisdictional resources have impacts to jurisdictional been appropriately mitigated. areas. The developer shall i Mitigation bIIdgation Text Timing of Verifying Veriflcation ID Method of Veriflcadon Veriflcadon Party Date compensate for the loss of jurisdictional resources by either creating non-wetland Waters of the U.S.,Streambed or by providing altemative 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 of Fish and Game. BI04 Prior to the issuance of Submittal to the City of Prior to the City grading permits, the project evidence identifying that issuance of Planner applicant shall submit the sensitive plant grading or evidence to the City that a survey has been permits designee sensitive plant survey has been conducted and that any conducted. The sensitive plant identified impacts have survey shall be conducted to been appropriately conform to the survey addressed. 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 ti 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. CUL-1 In the event any 1) Inclusion of language Prior to the City archaeological, historical, or in the construction approval of Planner paleontological resource is documents that requires grading or uncovered during the course mandates compliance permits designee of the project development, with this measure, and ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall be 2)Submittal of evidence redirected until the nature and to the City that extent of the find can be construction workers evaluated by a qualified have been informed of monitor. Any such resource actions to be taken in the uncovered during the course event any suspected of project related grading or archeological, historical, construction shall be recorded or paleontological and/or removed per the resource is encountered recommendations identified in during on-site the archaeological and construction activities. paleontological resource assessments and/or applicable City and/or State regulations GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of Submittal of project Prior to the City building permits, the project plans to the City for issuance of Building proponent shall demonstrate to review and approval building and Mitigation Mitigation Text Timing of Verifying Verification ID Method of Verification Verification Party Date the City that the siting, design permits Safety and construction of all Official structures and facilities or (including walls) within the designee 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 prepared for the project site. GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of Submittal of grading Prior to the City grading permits, the project plans to the City for issuance of Building proponent shall provide review and approval grading and evidence to the City that permits Safety grading plans for the proposed Official development fully incorporate or the recommendations detailed designee in the soils and foundation report prepared for the proposed project. HAZ-1 The City shall be notified 1) Inclusion of language Prior to the City immediately in the event in the construction issuance of Planner malodorous or discolored documents that grading or soils, liquids, containers, or mandates compliance permits designee other materials known or with this measure, and suspected to contain hazardous materials and/or contaminants 2)Submittal of evidence are encountered during on-site to the City that grading/construction. construction workers Earthmoving activities in the have been informed of vicinity of said material shall actions that must be be halted until the extent and taken in the event any nature of the suspect material suspected hazardous is determined by qualified material is encountered personnel (as determined by during on-site the City). The removal and/or construction activities. disposal of any such contaminants shall be in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal standards. HAZ-2 The project proponent shall Submittal of project Prior to the City Fire incorporate and/or or be plans to the City for is of Marshall subject to appropriate and review and approval building required(as determined by the permits City) fire protection and or fuel modification features. Said features shall include(but not be limited to) the fire protectiorvfuel management provisions detailed in the approved Fire/Vegetation Management Plan and Catastrophic Wildfire Risk Analysis prepared for the proposed project (September 2008),as well as the standards is -Nudgadon NUdgation Text Timing of Verifying Verification ID 'Method of Verification Verification Pa Date and requirements identified by the Fire D artrnent. NOS-1 On-site construction activities 1) The construction Prior to the City shall be restricted to the hours documents shall identify issuance of Planner permitted under the City's the hours in which grading and or Municipal Code. grading and construction building designee activities can occur permits 2)Submittal of evidence to the City that construction workers have been informed of hours in which construction activities may occur I— operating rior to the issuance of The requirement that all Prior to the City rading permits, the project on-site equipment be is of Planner oponent shall demonstrate to properly maintained to grading and or e City that all construction limit noise shall be building designee hicles have mufflers and included in construction permits all be maintained in good documents order at all tim es. NOS-3 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 included in building designee to be loaded or unloaded with construction documents permits construction material shall not be left to idle for more than 10 minutes. NOS4 Prior to the issuance of Submittal to the City for Prior to the City grading permits, the project review and approval of issuance of Building proponent shall demonstrate to plans) 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 compressors are located equipment, as far as possible from existing residential uses. PBS-1 Prior to issuance of building Submittal to the City Prior to City permits, the developer shall that, 1) the fair share is of Planner E evidence to the City funding commitment occupancy or that appropriate (as has been made or, 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 Community 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 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 2roject site to i F.�Iltlgation Mitigation Text Timing of Verifying Verification ID Method of Verification Verification Pa Date Community Facilities District No. 1033 would satisfy this obligation. k t r �r 4 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. 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 of land extends from Verdemont Drive to the abutting National Forrest boundary. 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 of the 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 a 2. That 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 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 '/4, %2 and 1 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. That granting the Variance will 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; 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. That granting the Variance does 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; 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 s rt 5. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not f ' 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 J 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-1) �t 3 w i I �C 7117a77� I AR Fact a n eet From the Office of the City Manager Topic/Issue: Appeal of Wall item (Tentative Tract No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02)moved to Dec. 7 Council Meeting General Statement: The project appeal, located on the west side of Palm Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Verdemont Drive, in the RL, Residential Low land use district has been removed from the Nov. 16 agenda, and has been scheduled for hearing at the Dec. 7 Council meeting. Facts: • Although the Planning Division staff had planned to present the appeal to the Mayor and Common Council on Nov. 16 and many people have been informally informed of that date, no public hearing has been scheduled for Nov. 16. • The project has,been rescheduled because it was not properly noticed for a public meeting due to an oversight made by staff. • Notification must be made to public 10 days prior to the item appearing on a Council agenda. • Residents within 500 feet of the project must be notified by letter. • The public is welcome to attend the Dec. 7 meeting to be a part of the public hearing and make comments under the public comment portion of the Nov. 16 Council Meeting. Public testimony on the appeal will not be heard until Dec. 7. • As a courtesy, the Development Services Department will be sending out a letter to interested parties and residents within 500 feet of the project making them aware of this change. If the public calls with a question, please use the above facts to answer questions or transfer them to one of the below contacts: Key Contacts: Debra Kurita, Assistant City Manager x3692 Heather Gray, Manager of Communications x5916 Valerie Ross, Director of Development Services ` 9 COM14ON COUNCIL Ofr _ 19 09 DEC —] _ CITY OF SAN ? F."' a . .: A �Q• QO 1 09 DEC -7 Aii $: 12 � o b-C o a cq Now o r�lri/ ff/rrr -sJrrr�r / -rsr/ir.-/fl,Jr rrr rrsf�rs,-' '/1ff Af/frr' / r 51, Ji ,rlr s \ � _ CL.�s� 4 0 (D o w o 4--) r 0 cu W C) ca i 1 . V3 /! ♦f ♦ ♦ i ♦♦ i O r. O O � CYD O O O O cq +� cz C N O m O 00 cq O' M O o O a, O b.0 cq Lo • U) e--1 00 O .� 00 r •-- cz •+ , 00 a Lo •� o � a o o cz a '> 'N Cd cz P4 Z a) Cd TTp � U V O .--4 O 00 t1A > ,-D � 4-a z �, co N �i N co O 4-D N cz r. .� N � a m m o a) cz cz f 4-a bL � N O � � �1A v1 4+ hp U M 4A bjO .�--, 00 U � �■.� O NO T� m U W . V/1 ct `24 UJJ Cd U d o •r-I UD p r-I P4 y V� 0 O P4 > $ A o U 4ND d _ �� cc �, rZ U ^CC 4-D ,-a O C .v bA • E C •° o �.' o •� N � a) Cd C 0 J .r---4 +' •�--r cd �1 0 (1) � � o o U� � 4' U x o +' �• �' +' o C 'm u 0 Z U a 0 � 4 " 0 Cd 0 � 'U 4 N � � 0 Cd .r r-4 > 0 NA C +� Q N bi) +� -d U U .r.4 •r.4 N U Cd N •14 � a� Cd I'D Sig V1 wd L 1i MH a 1 % Z LU F-F- lip tE sa F- 0 @11g`- !q !n 41 Who"og �gEa 0 In 1 8§1 lie 4106 Im Bali is I j v --I= 9 ,Oyu a 58---------- CD 1+�/ii IL LU fk YO w ct ILI AV! .1 z II ism JGJ 10, i cd Q-1 r � O •M� l rat � �`v. ep ? �,� � P-+ Cq alai- :• :r ,f � jilt •. [ ' � � f%] ws o - —Al a W .� \..r It��`�• - •+fir. 1•} •.r i frtiti' yy wz U �r P y Cd S1 � tk + o tN • ie *�s t lei y •x} � � �� •� 4 r y_ rtT'y i�p r 4•� ^� Ykr��d ie� )�iM.s��, «�yhl�' ,w�' i�► . r �yr � y W W" •k". R '4• ♦� "'w. is Yan�J��T.�:. . n r Al 11 Ir gap 0 Ik NN - - U ct .^� 4 A4a�41n 4 • •'M I �� z a • r 40 +" ,` f/O// c j -�—� AW O e .�•, ,tea,-• t Cid IN it r . w M .,n r e .. r ern Y �.�'���. .1. •i" "'~,n ww. ,, f i bjD b Coo cd c° r.' 1 • .. V/ W _4 .4• ; 44 .. w1 1�1 1 i .rr+ri•1a1r�1 ct MIZ s �• f !� rf tr'41 1` 4 F i� l��i � U .i 1 r r f a✓ t y, [ y � t l � �� 1 N fi t � •,f�• � ^ ESA co jK Ire ct 'r ..•. i � 'Mr '. +�,�� '�9'LtJ`i y�`•�E� �¢rr�•'f�p J'Sn' •^� ���,• �� �� r J�lrya' c ►�1'J ��' •^`4�t:. 1 r •;A rbr �v►�� �' I' r "T f 1� ,tt• r % ai' .,1+i�[ rlrlC�� Al 4t* if 1 '�;,•��i I�� ,�rl.Frj p! �'T�.,f'y .l "C'•'�''�+`� 'tI. .1� � �, •+ lk"ti .! .L�� } �.,' ►,r,�i I*1 ►Ir1 i3:.�.4 4 `. 1 jii ~�1• =1"4 Nr+. �_ •i _�3 •��,, �� .fir��g ti c. s r Ok ~ w ` -i j~i x t i•1 , 4t Cd bJD �t tJ•r1' J �/ w ^ . � ',ti� L., F•�1 / j+ n cz cd •` � � ��j� ^�I Y' �_ {e.` t ,�. r •� .1 �tlF�t ••� (y� 1. ) �•1 �p�'� i�i.,t -� i-�'1�., b"ice` • y S:l !' - �/�� �i r, Appk 81 r � � A�LO F- W 1 � W H ,.. w ° I W Q _ I w Lo i LL 00 ^\ 36 3 I J I 1 ~ LL (D �. ,OSI ° LLJ LL O Z5 J 2 05 N ° 2¢ O 4 > 7 Z w Ll.l ,OSI 4 I� Q C:, I w b- � Q � : m I co a N 4 a i� LLj d N ¢ 4 X 00 W o i 11 L.L i I LL V J n Cy 4 I � LL a i N � I- LL I � 7 4 TT a_ W -000 � L6 I I I U i J MM � J W I � O � I - 4 ° I � I - e Z r LL , co -.. J cv � c.LL� � I �N I 0 '.� = F 4 Wrn U. 9 O v 8 CL. + �o o BSI II a a O T z LU LO co 'I u) I I -> z n LL N N I 1 1 ✓7 4 0 1 1 • 4 0 1 • / , 4Z 0 • 1 • QJ LL LL Q • l • 1 1 � v U1 Q 1, 1 1 o 1 ' . . W W ' Z W op - .. m Z tF Q Lo En 1 , _f. • . 1 M�1 k Z LLM 1 .1 0 m v n`n J • EJ w • 1 W ~ � V � W ■ ■ 0 ' CL Q � o W W � 4.0 c� W W 0 Q in W CL Z w O � b O m O .E 4- v U n C) � L1. 0 V r-4 IL 0 It b AGENDA ITEM NO. 29 December 21, 2009 Council Meeting 29. Appeal Hearing- Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM)No. 16794 and Variance No. 09-02. OT r-3 N 1: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council 0 independently review, analyze and exercise independent judgment in its consideration of the Initial Study and in making its determination, and that the Mayor and Common Council: 1) With respect to the Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16794, the Mayor and Council finds that recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 because: a) The project revisions, which have been made in response to written and verbal comments on the project's effects, cause no new impacts and cause no greater impacts than those already assessed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and b) The conditions of project approval which have been revised or added as a result of the project revisions are not mitigation measures required by CEQA. 2) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachments E and F to the Planning Commission Staff Report); and 3) Approve Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements recommended by the Planning Commission, as revised to eliminate the variance request. OR Alternative MOTION 2: 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 Revised Tentative T4101 ct Map No. 16794. Entered Into ReC. at MCCICDC Mtge rz �� by. Cam_ /gL2 Agenda m No: by. ct"a&'AL City C!er CDC Secretary - - City of San Bernardino