HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0620
WHEREAS, on February 17, 201.6 pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.51
(General Plan Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter
19.64 (Specific Plans), and Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) of the City of San Bernardino
Development Code and California Government Code §65450, an application for General Plan
Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01,
Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16-03
(Tentative Tract Map 20006) was duly submitted by:
Project Applicant: Strata Palma, LLC.
4370 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 960
San Diego, CA 92122
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment
I (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel
I Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006) is a request to allow the
change of the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning Districts of the properties
contained within an area comprised of approximately 41.6 acres in order to establish the
Rancho Palma Specific Plan, for the purpose of establishing two residential zones containing
a total of approximately 26.9 acres with a maximum build out of 120 residential units, a
commercial zone containing approximately 9.3 acres with a maximum build out of 98,000
square feet of commercial retail uses, open space zones containing approximately 5.4 acres
dedicated to the establishment of private parks, the expansion of an existing public park, a
recreational vehicle parking lot, and the Cable Creek Channel in order to establish the Rancho
Palma Specific Plan; and
1
31
7
8
9
10'
11
12,
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21067 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) (E A) and §15367 of
the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.), the City of
San Bernardino is the lead agency for proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01,
Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01,
Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map
20006); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEA Guidelines, the Planning Division of
the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino determined that an
Environmental Impact Report (EI) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential
adverse environmental impacts of proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development
Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02
(Tentative Parcel Map 1970 1) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §15082 of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department of the City of San Bernardino issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP)
of a Draft EIR for proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment
(Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel
Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006) on March 28, 2016, and
circulated the NOP for the CEQA-mandated thirty (3 0) day public review period and a public
scoping meeting was conducted on April 5, 2016 pursuant to the requirements of CEQA in
order to allow the general public and other agencies with the opportunity to submit comments
as to the contents of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §15087 of CEA, the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department of the City of San Bernardino released a Notice of Completion of
the Draft EIR for proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment
(Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel
Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006) on July 8, 2016 for the
CEQA-mandated forty-five (45) day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §15086 of CEA, the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department of the City of San Bernardino consulted with and requesteli-
W
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
181
19
20
21
comments from all responsible and trustee agencies,, other regulatory agencies, and other
1� I111 pp I III �I�IIIIIII 11
WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of
the City of San Bernardino received comment letters from Caltrans District 8, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, and
SoCal Envirom-nental Justice Alliance during the CEQA-mandated forty-five (45) day public
review and comment period-, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §15132 of CEQA, the applicant submitted and the Planning
Division of the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino accepted
the Final EIR for proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment
(Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel
Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 ('Tentative Tract Map 20006), which consists of the
following: 1) the Public Review Draft EIR and technical studies, 2) the revised Draft EIR; 3)
responses to comments on the Draft EIR (including the comments submitted by SoCal
Environmental Justice Alliance, dated August 5, 2016); 4) CEA Findings of Fact; and 5) the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2017 pursuant to the requirements of §19.64.040 of the
City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Development and Environmental Review
Committee reviewed the application and moved the Final EIR and General Plan Amendment
16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-
01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract
Map 20006) to the Planning Commission for consideration; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2017 pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.42
(Development Code Amendments), 19.50 (General Plan Amendments), 19.52 (Hearings and
Appeals), 19.64 (Specific Plans), 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) and 19.74 (Zoning Map
Amendments) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission
held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify
in support of, or opposition to the Final EIR submitted by the applicant for General Plan
Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01,
Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16-03
(Tentative Tract Map 20006), and
0
11
8
9'
101
12
13
14
15
16
17,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Justice Alliance verbally reiterated a portion of the comments in their letter dated August 5,
0 13 M
WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of
the City of San Bernardino informed the Planning Commission that the Final EIR I. i.
addresses all of the comments received on the Draft EIR (including the comments submitte!,
by the SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance, dated August 5, 2016); and
WHEREAS, after closing said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopteo�
Resolution No. 2017-014 recommending to the Mayor and City Council the certification of
the Final EIR and the approval of General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code
Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02
(Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 (General Plan
Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 19-64 (Specific
Plans), and Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) of the City of San Bernardino Development
Code, the Mayor and City Council have the authority to take action on the Final EIR and
General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment)
16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701) and Subdivision
16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006); and
WHEREAS, notice of the April 3, 2017 public hearing for the Mayor and City
Council's consideration of the proposed Resolution was published in The Sun newspaper on
March 24, 2017, in accordance with Development Code Chapter 19.52.
SECTION 1. The Mayor and City Council find that the above -stated Recitals are
true and hereby adopt and incorporate them herein.
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 2. The Mayor and City Council having independently reviewed and
analyzed the record before it, including the Final Environmental Impact Report and written and
oral testimony, and having exercised their independent judgment, find that General Plan
Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01, Specific
Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative
Tract Map 20006) Will have no significant adverse effect on the environment with the adoption
of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and find that the Final Environmental
Impact Report, as accepted by the Planning Commission as to the effects of the proposed General
Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01,
Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701). and Subdivision 16-03
(Tentative Tract Map 20006), has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is hereby
certified and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. The Mayor and City Council hereby adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact
(attached hereto as Exhibit A).
SECTION 5. The Mayor and City Council hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (attached hereto as Exhibit Al). Implementation of the mitigation measures
contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of
approval of General Plan Amendment 16-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map
Amendment) 16-01, Specific Plan 16-01, Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and
� Subdivision 16-03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006). In the event of any inconsistencies between the
Mitigation measures set forth in other documents, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti
Program shall control.
SECTION 6. General Plan Amendment 16-01 . Development Code Amendment
(.Zoning Map Amendment) 16-01 and Specific Plan 16-01, as may be approved by Ordinance,
is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION
7® Subdivision 16-02 (Tentative Parcel Map 19701), and Subdivision 16-
03 (Tentative Tract Map 20006), as may be approved by resolution, is incorporated herein by
SECTION 8. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings
on which this Resolution is based are located at the City of San Bernardino Community
61
21
31
41
5
6
7
8,
91
10
11
12
13
141
15
M,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Development Department, 300 North "D" Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, California,
92418. The custodian for these records is the Community Development Department.
SECTION 9. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department is
hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San
Bernardino and State Clearinghouse within five working days of final project approval
certifying the City's compliance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act in certifying
the Final EIR.
SECTION 10. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or
clause or phrase in this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any
part thereof. The Mayor and City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each
section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences,
clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.
HI
HI
1H
Elm
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
1
and City Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meefing thereof, held on the
N
da o f Ar it 2017, by the following vote, to wit:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
8
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE RANCHO PALMA SPECIFIC PLAN
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2016031080
FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING
MITIGATION
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, with limited
discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for
significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not
require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as having "no
impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the
project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource
areas:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Scenic Vista
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.1-4 through 3.1-5)
Explanation: No designated scenic vistas are identified in the City's General Plan or
General Plan EIR. Several highways in the City's vicinity are eligible for designation as state
scenic highways, thereby indicating that they are of scenic value, and offer the potential for
travelers along these routes to experience scenic views. Views are dominated by the San
Bernardino Mountains to the north, and the San Bernardino National Forest provides scenic
value. However, as indicated in Section 5.1.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, future
development in the low-lying areas of the valley and foothills adjacent to the mountains would
not impact scenic views provided by this backdrop. Additionally, the project as designed (i.e.,
one- to two-story strictures) would result in relatively small-scale structural elements that would
not adversely affect or substantially block existing views of these resources as the result of
development. The project site is at a distance from the hillsides, is generally flat, and is not
subject to the restrictions of the City's Hillside Management Overlay District. Therefore, the
project would not adversely affect scenic views of the mountains in this regard and impacts
would be less than significant.
2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding, Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.1-5)
1
Explanation: The General Plan identifies that several eligible state scenic highways occur
in the vicinity of San Bernardino. However, no such roadways are officially designated;
therefore, the project would not adversely affect any existing views from a designated state
scenic highway. Route 66 is not designated as a National Scenic Byway in California. Therefore,
although the project site may be visible from portions of this roadway, no adverse effects on a
designated scenic resource would occur. Although views of the site may occasionally be afforded
to travelers along portions of these roadways, such views would be distant from the site and
further obscured by existing mature vegetation along the roadways, as well as by intervening
topography (i.e., ridgelines). Further, if experienced, views from these roadways would occur
across the valley floor. As such, the proposed development would visually blend in with existing
development on surrounding lands, thereby minimizing its visibility in the landscape. Therefore,
impacts are considered less than significant.
3. Visual Character
Threshold: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.1-6 through 3.1-8)
Explanation: The project site located in an urbanized setting and is highly disturbed. No
rock outcroppings are present on the site, and no historic buildings are located on the property or
on adjoining lands. The proposed project is intended to allow the development of a mixed-use
neighborhood that includes both housing and commercial services within walking distance to the
future residents of Rancho Palma, as well as to the larger Verdemont Heights community. The
Rancho Palma Specific Pian provides guidance for future development of the proposed project
site, with respect for the City's intended vision for the area and as provided in the City's General
Plan.
It is anticipated that most, if not all, of the existing non-native olive trees that are present
along the western property boundary would be removed with project implementation. These
trees are not considered scenic resources. However, tree removal resulting from implementation
of the proposed project would occur consistent with the City's Development Code (Section
19.28.100, Removal or Destruction of Trees).
The project proposes incorporation of landscaping elements to enhance the visual
appearance of the Rancho Palma development, as well as to partially screen views into the site
from adjacent public roadways. Expansion of Ronald Reagan Park would involve dedication of
approximately 0.5 acre of land to the City. Additionally, landscaping enhancements and
monument signage are proposed for the entryways into the project site, both for the commercial
and residential areas. A variety of wall and fencing designs are proposed for the perimeter and
interior of the site.
All future development on the site would be required to demonstrate conformance with
the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. With compliance with such design measures and demonstrated
consistency with the Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and City General Plan and Municipal
Code, project impacts would be less than significant.
2
4. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (E1R, pp. 3.1-8 through 3.1-9)
Explanation: All construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the
City's Noise Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.54.070), which restricts construction
activity to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, thereby limiting the potential need for nighttime
lighting in support of construction activities. The proposed development activity would comply
with the City ordinance with regard to nighttime lighting restrictions, so no adverse impacts from
construction lighting or glare would occur.
Light pollution in San Bernardino is regulated by Development Code Section 19.20.030,
which specifies regulations for outdoor lighting with which all new development must comply.
Conformance with the City's Development Code is enforced when building permit(s) are applied
for. Adherence to the City's regulations would require that all exterior lighting is shielded or
recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of a parcel and
that such lighting is directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-
way.
ights-ofway. Conformance with the Development Code would ensure that project impacts relative to
light and glare would be minimized and/or avoided.
Additionally, Sections 4.3.3, Lighting Design, and 5.6, Lighting, of the Rancho Palma
Specific Plan specify lighting design methods for the proposed residential and commercial uses.
Further, the Specific Plan encourages the use of low -contrast lighting and the use of low -voltage
fixtures and energy-efficient bulbs to reduce the potential for adverse lighting effects. Proposed
light fixtures located along the perimeter of the property would be shielded and directed
downward to eliminate light pollution or spillover onto adjacent streets or neighboring
properties. The Specific Plan also states that light pollution and lighting fixtures that create direct
glare will be minimized through the use of low lighting profiles, recessed luminaires, and
minimal luminance levels, where street light is cast downward. Lighting for on -premises
advertising displays would also be shielded and focused to minimize light spillover into the night
sky or onto adjacent properties. Project conformance with the City's Municipal Code and the
Rancho Palma Specific Plan would reduce potential project effects with regard to lighting and
glare to less than significant.
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. Farmland, Agricultural Zoning, Forestland Zoning, Loss of Forest Land, and
Conversion
Threshold: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
rest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production?
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
non -forest use?
Threshold: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which,
ie to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or
)nversion of forest land to non -forest use?
Findin : No impact. (EIR, p. 3.14-1)
Explanation: The City of San Bernardino (and therefore, the project site) does not contain
any active farmland or forestland, nor does it support trees that could be commercially harvested.
These conditions preclude the possibility of the proposed project converting farmland to
nonagricultural use or forestland to non -forest use. The project site is zoned CG -1 (Commercial
General) and therefore is not zoned for agricultural use, nor is it subject to a Williamson Act
contract. The project would have no impact relative to these thresholds.
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Applicable Air Quality Plans
Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality?
Findin . Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.2-11 through 3.2-12)
Explanation: As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. Similarly,
under state law, the California Clean Air Act requires an air quality attainment plan to be
prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air
quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to
achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is required,
pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the air
basin is in nonattainment. In order to reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2012 Air
Quality Management Plan. The 2012 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest
scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2012-2035
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, updated emission inventory
methodologies for various source categories, and the Southern California Association of
Governments' (SCAG) latest growth forecasts.
►!
The determination of consistency with the AQMP is defined by two criteria. The
violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refer are the California ambient air quality
standards (CAAQS) and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The project would
not exceed construction or operational standards and therefore, would not violate air quality
standards. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with Consistency Criterion No. 1.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the Air Quality Management Plan contains air
pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG's latest growth forecasts. The existing General
Pian land use designation for the site is Commercial General (CG -1). This land use category is
intended for local- and regional -serving retail, personal service, entertainment, office, and other
related commercial uses. With approval of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan, the proposed land
uses on the project site would be consistent with the City General Plan. Therefore, the
development density and vehicle trip generation associated with the proposed project are not
anticipated to be greater than the current assumptions contained in the City General Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would comply with Consistency Criterion No. 2.
In summary, because the proposed project satisfies both of the two aforementioned
criteria for determining consistency, the project would have less than significant impacts with
regard to the applicable air quality plan.
2. Violation of Air Quality Standard
Threshold: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Final Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.2-13 through 3.2-15)
Explanation:
Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with the project will result in emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides
(SOx), and particulate matter (PM10, and PM 2.5). Construction -related emissions are expected
from site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and
construction workers commuting. Under the assumed scenarios, reactive organic gases (ROG),
NO,,, CO, SO,,, and PM emissions resulting from project construction would not exceed
applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. (See EIR Table 3.2-5 [Emissions
Summary of Construction].) Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur during
construction activities.
Operational Emissions
Operational activities associated with the proposed project will result in emissions of
ROG, NO,, CO, SO,, PM1o, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the
following primary sources: area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source
emissions. As discussed in the EIR, ROG, NO,,, CO, SO,,, and PM emissions resulting from
61
project operational activities would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of
significance for operational air pollutant emissions. (See EIR Table 3.2-6 [Summary of Peak
Operational Emissions]). Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be less than
significant.
3. Criteria Pollutants
Threshold: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.2-23 through 3.2-25)
Explanation: The project area is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone
and a nonattainment area for PMIo and PM2.$. The South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (SCAQMD) approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts
of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal
and California Clean Air Acts. The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address
cumulative impacts from air pollution titled White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to
Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report, the SCAQMD states:
Projects that exceed the project -specific significance thresholds are considered by the
SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project -specific and
cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed
the project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively
significant.
The project would not result in exceedances of any applicable thresholds which are
designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality
standards. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the Air Quality
Management Plan, which is intended to bring the South Coast Air Basin into attainment for all
criteria pollutants, since the project -specific evaluation of emissions demonstrates that projected
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Furthermore, the project would
comply with SCAQMD's Rule 403 pertaining to fugitive dust control during construction, as
well as with all other adopted AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and
mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent
feasible, these same requirements would also be imposed on all projects basin -wide. As such,
cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.2-25 to 3.2-26)
4. Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations
Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air
contaminant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.2-17 through 3.2-19)
R
Explanation: Development projects that involve numerous heavy-duty truck trips on-site
create substantial quantities of diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions, and therefore can
negatively affect sensitive land uses. In addition, projects that locate sensitive receptors (i.e.,
residential land uses) in proximity to a major freeway, such as Interstate 215, could result in the
substantial exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel PM. The project is a mixed-use development
where the proposed commercial land uses could potentially result in numerous heavy-duty
delivery truck trips on-site. The proposed residential land uses could be negatively affected by
diesel PM emissions from such heavy-duty delivery truck trips as well as traffic on Interstate
215, which is adjacent to the project site.
Currently, emissions factors are generated from a series of computer-based programs to
produce a composite emission rate for vehicles traveling at various speeds in a defined
geographical area or along a discrete roadway segment. To account for the emissions standards
imposed on the California fleet, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) developed the
EMFAC2014 emission factor model. To produce a representative vehicle fleet distribution, the
health risk assessment utilized CARB's San Bernardino County population estimates for the
2020 calendar year as a conservative measure. This approach provides an estimate of vehicle mix
associated with operational profiles at the link or intersection level.
Based on freeway traffic volumes and population profiles, discrete traffic counts were
identified for each roadway segment. As discussed in the Mobile Source Air Toxic Health Risk
Assessment completed for the proposed project, diesel vehicles account for 5.12 percent of the
on -road mobile fleet. For chronic (long-term) and acute (e.g., 1 -hour) exposures, annual average
daily traffic values were averaged to produce representative hourly traffic volumes. (See Draft
EIR Appendix 3.2-2). These values will not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The
project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
5. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Finding- Less than significant impact. (ETR, pp. 3.2-19 through 3.2-21)
Explanation:
Localized Significance — Construction Activity
The analysis made use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology. The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality
are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal
and/or State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to
as localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a
project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor.
For this project, the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST is the Central
San Bernardino Valley 2 monitoring station (SRA 34). Since the project's maximum daily
V]
disturbed acreage is less than five acres per day, the SCAQMD's localized significance threshold
look -up tables were used in determining localized impacts. Emissions during construction
activity would not exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds, and construction
impacts would be less than significant. (See also EIR Table 3.2-9).
Localized Significance — Long -Term Operational Activity
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of 120 single-family
detached residential dwelling units and up to 98,000 square feet of commercial retail. According
to SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational
phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources
that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities).
The proposed project does not include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of stationary source
emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is required. Impacts on
sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
G. Sensitive Receptors — Carbon Monoxide
Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations — carbon monoxide?
Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.2-22 through 3.2-23)
Explanation: It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular
emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. With the turnover of older
vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial
facilities, CO concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined. The proposed project
would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot. CO hot spots are not
an environmental impact of concern for the proposed project. The proposed project would not
produce the volume of peak -hour traffic required to generate a CO hot spot. Localized air quality
impacts related to mobile -source emissions would therefore be less than significant.
7. Odors
Threshold: Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
FindiM. Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.2-23 through 3.2-25)
Explanation: The potential for the project to generate objectionable odors has been
considered. The project does not contain any land uses identified by the SCAQMD as typically
associated with emissions of objectionable odors. Heavy-duty haul trucks used for commercial -
related deliveries would emit odors associated with the burning of diesel fuel. However, such
exhaust odors would dissipate quickly and are common in a suburban environment. The
residential component of the project would also generate odors. Typical odor -producers in a
residential environment include lawn mowers, barbecues, trash cans, and dumpsters. However,
such odor sources are also common in a suburban environment and are unlikely to cause
complaints. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to
prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Rule 442 prohibits the discharge from any source that
causes nuisance, annoyance, or discomfort to a considerable number of persons. Odors
associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Riparian and Sensitive Habitat
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional pians, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.3-12)
Explanation: Sensitive habitats include (a) areas of special concern to resource agencies;
(b) areas which provide habitat for rare or endangered species which meet the definition of
Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines; (c) areas designated as sensitive natural communities by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); (d) areas outlined in Fish and Game
Code Section 1640; and (e) areas regulated under Clean Water Act Section 404. There are no
sensitive habitats within the project area.
Project -related activities would not adversely affect riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the
CDFW or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No drainages, stream courses, or other
natural water features occur within the boundaries of the project site. The project is anticipated to
have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities.
2. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding Less than significant impact. (EIR., p. 3.3-13)
Explanation: The proposed project does not result in any substantial adverse effects to
jurisdictional features. There are jurisdictional waters within the project site. Much of the
northern boundary of the project site abuts the levee of the south side of Cable Creek, and an
approximately 475 -foot long stretch of Cable Creek is located within the northeastern corner of
the project site. Cable Creek is an ephemeral stream tributary to Cajon Wash. The creek stretch is
adjacent to and within the project site consists of improved and maintained channel. Cable Creek
is a jurisdictional water subject to the Clean Water Act and the Fish and Game Code under the
jurisdictions of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) and the CDFW, respectively. The project proposes to make minor
modifications, as necessary, to ensure that the flows remain within the banks of Cable Creek;
however, no modifications to Cable Creek are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the
FJ
proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects to jurisdictional features, and
impacts would be less than significant.
3. Migratory Fish and Wildlife
Threshold: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.3-14)
Explanation: The Biological Resources Report prepared for the project did not identify
any wildlife corridors within the boundaries of the project site, largely due to the limited size of
the site and its location within a highly -urbanized area. Available data on movement corridors
and linkages was accessed via the CDFW BIOS 5 Viewer. Therefore, no native resident,
migratory fish, or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors
are present on-site or in the project vicinity, nor would the project impede any use of native
wildlife nursery sites. Impacts are considered less than significant.
4. Local Policies or Ordinances
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.3-14 through 3.3-15)
Explanation: The City of San Bernardino Municipal Code includes a requirement for
street trees. However, these provisions are intended for new trees to be planted along roadways
and in other public places in the City in conformance with the street tree master plan (Municipal
Code Section 12.40.030). Development Code Section 19.28.100 (Removal or Destruction of
Trees) includes provisions pertaining to the removal of mature trees that require a City permit
when five or more trees need to be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, or removed within a 36 -month
period. An arborist survey and report may be required at the developer's expense to evaluate
existing trees prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit, as determined by the Director of
Community Development. The project would remove on-site trees. As such, a tree removal
permit is required as part of the development package and prior to any ground -breaking
construction. Since a tree removal permit is a requirement, impacts related to tree removal are
less than significant.
5. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Finding No impact. (EIR, p. 3.3-15)
10
Explanation: There are no adopted or draft habitat conservation plans or natural
community conservations plans for the City of San Bernardino. No other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies to the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in no conflicts with such plans and would have no impact.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Fault Rupture and Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.5-8 through 3.5-9)
Explanation: Although no active faults traverse the project site, the project site is situated
in between and within proximity (less than 2 miles) to the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault
systems, both of which are delineated as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. The project site
is susceptible to primary and secondary hazards related to seismic activity. All new development
and redevelopment is required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), which
includes design criteria for seismic Ioading and other geologic hazards. Thus, while shaking
impacts could be potentially damaging, they would also tend to be reduced in their structural
effects due to CBC criteria that recognize this potential.
The CBC includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without
collapsing and includes measures such as anchoring to the foundation and structural frame
design. Additionally, the geotechnical study prepared for the project recommends that building
structure and improvements be designed using Site Class D and includes seismic design
parameters in accordance with the CBC. Further, the City's General Plan includes policies
designed to prevent the loss of life, serious injuries, and major disruption caused by the collapse
of or severe damage to vulnerable buildings in an earthquake. Finally, the City codifies the report
and application of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Section 15.04.120 of the City
of San Bernardino Municipal Code). These requirements, along with adherence to the City's
Municipal Code, would reduce impacts to less than significant.
2. Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Findin : Less than significant impact. (ETR, p. 3.5-9)
11
Explanation: According to the geotechnical study prepared for the project, and previous
geotechnical investigations on the site, groundwater is estimated to be at approximately 204 feet
below ground surface; however some alluvial soil layers below the level of the high historic
groundwater could be prone to settlement during a seismic event. (See Draft EIR Appendix 3.5-1
[Geocon West, 2015].} To minimize potential impacts associated with seismically induced
liquefaction, future development would be designed in accordance with CBC requirements. The
project applicant will have to demonstrate to planning and engineering staff that the
recommendations of the geotechnical study prepared for the project site have been incorporated
into project design and that the project complies with all applicable CBC requirements.
Adherence to CBC requirements and the incorporation of recommendations outlined in the
geotechnical study would reduce impacts to less than significant.
3. Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (E1R, pp. 3.5-10 through 3.5-11)
Explanation: All construction activities related to the proposed project would be subject
to compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, all allowed development
associated with the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the requirements set
forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water General
Construction Permit for construction activities. Compliance with the CBC and the NPDES would
minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements, which establish water quality standards for the groundwater and
surface water of the region.
Additionally, as part of the approval process, prior to grading plan approval, the project
applicant will be required to comply with San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 8.80, Storm
Water Drainage System, which establishes requirements for stormwater and non-stormwater
quality discharge and control that requires new development or redevelopment projects to control
stormwater runoff by implementing appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to prevent
deterioration of water quality. The displacement of soil through cut and fill will be controlled by
Chapter 33 of the 2013 California Building Code relating to grading and excavation, other
applicable building regulations, and standard construction techniques; therefore, there will be no
significant impact.
4. Landslides and Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides?
Threshold: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
12
Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.5-11)
Explanation: The project site is not at risk for landslide, collapse, or rockfall because of
the relatively level terrain of the site and surrounding developed properties. Additionally, as part
of future development of Rancho Palma, the project site would be graded and the areas
underlying the building pads would be soil engineered in accordance with the recommendations
of a design -level geotechnical study and the requirements of the CBC. These practices would
ensure that proposed structures are located on stable soils and geologic units and would not be
susceptible to settlement or ground failure. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
5. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.5-12)
Explanation: Soils tests on the project site are classified to have very low expansion
potential. However, soils used near finish grade may have a different Expansion Index.
Therefore, soils with higher expansion potential could be present on the project site. As such, the
geotechnical study prepared for the project includes requirements for development consistent
with the soil conditions found on the project site and are based on a very low expansion potential
for the supporting material as determined by California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 18. The
City also requires that site-specific soils reports accompany parcel map and building permit
application requirements (Municipal Code § 19.55.120, which ensures that the type of building
proposed is consistent with the actual soils present on the proposed building location.
Additionally, the City evaluates each foundation plan separately using information from the
building permit and the site-specific soils analysis. Based on on-site conditions and development
requirements outlined in the CBC and Municipal Code, impacts associated with expansive soils
are considered less than significant.
b. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Finding: Less than significant impact (EIR, pp. 3.13-18 through 3.13-19)
Exilanation: The project will construct an 8 -inch sewer line within the local streets that
will connect to an existing 15 -inch sewer line in Little League Drive. The use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems is not required. Impacts associated with soils incapable
of adequately supporting such alternative systems would be less than significant.
13
F. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Direct and Indirect Emissions
Threshold: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding_ Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.6-9 through 3.6-11)
Explanation: The proposed project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated
using CalEEMod version 2013.2.2, which was developed in coordination with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District and is the most current emissions model approved for use in
California by various other air districts. The proposed project would result in direct emissions of
GHGs from construction. The project is compared with the efficiency -based threshold of 4.8
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (COze) per service population (residents plus
employees) per year by the year 2020. In addition, the SCAQMD-recommended threshold of 3.0
metric tons of COZC per service population per year in 2035 was used to assess the project's
impacts to the post -2020 GHG reduction goals in California, identified in Governor's Executive
Order B-30-15 (2015) and Executive Order 5-03-05 (2005). The SCAQMD's approach is to
identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict
with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. For the
purposes of this project, the service population for the commercial uses would be the employees,
the customers, and the vendors.
The proposed commercial uses would generate approximately 6,702 trips per day. In
order to provide a conservative analysis, an internal capture value of 505 and pass -by reduction
value of 2,107 are subtracted from the commercial trip generation. As such, the proposed
commercial uses would generate 4,090 trips per day. The total number of trips per day is divided
by two to derive 2,045 employees, customers, and vendors. According to the California
Department of Finance, the average people per household in the City of San Bernardino is 3.49;
therefore, the proposed project would contain 419 residents (3.49 people/house x 120 houses).
Based on these estimates, the proposed project service population would be 2,464 (419 residents
+ 2,045 employees). Dividing the GHG emissions for each time period yields a metric ton per
service population ratio of 8.3 for year 2020 conditions and 8.0 for year 2035 conditions, thus
not surpassing the significance thresholds. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative
impacts related to commercial trip generation would be less than cumulatively considerable.
(EIR, pp. 3.6-9 through 3.6-11)
2. Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Findings Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.6-12 through 3.6-16)
Explanation: Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB identified reduction measures to achieve this
14
goal as set forth in the CARB Scoping Plan. Thus, projects that are consistent with the CARB
Scoping Plan are also consistent with the reduction targets required by AB 32. The proposed
project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of AB 32. Also, the project does not
conflict with the stated goals of SCAG's 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). For these reasons, the proposed project would not interfere
with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS.
The San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Partnership's
Reduction Plan) was created in accordance with AB 32, which established a GHG limit for
California and includes an inventory of GHG emissions and developed reduction measures that
are jurisdiction -specific. In the Partnership's Reduction Pian, the City of San Bernardino selected
a goal to reduce community GHG emissions 15 percent below the City's 2008 GHG emissions
levels by 2020. In order to achieve this goal, the City is in the process of establishing a
Sustainability Master Plan (SMP). The draft SMP, prepared in 2012, comprises measures that,
when implemented, will enable the City to reduce its GHG emissions from City operations and
the community. While the SMP has not yet been finalized or adopted, no aspect of the proposed
project would conflict with the draft SMP measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
project represents infill development and consists of a mix of land uses, which reinforces a
compact urban form and increases the viability of walking, biking, and transit. For the reasons
stated above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. impacts would be less than
significant.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Hazardous Emissions near an Existing or Proposed School
Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Finding Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.7-11 through 3.7-12)
Explanation: The project site is approximately 0. 17 anile from Cesar E. Chavez Middle
School, which is located at 6650 North Magnolia Avenue. The project proposes residential and
commercial uses, neither of which are incompatible land uses near a school. Limited amounts of
hazardous materials may be generated by such uses, but would be typical of standard operational
characteristics (i.e. use of pesticides, cleaning supplies, oils and/or fuels from maintenance
vehicles and equipment, etc.). Additionally, project -related environmental and development
documents have been and will continue to be circulated to the San Bernardino City Unified
School District (SBCUSD) for review and comment as required by local ordinance and state law.
Communication with the school district, and the fact that the residential and commercial
development is not anticipated to emit any hazardous substances ensure that this impact is less
than significant.
15
2. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIF, p. 3.7-12)
Explanation: City Development Code Section 19.30.240 requires that a tentative tract or
parcel map provide for at least two different standard routes for ingress and egress. The proposed
project meets this requirement with access via the proposed driveways on (future) Magnolia
Avenue and along West Little League Drive. Per the City's subdivision ordinance, all roadway
improvements must be constructed prior to occupancy of the site. Little League Drive will be
improved as part of the proposed project, which will help with traffic during an emergency. The
improvements will widen the pavement to allow for parking and resurfacing of the roadway. The
City requires a traffic control plan as part of development plans for all land division. Any
blockage of the roadway for construction purposes, such as road reconstruction and pipeline
connection or other utilities, will be noticed and advertised to all emergency responders. Once
operational, the roadway will be left unimpaired by the development. Through compliance with
City regulations, this impact would be less than significant.
3. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding Less than significant impact. (ETR, p. 3.7-13)
Explanation: The proposed project site is located on Urban and Built -Up Land with
residential and recreational uses surrounding the project site. However, according to the City of
San Bernardino Hazard Mitigation Plan, based on the City's geographical location, topography,
terrain, and climate, wildfires are a problem in the City. The proposed project would be subject
to compliance with the 2013 California Building Code (or most current version) and 2013
California Fire Code, which would aid in reducing the demand on fire protection service by
requiring fire protection detection systems, proper fire flow, and use of appropriate construction
materials. In addition, the project design would be required to conform to conditions provided by
the local Fire Department to ensure that potential hazards relative to exposure of people or
structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be reduced to
less than significant.
4. Known Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
16
Findinn.- No impact. (EIR, pp. 3.7-8 through 3.7-11)
Explanation: As required by Government Code Section 65962.5, CaIEPA develops an
annual update to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List, which is a planning
document providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The
DTSC is also responsible for updating information contained in the Cortese List. As search of
government hazardous materials databases completed for the project determined that no reported
hazardous materials sites are located on the project site. Thus, no impact would occur in this
regard.
5. Safety Hazards near Airports
Threshold: Would the project, for a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Threshold: For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: No impact. (EIR., p. 3.14-2)
Explanation: San Bernardino International Airport is located at the southeastern edge of
the City, approximately 10.6 miles from the project site. No land use compatibility plan currently
exists for the airport. Additionally, the proposed project is not located within two miles of a
public airport or in the vicinity of a private airport. Therefore, the project would have no impact
relative to these thresholds.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Threshold: Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Threshold: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.8-9 through 3.8-13)
Explanation:
Project Construction
Construction grading, excavation, and other construction activities associated with the
proposed project could impact water quality due to sheet erosion resulting from exposed soils
17
and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. The significance of these
water quality impacts would vary depending on the level of construction activity, weather
conditions, soil conditions, and increased sedimentation of drainage systems in the area.
Construction controls to minimize water quality impacts are not necessarily the same
measures used for long-term water quality management, since construction -related water quality
control measures are temporary in nature and specific to the type of construction. Development
would be subject to compliance with the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80, Storm Water
Drainage System, and NPDES requirements. These requirements may include practices to
stabilize soil, to protect soil in its existing location, preserving existing vegetation, hydroseeding,
collection of soil before it leaves the site, street sweeping, fiber rolls, silt fencing, sand bags,
watering exposed soils, etc.
In addition, construction sites with one acre or greater of soil disturbance or less than one
acre, but part of a greater common plan of development, would be required to apply for coverage
of discharges under the General Construction Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). As part of
its compliance, a Notice of Intent (IGI) would need to be prepared and submitted to the Santa
Ana RWQCB providing notification and intent to comply with the General Permit. The
Construction General Permit also requires that construction sites be inspected before and after
storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. With the incorporation of these
Best Management Practices, through the City's regulations, and the NPDES, impacts would be
less than significant.
Project Operation
The proposed project would have long-term effects on runoff once development is
complete. Runoff from disturbed areas would likely contain silt and debris, resulting in a long-
term increase in the sediment load of the -storm drain system serving the City. Substances such as
oils, fuels, paints, and solvents may be transported to nearby drainages, watersheds, and
groundwater in stormwater runoff and wash water. The significance of these water quality
impacts would vary depending on weather conditions, soil conditions, and increased
sedimentation of drainage systems in the area.
The proposed project will install a water line in Little League Drive, which will connect
to an existing 24 -inch water line located just south of the Magnolia Avenue/Little League Drive
intersection, to an existing 16 -inch water line located adjacent to the proposed commercial
development, north of Palm Avenue. A looped 8 -inch water system in the proposed project
streets will provide water to the residential units, while another looped water system will provide
water to the commercial development.
The project's on-site drainage system will direct stormwater from both residential and
commercial sources to a storm drainage system that consists of five proposed catch basins and
then into one of two infiltration basins. The actual capacity of the basins, as designed, exceeds
the anticipated requirements (cubic feet) for accommodating stormwater runoff' from the site.
Both basins are designed to properly manage and retain on-site flows before those flows are
transported off-site into Cable Creek. Runoff from the residential area would ultimately be
conveyed into a proposed pipe system offsite in Little League Drive that would carry flows into
18
Cable Creek. The commercial area would direct stormwater runoff through the parking and
circulation areas to the southern portion of the project site into a proposed infiltration basin. The
collected flows would join the pipe system corning from the residential area and flow into the
existing storm drainage line in Little League Drive. The current storm drain line in Little League
Drive extends to an outfall at the crossing of Cable Creek by Palm Avenue. Additionally, as part
of the proposed project, the existing 36 -inch outfall would be increased to accommodate a 48 -
inch outfall.
Additionally, implementation of best management practices identified in the project's
water quality management plan and compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations
as discussed above would protect water quality and ensure compliance with applicable water
quality standards. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.8-13 through 3.8-14)
Explanation: The project will pane over a site that is likely not a significant recharge
feature for the local area. Some of the stormwater runoff will percolate into the soil from the
basins, while the rest of it will be guided to the Cable Creek Channel. The channel is unlined and
along with downstream water channels, helps with area recharge. The zoning of the site was
evaluated in the City's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and, as a commercial zone, was
anticipated to have more pavement and coverage of impervious surfaces than is proposed with
the project. As the project will not result in a groundwater well and will provide greater
opportunity for recharge than is projected in the UWMP, this impact would be less than
significant.
3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff
Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Threshold: Would the project 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 that would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (ETR, pp. 3.8-14 through 3.8-15)
Explanation: The site will be graded, and parcel and open space improvements will be
designed to drain to the existing and proposed streets, flood control channels, storm drains, and
catch basins. The proposed drainage on the site would not channel runoff on exposed soils,
would not direct flows over unvegetated soils, and would not otherwise increase the erosion or
siltation potential of the site or any downstream areas. The proposed project is subject to NPDES
requirements and compliance with the water quality management plan.
The buildings and parking areas will channel the drainage into underground pipes,
leading to retention areas before continuing to the existing drainage course to Little League
Drive. The addition of impervious surfaces to the project site would increase flow rates,
potentially increasing erosion. However, runoff is proposed to be routed to the infiltration basins
and ultimately Cable Creek. This proposed drainage system would slow runoff velocities, allow
sediment to settle out of the water, and capture trash and debris collected in the system.
Furthermore, the required stormwater pollution prevention pian (SWPPP) for the project would
include best management practices designed to prevent erosion both during and after
construction. While the proposed project will alter the existing drainage pattern, the alterations
are specifically designed to meet state and fcderal water quality standards and designed to ensure
that the stormwater flow does not result in flooding, substantial erosion or siltation. Impacts
would be less than significant.
4. Housing and Flows in Flood Zones
Threshold: Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
Threshold: Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.8-15 through 3.8-16)
Exelanation: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06071C7930H, the project site is designated as Zone X,
indicating that the site is in an area identified by FEMA as X Other Flood Areas. The designation
estimates a 0.2 percent potential for flooding during a 100 -year storm event. The project site is
west of the Cable Creek Channel that is provisionally accredited by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. The provisional accreditation means that the levee could be "decertified" at a later
date, resulting in the area being mapped in a different flood zone. Chapter 19.16 of the City of
San Bernardino Municipal Code regulates construction in FIRM flood zones. If the levee were to
be decertified, the map would be revised to indicate the appropriate flood zone. The proposed
project would construct homes and buildings adjacent to the Cable Creek Channel, but would not
result in any in -channel construction that could impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed
project is outside of the 100 -year flood zone and would not impede any future construction that
may be required to ensure flood protection for the site.
5. Flooding, Dams, and Levees
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
20
Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.8-8)
Explanation: Dam inundation areas are identified in Draft EIR Figure 3.8-2, which shows
the dam inundation areas in the City as a result of failure of the Seven Oaks Dam upstream. The
project site is not located within any dam inundation hazard zone. No impact would occur.
b. Seiche, Tsunami, and Mudflow
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.8-8)
Explanation: The project site is not located near any large inland bodies of water or the
Pacific Ocean so as to be inundated by seiches or tsunamis, nor is the project site located on or
near steep slopes where rapid erosion could trigger mudflows. As such, the potential for
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is nonexistent. No impact would occur.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Conflict with Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, pp. 3.9-3 through 3.9-5)
Explanation: The proposed project would be consistent with key provisions of the City's
General Plan Land Use Element, including Policy 2.1.3 and Policy 2.2.1. The proposed project
serves to further each of these key policies by providing a compatible balance of different
residential and commercial uses, respecting the existing character of the community, and
including new commercial uses specifically designed to serve neighboring residential uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan upon City approval of
the Rancho Palma Specific Plan.
Existing zoning for the site is Commercial General (CG -1). Varying commercial land
uses are allowed with approval of a Development Permit. Because commercial uses are currently
allowed under existing conditions, a zone reclassification to change the underlying land use or
zoning from CG -1 is not required or proposed. However, certain commercial uses that are
conditionally permitted in the CG -1 zone of the City's Development Code (Chapter 19.06)
would require City approval of a conditional use permit (CUP).
There are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans
in San Bernardino. There are also no approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation pians
within the City. Future development on the project site would occur consistent with the Rancho
21
c Plan and would therefore not conflict with such a plan adopted for the purpose of
_ itigating an environmental effect.
The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project. No impact would occur.
2. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Findiniz: No impact. (EIR p. 3.14-2)
Explanation: There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan that affects or is adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact.
3. Divide a Community
Threshold: Would the project physically divide an established community?
Finding: No impact. (EIR p. 3.14-2)
Explanation: Because the project site is vacant and is generally surrounded by existing
development and will not obstruct traffic or public trails, the proposed project would not
physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
J. NUNERAL RESOURCES
1. Known and Locally Important Resources
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site, delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use
plan?
Finding: No impact. (EIR pp. 3.14-2 through 3.14-3)
Explanation: The City's General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at the long-term
preservation of mineral resources within the City boundaries and the Sphere of Influence. The
General Plan also identifies a range of allowed land use types relative to industrial -related
employment uses, such as manufacturing, distribution, research and development, office, and
mineral extraction, at a range of intensities. The General Plan land use category of Industrial
Extractive (IE) allows mineral, sand, and gravel extraction with an approved Mineral
Reclamation Plan, in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of
1975 (SMARA). This land use does not apply to the subject property or any adjoining lands. The
22
site has not been historically used for mineral resource extraction, nor is it intended for such
purposes. Therefore, the project would have no impact relative to these thresholds.
K. NOISE
1. Groundborne Vibration and Noise
Threshold: Would the project expose people to or generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EK pp. 3.10-26 through 3.10-27)
Ex lanation:
Construction
A large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference level of 87
vibration decibels (VdB) at a distance of 25 feet. At distances ranging from 151 to 878 feet from
the project site, construction vibration levels are expected to range from 40.6 to 63.6 VdB. Using
the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) construction vibration assessment methods, the
project site would not include or require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in a
perceptible human response (annoyance).
Project construction is therefore not expected to generate vibration levels exceeding the
FTA's maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB. Further, impacts at the site of the
closest sensitive receptor are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period, but
would rather be limited to times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the
project site boundary. Therefore, the potential for the project to result in exposure of persons to,
or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration during construction would be less than
significant.
Operation
Although the operation of large delivery vehicles and loading docks, or other similar
activities that may occur with the commercial uses, may result in limited vibrations, such
occurrences would be sporadic and intermittent. Further, such activities would generally be
distanced from residential land uses. The nearest sensitive receptor location is the residential
community located approximately 151 feet east of the project site. Although such activities may
generate noise, they would not be expected to result in the generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. Ambient Noise Levels — Permanent
Threshold: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Findiniz: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.10-27 through 3.10-30)
23
Explanation: To quantify the project's traffic noise impacts on the surrounding areas, the
changes in traffic noise levels on 32 roadway segments surrounding the project were calculated
based on the changes in the average daily traffic volumes. The noise contours were used to
assess the project's incremental traffic -related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways
conveying project traffic.
The off-site traffic noise analysis shows that the project's noise level contributions would
be less than significant under with -project conditions in each of the six time frames: Existing,
Existing plus Ambient (2018), Existing plus Ambient (2419), Opening Year Cumulative (2018),
Opening Year Cumulative (2019), and Year 2035 conditions. Further, the project's incremental
traffic -related noise level at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic will
diminish over time. This decrease Occurs as the background traffic on the study area roadway
segments increases and the project represents a smaller percentage of the overall traffic volume.
Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than
significant.
3. Ambient Noise Levels — Temporary or Periodic
Threshold: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.10-39 through 3.10-40)
Explanation: The unmitigated construction noise levels (peak noise level operating at a
single point nearest the sensitive receiver location) would range from 54.7 to 74.0 dBA Leq. In
conformance with City Municipal Code Section 8.54.070, noise -generating project construction
activities would not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. While the City
establishes limits on the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not
identify specific limits for construction noise levels. Section 8.54.060(I), Exemptions, of the
Noise Control Ordinance indicates that project construction noise levels are considered exempt
from the provisions of the ordinance. Therefore, if project construction only occurs during the
hours permitted in the Noise Control Ordinance, project construction noise levels will be exempt
from the ordinance. Additionally, construction -related noise would tend to diminish as the use of
heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes and would dissipate entirely at the
end of construction activities. Given the sporadic and variable nature of project construction and
the implementation of noise limits specified in the Municipal Code, noise impacts would be less
than significant.
However, to further reduce the potential for noise impacts and nuisances, Mitigation
Measure N0I-1 would be implemented to incorporate best management practices during
construction. Implementation of the measure would ensure that the project would not result in a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels that exist without the project. Impacts would be reduced less than significant.
24
4. Public Airports
Threshold: Would the project cause 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, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, pp. 3.10-40 and 3.14-3)
Explanation: The airport nearest to the project site is San Bernardino International
Airport, located approximately 10.6 miles from the project site. According to the General Plan
EIR, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Airport Master Plan have not yet been
adopted for the airport. As such, the project site is not currently located within the boundaries of
an airport land use plan and is not within any noise contours of San Bernardino international
Airport. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels.
5. Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project cause
exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, pp. 3.1041 and 3.14-3)
Explanation: The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, as no
private airports are located in or adjacent to the City's boundaries. According to the General Plan
EIR, there are five private helipads located in the City's planning area. However, due to the
nature of the project setting (urbanized) and the proposed land uses (residential and commercial),
the proposed development is not anticipated to result in substantial new levels of noise in the
project area. As such, the project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
I. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.11-3 through 3.11-4)
Explanation: The proposed project would include 120 additional single-family dwelling
units, which would add approximately 419 people to the City's population (3.49 persons per
household x 120 dwelling units). In addition, the proposed project will develop an appropriately
sized neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with employment
growth and increased sales tax for San Bernardino.
25
The City of San Bernardino General Plan projected the City's total population to be
319,241 at buildout. The increase in population as a result of the proposed project would account
for approximately one percent of the population growth under the General Plan. The anticipated
growth has been planned for in the General Plan, and the residential land use proposed with the
project would be an allowed use under the existing zoning with City approval of the Rancho
Palma Specific Plan. The project would therefore not induce substantial population growth,
either directly or indirectly.
2. Displacement of Housing and People
Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.14-3)
Explanation: The project site is vacant; therefore, no structures will be removed or any
existing residents displaced as a result of project implementation. As such, the project would
have no impact related to these thresholds.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Services and Emergency Medical Services
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-25 through 3.13-26)
Explanation: The San Bernardino City Fire Department provides fire protection and
safety services in the City. The future development within the project area is anticipated to result
in increased calls and demands for fire protection services, which may create a need for
additional fire protection services, personnel, and/or facilities. However, the required Fire
Suppression fees overseen by the City Engineering Department and taxes paid by the project
applicant would adequately mitigate the expected increase in fire protection and emergency
medical service demand. The proposed project would also be subject to compliance with the
2013 California Building Code (or most current version) and 2013 California Fire Code, which
would aid in reducing the demand on fire protection service by requiring fire protection detection
systems, proper fire flow, and use of appropriate construction materials. Compliance with
measures established by federal, state, and local regulations would maintain acceptable service
ratios and response times for fire protection services. Accordingly, implementation of the
26
proposed project would not result in the need to construct a new fire station or physically alter an
existing station. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.
2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for police protection?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-26 through 3.13-27)
Explanation: The San Bernardino Police Department currently includes 312 sworn
officers and another 150 civilian support staff, approximately 1.5 sworn officers per 1,400 people
and 0.7 civilian support star' per 1,000 people. The department operates under a mutual aid
agreement with police agencies in the surrounding cities. As such, if and when law enforcement
service needs increase as a result of incremental population increases in the City, and additional
patrol hours are deemed necessary, they would be met through the department's mutual aid
agreement and possibly an increase in the number of officers. The project proposes 120 single-
family residential dwelling units and up to 98,000 square feet in commercial space. The average
household size in San Bernardino in 2015 was 3.49 persons. The proposed project would include
120 additional single-family dwelling units, which would add approximately 419 people to the
City's population.
Considering the Police Department's servicing level, the population increase resulting
from the proposed project would require 0.6 additional sworn officers and 0.3 civilian support
staff. This increase is not considered sufficient to result in the hiring of additional police
department staff and officers or the need for new or physically altered law enforcement facilities.
In addition, a standard condition of approval for the proposed project will require the project
applicant to pay the standard Law Enforcement development impact fees provided by the
Engineering Department. Compliance with these measures would maintain acceptable service
ratios and responses times for police protection services. Implementation of the proposed project
would not result in the need to construct a new police facilities or physically alter an existing
facility. Therefore, impacts to police protection services would be less than significant.
3. Schools
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for schools?
Findin : Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-27 through 3.13-28)
27
Explanation: School -aged children living in Rancho Palma would attend either North
Verdemont Elementary School at 3555 West Myers Road, approximately 0.4 mile north of the
project site, or Palm Avenue Elementary School at 6565 Palm Avenue, approximately 0.6 mile
northeast of the site. Children in grades 6 through 8 would attend Cesar E. Chavez Middle
School at 6650 Magnolia Avenue, approximately 0.2 mile north of the site. Children in grades 9
through 12 would attend Cajon High School at 1200 West Hill Drive, approximately 3.2 miles to
the southeast of the site.
Based on the San Bernardino City Unified School District's (SBCUSD) student
generation rates, the project will generate 40 elementary school students, 20 middle school
students, and 23 high school students, for a total of 83 students. The additional 83 students will
not exceed district enrollment/average daily attendance in previous academic years. Furthermore,
the proposed project will represent an increase in the current SBCUSD enrollment of less than
one percent.
Current state law requires that impacts to current school facilities be mitigated through
mandatory development impact fees. The fees enacted in the SBCUSD of $4.25 per square foot
of assessable space for new residential development and $0.54 per square foot for new
commercial/industrial development will be collected for the proposed project. Accordingly,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need to construct new school
facility or alter an existing school facility. Therefore, impacts to school services would be less
than significant.
4. Parks
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for paries?
Fines Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-29 through 3.13-30)
Explanation: The Rancho Palma development proposes two planned private parks, a
paseo, approximately a half -acre of parkland to be dedicated to Ronald Reagan Park, and a
private recreational vehicle storage lot. Provision of these facilities would ensure that the project
remains in conformance with the City's service ratios for parks. The total amount of planned
parkland is 96,000 square feet, which more than satisfies the development's need of five acres of
parkland for every 1,000 residents as outlined in the General Pian. Indirect and direct impacts
resulting with development of the park facilities were evaluated in the EIR, and mitigation
measures identified, as applicable, to reduce any impacts to less than significant (i.e. biological
and cultural resources). As such, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,
or other performance objectives for parks. Impacts would be less than significant.
28
5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for other public facilities?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The proposed project would include 120 additional single-family dwelling
units, which would add approximately 419 people to the City's population. The population
increase from the proposed Project would have the potential to increase the demand for other
services or facilities, such as public libraries, hospitals, or civic uses.
The Howard M. Rowe Branch Library is located approximately 4.4 miles southeast of the
project site. Based on the limited new population generated, this library would be adequate to
serve the proposed project, and no new or physically altered facilities for the provision of library
services are required or proposed with the project. As indicated in the City's General Plan EIR,
buildout of the General Plan would not result in a significant impact on library facilities, and no
mitigation measures are required. Library services within the City are funded through normal
revenue sources and the yearly budgetary process. As growth increases so too will revenues to
support the library system. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
The increase in residents may incrementally increase the number of hospital visitors in
the project area. The existing Community Hospital of San Bernardino is located approximately
4.9 miles southeast of the project site. Due to the limited new population generated, the hospital
facility is considered adequate to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no new physical
facilities associated with hospitals would be required as a result of the project, and no adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or altered hospital facilities would occur.
Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
The project has been closely coordinated with area service providers to ensure the
availability of services and facilities concurrent with need. Additionally, the Resolution of
Approval for the Specific Plan and the implementing permits and maps would be conditioned to
ensure the provision of services in a timely, efficient, and economical way to successfully
execute the project. As such, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,
or other performance objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.
W
N. RECREATION
1. Existing Facilities
Threshold: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Findin& Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-29 through 3.13-30)
Explanation: The Rancho Palma development includes two planned private parks, a
paseo, approximately a half -acre of parkland to be dedicated to Ronald Reagan Park, and a
private recreational vehicle storage lot. The private neighborhood park would be approximately
1.4 acres and would offer open play turf areas, pathways, picnic nodes, and a playground area. A
horseshoe court or other activity may also be provided. The pocket park would be approximately
0.2 acre and would offer opportunities for passive and/or active recreation, which may include
bocce ball or similar activities.
The proposed project would generate additional residents, who would increase the
demand for parks and park usage. The proposed project would result in the addition of 120
dwelling units and approximately 419 persons. Based on the City's parkland ratio of 5 acres per
1,000 residents, the proposed project would result in the need for approximately 91,000 square
feet of parkland. The total amount of planned parkland is 96,000 square feet, which more than
satisfies this development's need of five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents as outlined
in the General Plan.
In addition to the City's standard of five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the
General Plan includes a policy to require developers of residential subdivisions to pay fees based
on the valuation of the units to fund parkland acquisition and improvements. Dedication of
parkland would help to reduce potential impacts of future residential development on parks and
recreational facilities. Therefore, recreational impacts would be less than significant.
2. New Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, P. 3.13-31)
Explanation: Environmental impacts associated with construction of recreation facilities
were addressed throughout the EIR under the topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, noise, and paleontological resources. Mitigation was provided in each applicable
section of this EIR to reduce potential significant, short-term construction impacts to below a
level of significance. Therefore, impacts due to the construction of recreation facilities necessary
to serve the project would be less than significant.
30
O. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Design Feature Hazards
Threshold: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g..
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.12-20 through 3.12-22)
Explanation: The City of San Bernardino implements development standards designed to
ensure standard engineering practices are used for all improvements. The proposed project would
be checked for compliance with these standards as part of the review process conducted by the
City. The project includes improvements to the transportation and circulation system surrounding
the site, and all such improvements would be designed and constructed to local, regional, and
federal standards. As such, they would not introduce any hazardous design features.
Wherever necessary, roadways adjacent to the project, site access points, and site -
adjacent intersections will be constructed to be consistent with or within the recommended
roadway classifications and respective cross sections in the City's Circulation Element. On-site
traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction
plans for the project site. As part of the City's review of all development plans, sight distance at
each project access point will be reviewed with respect to City of San Bernardino sight distance
standards (Chapter 12.30, Sight Distance Requirement) at the time of preparation of final
grading, landscape, and street improvement pians. The proposed project does not include any
dangerous design features, curves, or intersections; therefore, a less than significant impact
would result.
2. Alternative Transportation
Threshold: Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities?
Finding Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.12-23 through 3.12-24)
Explanation: The addition of population proposed by the project has the potential to
increase the demand for public transit. There is an existing sbX transit station/transfer point on
Kendall Drive, just east of Palm Avenue. Additionally, Omnitrans Route 2 runs to just east of the
project site, while Route 7 and Route i 1 run in proximity of the project site near University
Parkway. There are existing bus stop locations, crosswalks, bike lanes, trails, and sidewalks in
proximity to the project site. Pedestrian facilities are limited in the western portion of the project
site. According to the City of San Bernardino Conceptual Trail System, a regional multipurpose
trail is proposed west of Palm Avenue and along Pine Avenue, north of Kendall Drive.
Additionally, bicycle routes are proposed along Cajon Boulevard, west of Palm Avenue.
31
-ntial component of the proposed project would add approximately 419 people
to the City's population, which represents a minimal incremental increase in the City's existing
population. Additionally, the commercial component of the proposed project would generate
commuters that would have the option to use public transit located in proximity to the project
site. However, the performance of these systems is not expected to decrease upon
implementation of the proposed project. In fact, the existing and proposed transit options would
remain intact and not otherwise be affected by the project. The proposed project would not
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation or the
expansion of alternative transportation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3. Air Traffic Patterns
Threshold: Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, p. 3.12-5)
Ex lavation: The proposed project is outside the San Bernardino International airport
influence area as shown in Figure 5.1-2 of the Land Use Element of the City of San Bernardino
General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns. No impacts will
occur.
P. UTILITIES
1. Wastewater
Threshold: Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-15 through 3.13-16)
Explanation: Wastewater generated on the project site would be treated at the San
Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant. This facility treats residential and industrial wastewater
using both primary and secondary treatment processes to meet the discharge standards specified
in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued to the plant by the
RWQCB. Wastewater would then be processed by the Rapid Infiltration and Extraction facility,
where secondary treated water undergoes the final filtering and disinfecting process to produce
wastewater that is superior or equivalent to that produced by conventional filtration systems and
is suitable for recycling into the Santa Ana River.
The reclamation plant, including both primary and secondary treatment, has the permitted
capacity to process 33 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes 28 mgd.
Development of the proposed project will result in an increase of 35,974 gpd in wastewater
generation. This increase will be a minor impact to the plant's daily capacity. Therefore, the
project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and impacts due to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.
32
New Infrastructure
Threshold: Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 3.13-17 through 3.13-19)
Ex lanativn:
Water Infrastructure
The proposed project would extend the existing water lines from Palm Avenue and W.
Little League Drive and extend the existing sewer lines from Palm Avenue. This expansion will
not cause significant environmental effects. Furthermore, the anticipated growth has been
planned for within the General Plan, and the City has anticipated having sufficient water supplies
to meet the projected demand for buildout year 2434. As such, water supplies are anticipated to
be adequate to serve the proposed project. With adherence to the General Plan goals and policies,
the Water Facilities Master Plan, the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Senate Bill (SB)
610 and SB 221 requirements, and the City's Municipal Code, implementation of the proposed
project would result in less than significant impacts to water supplies.
The focus of the Water Facilities Master Plan and the UWMP is to give highest priority
for further development of local supplies, with imported water being used to meet the remaining
needs. Moreover, the City adopted Municipal Code Title 13, Public Utilities, Chapter 13.24,
Water Supply System, to ensure that the water furnished or supplied by the domestic water
supply system under the jurisdiction of the City is at all times pure, wholesome, potable,
healthful, and in adequate supply and to provide minimum standards for construction,
reconstruction, abandonment, and destruction of wells in order to protect underground watcr
resources and provide safe water to persons within the City. With adherence to the General Plan
goals and policies, the Water Facilities Master Plan, the UWMP, and the City's Municipal Code,
implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to water
infrastructure and facilities.
Wastewater Infrastructure
The City's Public Works Department will provide wastewater services to the proposed
project. The project proposes the installation of an 8 -inch system that will tie into the existing
15 -inch sewer line in Little League Drive. The commercial development will also tie into this
line. The project would not be permitted to exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance
systems or treatment facilities, since adequate capacity must be demonstrated before additional
flows can be contributed to the system.
Environmental impacts associated with construction have been addressed throughout this
EIR under the topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and
paleontological resources. Mitigation has been provided in each applicable section of this EIR to
33
reduce potential significant, short-term construction impacts to below a level of significance.
Therefore, impacts due to the construction of wastewater infrastructure would be less than
significant.
3. Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Threshold: Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Finding. Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.13-19)
Explanation: The proposed project includes the installation of two infiltration basins
within the project footprint to collect stormwater runoff from both the residential and
commercial areas. The project applicant proposes to construct an additional stormwater drainage
pipe in Little League Drive.
Environmental impacts associated with project construction have been addressed
throughout this EIR under the topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise,
and paleontological resources. Mitigation has been provided in each applicable section of this
EIR to reduce potential significant, short-term construction impacts to below a level of
significance. Impacts due to the construction of stormwater infrastructure would be less than
significant.
4. Water Supply
Threshold: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Findin : Less than significant. (EIR, pp. 3.13-20 through 3.13-21)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addition of 120
dwelling units (26.9 acres) and 98,000 square feet (9.3 acres) of commercial development.
Future development associated with implementation of the proposed project would result in an
increased demand for water supplies and infrastructure within the project area. Implementation
of the proposed project would result in a demand for water supplies of 111,707 gallons per day
(gpd). The proposed project would implement water conservation measures through the use of
native, drought -tolerant landscaping and "smart" irrigation systems and would promote "green"
projects with water -saving measures as defined in Chapter 5 of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan.
The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) website states that the
district produces and delivers 47,676 acre-feet of water per year. With estimated water
consumption of 133 acre-feet annually, the proposed project will represent an increase in water
consumption of approximately 0.25 percent. Considering the current estimations that were
determined by utilizing the SBMWD water consumption assumptions, sufficient water supplies
are available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or
34
expanded entitlements are needed. Therefore, impacts to water supply would be less than
significant.
5. Adequate Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.13-21)
Explanation: The proposed project will include connection to the SBMWD wastewater
system via an 8 -inch sewer pipe in Little League Drive. The Water Reclamation Plant treats
water from a population of approximately 185,000, meaning that the current baseline wastewater
flow rate is approximately 151 gallons per capita per day. Development of the proposed project
will result in an increase of 35,974 gpd in wastewater generation. This increase will be a minor
impact to the plant's daily capacity. Because adequate wastewater treatment capacity is
available, impacts to wastewater capacity would be less than significant.
6. Landfill Capacity
Threshold: Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.13-22)
Explanation: The proposed project is estimated to result in 419 residents who will
generate solid waste that will require disposal and recycling. The California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) provides unofficial estimates of solid waste
generation and disposal rates for five land use or business types: commercial, industrial,
institutional, residential, and service.
The solid waste generated as a result of the proposed project is expected to be sent to the
Mid -Valley Landfill or the San Timoteo Landfill. Assuming that each person generates 4.7
pounds of residential waste per day, the residential development will produce 1,969 pounds of
waste per day, and the commercial development on the site will produce 2,058 pounds of waste
per day, for a total of 4,027 pounds of waste per day for the proposed project, or 734 tons per
year. The estimated amount of generated solid waste would not exceed the landfills' permitted
disposal. Adequate landfill capacity is available to meet the needs of the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts to solid waste facilities would be less than significant.
7. Regulations for Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Findiniz: Less than significant impact. (EIR, p. 3.13-23)
35
Explanation: The State of California established 50 percent as the minimum waste
reduction rate for all cities. Since 1995, the City has received either a Board Approved or Good
Faith Effort in reaching waste diversion goals required by the law. Continuation of the recycling
program and education on composting efforts would result in achieving the desired goal of 50
percent waste diversion in compliance with AB 939. The proposed project would not hinder
efforts to achieve this requirement, as the City would distribute educational material on reducing
waste, recycling, and composting to commercial and residential users.
The General Plan Utilities Element includes goals and policies related to an adequate and
orderly system for the collection and disposal of solid waste to meet the demands of new and
existing development in the City. The proposed project is required to provide adequate storage
areas for the storage and collection of trash, recyclables, and green waste materials.
Because it is required to comply with City and state regulations which require a minimum
of 50 percent waste reduction and General Plan elements, the proposed project will be consistent
with federal, state, and local regulations regarding solid waste. Therefore, impacts to solid waste
facilities would be less than significant.
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL
OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in
the EIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially
significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant
impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as
follows:
A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.3-10 through
3.3-12)
Explanation: Construction of the project would regrade the site, remove the existing
vegetation, and result in urban improvements for the property west of the Cable Creek Channel.
The channel, as well as the 0.54 -acre portion of the site east of the channel, would remain largely
undisturbed during project construction. The 0.50 -acre portion would become part of the existing
Ronald Regan Park and would be developed with park features such as grass, trails, trees, etc.
While the resulting development would include landscaping, the project site would not have any
natural habitat value once fully developed.
36
No special -status plants were observed during a biological field survey of the project site.
Further, the project site is characterized as disturbed, and regular disking appears to have
occurred on the site. As such, the potential for any sensitive plant species is low, and impacts to
special status plants are not anticipated.
However, suitable habitat for two sensitive wildlife species were found on site: the
burrowing owl, which is a species of special concern, and the California horned lark, which is on
the CDFW Watch List, and therefore, significant impacts may occur with project
implementation. Focused breeding season protocol -level surveys were conducted for burrowing
owl, and no individuals or signs were observed on the project site during the survey. However,
because suitable habitat is found onsite, impacts to burrowing owl are potentially significant.
California horned lark was observed within the boundaries of the project site during the field
survey, therefore impacts are considered potentially significant.
To address these potential significant impacts, the following mitigation measures were
identified:
Mitigation Measures
BIO -1 All construction and clearing activities shall be conducted outside of the avian
nesting season (January 15 to August 31), when feasible. A migratory nesting bird
survey of the project's impact footprint for nesting raptors, special -status resident
birds, and other migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist within seventeen (17) days prior to initiating
vegetation clearing or ground disturbance. If active nests are found during the
preconstruction nesting bird surveys, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared
and implemented. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines for addressing
active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The NBP will
include a copy of maps showing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer
zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect
impacts. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be determined
by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW and shall be based on the nesting
species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and expected types of disturbance. The nests
and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor.
The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing,
within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until
the qualified biologist has determined that the young birds have successfully
fledged and a monitoring report has been submitted to the CDFW for review and
approval.
Timingllmplementation: Requirements shall be incorporated into all rough
andlor precise grading plan documents. The project
applicant's construction inspector shall monitor to
ensure that measures are implemented during
construction.
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department
37
BI0-2 A preconstruction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist at least 30 days prior to construction activities to determine whether
there are any active burrowing owl burrows within or adjacent to the impact area.
If an active burrow is observed outside the nesting season (September 1 to
January 31) and the burrow is within the impact area, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion
Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the CDFW for approval, outlining
standard burrowing owl burrow closing procedures used to exclude burrowing
owls (e.g., using passive relocation with one-way doors). The loss of any active
burrowing owl burrow/territory shall be mitigated through replacement of habitat
and burrows at no less than a 1:1 ratio. If an active burrow is observed outside the
nesting season (i.e., between September 1 and January 31) and the burrow is not
within the impact area, construction work shall be restricted within 150 to 1,605
feet of the burrow depending on the time of year and the level of disturbance near
the site in accordance with guidelines specified by the CDFW.
Timingllmplementation: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground -disturbing
activities
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning and Public Works
Departments
As indicated above, the project site would not have any natural habitat value once fully
developed. The mitigation measures identified would ensure that any direct or indirect effects on
sensitive avian species or burrowing owls are avoided during project construction. As such,
impacts to any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, would be reduced to less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Findin Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.4-7
through 3.4-8)
Explanation: According to the cultural resources assessment prepared for the project site
(see Draft EIR, Appendix 3.4-1), no historical resources were identified within the project's
boundaries. Record search results, combined with surface conditions, failed to indicate
sensitivity for buried historic or cultural resources. It was therefore recommended that no
additional cultural resource work or monitoring is necessary for any earth -moving activities
required on the project site. However, it is possible that project -related ground -disturbing
activities could uncover previously unknown historical resources within the project's boundaries.
Therefore, unanticipated and accidental historical discoveries made during project construction
would have the potential to impact historical resources.
38
To address these potential significant impacts the following mitigation measure was
identified:
Mitigation Measures
CUL -1 If previously undocumented resources are identified on the project site during
earth -moving activities, a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be contacted
to assess the nature and significance of the find and to divert construction
activities, if necessary. If evidence of archaeological resources (e.g., chipped or
ground stone, historical debris, building foundations, or human bone) is identified
during excavation, all work within 50 feet of the discovery site shall cease until
the project archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the resource. In the
event of a new find, salvage excavation and reporting shall be required, in
conformance with established regulatory protocols.
Timingllmplementation: Prior to ground -disturbing construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Engineering and Planning
Departments
Therefore, although no known historical resources were identified within the project
boundaries and sensitivity for such resources to occur onsite is low, the proposed mitigation
would ensure that any previously unknown historical resources potentially discovered during
project -related ground disturbance activities would be properly evaluated and protected,
consistent with local and state requirements. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would
reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
2. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15054.5?
Finding Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp.
3.4-8 through 3.4-9)
Explanation: An archaeological field survey of the subject property was conducted on
September 29, 2015. No cultural resources were found during the survey within the project's
boundaries. Surface visibility was approximately fib percent on the property, and ground
disturbances were severe, including grading for weed abatement and levee construction.
However, it is possible that project -related ground -disturbing activities could uncover previously
unknown archaeological resources within the project's boundaries. Unanticipated and accidental
archaeological discoveries during project implementation would have the potential to impact
archaeological resources. To address this potential significant impact the following mitigation
measure was identified:
39
Mitigation Measures
CUL -2 if during grading or construction activities, cultural resources are discovered on
the project site, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery,
and the resources shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist (retained by the
applicant) and the relevant Native American tribes or bands notified (i.e.,
Ramona, San Manuel, Soboba, San Fernando, Agua Caliente, Morongo, and
Pechanga Bands, and the Serrano Nation), as appropriate. Any unanticipated
cultural resources that are discovered shall be evaluated and a final report
prepared by the qualified archaeologist. The report shall include a list of the
resources discovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of
the resources identified, and the method of preservation and/or recovery for
identified resources. In the event the significant resources are recovered and if the
qualified archaeologist, the tribe, and/or the band determines the resources to be
historic or unique, avoidance and/or mitigation would be required pursuant to and
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4, Public
Resources Code Section 21483.2.
Timingllmplementation: Prior to ground -disturbing construction activities
ErnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino Building and Planning
Departments
Therefore, although no known cultural resources were identified within the project
boundaries, and sensitivity for such resources to occur onsite is low, the proposed mitigation
would ensure that any previously unknown cultural resources potentially discovered during
project -related ground disturbance activities would be properly evaluated and protected,
consistent with local and state requirements. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would
reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
3. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp.
3.4-9 through 3.4-10)
Explanation: No human remains have been identified on the project site. However, the
proposed project could result in the inadvertent disturbance of currently undiscovered human
remains. Any discovery of human remains would trigger state law governing the treatment of
human remains. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal
lands are mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7054.5, by Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, and by CEQA in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e).
According to these provisions, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate
vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate
area must be taken. Because the project would have the potential to result in the discovery of
human remains on the project site, such impacts would be considered potentially significant.
40
To address this potential impact, the following mitigation measure was identified:
Mitigation Measures
CUL -3a If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 requires that no further disturbance occur until the county coroner has
made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from
disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been
made. If the San Bernardino County Coroner determines the remains to be Native
American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a
reasonable time frame. Subsequently, the NAHC shall identify the most likely
descendant within 24 hours of receiving notification from the coroner. The most
likely descendant shall then have 48 hours to make recommendation and engage
in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Timingllmplementation: During ground -disturbing construction activities
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino Engineering and Planning
Departments
CUL -3b All cultural materials, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods, and
human remains, collected during the grading monitoring program and from any
previous archaeological studies and excavations on the project site shall be
curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections
and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to the appropriate
tribe's curation facility, which meets the standards set forth in 36 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 79 regulating federal repositories.
Timingllmplementation: During ground -disturbing construction activities
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino Engineering and Planning
Departments
CUL -3c All sacred sites, should they be encountered on the project site, shall be avoided
and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible, as determined by a qualified
professional in consultation with the tribes). To the extent that a sacred site
cannot be feasibly preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, mitigation
shall be required pursuant to and consistent with Public Resources Code Section
21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15054.5 and 15125.4.
Timingllmplementation: During ground -disturbing construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Engineering and Planning
Departments
41
-ref although no known human remains or sacred sites were identified within the
project boundaries, and sensitivity for such resources to Occur onsite is low, the proposed
mitigation would ensure that any previously unknown resources potentially discovered during
project -related ground disturbance activities would be properly evaluated and protected,
consistent with local and state requirements. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would
reduce project impacts to less than significant.
4. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, p.
3.4-11)
Explanation: No tribal cultural resources have been identified on the project site. The
City has conducted consultation activities as required by Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate
Bill 18 (SB 18). The results of the consultation are included as Appendix A of Appendix 3.4-1 of
the Draft EIR. A Sacred Lands File Search was requested form the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) and a Tribal Consultation List was subsequently provided by the NAHC.
The tribes identified were contacted for purposes of consultation. Of the eight tribes contacted,
two responses were received from: 1) the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; and, 2) the Sobaba
Band of Luseno Indians. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated that the project site is
not located within the Tribe's reservation boundaries, but within an area considered to be a
traditional use area or one in which the Tribe has cultural ties (i.e. Cahuilla or Serrano Territory).
requested that a records search and comprehensive archaeological survey of the site and area of
potential effect (APE) be conducted; that a tribal monitor be present during the survey; that the
results of the survey be provided to the Tribe; and, that project -related ground disturbance
activities be conducted consistent with State requirements for the discovery of unknown cultural
resources and human remains (State and Health and Safety Code 7050.5). The Soboba Band of
Indians indicated that the project lies outside of the Tribe's existing reservation boundaries, but
within the bounds of the Tribe's Tribal Traditional Use Areas. However, the Tribe indicated that
it did not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources. The Tribe also
requested that an approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground
disturbance activities.
Although no known tribal resources have been identified by either the records search, site
survey, or through required consultation activities, project construction could potentially result in
the inadvertent disturbance of undiscovered tribal cultural resources. Any discovery of these
resources would trigger state law governing their treatment. Further, any discovery of human
remains on the project site would be subject to these procedural requirements.
If the resource is a tribal cultural resource of non -human remains, a qualified
archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find in consultation
with relevant Native American tribes or bands (i.e., Ramona, San Manuel, Soboba, San
11 PA
Fernando, Agua Caliente, Morongo, and Pechanga Bands, and the Serrano Nation), as
determined appropriate.
To address these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures were identified:
Mitigation Measures
Compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL -1, CUL -3a, CUL -3b, and CUL -3c (text of which is
included above).
Implementation of the mitigation measures would ensure that, if unknown resources are
discovered during project -related ground disturbing activities, standard protocols are undertaken
to evaluate the potential resource and, if determined to be of significance, that such resources are
protected and/or preserved in perpetuity. Mitigation proposed would also allow evaluation of
such resources to ensure that they are properly identified and protected to the satisfaction of the
relevant Tribe(s). As a result, project impacts on unknown tribal resources would be reduced to
less than significant.
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Findiniz: Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp.
3.5-12 through 3.5-13)
Explanation: A search was performed by the National History Museum of Los Angeles
County of the paleontology collection records for locality and specimen data for the proposed
project. The records search did not identify any vertebrate fossil localities within the proposed
project boundaries. However, localities were found nearby from the same deposits that occur in
the proposed project area. The entire project area has exposures of younger Quaternary
Alluvium. As impacts to unknown paleontological resources may occur, impacts would be
considered potentially significant.
To address these potentially significant impacts, the following mitigating measure was
identified:
Mitigation Measures
GED -1 Prior to ground -disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified
paleontologist to monitor all initial ground -disturbing activities in native soils or
sediments. If the paleontologist, upon observing initial earthwork, determines
there is low potential for discovery, no further action shall be required and the
paleontologist shall submit a memo to the City confirming a finding of low
potential.
43
Should any paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) be uncovered during project
construction activities, all work within a 100 -foot radius of the discovery site shall
be halted or diverted to other areas on the site and the City shall be immediately
notified. The qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the finds and recommend
appropriate next steps to ensure the resource is not substantially adversely
impacted, including but not limited to avoidance, preservation in place,
excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate
measures. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within a 100 -foot radius of
the discovery site until an agreement has been reached between the project
applicant, the qualified paleontologist, and the City of San Bernardino as to the
appropriate preservation or mitigation measures to ensure that the resource is not
substantially adversely impacted.
Timingllmplementation: Prior to ground -disturbing activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Therefore, although no known paleontological resources were identified within the
project boundaries, the proposed mitigation would ensure that any previously unknown resources
potentially discovered during project -related ground disturbance activities would be properly
evaluated and protected, as appropriate, consistent with standard local and state requirements.
Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce project impacts to less than significant.
D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. l-1azardous Materials
Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (Elft, pp. 3.7-8
through 3.7-11)
Explanation:
Short -Term Impacts
Project construction activity could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials such as gasoline fuels, asphalt, lubricants, toxic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides.
Although care is used to transport, use, and dispose of these materials, there is a possibility that
upset or accidental conditions may arise which could release hazardous materials (i.e. petroleum-
based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment) into the environment. Accidental
releases of hazardous materials are those releases that are unforeseen or that result from
44
unforeseen circumstances, while reasonably foreseeable upset conditions are those release or
exposure events that can be anticipated and planned for.
Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment
can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes
that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances
can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel, causing contamination of soil and
water. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water can have potential health effects from a
variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not
considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials
used during construction for the project type proposed. Additionally, the construction contractor
would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid
and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment.
Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are
appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state, and federal law. However, a
significant impact may occur if unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during
construction by the contractor which he/she believes may involve hazardous waste/materials,
thereby creating a potential hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce such
impacts to less than significant.
Long -Term Impacts
The project proposes a mix of residential and commercial development. Commercial or
residential development is not generally expected to involve the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials in significant quantities. Due to the nature of such uses, daily
operation of such uses is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment.
Generally, the exposure of persons to hazardous materials could occur through improper
handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during construction or operation of
future developments, particularly by untrained personnel, an accident during transport,
environmentally unsound disposal methods, or fire, explosion, or other emergencies. The City's
street setback requirements minimize the direct damage that may occur from transportation -
related hazardous waste spills. Also, Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and
Inventories would be required. The Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County
Fire Department oversees the submittal of Business Emergency Plans, which are intended to
mitigate potential release of hazardous substances and minimize potential harm or damage. The
proposed project would result in additional residents, and thus, could increase exposure of the
public to accidental or reasonably foreseeable releases of hazardous materials off-site. However,
there are no hazardous material sites within one mile of the project site.
The project site is in proximity to Interstate 215, along which hazardous materials may be
transported. Adherence to existing regulations would ensure compliance with safety standards
45
sport, use, and storage of hazardous materials and with the safety procedures
dicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations designed to avoid
hazardous waste releases. Compliance with these regulations includes tiling of storage location,
inspection of storage methods, regular updates to handling pians, and providing emergency
contact information. Compliance would ensure that risks resulting from the routine transport,
use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are minimized and/or
handled appropriately if there is an accidental release during transport, use, storage, or disposal
of hazardous materials. Thus, impacts resulting from project operation would be less than
significant.
To address any potentially significant impacts that may arise as a result of project
construction, the following mitigation measures has been identified:
Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the
contractor that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the
contractor shall comply with the following:
• Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and
remove workers and the public from the area;
■ Notify the City's Engineer;
• Secure the area as directed by the Project Engineer; and
• Notify the implementing agency's Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator.
The Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party
of further actions that shall be taken, if required.
Timingllmplementation: During construction
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino Public Works and Planning
Departments
Implementation of the proposed mitigation would ensure that, in the event that project
construction activities result in discovery of unknown wastes or materials that may be potentially
hazardous thereby creating a potential hazard to the public or the environment such materials
would be properly evaluated and dis osed of consistent with gRplicable requirements. Through
such mitigation., impacts resulting from the discoveLy of ngtentially hazardous materials released
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, would be reduced to less than
significant.
E. NOISE
1. Noise Level Standards
Threshold: Would the project expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of
standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
CI.7
Findinp-: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.14-16
through 3.10-26)
Explanation:
Construction
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise
generated by construction equipment, including trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and
portable generators, can reach high levels. Project construction is expected to occur in the
following five stages: site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and
paving.
While the City establishes limits on the hours during which construction activity may
take place, it does not identify specific limits for construction noise levels. Section 8.54.060(I),
Exemptions, of the Noise Control Ordinance indicates that project construction noise levels are
considered exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. Therefore, if project construction only
occurs during the hours permitted in the Noise Control Ordinance, project construction noise
levels would be exempt from the ordinance. Additionally, construction -related noise would tend
to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes and would
dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant in
this regard.
Given the sporadic and variable nature of project construction and the implementation of
noise limits specified in the Municipal Code, noise impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level without the incorporation of mitigation measures. Although impacts are already
less than significant, in an abundance of caution and to even further reduce the potential for noise
impacts and/or nuisances, mitigation would be implemented to incorporate best management
practices during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N0I-1 would further
minimize impacts from construction noise as it requires construction equipment to be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state -required noise attenuation
devices. As a result, noise impacts resulting from project construction activities would be less
than significant.
Operation
It is expected that the primary source of noise impacts to the project site will be traffic
noise from Interstate 215, West Little League Drive, and Magnolia Avenue. The project would
also experience some background traffic noise impacts from the project's internal streets.
However, due to distance, topography, and low traffic volume/speed, traffic noise from these
roads will not make a significant contribution to the noise environment. The on-site traffic noise
level impacts indicate that the lots facing 1-215, West Little League Drive, and Magnolia Avenue
will experience unmitigated exterior noise levels ranging from 54.6 to 74.6 dBA CNEL, thereby
exceeding the City's 65 dBA CNEL threshold for exterior noise levels Therefore, impacts would
be considered significant.
To satisfy the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use,
Mitigation Measures N0I-1 a and NOI- l b require the construction of a minimum effective 9-
CV1
foot -high noise barrier for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of lots 47 to 55 and lots 75 to 81
facing I-215 and West Little League Drive. The planned noise barrier is expected to consist of a
combination 1 -foot -high berm with an 8 -foot -high block wall. In addition, the construction of a
minimum effective 7 -foot -high noise barrier is required for lot 82 facing West Little League
Drive. Further, 6 -foot -high noise barriers are recommended for all other lots adjacent to
Magnolia Avenue and the commercial retail land use on the project site. With the recommended
noise barriers, the mitigated future exterior noise levels will range from 48.8 to 65.0 dBA CNEL,
which is below the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards, and this impact would be
reduced to less than significant.
To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior
noise standards, future noise levels were calculated at the first- and second -floor building
facades. Because noise levels would exceed the City's interior noise threshold of 45 dBA,
impacts would be considered potentially significant. To satisfy the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior
noise level criteria, lots facing 1-215, West Little League Drive, and Magnolia Avenue will
require a noise reduction of up to 29.3 dBA and a windows closed condition requiring a means of
mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). Implementation of Mitigation Measure NDI-2
would satisfy the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards for residential development and
would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Based on the reference noise levels, project -generated operational stationary source noise
levels at each of the sensitive receiver locations were estimated. Hourly noise levels associated
with the rooftop air conditioning units, shopping cart corrals, parking lot vehicle movements, and
loading dock activities at the commercial retail uses on the project site are expected to range
from 18.6 to 50.8 dBA Leq at the sensitive receiver locations.
To demonstrate compliance with local noise standards, the project -only operational noise
levels were evaluated against the City's 65 dBA Leq exterior noise level standard. As the project
would satisfy the City's noise level standards at the nearby sensitive receiver locations, project -
related operational noise levels would be less than significant.
To describe the project operational noise level contributions, the project's operational
noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the eight
receiver locations potentially impacted by project operational noise sources. Project -related
operational noise level contributions would not exceed the significance criteria. As such, project -
related operational stationary -source noise levels would not result in a substantial
temporary/periodic or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Thus, as described above, the following mitigation measures were identified to reduce
impacts to a level of less than significant:
48
Mitigation Measures
Construction Noise
NOI-1 Prior to commencement of and/or during construction, as appropriate, the project
applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino
Planning Department that the project complies with the following:
• Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or
mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers
and other state required noise attenuation devices.
• Property owners and occupants located within 200 feet of the project
boundary shall be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement of
construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the
proposed project. A sign, legible at a distance of approximately 54 feet shall
be posted at the project construction site. All notices and signs shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of San Bernardino Planning Department,
prior to mailing or posting, and shall indicate the dates and duration of
construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone
number where residents can inquire about the construction process and
register complaints.
• The contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member will
be designated as a Noise Disturbance Coordinator and will be present on-site
during all construction activities. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be
responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise.
When a complaint is received, the contractor shall notify the City within 24
hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g.,
starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures
to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Department.
All notices that are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the
construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the
contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance
Coordinator.
• Construction noise reduction methods shall be used where feasible. These
reduction methods include shutting off idling equipment, installing
temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources,
maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and
occupied residential areas, and electric air compressors and similar power
tools.
• Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g.,
residences, convalescent homes, schools, churches, etc.), to the extent
feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors.
49
Timing/Implementation: Prior to commencement of and during construction
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Operational Noise
NOI-2A Prior to issuance of a building permit, and prior to final occupancy, the project
applicant shall demonstrate that proper sound wall design has been incorporated
into the proposed residential and commercial development areas, consistent with
Exhibit ES -A of the final approved traffic impact analysis, to reduce potential
sound levels to below the City's established noise thresholds. The project design
shall include construction of a minimum effective 9 -foot -high noise harrier for the
outdoor living areas (backyards) of lots 47 to 55 and lots 75 to 81 facing Interstate
215 and West Little League Drive. The planned noise barrier shall consist of a
combination 1 -foot -high berm with an 8 -foot -high block wall. In addition, the
construction of a minimum effective 7 -foot -high noise barrier shall be constructed
for lot 82 facing West Little League Drive. Additionally, 6 -foot -high noise
barriers shall be constructed for all other lots adjacent to Magnolia Avenue and
the commercial retail land use on the project site. All walls shall be constructed
on-site consistent with the final improvement plans as approved by the City of
San Bernardino.
Timingllmplementation: Prior to issuance of building permit and prior to final
occupancy
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department
N01 -2B During construction, and prior to final occupancy, the recommended noise control
barriers shall be constructed consistent with that shown on the approved Tentative
Tract Map so that the top of each wall and/or bene combination extends to the
recommended height (as indicated in NOI-2A) above the pad elevation of the lot
it is shielding. When the road is elevated above the pad elevation, the barrier shall
extend to the recommended height (as indicated in NOI-2A) above the highest
point between the residence and the road. The barrier shall provide a weight of at
least 4 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line -of -
sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The noise barrier shall
be constructed using the following materials:
• Masonry block
■ Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1 -inch -thick tongue and
groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot
• Glass (0.25 inch thick) or other transparent material with sufficient weight per
square foot
• Earthen berm
■ Any combination of these construction materials
50
The barrier shall consist of a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings
or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should
be filled with grout or caulking.
Timingllmplementation: During construction and prior to final occupancy
Enforcementl'Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department
NOI-3 During construction, and prior to final occupancy, to satisfy the City of San
Bernardino's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level criteria, lots facing Interstate 215,
West Little League Drive, and Magnolia Avenue shall require a noise reduction of
up to 29.3 dBA and a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical
ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). To ensure that the City's 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise level is met, the following measures shall be implemented:
• Exterior walls: If wood construction is used, exterior walls shall be furnished
on the outside with siding -on -sheathing, stucco, or brick veneer. The interior
surface shall be at least 0.5 -inch gypsum board. Insulation having a minimum
of R-11 shall be placed between the studs. Masonry walls, if used, shall have
at least one surface of the wall plastered, painted, or covered with gypsum
wallboard or approved materials. At least R-11 insulation shall be placed
between the studs. There shall be no direct openings such as mail slots or
ventilation units.
■ Windows:
o Lots 47 to 55 and lots 75 to 82 facing 1-215 require upgraded second -floor
windows with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 34.
o All other windows and sliding glass doors shall be well -fitted, well -
weather -stripped assemblies and shall have a minimum STC rating of 27.
• Doors: All exterior hinged and sliding glass doors to habitable rooms that are
directly exposed to transportation noise and are facing the source of the noise
shall be a door and edge seal assembly with a minimum STC rating of 27.
• Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be well -fitted or caulked
plywood of at least 0.5 inch thick. Ceilings shall be well -fitted, well -sealed
gypsum board of at least 0.5 inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of
R-19 shall be used in the attic space. Skylights shall have a minimum STC of
34.
• Attic: Attic ventilation shall be oriented away from Interstate 215. If such an
orientation cannot be avoided, an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic
space behind the vents.
• Ventilation: A ventilation system shall be provided that will provide at least
the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements of the Building
Code in each habitable room without opening any window, door, or other
opening to the exterior. All concealed ductwork shall be insulated flexible
glass fiber ducting that is at least 10 feet long between any two points of
51
connection. Kitchen cooktop vent hoods shall be the non -ducted recirculating
type with no ducted connection to the exterior.
• Wall and ceiling openings: Openings in the shell of the residence that degrade
its ability to achieve an interior CNEL rating of 45 dBA or less when all doors
and windows are closed are prohibited unless access panels, pet doors, mail
delivery drops, air conditioning, or other openings are designed to maintain
the 45 dBA CNEL (or less) standard in the room to which they provide
access.
Timingllmplementation: During construction and prior to f nal occupancy
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning Department
F. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Consistency with Plans and Congestion Management Programs
Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (EIR, pp. 3.12-9
through 3.12-19)
Explanation:
Existing Plus Project
The Existing Plus project scenario includes Existing (2015) traffic volumes plus project
traffic. All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service with the implementation of the proposed project.
A queuing analysis was performed for the off -ramps at the I-215 and Palm Avenue
interchange to assess vehicle queues for the off -ramps that may potentially result in deficient
peak -hour operations at the ramp -to -arterial intersections and may potentially spill back onto the
1-215 mainline. No movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday
AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Existing Plus Project (Phase 1) or
Existing Plus Project (Project Buildout) traffic conditions.
52
For the basic freeway segments analyzed in the study, for Existing Plus Project (Phase 1)
and Existing Plus Project (Project Buildout), mainline directional volumes for the weekday AM
and PM peak hours are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., level of
service [LOS] C or better) during the peak hours, with the addition of Phase 1 project and project
buildout traffic.
Opening Year Cumulative (2019) With and Without Project
The study area intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels with
construction of the proposed project under all project scenarios. The one exception is the
intersection 19, University Parkway/Kendall Drive intersection (#19) where the proposed project
will worsen the level of service that is projected to be LOS D without the project under the
Existing Plus Ambient Growth 2019 scenario.
The calculated volume -to -capacity ratio (VIC) for the proposed project at the University
Parkway/Kendall Drive intersection is 0.013, which is greater than the threshold of 0.01.
Therefore, the impact is considered significant.
A queuing analysis was performed for the off -ramps at the I-215 and Palm Avenue
interchange to assess vehicle queues for the off -ramps to determine if peak -hour operations at the
ramp -to -arterial intersection would remain acceptable. No movements are anticipated to
experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic
flows for the 2019 with Project scenario.
Ramp merge and diverge operations were evaluated for 2019 with Project Scenario. The
freeway ramp merge and diverge areas are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service
(i.e., LOS D or better).
The basic freeway segments analyzed in the study, for Existing Plus Ambient Growth
2019 Scenario Impact Summary, remain at acceptable levels of service.
The project would provide on -street parking along the proposed interior roadways, as
well as at each residential unit (i.e., private driveways and garages). Additionally, it should be
noted that attendees of events held at the Platinum Soccer Complex adjacent to the east of the
site frequently park along West Little League Drive. Consistent with the project objective to
"facilitate additional public parking with the improvement of West Little League Drive and
Magnolia Avenue," construction of off-site project roadway improvements would not restrict or
prohibit the continuation of public parking along West Little League Drive. On -street parking
would be provided along both sides of West Little League Drive and (future) Magnolia Avenue
with project implementation. Additionally, parking for the proposed commercial uses would be
provided on-site consistent with parking ratios established by the City and as addressed in the
Rancho Palma Specific Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with City Municipal Code
requirements for the provision of adequate surface parking within the project area or adversely
affect the performance of the circulation system with regard to parking.
The study area intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels with
construction of the proposed project. The one exception is intersection #19, University
53
Parkway/Kendall Drive intersection, where the proposed project will worsen the level of service
that is projected to be LOS D without the project under the 2019 with Project scenario and also
result in an increase in the V/C by 0.013 (exceeding the threshold of 0.01). The impact affects
left turn movements from southbound Kendall Drive onto eastbound University Parkway during
the PM peak hour. The left turn lane is not long enough to accommodate the proposed project
traffic, which could block the through lanes. The installation of a second left turn lane will
increase the area where cars can queue to turn left without blocking the through lanes. (See also
Draft EIR Table 3.12-16).
Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs
(e.g., Development Impact Fees), construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share
contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches. Improvements
constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the
program where appropriate (to be determined at the City of San Bernardino's discretion).
When off-site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned
to proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution
or require the development to construct improvements. The calculated proportionate share of
impact at this intersection from the proposed project is 4.4 percent. Mitigation Measure TRA -1
requires that the proposed project either construct the additional left turn lane at this intersection
or pay proportionate fees toward its construction. Impacts would be reduced to less than
significant.
The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) implements the 2011
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for the County of San Bernardino. The CMP is intended to
more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth
management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic
congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality. Ten 10 study area intersections
identified as CMP facilities (shown in EIR Table 3.12-1) were evaluated in the EIR.
Consistent with the City of San Bernardino level of service threshold of LOS D, and in
excess of the CMP stated level of service threshold of LOS E, LOS D was used as the target LOS
for freeway ramps, freeway segments. and freeway merge/diverge ramp junctions. As indicated
above, the project would impact the intersection of University Parkway/Kendall Drive, which is
a CMP facility. Therefore, the project would conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards. As indicated above, Mitigation
Measure TRA -1 would be implemented to reduce project impacts at the University
Parkway/Kendall Drive intersection to less than significant, thereby avoiding project conflict
with the applicable CMP.
Thus, as described above, the following mitigation measures were identified to reduce
impacts to a level of less than significant:
N[ tigation Measures
TRA -1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall be required to
construct or pay its fair share to create a second southbound turn lane at the
intersection of University Parkway/Kendall Drive (#19).
54
Timingllmplementation: Prior to issuance of a building permit
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of San Bernardino Planning and Public Works
Departments
2. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated (EIR, pp. 3.12-22
through 3.12-23)
Explanation: All of the project roadways proposed meet the City's design standards for
access. During construction of improvements associated with the project, roadways may be
temporarily blocked or subject to detours and delays, which could temporarily affect emergency
access. Project construction will require the export of materials from the site and the import of
construction materials to the site. The exported materials will be transported via dump trucks.
Each truck will generate one inbound and one outbound trip.
In order to minimize the impact of construction truck traffic to the surrounding roadway
network, a construction traffic management plan (TMP) will be implemented for the duration of
the construction phase. Coordination of the TMP with local and regional emergency personnel is
required to ensure consistency. Mitigation Measure TRA -2 establishes the requirement for a
traffic management plan and minimizes the effect of construction activity on emergency access.
After construction, emergency access throughout the project site will be developed in
accordance with applicable ordinances, standard conditions of approval, and permits related to
emergency access and reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
To address this potentially significant impact, the following mitigation measure was
identified:
Mitigation Measures
TRA -2 The project applicant shall prepare and implement a traffic management plan
(TMP) to minimize inconveniences during construction. Included among the
provisions, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of San Bernardino, the
County of San Bernardino, and local police, fire, and emergency medical service
providers regarding construction scheduling and any other practical measures to
maintain adequate access to properties and response times. The TMP shall also
limit construction activity to the extent feasible and limit all soil export activities
to occur outside of the typical weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and
weekday evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak commute hours. The TMP shall
include contact information for members of the general public who may have
questions concerning the project and access to their property. Two-way traffic
through the construction zone shall be maintained throughout the construction
period.
55
Timingllmplementation: Prior to and during construction
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of San Bernardino
Implementation of the TMP would ensure that project construction activities do not
interfere with emergency access to the site or surrounding uses. As temporary lane closures
and/or the movement of vehicles and construction workers and materials to and from the site
would occur, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would ensure that the potential
effects of such activities on emergency access are minimized and/or avoided.
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable through the technical analysis
provided in the EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore not required. All
significant impacts identified as potentially resulting with project implementation can be reduced
to a level of less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures proposed.
FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the EIR for the project includes an analysis
of cumulative impacts, which include the impacts of the project plus all other pending or
approved projects within the affected area for each resource. Fifty-seven pending and approved
projects were identified as cumulative projects for consideration [see EIR, pp. 2-13 to 2-16
(Table 2-3, Cumulative Projects)].
The City Council hereby finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
The cumulative impact analysis focuses on whether the proposed project's contribution to
regional visual resource impacts would result in a cumulatively considerable environmental
impact. The project's impact would be cumulatively considerable if, when considered with other
existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the region, it would
result in substantial alteration of the visual character of the region, significant impacts to scenic
vistas, or substantial increases in daytime glare and nighttime lighting.
As determined in the discussion of direct project impacts, potential aesthetic impacts
would be less than significant. The project site is not located in proximity to a city-, county-, or
state -designated scenic highway or designated scenic vista. With conformance to lighting
requirements, including the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the project would not
adversely affect nighttime views in the area. Other future projects would be required to comply
with applicable lighting regulations and to implement mitigation for aesthetic and lighting/glare
impacts, as appropriate. Impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.1-9
through 3.1-10)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Given that the project has no impact on agricultural and forestry resources, and because
there are no agricultural or forestry resources at the project site or in the vicinity, there would be
no cumulatively considerable impact on these resources. (EiR, p. 3.14-1)
C. AIR QUALITY
The project area is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and a
nonattainment area for PM10 and PM2.5.
The SCAQMD's approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP
forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of
the federal and California Clean Air Acts. The SCAQMD has published a report on how to
address cumulative impacts from air pollution titled White Paper on Potential Control Strategies
to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report, the SCAQMD states:
Projects that exceed the project -specific significance thresholds are considered by the
SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project -specific and
cumulative significance thresholds are the some. Conversely, projects that do not exceed
the project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively
significant.
The project would not result in exceedances of any applicable thresholds which are
designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality
standards. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the Air Quality
Management Plan, which is intended to bring the South Coast Air Basin into attainment for all
criteria pollutants, since the project -specific evaluation of emissions demonstrates that projected
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Furthermore, the project would
comply with SCAQMD's Rule 403 pertaining to fugitive dust control during construction, as
well as with all other adopted AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and
mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent
feasible, these same requirements would also be imposed on all projects basin -wide. As such,
cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.2-25 to 3.2-26)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Future development in San Bernardino and surrounding cities could result in the loss of
biological resources. San Bernardino is an urbanized city surrounded by other urban cities.
Similar to other areas of San Bernardino, neighboring properties are developed with homes,
Interstate 215, soccer fields, and commercial development. No special -status wildlife species
were observed on the project site during a reconnaissance -level survey, and none are likely to be
present due to the disturbed nature of the project site and the developed characteristics
surrounding lands. Although some special -status species could potentially occur on the project
site as transients, direct and indirect project impacts would be precluded by implementing
standard avoidance and minimization measures. Given the low quality habitat that exists on the
project site, the project will not result in a significant loss of habitat. Therefore, cumulative
61V1
impacts related to biological resources would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable.
(EIR, pp. 3.3-15 through 3.3-16)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project, along with any foreseeable development in the project vicinity,
could result in cumulative impacts to cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and
isolated artifacts and features). As mitigated, the direct impacts associated with the proposed
project will be reduced to a less than significant level. The proposed project is adjacent to
existing development that has disturbed the soil and likely already affected any cultural
resources. As a result of surrounding development, mitigation proposed to reduce direct project
impacts, and existing federal and state laws that would require project conformance, this impact
is considered less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.4-11 through 3.4-12)
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Geotechnical impacts are site-specific rather than cumulative in nature. For example,
seismic events may damage or destroy a building on the project site, but the construction of a
development project on one site would not cause any adjacent parcels to become more
susceptible to seismic events, nor can a project affect local geology in such a manner as to
increase risks regionally. Soils associated with the project site are similar to other soils in the
area. The proposed project will grade parts of the property. However, the resulting project site
would not be visually and topographically different from existing development surrounding the
proposed project site. The proposed project will be graded to be similar to existing adjacent
natural topography to avoid erosion. With compliance with existing codes and standards,
including the California Building Cade and implementation of the Mitigation Measures GEO-1
through GE04, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to area
geological conditions would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, p. 3.5-14)
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The proposed project's GHG emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod version
2013.2.2, which was developed in coordination with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District and is the most current emissions model approved for use in California by various other
air districts. The proposed project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction.
The project is compared with the efficiency -based threshold of 4.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO2e) per service population (residents plus employees) per year by the year 2020.
In addition, the SCAQMD-recommended threshold of 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service
population per year in 2035 was used to assess the project's impacts to the post -2020 GHG
reduction goals in California, identified in Governor's Executive Order B-30-15 (2015) and
Executive Order 5-03-05 (2005). The SCAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level for
which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California
legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. For the purposes of this project, the
service population for the commercial uses would be the employees, the customers, and the
vendors.
58
The proposed commercial uses would generate approximately 6,702 trips per day. In
order to provide a conservative analysis, an internal capture value of 505 and pass -by reduction
value of 2,107 are subtracted from the commercial trip generation. As such, the proposed
commercial uses would generate 4,090 trips per day. The total number of trips per day is divided
by two to derive 2,045 employees, customers, and vendors. According to the California
Department of Finance, the average people per household in the City of San Bernardino is 3.49;
therefore, the proposed project would contain 419 residents (3.49 people/house x 120 houses).
Based on these estimates, the proposed project service population would be 2,464 (419 residents
+ 2,045 employees). Dividing the GHG emissions for each time period yields a metric ton per
service population ratio of 8.3 for year 2020 conditions and 8.0 for year 2035 conditions, thus
not surpassing the significance thresholds. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative
impacts related to commercial trip generation would be less than cumulatively considerable.
(EIR, pp. 3.6-9 through 3.6-11)
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Implementation of the proposed project would result in potential short-term impacts
during construction activities associated with exposure to hazards such as potentially
contaminated soils. However, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the
project would be site-specific and would not contribute to cumulative hazardous impacts.
Cumulative development in the region is not anticipated to result in significant hazards or
hazardous materials impacts to the project site. In addition, any new development in areas at risk
for wildland fire hazards would be required to comply with minimum standards for building
materials and material assemblies to provide a reasonable level of exterior wildfire exposure
protection for buildings in wildland-urban interface areas as required by the 2013 California Fire
Code. The City's standard for streets includes regularly spaced fire hydrants and ensures access
for emergency vehicles. These standards would reduce any associated wildfire risks. As such, the
proposed project would not combine with any planned growth in the area to form a hazard
impact or wildland fire risk greater or more significant than the project impact alone. Therefore,
cumulative impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials and wildland fires are considered
less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.7-13 through 3.7-14)
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed project, when considered in combination with existing, approved,
proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Santa Ana River watershed, would
alter cumulative drainage conditions, rates, volumes, and water quality, which could result in
potential flooding and stormwater quality impacts in the overall watershed. However, the
proposed project's storm drain system and implementation of a water quality management plan
would reduce the project's contributions to cumulative runoff, water quality, and flooding
impacts. As demonstrated by the hydrology and hydraulics report completed for the project, the
proposed project is designed to convey stormwater runoff in a safe manner for the post -project
condition. As such, the project would not contribute to cumulative hydrology impacts. The
proposed project includes drainage basins that both reduce the velocity of runoff and serve to
remove debris and contaminants from stormwater runoff. Stormwater can only enter the storm
drainage system after passing through these basins. The proposed project's contribution to
59
cumulative water quality, runoff, and flooding impacts is considered to be less than cumulatively
considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.8-16 through 3.8-17)
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed project would result in development on land that is currently vacant. The
subject land has been designated for development since adoption of the City's General Plan. The
proposed project consists of residential land uses and commercial uses; thus, the proposed land
use mix is compatible with the existing and anticipated development in the project vicinity,
which generally consists of residential and commercial uses. Because development of the site is
consistent with the City's expectations for future development of the area, impacts are
considered less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, p. 3.9-5)
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Given that there are no mineral resources at the project site, and no impacts would occur,
the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact. (EIR, pp. 3.14-2 through 3.14-3)
L. NOISE
The cumulative setting associated with the proposed project with regard to noise impacts
includes approved, proposed, planned, and other reasonably foreseeable projects and
development in the City of San Bernardino. Developments and planned land uses, including the
proposed project, would cumulatively contribute to increased noise levels along roadways in the
City.
Primarily, the project would have the potential to contribute to cumulative noise impacts
as a result of increased traffic on local roadways, in combination with other projects in the
vicinity. The project is expected to generate an exterior noise level increase of up to 1.8 dBA
CNEL, which would exceed the significance thresholds identified when the existing ambient
conditions range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL on the roadway segment of West Little League Drive
west of Palm Avenue. However, existing land use adjacent to this roadway segment is
commercial, and not noise -sensitive (i.e., versus residential use types). Therefore, any noise level
increase resulting with project buildout is considered to be less than significant for Year 2035
conditions. The proposed project's cumulative contribution to ambient noise levels would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
Additionally, operational noise from the project would have the potential to contribute to
an increase in cumulative noise levels in the area. Operational stationary source noise from the
project would be limited to an exterior noise level of 65 dBA for the residential land uses.
The project would have the potential to contribute to area noise levels on a cumulative
basis. However, operational noise levels for the project would not exceed the City's noise
thresholds under a worst-case scenario (with all rooftop air conditioning units, shopping cart
corrals, parking lot vehicle movements, and loading dock activities all operating simultaneously),
although this condition would typically not occur. Mitigation required to reduce direct noise
impacts relative to project -generated traffic (see NOI-1A) would also help to reduce the project's
contribution to cumulative operational noise levels experienced by off-site sensitive receptors
(i.e., residential uses to the northeast). Further, all future development projects in the project area
would require evaluation to determine their potential to contribute to an increase in area noise
levels on a cumulative basis. Operation of all such future development would be required to
demonstrate conformance with the City's noise level thresholds and to provide mitigation to
reduce noise levels to the extent feasible, should such thresholds be exceeded.
Due to the minor increase in operational noise levels generated by the proposed project,
combined with implementation of mitigation required for direct noise impacts, it is not
anticipated that the project's cumulative contribution to ambient noise levels would be
cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.10-41 through 3.10-46)
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Cumulative development in San Bernardino would result in substantial, direct population
growth through the construction of new housing units and the creation of new employment
opportunities. San Bernardino is anticipated to increase in population, though at a smaller
percentage than experienced between 1990 and 2015. Population growth has been planned for in
the General Plan, and the proposed project would be consistent with these projected uses. In
addition, the proposed project would not alter subregional or regional growth rates projected in
the General Plan or by SLAG. As such, the proposed project would not induce growth not
already considered in the General Plan and the population forecasts for the City and surrounding
area. As such, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp. 3.114 through
3.11-5)
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to create a significant
impact on fire protection services. The project applicant will pay fees and taxes that are expected
to adequately mitigate the expected increase in fire protection and emergency medical service
demand. Compliance with measures established by federal, state, and local regulations would
reduce fire protection impacts to less than significant. In addition, adherence to the General Plan
goals and policies would further reduce impacts resulting from the proposed project to a less than
significant level. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in
cumulatively considerable fire protection impacts.
Police. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to create a significant
impact on police protection services. The proposed project is projected to generate an additional
servicing need of 0.6 additional sworn officers and 0.3 civilian support staff. This increase is not
considered substantial. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in
cumulatively considerable police protection impacts.
Schools: The proposed project would have the potential to generate an additional 83
school -aged children. An additional 83 students would represent a less than one percent increase
in the number of students attending SBCUSD schools. This increase is not considered
substantial. Pursuant to SB 50, payment of fees to the appropriate school district is considered
full mitigation for project impacts. Therefore, the project applicant would be required to pay the
61
statutory fees, so that space can be constructed, if necessary, at the nearest sites to accommodate
the impact of project -generated students.
Due to the minor increase in students, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in cumulatively considerable school services and facilities impacts. (EIR, pp. 3.13-28
through 3.13-29)
O. RECREATION
The proposed project would provide the parkland necessary for the additional residents
and will not require the construction of any recreational facilities off-site. As a result of parkland
included in the development plan, mitigation proposed, and conformance with existing federal
and state laws, impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, p. 3.13-31)
P. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Explanation: Long-term impacts would typically be considered less than significant
because the City reasonably assumes that the improvements would eventually be constructed.
However, since the City does not have the authority to implement regional funded roadway
improvements (Measure "I") and cannot be certain that the projects listed on page 14 of the TIA
will be built and would pay to address the impacts at the intersections in TRA -3. Without certain
funding, the City cannot guarantee that the proposed improvements would be constructed as
proposed by mitigation measure TRA -3.
The intersection analysis for Year 2035 With Project scenario would result in significant
impacts at Palm Avenue/Belmont Avenue (Intersection #10); Palm Avenue/Irvington Avenue
(Intersection #11); Palm Avenue/I-215 Southbound Ramps (Intersection #14); Palm
Avenue/Hallmark Parkway (Intersection #15), and; University Parkway/Kendall Drive
(Intersection #19). The City would collect fees representing the proportionate share of the
proposed project's impact at the intersections identified in mitigation measure TRA -3. Therefore,
the project's potential contribution to traffic -related impacts at the affected intersections would
be reduced, and project -related impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, pp.
3.12-24 through 3.12-35)
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water: The proposed project will create an increase in water consumption of
approximately 0.26 percent. Considering the current estimations that were determined by
utilizing the SBMWD water consumption assumptions, sufficient water supplies are available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements
are needed. It is also not foreseen that the proposed project will necessitate the construction of
additional water facilities other than those included as part of the project. As such, the project
would not contribute to cumulative water impacts. (EIR, p. 3.13-24)
Wastewater: Development associated with implementation of the proposed project would
result in an increased demand on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows in the
project area. The proposed project will represent an increase in wastewater production of
511%
approximately 35,974 gallons per day. This increase will be a minor impact to the Water
Reclamation Plant's daily capacity. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be
treated using primary and secondary treatment processes to meet the discharge standards
specified in the NPDES permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board,
as well as a final filtering and disinfecting process. Because the project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements, cumulative impacts due to wastewater treatment would be
less than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, p. 3.13-24)
Stormwater: The proposed project, when considered in combination with existing,
approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Santa Ana River watershed,
would alter cumulative drainage conditions, rates, volumes, and water quality, which could result
in potential flooding and stormwater quality impacts in the overall watershed.
The proposed project's storm drain system and implementation of a water quality
management plan would reduce the project's contributions to cumulative runoff, water quality,
and flooding impacts. As demonstrated by the hydrology and hydraulics report completed for the
project, the proposed project is designed to convey stormwater runoff in a safe manner for the
post -project condition. As such, the project would not contribute to cumulative hydrology
impacts. The proposed project includes drainage basins that both reduce the velocity of runoff
and serve to remove debris and contaminants from stormwater runoff. Stormwater can only enter
the storm drainage system after passing through these basins. The proposed project's
contribution to cumulative water quality, runoff, and flooding impacts is considered to be less
than cumulatively considerable. (EIR, p. 3.13-24)
Solid Waste: The proposed project will represent an increase in solid waste production of
734 tons per year. The project and cumulative projects will be required to comply with City and
state regulations and General Plan goals and policies related to solid waste. The contribution of
the proposed project to cumulative impacts associated with increased solid waste would be less
than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable
solid waste impacts. (EIR, p. 3.13-25)
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
According to Sections 15125(c) and 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is
required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should
the proposed project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible
environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources;
• The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future
generations to similar uses
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any
potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources are not justified.
Long-term irreversible environmental changes would include a change in the land use
and visual character of the site (undeveloped to developed), an increase in local and regional
traffic and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and noise level increases, an
increase in the volumes of solid waste and wastewater generated in the area, and an increase in
water consumption.
Additionally, development of the project site would irretrievably commit building
materials and energy to the construction and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure
proposed. Nonrenewable and limited resources that would likely be consumed as part of project
site development would include but are not limited to oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and
gravel, asphalt, water, steel, and similar materials. In addition, the project site would result in an
increased demand on public services and utilities (e.g., water supplies).
The use of natural resources in the form of construction materials and energy resources
would not have a substantial, measureable effect on the availability of such resources, including
nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels. Project construction and operation would not
involve the use of substantial amounts of nonrenewable energy. Further, the Rancho Palma
Specific Plan requires that the project comply with California's Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen), which would reduce the amount of energy the proposed commercial and residential
land uses would require for building operation, thereby reducing demands on nonrenewable
fossil fuels.
The project would also be subject to compliance with applicable regulatory requirements
implemented by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) to reduce the project's demand for energy resources. The Rancho Palma Specific
Plan also includes measures to reduce long-term water and energy demands generated by the
proposed development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in
the wasteful consumption of substantial amounts of energy or nonrenewable resources. (EIR, pp.
5-3 through 54)
Therefore, no significant impacts relating to irreversible changes are anticipated.
FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the ways the
proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional
housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth -inducing impacts include
the removal of obstacles to population growth (e.g., the expansion of a wastewater treatment
plant allowing more development in a service area) and the development and construction of new
service facilities that could significantly aff=ect the environment individually or cumulatively. In
addition, growth must not be assumed as beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the
environment.
Per the Department of Finance, the average household size in San Bernardino in 2015
was 3.49 persons. The proposed project would include 120 additional single-family dwelling
units, which would add 419 people to the City's population (3.39 persons per household x 120
dwelling units). In addition, the project would deliver an appropriately 98,000 square -foot
64
neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with employment growth and
increased sales tax for San Bernardino.
Project construction and operation would generate new employees and residents that
would purchase goods and services within the region. However, any indirect increase in
employment associated with meeting such needs for goods and services would be marginal, and
accommodated by existing goods and service providers, as well as by the proposed development.
Such demands are not likely to result in any new physical impacts to the environment.
The City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005a) projects the total population of the City
to be 319,241 at buildout. The increase in population as a result of the proposed project would
account for approximately one percent of the population growth under the General Plan. The
anticipated growth has been planned for in the General Plan, and the residential land use
proposed with the project would be an allowed use under the current zoning (Commercial
General) with City approval of the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. Furthermore, the General Plan
includes goals and policies to reduce potential population growth -related impacts.
It is not anticipated that the proposed project would directly or indirectly induce growth
by causing intensification of land uses in the immediate vicinity, and none of the improvements
proposed by the project would enable such intensification that could not already occur under
present conditions, due to the location of the project in an urbanized area of the City and similar
to development on adjacent lands.
Development of the project site would result in the improvement and extension of
infrastructure facilities located in and/or adjoining the project site. The surrounding area is
already developed with similar residential and commercial uses that are currently served by
existing infrastructure and adequate public services (e.g., required fire service response times can
be met without new or expanded facilities or personnel). As such, the project would not be
expected to indirectly induce growth as a result of new infrastructure or services in the area.
The project would therefore not substantially induce substantial population growth, either
directly or indirectly. (EIR, pp. 5-1 through 5-3.)
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objective of the proposed project is to redevelop an underutilized property in San
Bernardino in conformance with the land use and zoning designations applied to the property by
the City of San Bernardino General Plan and the Rancho Palma Specific Plan. The following is a
list of basic objectives sought by the proposed project:
A. Establish a mixed-use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance
of land uses including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation.
B. Deliver an appropriately sized neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of
retail uses with employment growth and increased sales tax for San Bernardino.
65
C. Provide new single-family housing in the Verdemont Heights community with two lot
size categories and corresponding home sizes to serve a variety of future residents.
D. Increase the Verdemont Heights community's recreation opportunities by expanding the
size and/or amenities of Ronald Reagan Park.
E. Adopt appropriate standards and design guidelines to implement the development to
ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.
F. Promote a sense of community and character by providing neighborhood signage and
monumentation.
G. Create a pedestrian environment with walkable parks and commercial uses.
H. Provide a fiscally sound project that provides for ongoing maintenance and operation of
neighborhood parks and streets with the additional sales tax revenues from the
commercial uses.
1. Improve circulation in the Verdemont Heights community with improvements of West
Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the project.
J. Facilitate additional public parking with the improvement of West Little League Drive
and Magnolia Avenue.
K. Reduce the need for overnight parking of RV units on the street or driveways with the
provision of a RV storage yard.
L. Reduce water consumption through the use of native, drought -tolerant landscaping and
"smart" irrigation systems.
M. Promote a "green" project with water- and energy-saving measures as defined in Chapter
5, Sustainable Guidelines, of the Rancho Palma Specific Pian.
B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As identified above, the project as proposed would not result in any significant and
unavoidable impacts after the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. All project
impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/
PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Among the factors that are used to consider project alternatives for detailed consideration
in an EIR are whether they would meet most of the basic project objectives, be feasible, and
whether they would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts of the
project (State CEQA Guidelines section 15126(c)).
.:
1. Off -Site Alternative
Description: Off-site alternatives are typically included in an environmental document to
avoid, lessen, or eliminate a project's significant impacts by considering the proposed
development in a different location. To be feasible, development of off-site locations must be
able to fulfill the project purpose and meet most of the project's basic objectives. It is anticipated
that locating the proposed project on off-site lands in the surrounding vicinity would generally
result in similar development potential and associated environmental impacts, depending on the
developed or undeveloped nature of the selected site. However, because San Bernardino is
highly urbanized and largely built out, impacts relative to biological resources, cultural
resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, etc., are anticipated to be similar to
those that would result with the project. Therefore, an off-site alternative may or may not reduce
any such impacts as compared to the project as proposed. Further, the subject site is currently
under the project applicant's financial ownership (as compared to potential offsite alternatives),
and residential and commercial uses allowed on the project site with City approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. Existing land uses in the neighborhood (residential and commercial
uses) on adjacent or nearby lands also represent similar land uses to those proposed with the
project; therefore, development as proposed on the subject site would not introduce a new land
use in the local setting or result in conflict with regard to operating characteristics. (EIR, p. 4-2)
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each of
which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1) an
alternative site would likely result in similar impacts as the project; (2) other off-site properties
in the area are not under financial ownership of the project applicant making this alternative
infeasible; and, (3) development on other similarly -sized, vacant properties in the vicinity may
conflict with existing land use designations or zoning classifications, or result in a land use
conflict, making this alternative infeasible.
2. No Development Alternative
Description: The No Development Alternative would result in the project site remaining
in its current state as undeveloped land. It should be noted that, under existing conditions, the
General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site are commercial, thereby indicating that
the City anticipates commercial use of the property. As such, development of the site would
likely occur in the future.
Although this alternative would avoid all of the significant impacts identified as resulting
with project implementation, the No Development AIternative would not achieve most of the
project objectives. Because the site would remain undeveloped, a mixed-use development
offering commercial retail uses, new residential housing opportunities, and/or recreational
amenities would not be achieved. No new residential or commercial uses would be included on
the site, nor would any economic or employment benefits occur as a result. Further, the public
benefit offered by expansion of Ronald Reagan Park would not be achieved. Because the Rancho
Palma Specific Plan would not be implemented and no development would be undertaken, the
opportunity to provide a development that would respect and contribute to the enhancement of
the neighborhood character, supportive of pedestrian needs, would not occur, nor would
circulation patterns or available parking in the Verdemont Heights community be improved
67
along West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the site. As such, this
alternative would not achieve most of the project objectives. (EIR, pp. 4-2 and 4-3)
Find_ ink The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each of
which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1) the
alternative would not achieve the majority of the intended project objectives.
3. Increased Residential Density Alternative
Description: The Increased Residential Density Alternative would result in development
of the project site in a similar manner to the proposed project with a mixture of residential,
commercial, and recreational uses. However, under this alternative, the approximately 28 -acre
portion of the site (Planning Areas 1 and 2) would be developed with residential land uses at a
higher density than that proposed with the project. The project as proposed would allow the
future development of a maximum of 120 single-family residential units in Planning Areas 1 and
2. It is assumed that under this alternative, the number of 7,000 -square -foot lots would be
reduced and the number of 5,000 -square -foot lots would be increased to achieve the intended
higher density. However, development would still be subject to preparation of a Specific Plan to
ensure the density at which the site is developed remains appropriate, with particular respect for
surrounding land uses. Additionally, development of Planning Area 3 would be developed with
the approximately 98,000 square feet of commercial land uses, similar to the proposed project.
The 0.5 -acre RV storage lot would also be eliminated to further accommodate the proposed
increase in residential density. The neighborhood/linear park, pocket park, and paseo, as well as
dedication of the 0.5 -acre portion of land to the City for the future expansion of Ronald Reagan
Park, would remain as proposed with the project under this alternative for restricted use by
Rancho Palma residents only. With increased development, potential impacts relative to air
quality, hazards/hazardous materials (increase in the number of people exposed to wildfire
danger), noise, and traffic and transportation would increase above that with the project.
This alternative would still achieve most of the project objectives, including establishing
a mixed-use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance of land uses
including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation, and providing new single-family
housing in the Verdemont Heights community with two lot size categories and corresponding
home sizes to serve a variety of future residents. Additionally, this alternative would retain the
development's ability to achieve the objective of creating a fiscally sound project that provides
for ongoing maintenance and operation of neighborhood parks and streets with the additional
sales tax revenues generated from the commercial uses. (EIR, p. 4-3)
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the following grounds, each of
which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the alternative: (1) the
alternative would result in an increase in potential impacts relative to air quality,
hazards/hazardous materials (increase in the number of people exposed to wildfire danger),
noise, and traffic and transportation; and, (2) the would not provide an environmental benefit or
achieve additional objectives that the proposed project would not already achieve.
D. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR
The following project alternatives were considered in detail in the EIR. These alternatives
are rejected for various reasons as set forth below.
1. No Project Alternative
Description: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that a No Project Alternative
be evaluated in an EIR. The No Project analysis must discuss the circumstance under which the
proposed project does not proceed. The comparison is that of the proposed project versus what
can reasonably be expected to occur on the property should the proposed project not be
approved. The analysis allows decision -makers to compare the impacts of approving the project
with the impacts of not approving the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 5126.6(e)(3)(B)).
The No Project Alternative does not necessarily mean that a project site would remain in
an undeveloped condition. If no action is taken on the proposed project, development with
similar or greater impacts may be proposed at some future date.
The No Project Alternative assumes that the lead agency would take no action. Under this
alternative, the proposed project site would be developed as allowed by the existing General Plan
land use designation (CG -1) and zoning (CG -1) that currently apply to the subject site.
Per San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.06.010, the CG -1 zone is "intended to
provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail, personal service,
entertainment, office and related commercial uses along major transportation corridors and
intersections to service the needs of the residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and
centers and establishing new locations as residential growth occurs. Additionally, this zone
permits a maximum density of 47 units per net acre for senior citizen and senior congregate care
housing." Permitted uses (i.e., those uses not subject to an Administrative or Development
Permit, Minor Use Permit, or Conditional Use Permit) in the CG -1 zone are identified in Table
06.01, Commercial Zones List of Permitted, Development Permitted and Conditionally
Permitted Uses, in the Municipal Code.
The only permitted uses are previously existing single-family residential uses. All other
land uses require City approval of either a Development Permit or a Conditional Use Permit. If
such approval is sought, the site could be developed at a higher or lower density than the project
as proposed (if residential uses are proposed), or at a higher or lower intensity (if commercial
uses are proposed). However, it is assumed that even if a mix of commercial and residential uses
are proposed with this alternative, development on the site would likely occur at an increased
intensity above that which would result with the proposed project due to the nature and intent of
the CG -1 zone, which is focused on commercial use types rather than residential development.
Uses allowed with City approval of a Development Permit or CUP in the CG -1 zone include but
are not limited to administrative and professional offices/services, automotive -related uses,
hotels/motels, RV parks, night clubs/bars/lounges, restaurants, auditoriums, banks, medical
offices, dry cleaners, day-care facilities, convenience stores, liquor stores, commercial bakeries,
funeral parlors, libraries, mixed-use commercial, parking, religious facilities, public utility uses,
and veterinary facilities. As indicated in Table LU -2, Land Use Designations, of the General
Plan, the CG -1 land use designation allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7. Therefore, the 38
acres available on the site (does not include the 3.5 -acre area comprising the Cable Creek
Channel) would allow development of a maximum of 1,158,696 square feet of commercial uses
(if only commercial uses are proposed), or 1,060,696 square feet more than proposed with the
project. However, considering the existing land use setting which includes residential uses
adjacent to the site, it is anticipated that a lower FAR would likely be applied (i.e. a more
appropriate FAR would be 0.25 which would yield development of a maximum of 413,820
square feet of commercial uses (if only commercial uses are proposed) on the 38 acres, or
315,820 square feet more than the proposed project.
This alternative would not result in development of the RV storage lot or any of the other
proposed private or public parks or open space. Additionally, the proposed improvements along
West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue would not occur, although other roadway
improvements may be required in support of the land uses ultimately proposed.
Impacts: Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative would worsen the project's air quality,
noise, and traffic and transportation impacts. (EIR, pp. 4-5 through 4-9)
The alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources,
and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. (EIR, pp. 4-6 through 4-7)
The alternative would reduce the project's impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
(ETR, p. 4-7)
Objectives and Feasibili : This alternative would have the potential to meet the project
objectives of establishing a mixed-use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a
balance of land uses including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation, and providing
new single-family housing in the Verdemont Heights community with two lot size categories and
corresponding home sizes to serve a variety of future residents. However, this would only be
achieved if residential uses were actually proposed. Similarly, the objective of reducing the need
for overnight parking of RV units on the street or driveways could only be achieved if an RV
storage lot is developed, and the objective of increasing the Verdemont Heights community's
recreation opportunities by expanding the size and/or amenities of Ronald Reagan Paris could
only be achieved if such use of a portion of the site is proposed. Several of the other more
general project objectives, including reducing water consumption through the use of native,
drought -tolerant landscaping and "smart" irrigation systems, and promoting a "green" project
with water- and energy-saving treasures, could be achieved whether the site is developed with
residential, commercial, or recreational uses. Improvements in parking and/or circulation on area
roadways would also be dependent on the type and intensity of future land uses proposed.
Find in : The City Council rejects Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative on the
following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of
this alternative: (1) Alternative 1 fails to meet several of the project objectives; (2) Alternative 1
would increase impacts relative to air quality, noise, and traffic and transportation given the
intensity of development allowed under current land use and zoning; and (3) Alternative 1 is
70
infeasible given that retention of the site in its vacant condition would be inconsistent with the
City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 1 is eliminated from further
consideration.
2. No Commercial Use Alternative
Description: The proposed project would develop approximately 9.3 acres of the property
(Planning Area 3) with 98,000 square feet of commercial development. Under the No
Commercial Use Alternative, this acreage would instead be developed with residential uses on
5,000 -square -foot lots. Assuming roughly one-third of the 9.3 -acre land area would be used to
support on-site roadway and landscaping improvements, it is estimated that the remaining
acreage (approximately 270,072 square feet) could be developed with up to 54 residential lots of
5,000 square feet each. Development at this density would be reflective of that proposed for the
adjacent Planning Area 2 under the proposed project (and that would also occur under this
alternative).
This alternative would still result in development of the RV storage lot (Planning Area 2),
and the proposed public park (0.5 acre), neighborhood/linear park (1.4 acres), and Cable Creek
Channel open space (3.5 acres) would also remain as part of this alternative. This alternative
would require approval of a CUP to allow residential uses on-site, and a Specific Plan would be
prepared to guide the overall character and appearance of development. All other infrastructure
improvements (utilities, roadway improvements, etc.) would remain the same as those which
would occur with the project as proposed.
Impacts: The No Commercial Use Alternative would worsen the project's hazards and
hazardous materials impacts. (EIR, p. 4-11)
The alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources,
and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. (EIR, pp. 4-10 through 4-11)
The alternative would reduce the project's impacts to air quality, noise, traffic and
transportation. (EIR, pp. 4-10 through 4-12)
Objectives and Feasibility_ This alternative would achieve several of the project
objectives by providing new single-family housing in the Verdemont Heights community with
two lot size categories and corresponding home sizes to serve a variety of future residents and
would increase the Verdemont Heights community's recreation opportunities by expanding the
size and/or amenities of Ronald Reagan Park. Further, through preparation of a Specific Pian,
this alternative could achieve the objectives of adopting appropriate standards and design
guidelines to implement the development to ensure compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods;
promoting a sense of community and character by providing neighborhood signage and
monumentation; improving circulation in the Verdemont Heights community with improvements
of West Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the project; facilitating additional
public parking with the improvement of West Little League and Magnolia Avenue; and reducing
the need for overnight parking of RV units on the street or driveways with the provision of a RV
storage yard. Additionally, this alternative would reduce water consumption through the use of
71
native, drought -tolerant landscaping and "smart" irrigation systems, and promote a "green"
project with water- and energy-saving measures as defined in the Specific Pian.
However, as no commercial uses would be proposed, this alternative would not establish
a mixed-use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance of land uses
including commercial, single-family housing, and recreation; deliver an appropriately sized
neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with employment growth and
increased sales tax for San Bernardino; create a pedestrian environment with walkable parks and
commercial uses; or, provide a fiscally sound project that provides for ongoing maintenance and
operation of neighborhood parks and streets with the additional sales tax revenues from the
commercial uses. (EIR, pp. 4-12 and 4-13)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2, the No Commercial Use Alternative, on
the following grounds, each of which provides sufficient justification for rejection of this
alternative: (1 ) Alternative 2 fails to meet a majority of the project objectives, including
providing a mixed-use community with a balance of uses including commercial,, single-family
housing, and recreation. Therefore, Alternative 2 is eliminated from further consideration.
3. Increased Commercial Use Alternative
Description: To allow an increase in on-site commercial uses, the proposed residential
development in Planning Area 2 would instead be developed with commercial uses under this
alternative. As such, this alternative would remove approximately 11.3 acres from residential
use, reducing the overall number of planned residential units to 53 (to be developed in Planning
Area 1 under the proposed project and with this alternative). As with the proposed project, the 63
residential units would be developed on 7,000 -Square -foot lots.
The overall commercial area would total approximately 20.5 acres (Planning Areas 2 and
3, 11.3 and 9.3 acres, respectively). As indicated in Table LU -2, Land Use Designations, of the
General Plan, the CG -1 land use designation allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7. However,
considering the existing land use setting which includes residential uses adjacent to the site, it is
anticipated that a lower FAR would likely be applied (i.e. a more appropriate FAR would be 0.25
which would yield development of a maximum of 224,334 square feet of commercial uses (if
only commercial uses are proposed) on the 20.6 acres, or 125,334 square feet more than that
proposed with the project.
With 63 residential units, 1.1 acres of parkland are required per City code; this would
include Public Park (0.5 acre) and neighborhood/linear park (0.6 acre). This alternative would
not result in development of the RV storage lot; however, Cable Creek Channel open space (3.5
acres) would remain as part of this alternative. This alternative would require approval of a CUP
to allow the residential uses on-site, and a Specific Plan would be prepared to guide the overall
character and appearance of development. All other infrastructure improvements (utilities,
roadway improvements, etc.) would remain the same as those which would occur with the
project as proposed.
72
impacts: The Increased Commercial Use Alternative would worsen the project's air
quality, noise, and traffic and transportation impacts. (FIR, pp. 4-13 through 4-16)
The alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources,
and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. (FIR, p. 4-14)
The alternative would reduce the project's impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
(EIR, p. 4-15)
Objectives and Feasibility: The Increased Commercial Use Alternative would meet all of
the project objectives with the exception of providing new single-family housing in the
Verdemont Heights community with two lot size categories and corresponding home sizes to
serve a variety of future residents, as only residential lots of 7,000 square feet would be offered.
Mainly, development under this alternative would achieve the objective of providing a mixed-
use community for the Verdemont Heights community with a balance of land uses including
commercial, single-family housing, and recreation. Additionally, this alternative would deliver
an appropriately sized neighborhood commercial center that provides a mix of retail uses with
employment growth and increased sales tax for San Bernardino, while increasing the Verdemont
Heights community's recreation opportunities by expanding the size and/or amenities of Ronald
Reagan Park and creating a pedestrian environment with walkable parks and commercial uses. A
Specific Plan would be prepared with appropriate standards and design guidelines to ensure the
development's compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and promotion of a sense of
community and character by providing neighborhood signage and monumentation. (FIR, p. 4-16)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3, the Increased Commercial Use
Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification
for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would increase the severity of air quality,
noise, and traffic/transportation impacts; (2) the alternative would address area demand for
residential housing to a lesser extent than the proposed project; and, (3) the alternative meets the
project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 is
eliminated from further consideration.
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 indicates that if the No Project Alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative, the FIR must also identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives. The context of an environmentally superior alternative
is based on consideration of several factors, including the proposed project's objectives and the
alternative's ability to fulfill the goals while reducing potential impacts to the surrounding
environment.
The proposed project would result in significant impacts with regard to air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
noise, traffic and transportation, and utilities, public services, and recreation. Impacts resulting
from the No Project Alternative and the Increased Commercial Use Alternative would be largely
similar to or greater than the proposed project. However, the No Commercial Use Alternative
73
would achieve reduced impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic and transportation,
thereby making it environmentally superior to the proposed project with regard to these issue
areas. Therefore, the No Commercial Use Alternative is considered the Environmentally
Superior Alternative.
However, this alternative would not satisfy the basic project objectives of providing a
mixed-use community, including a commercial center, along with residential housing and
recreational amenities, or contribute to increased employment growth or increased sales tax
revenue.
However, as determined above, the City Council rejects the No Commercial Use
Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification
for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative does not meet, or meets to a lesser extent, the
project objectives as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative is eliminated
from further consideration.
NO OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified through preparation of the EIR.
All significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant through implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not
required for the proposed project.
ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section Z 1081.6, the Mayor and City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit
A. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the project. In the event of any
inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
74
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The City Council finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and
considered, and further finds that the ETR is an accurate and objective statement that has been
completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City
Council.
The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by the
State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council after circulation
of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation.
Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of
proceedings.
CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this
Resolution has been based are located at the City of San Bernardino Community Development
Department, 300 North "E" Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, California, 92418. The custodian
for these records is the Community Development Department. This information is provided in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.5.
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino and the State
Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final project approval.
75
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this xx day of 2017•
ATTEST:
Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
R. Carey Davis
Mayor, City of San Bernardino
76
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
77
Exhibit A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AN❑ REPORTING PROGRAM
9
z
V
M
0
F
z
Bps
C� c m m
� Q
U U ` C
Q 0 U U
U ( C p
Q C 0 � 0)
�C:
a
�,y❑0
o -C C:
u a E'er,
C) s (D
0
U Q- C ❑ >
m
- .0 ❑
o ° o as
E m
CL C)
-Cma0
CL N] L
w 0 ❑
N C
O Q ❑ U
ai
o °_0
Q ❑
�E' a
°
` ❑ 0)- ❑
❑) C YtiJ
❑mE'3a
�
, C:
Ld n��, /�/��
> W V
O C � Q
Qw 3
marc
Oe (D Di ❑
Caa)uo
O)aQ)Ln
Q 7 7 ❑
o U� °
C❑ 0) U U
❑ ❑- ?„ T 0)
0 0) C Q
❑ E
CL o
a�
Q ❑ D
CA
0 0
? ESD
'-o N E
o t2 U N co r fl
- O -r- C
.�
0 [v U 0
V
cc
a
z
P
0
CL
uj0
z
a
L7
z
0
z
❑
2
z
P
c�
D ❑
*ei
U D
D
ry
C u7
cn
C i
_❑
C w
❑
❑
m
0
D
o 'v
V —
—
0)
❑
❑O
O c
0)
Q
cu-
�(D
0
❑
m
E
°'
0
o
7
E 3
m
a
a
0
Em
°'
E
3U `o
m
CLo
a
E
°
°
Q
o
Q�
-C
—
r
❑ m�
a
Q
Q
U
❑
CD
v'
C
N
0 •- U
co
3
m
Q
uw
E� m
o
E
0Ln
m
u
E
C
❑
7
(D
G
a�
-0m
N
c
❑
Cri
❑
C 0)
m
E
3
3
a°
a
a
°'
a
43 -C_�
❑
}
❑
= a a�
3
N
❑
U
3} a
❑
o
ori
-°
❑
°
o
a
o
0
Q.
a)
E
c
>
u
a=
c
oo
m
CL_
0
❑
❑
❑7
C
y
Q1
N
�}
ul
E
a ° c
A �]
r
a
U-ujm
❑
c
mm
-
oQ
0
-
-6-
�at
Q
p ❑
U N
(D
c 0
c
DCL
C�,-0 E
y
co
o ❑
Q
'- °
a
o
0 E
C U
N
CD
c
N
Lb E U D w
��
e
❑
0
Q O 'A
07
•
■
■
■
bi
G r:
no m C
Q , N
�
P
a
Nt
0
d
Q]
R
CL
c �
8 ..
R
a5
❑,
C C
Q1
O7
_
e6 E
i o
,+❑ G
O
O1CL
°4 (D
N 0)
❑ C
T C
a+ m
l•J CL
t C
CJI Q b N
O m
°i a
O` V a vs
0 CO C
_
•E.
CC
L C Q7 VI C 7
P
Y -Cy.ln O ro E-
C y y t y 07 C
b
m m Y
0 V
a Q `q E u v m v i
L - W
ffQ-o u a.CL ac
cc _ m -0 m � 0l .E Q
-0 ul
QJ c rn rn C a, a, w w+ o v Y
M -2 m 'n m
D `° Y m� i ° v
d
C m ,n �+
o r-� s
,c Y •�
C@
m Q
L
V7
N �
m
— j
❑ N �yLA
03
C
a O Z7
Qs C M g O
v
C
,}0 rid
° N
N
' '-
d
1�l1 N L� r w C
C 0]0 C CO ❑1 O �
Lm ate+
07 C al
❑ Q D
T C Q 0]
C VS
_, C
m O W
07 w = CL
V O L m
O C �4
m
`
+, (UC ,f0 v
m
v m
S
v LA � C
C E� 'L R
•u ¢
E
r- m
C
N
Q 0
❑ m
C _01 j N
m
w N�
0) 0
O v
01
L a C
O1
aJ N O�
.0 C N
❑ 7
L v
of
2 C d
a t3
a
C n
a- v
L ❑ m
+L'
m
Rl C Q
C
u aCi Y❑ [C W
n C D
y
m.� T m C '�
y—
.= C ams
C n ❑
L V E
°; m
fl m
Ot 1p �
:° 3 m��
N rn-0
u c m m
w
R
c
$ m a o
0
y ; n -p p .�
•n
�n it
Q
N m O
Z -❑
O m
m N a N
'a w u
In �] N -0 lu
w y u Qi Q: V
m
G 0.
N C y
O
-0.❑
N m y
rn
y
_
p N 0 7 rC0
C
C L C
S]
H C A14�.l
"a w 0
13 al
,canm
u
mC~�
�D
y
w
❑L
i:z
-0 Q
c
Hru"
vi
u 3
O
G
E.
�a 0
C
da
jdaO
V O 7y
D i
Ya
Z3
vo
°
C7-0
dO❑
EA
H
To
al a
0.
O
>
a
ayO
-0
m
c Q
c.a
C
>
V:3t
. _v-_
m w-
0 'a u
a�
'n 'a v m
v u cr-C
0.e
D
0
M
o
m
m
C �
0
V �
y
w
b
❑ C
C
C
•` �
= L7 Dl
C �
O V1
CL �
C
`2 ni
❑-
Q
C C 6J
`m
cncr,
cn E
O '� �c
❑ � ry
T C
U a
T•6r �
u
w
>v
❑ ,—
E
a u
c
D CD
F
v N
cc
C
C �
C
❑ ❑
Q Q
❑ 2
C %
❑ cr,
�5 C
a ❑
O
rp
. N C) b°❑
m
7j
ar
G
p
iv
iv D
41
i
V
u
0
N -0
r0
-0
° C .0
s+
T
M
7
S]
N
OT
❑
C X41
L.
, �re) ate+ -0
b
_
•? m
'D N
(ui
-0 Q
Qj LLn
IV<4
07
D
L
❑
r0 m
o°
3 v
a 3
m ❑i a
r6
❑
Vv -2 x
C
=
C
C
N ✓f
❑
� xi
r0
to rp rp 91
Y 0J
cc
O
N
Y
i-+
° ❑
t4 `+
'
47 p�
v
O
L
_ _
2
o
m v❑
c
m
�
Ln
�, a
m�
a
—
ci
-0
-0 b
n'o 0
D
M
b
0
rL
aj m
t r=v
❑
01 c m
=
3 a o
A
°' a ami '� H°
y
r i
v
"
a rn° °
}° a
°'
o` 2
R
��
'� v E a= �
ra
m=
ry
�v °
v •c 3 d
o w
m
QP
m u,
Q'
c u
m
?
t-10
a
° c�
>
,
Y
wLn
m
° s
3—
o c o a°
T v
��
c
a G
a�
� �^ o v
m v
�
) C]s w
a�
acoco
a
m cn=
v c
kj
c
o
3@
.F'
o
.� 3
T
v
T
o
G
3>
4+ a 0
.� C ❑ V
�
D
m_0LA
L
aj
-0
m y
C C
� O`
Q Q N
o
C
Ln L
0 ate„
0.i
•C
0.
'p
cn
4] O
0
E
a=
+��-'
rz
C .b
'7 UJ Q
C
0❑]
Ln
-Zal
—
i
V
f0
pN,l
C ❑ �j O
�'
p
6J
C
❑ `C
w
.❑
N Y `�
—
CL
CL
'o 2❑=
p°
x d
3❑
w
mCL
a_
-0
D�
L=
ry
v-2
D_
¢
m
-0� U-0
a r +n
❑
0
O n
3
0
m
m
m
oe
ea
`a
r'
u
o
�
�
�p
rn
U
l�
Vq
a n
❑
m rU
V 4)
CL
m
C ❑
Nn
m a+
at
❑ a
�
C _
cu aw
C Cu
U
v, cn
ul
v
O ro
❑ ti` m
(U
C' w
um❑
0 L
c
C
N
ch
L VS
• 47
; a3
C
'N-
L
E
F
-
C @
-
C m
❑C
o ❑
� _
v ❑
Q> V
ch v
rn2
ch2
C
Ln
o °
Cr
0 0
aJ
v
C
L
— "❑ a] - m a] -0 al -❑ W
m �' N
L N L
u Cr ❑
W-0
E
N v
0 u
-0 `❑
.� ❑ N
C @
i C
Cr ❑
L❑
t
Cr Y Z C
Y NCU ? ❑i +'
N-0 aj �
m
y L
0
C C
m m
m L
s
D
7
a7
�e ❑ eU "❑ Q
CL iv p
p
C
m '❑
0
m is al
j tL
Q
m
u
V V 7 C d C
V 9
N
7 p� '�
� hl
L C
++
LL lA
N
X
N
"p m m
C �^ Q N
6 CU C>
v>
C CD rn
@
Qr
a7
C C
C
00
❑ r^I �
c D
+L+
—
ro
��—., y y a C
N -0 u
iL•+ m
�' as
C7
❑ Y
CU
-C
aL.. D7
'� C
ry
D
>
'C U
cc
_ U m
_ m
M p y ❑•
da
C Q
S❑
L
.-
m Cr C
U- Q❑
in
7
DS
•N
;A
d
v m C
"" �
C C
.p
❑
C
C fa
Q a1 r6 m p!
'} `o "'
11] C
aJ G.
y�
$ L
Cs
'3
N
�'
a+
g a
ai Q-
E C_
w
(u+r o
N V)
C> Y
u
+r
3
o 0� w 'Q
Q N Q�
Q R�
D
O� C
i C O
��=
c�
ai
3
d
CU
au
C '- al 7, 'C d
p [6 ,t ^
17 N a
N
V ❑
w.1
a Cy La)
❑ C
= ..
ul@
—
tp
v❑
c +_
a+ ❑
Q
m
N
C O L
N
d
d
C❑
T
CL
CL M i d_
+L+
-M cy L
U V
a7 V V
d
c�
m
7
�'
m Lm.7
N L 6i
m c
U +Q+ E�
G
4'
N :O N
j
❑
�, tll 0
[U
C
L
C
E
+n m
m
.0
Q>
d
Y
C
m io
v m, y m a
Q
6n C w L
a p
m
c d ¢�
w v Cu
C
LA v
SVD
Or
L
N
C N u C
v
m H
u C
-0
7 Y
❑2 V CC
m
y .-
a1
p1
� C
C 7
❑ ❑
4
M Q
a
0 y
67 Vis
+.' ar..� 'U
�] •�
U
UV1 R
C U
U7
N
N •N m C❑
Cu cn
C
V
V
❑ a)
N ry ❑ L
❑
N 'L+
C❑ D
E C a
C
Y
N
❑
V
Q IP
C V a❑2�1
-. Q1 ❑ N
•�
❑ m
V V
a,1
In
d a]
L r.+
m l/�
m
m
❑ ++ ❑❑
L 2
_V
L
N N
7 L
rR
CJ
L
H
L
U •—
L
r^ a-. m V
❑ C
N Y aJ
❑
V
C L
i N
"❑ C r-1
L i7�''
m '-
2
al
`�. i m m�� U
S/1 V Cu m
� N 72
`1
al m y
Ln
R� rt
� m .�
G❑
aL+
m
m
.�
R
N
M
�
�
J
V
U
0,a
0
.how
C C
a
C C
O .y
{/ C
O O.
N tq N
0o
cp =
a`7 m
N
m
C
6F
C su
n v E
c or
NN E
cc
O C R
❑ C M
T'p1 a
T C71 d
a+ C (U
�} W in
+•+ C aJ
U W Cl
Cl
❑1
'E
2
❑ 7
+'
❑ C
❑ g
❑ C
o .o
& b�y
m V
❑1 C
❑1 2
L =L
Q
❑
C
fll
C aj T C C
G1
a1 C
C
a]
+N+ [L [L6
y m T
C
C
D W C
-+r—,
.Q E •� L
m
+' Z
V to ++
fll m +
N R� W
+61.,
�' 61 -L—N ,m Q'
Zw
kn LA
N w m
Gci
❑ cn
`� p 0 N
� p D1
LL
❑ w p C
'} d
Ed d O
'O
�,, N
U CO
p; - -p
cJ _
'n c W p�
C aJ m
d
V =
m
w
C C
V
❑ C'
y z E "❑
Cl m
C
aj
7 C
m
E
r_ U
m
�.
V � sr xw
t ar
V t•j Cfl
V C m
CL
or
m + m
E
d7
9J 'CD
N R
L�_Y m IV N —
❑
.0
3 .�
�
i =
7. •N C � 'OL
Ln
QJ
-n E
N
C +-
W e N N
E
avi
C
•c 3
_+'�_' -a O
N
:q
y C
.�-.
Ln
7
u L�
N
m n m❑ a
L'- O u u w m
Y s E
Y
°;
3
m
o d
'❑ R5 N
C
F
N :C L
Y
y
N7 Q N L
�p
N vi .V
V ❑ H
.—
�p D m m d c
b
10
=
C4
7
�
C
d ❑
❑
N
MV
Lt
mraZ
tm m
❑
L CQ—
W
0
+•• O
0
N m
C
W
E a
N
C❑
V
C
C u N m u
7
j�N
"d
N o N
Q
Q C
x C
N Or d
rn
Y
V Q y Y
C Q1
LSt
N
m -Zi
N
Y
j
Oz
n
C
v
N U E
aJ
O
V
7 N Q
V C�
E
U
..�..y `� ❑
d
7
❑
N N
m
❑
'^
v
E m ca N
m d
]
E
_ d❑
m
O N
+L..•
a� rn
a;
a
— 4 au y +'
,� ❑❑
v C
Ln �Ua
a
0tA-0
m
, v
.0 �w
¢ v c.�am
N
❑ Y
oc
y
¢ aa6r- nE
U
U
Iq
ri
a,
m
a
v
Cry
�
C d
D
m
N 0
a
U
i
❑ .,
C_ C
C1 �
� ❑
`
C t,
s+ r-
C O
CL
m a�
Q CL
C D
�
� C
❑ C
[p
V 0.
c
� �
7 V
F
C �
C
m u
Q i
o �
❑
� V
0
a ati -V
a❑ o
m -le a Q -a
-0 o� °' c
c
o
,
— W
m
w aj
c
g❑
O
u
_ C1 ❑
N
LU
U
�.o
c a
m
N
n
a�
c
v
a,
N
6 C,
d
❑
>
m
m
c
VV C D ❑
Gj N rCa
a
-0"
cu
0
n'
o
.r ❑cu
y
m v
a
❑❑
.2ct
4 tLi
•r-iyam-,, Q
IM A E
N
C 0 N
N C
❑
-❑ w
L =
Q
+�-'
rN-r7
Cn [Si'�
i
❑ N
•C
a
C ❑
OL
iu
C Ln
'V
C ❑ 41
C
7
lYJ ❑-
L1
CL
❑
m ,_
-0 o v ro
D
m
?�
4
@
�
CL
m
v
v'
c
C
_0
y
0) R
Q
H❑ u 0
k OJ
M
y
❑ v
L
N
C
�
❑
?a
v�
v
❑ a
rp
CL
c ay @
p
d °�',
°
uj
o
Lry
O
a
Nw
w
>❑
N TaNi
a
?C •
a
,�
aa
,
—
ED w CM
0 -0
❑
C
}'
O
x
r0
C
7
0J
r
Q
❑
—
ro
_ C C
w
w LO
rp
C
- 4 t+
41 rp
C
❑ aL.+
O! N
m
i
v
E �
W
D
Oi
y V
❑
O m
�
.0 N
E 3 ❑ rp
CL
7 a l
O 7
C
7•
❑
❑
OJ V
❑
m
C6
C T
a
L C Ql
❑ C1
[d
T
N
❑1
� r-1 _0 N ❑
a1
❑
p
N q�
fp E
CL
ro CL
C
❑ _
- o
3
Q^
•V
y
N
ra D
N .�
n
C❑
.❑
C
Q C
CL
f6
w
❑1 C
.a
C
Ct
�=
.0. C ❑ p a
m
7
p C —❑
N
0�
d
7-"—
,
0
,+' N
C
O- ❑
❑ -O vt' iv p
C v L m
Cl
E
u
❑
CL ❑
C O
a
�'
u
`❑
C
V'
N
a m
E .� a CL u
in
a 3 N CL
m N-
m C
❑
M
M
c
fo
=
mvt
z
�+
M
L
_
a
N
W
n
�` • Q1
ff1
m
M •�
2
+64 N
C
C] o
d o
W
� 7
Si rp
c
a`)
C
7
D d
O
�
Y
V•1 Q
T
W
v re v
C 3
a�
N
[6 fp
V
0
N Y Vi
>
�
d
c
v
c
v
❑. W
N
M
@
@
T 3 0
v .�
m cn
o�
Y
v' C
v
U C
E
d
T
C7
�
_
w
iJi L
�= ate+
3
ci
� ar Q
❑
ami �
❑
d
> o
E a
a
-0
c c' °"
E
z
N m
LAs
N
a
x
a O a
-12 -
@
N N N N
@ Y
� v —
C ~ -C C
� N o
m a
0
aci Q D
W U U ❑
E t
7
w v ¢
Y ;a ra n w
2 2
• Cco
p @ @ Ln. -14
z m 2
c
0
c
v
E
u o
c •-
v
o c
Li O
n 01
r-
06 06 v
C N 0 i V
11] ❑ d o N Q Q7 V
CO � aO+ O -5 1
u E
O — YajC
c m c v 4
ru
a m Y @ rp n
_ al
CL Ev a E m
m Q fl d Q v
n Y D p ✓
`0 C
O u U (U v m
v ° .cv. o ° C-
E
v
E a a, 0 o
V ° ate-•. O
C a=.a C C '} Q 6a7
aj - • * O ° W
E.� i
O Q' . p
O iv E
C, Q V- a Cr o
a@ V v Q O
pm a
v
CL v ° ❑ •
e
U
E
2
Q
0
m
fa
v
m
0
� o
0
co
a
D-
0.
O
C N
0 w
C
Si N
r_ C
C O
O a
� d
ch
e
E
]+ 7 aJ —
'310
C
rp
r0
I=
w
Xw
❑'
4N
"O w
C
"a7 N
"❑
c
0O!
c
"❑ -0
w CL
NL
•
W
M C
3-
O
no
Z
L
>-
ate+
@
7
i
+L-+
4
rt Q1 -r-❑
❑
uC
OJ
R7
OJ
❑
C v
'6
.w
�
c
QJ
F c
c
m amr
ar
fl a
c `_"
m o
c
OU
a
- v
fp Q
•C
..
❑
❑
_
❑7
_
vi Q-
.0 Y fp
V
17
+�+ [4
0
v Q
N ❑
L
lJ
Q
—
L
OJ
VI
Dl VI
_
�
j.
` 6l
v �"
m
0 ❑
s@+ 0
N
�
1p
C
N
C
v
0 Q �' `�
v
@ N
N N
V z
,C
N C
"❑
y-M
❑
O
L
m S]
V C l C
O❑
V
N C
C ❑
N0.
fp
V
"C
A
N
"❑
—
O
C
41
O -
E
7 6]
0J vi
Y
E _O
[i
Y
•L
i
'0
3
Y
d
c
ro_
aL.+
C V7
N
.� V
�'C
0�
m
•❑
@ w
0
di
-0 m
0
❑
c -p
E
m
'�
'�
E
E
CL
-❑
L
m
_
a
`'
'R
N
m
ou
a
�
o
aci
m
m Q
c
u
CL c
N
C
Q
w
C
-�
❑V
@
p�j
❑
C
_
E c
@
v N
❑
c
C
v
O
v
m
d
N
U
a
L
rp
CCv
Ca
y m
❑
❑
li
VI
.y�
V1
=
aj
V1
VI w
N
N
N
C
N
m
ac
ry
ate+
Y
a
o
,}
0
'�
CL
E
c
a
o
Ln
o
u
ra�U
m
a
v
.N c
w
ar
❑
•U
'v
•v
•v
i
C r6
•u
_pf
'❑
a
v
rCo
C
c
D
C
0-0
.L..
d
C5
v w❑
Q
Q
❑
�
N
L
d
N
C ❑
O C
OJCCQj
?
-
Cp1
C
l,! V
N
❑
61
NU
NN
�-+ =
❑ uL
�
N
v
7
@
0
/
V^
,
O
Z
u❑
M�
0.
H
■
v
z
cc 0
V o
c 4L
L a
u
u L)
u 3
■
n
c
u
N
U
E
2
Q
0
m
fa
v
m
0
� o
0
co
a
D-
0.
C
O
m a
Q
C C
C
O1
-Q 0
a'
0 �
C
E m
O 'L
.VMr
aj C CU
CL
m
C O
a 9LR
m ai
❑
w
in
In C
m
ar
C
w .�
O 'C
R C
fC
211 m
Va%
ua
`o
rn
-
c
a
D
C
=
0 v
a
,�i
_
•E
u ❑
C
m
C V
=
U
d 0
O ,q
m
L
C
C
d 0.
❑
Q
"' f'
C C
C .�
Q
ru a.•
td
0 +' Y3 v' 0)
C 47 N t
Q7 0) "D � w
E C C U Ql C:^
N Q L O
C W
O �=
'a
W
N N
t mo
•C
ai 0
Q
M
d Os
vi X
N
�J
t
+'
Q
Q R
7 H
0�
Q C
E •� um C
O •
J L
LA
N
7
d
+'
7
O C
0
.in
C
Q+
C �
a
.p ` C R
C C
L w
C
m O
d
7T —
V
a ro
+'
p
C a
Q +�
ru m
P
v y
as ro
m
y
m m
p Y
O +O
F C
y w m
d
fu d
r N
m 07
H
m
m 3
V
v aai
a❑
R c
N dr
0 6 r C ra
O IM 0'°
—
N
u L
Y
u
❑
R
ro -C
r' � 0 .C.
O 'v +
.°
C
0 p
C m
V _
L �
Q U
❑ Q7
ice.+ f� L
n 4+ c ❑
�»
Q
m L
�F
aL+
.b
'y
Q
i= V C
'n
C Q
N` M a p .SC
�J O O y
R
01 -0
E
D
N
5
Q C
w p V1
V d
C C Ln 4 V v
E —_
C�
D
+• ar
to
p y
-pi
at u
v w
Q ro ro 0
47
�O k—
ro
E m
p O
Q C
C
Y
n
O1 V
v
C
A +�
N
O
R
E T
p vs
CL
d_
N
7
C fVtl
Q Q N
d
j
L
C fp X
Q Y
H r-+ L
N om.+
7 d
C 0
m
E
3 Y
❑�
L
V
N
E
.01 u.l
91
,N
C C C
E V
L 0kj "p
Y ea
"p
ca
E
C
N
Q vi
7 p
rp N
d
Vi
O N
,� Q Q
V
_C
in w
E
C—�
C
W
.O
C N
N
=
G
d d
N m 7
p D
a '3
?,
O
o
tp Q
a m
0 C
N co
W
C
'++ G
O 'n riS
C1
C
t 1
N �_ sA C cp
V Q
j
+�+ m
u
=
�1
C
v C
C
C R C
Q
C
Ol
d ar
w
L "Q
R LJ
V
N
w 13
.0
Q
.Q.
'Q N
�N
++ d
V
uti
cn O T m
al
C— 7 0
7
0
4
V
Q
QS
o °=
7,
^ u❑
7
v C
�+
n
N aL N •C L
a ai v ..
.� v V
t Q
Q
m aui
c �'
C
Q d
ar
C
'^ E m
'3 � auLs
Q m
w O
'E R
ea
w
L d
p 0
y V
E
'+�-,
c3
EL EL
■
■
L y
v o m5
m
a
o v v os
Q c
❑ m y t
u
R
a
A
o v
u
a d
Q Q
+,
a� ro
u w
v
.O
H
!'Y
Z
z
v
ilss
acu
= C
T
E
c r-
Omi
4 re
*+ =
IC
m y
Q
C n
9
[/7 cn
�.
.
70
L' r6
U a
O
.0
CL
o
c
ry
C
C
'E
.,
P
ra
2 n
o
V O
m �
C C
a °
J�--a
a
.-
•p y
o m
mZE y F
Y
Y .c
N
_ m
•v
Y
CL
❑
a p
7 _�
p
'[3
L O j❑ 7 a
0
0
r-
rp
❑
u L
"
-E v
C -0 p
Q
v
Dl
Q-
=li n
71 sn
C
N O m M `' O
ply
'n
spn
m
E
of 01
Ll w
L
O
p. rn
a m
w
O'
�'
z
V
-0
V N
M U
°1
c❑
fa
v Z@
❑
3
u
+
r v m
LA
Vi r0 •C V
61
QJ Ql
47
7
+`• G�
L
"a
i.. N
V N
y
t
61 . L C r9
L
�- rp
Qr -0 in y al '}
❑
'n —
[��p p
r p
p
H
pxj 7
C
C to
v
❑ o u
c
m
cn
o
m
cm "°
o c
W
o
vi
d
O '! L qy `J
w
_0
L
C n L
D
C C7]
CL
Q m
N C
3
N -C L E C W .m
.�
Q C Y
❑ Q
❑
� t9
[p
m Dl
c � v W 3
m-0
m
m O-
c
'r
N
o p
c v
C ami
C6 w C [p
N +.'
L
M
sn iii
w n O7
M
�—
ai
O
C:
c
�[, Q
m +�+•,
c❑
m N
m
-.
m .-cr
X r p� N
rn M
^
7
❑
3
C
O
Ru
N Y_
c
D
Q m
z
d
cw OC
-le
—
Q
3
iA
._
+•
❑ M, t �+
M
o
ami �
.E aci
"W
c
@
a�'i m
E
b o
a
❑
;c o
r"V .G C C �_
w
❑ G7 E
Q
C V_
Vl 'y
�
N N
2 y Y
ra
3 _
D1
a+
C p ❑ y a❑
C —
�`
N fl
7
N
Q
c N
C-0=
n
U
y
7 O
W
C
qy @ :S .
a+
a F C
c
❑��
C
$
i
a�
C
v
•
v
E a�_> avi a
N N
a.v'�
N
a,
O
V d
d
O v
V W E n
m
m
.m
y-
T Y
T
Q1
D
c,
o
-�
in
E m N
E
p O
vl ,1
C7
M
w
Q
Q
c • QJ
p V
'� -° ° rn
�
v d
w
m o
•o
-0 ❑ D. -0•
C O
■
•
•
•
•
F
.0 0 w
vim, C
J
V
en
a
x
u
w
❑
CD
m
m
ra
Z,
V
L
4 a
0
4
47 ,R
Y a+
C�
v 'iA
Y_
C Q
o a
c
.E
N
47
❑
O
'❑ Q1
y 7
'❑ •❑'h
❑ ¢i Al
al
Lit N
ri
[r
C
— N
ru 4y
❑ Q
4% m
L
OJ i "❑
L U N
C U
O+ -
D _
O r6
3
ipLAiv
.L.•
r
rd
N
41 N.
G
A ❑. tb
C
Q
41 N
0
❑ N
W T
N p N
N aL-• `�
N
L
❑
fu
r-.
ai
L
76 -0
—
V ❑
°
l.Il
-
@ ❑
2
7 E
c N
C
N
LnD
>1
c
m Q
NN
m
rD
_4
W
OA
U
[p
L
C
Ln
❑
❑ 1.. I/1
Qj
'n
V
v
•C
E
m
m
y
C,rc
L
QJ
C
ov ❑
o
C
m E o
W
L
N'-
v
O
a
N
N E
m 3
@
v
m
D-0
r
"'
❑
N '� OJ
ti
C
ro
in
N
E
oti
Ga
❑ ,N
_
n7
M
~
O
.�
❑ 3 rc
L
N
Y L
Co
V
_cn
T
_
Ln
c
❑
,�
- N
9Yi
• -•
N
L C
`t
N
7
p
61
ON
d
3
C
Q7 D
C
W V N
112 N
p
N C
` rp
�^
L_
in
in
0
7
Y L
- —
x -
= tl,
D L
U
.�
N ❑ C
rU L
iq al
c
q�
Q�
—
Naj
-Ne
i+
d Q
t
@
O d
"D r6
y
N 3
N �
-� M
O 3
Q
D
�
}, V
—_ +n
xC
7
0 C�
c
:,7
d
0
�l Y
3
J
=
LU
❑
N L
fp
V
ll..
N
Q
❑
..0
..
QTi
W
u
Z,
V
L
4 a
D
❑
o
+D_+
w-tD
C
CL O
C r6 v
CC
G 0
V1 67 in
N
V) a1 ❑
C
C
O C Y
❑ C Y
C_
L
rz
D
cu
H
r
7
Z7 =
N
@ U
D
D `
�
D
❑ C
v
— o
tl Cl
� V
a7 ❑1 C 67 T= Vi T al C N i
L aJ O C C Q `n C C Q- ❑ of o Qd M 0
@ Y
R =� a-+
.L.-.
_
m
0 m
� C
7
— W O
6J -0
V
aL-+
�
w
•p
�
�_ C V
C
❑
7
o
❑
— 0)
c
.� m
a
7
m—
ro
Vi
41 .0
C
ri
a �=
ar al
.c O
C
�.
•C
a1
❑
N L ro
O
.C17
T
Dl
Q ro >L_
c Q
O
w
❑ i
.� c L
c p`
❑
cc
D
+10+
m
a c
ac
O
iv
N
N
•C
C C .�
Y
.'�'' aN+
Q
C i V
C O
rd C D
3
N
7
D
N`
aJ
.� D
❑
-c w
d
V ❑
�'
N
m D_
R
❑ V
N
N
7+ m
MC
aaj
C a1 O
O
vi
L a Q
O.� T
C
N OV 6
.
L
y
D
C .L..
❑ ❑ m
v
p
� Y
N cr V
c C cn ra
•'r D
C
i
ar
"LS
v❑i
O iu
`� ❑
.0
-D
�'
Z.i
0
_ 7
ra v
C
D
C Vj V
a
o
Q
'j
_ V Y
Q❑
❑—
G
_
•
rp
N
R L
v
r8
is e
V 3
Q
N @
D
r6
C
`n c6
7 V Z
0�
C
❑ '}
Q]
V
O
Q
L
�O
QJ
C .0
•q
-D V
'O
O
-p
+-�
C
�z � ❑
M aa;
C V L
a-+
Q
ru
Q
_
ro
_
N C
•�
N
Q
C
❑ .0 ❑
al L 0`! C
N V
E
c
L
U
m �J7
C
D
`� Q
R7
C C
Y o
`—'
is
C=0
m m 67
=
0 ro o
:+
0°•
o
'm
�v
Y
u
-0❑
3
t
3
a
rDa
Q
u E 0
3
" (U
Q v •>
Q�
m
.�
❑ CL N
4) m o p
V
ra
a- ru
U
c
R
V_
N
M
�
�
rz
b
O
V
n
cm H
4 v
0 w
❑
C N
chk
u
m � aci
a E
.= Cm
C CL
c Q-
m v)
fo v
❑
cc
C
❑ C Y
u a
rn
❑
v
f
ra
3
_N
`a E
v
a Q
! —iv V
� � ni V � r ❑ � � a
y
❑
m ro tAm — .a Y ~ C R -G
,�
.O
❑
O v 67 ❑ 7, R� N IJ W
N iJ
L V
CL
C C V N— j 7. C
m m m m 3❑ E C `° 'ry
ar m
y
y
i rp cn N— C d E
m U ca ea m E o
t Q
*'
C
fu
c c
'_m a `a e 3❑
�_ o
o
a
m 7 a 0❑ H L
CT CL tn
0 N C y r C O 6 r0 :3 CDYp E 0 O
rn❑ d
c
C
Ol
al
d
YI
CL
w❑
01 O C ~' Of 7 a C C
Y
C u g
o
w
C �6
ro
C
.�
3
67
d V N d U L .L N�
E E °7
o ,E
C
L C
C
d
d
Q
'�
4
E u •E T c
L V
+=
E
E
a
c
o �' p o o p`
p�
C
E
v
nu'i
aui c
t to v 7 C rD CO t 3
0 Cr to
C
Q
❑ .`
d
to
*�'
ate.+
r.+ N N
�_+' C �.+ v c
v C
E
.Cy
C
-0
-0
-0
Q .0] vYLi
.0 L
C
C
❑ ti C 6R1 N •7 '� ih 4 .0 V C❑
d C '❑ m V
D7 Q7 3
u L❑
W
L 61
i 3
3
❑
C
3
d
C
❑
�1
'%
❑
re a 3 3 n ki a
Q
❑ o
❑
u
C
u
M
m D7 N M C C ro" Q. C .L..
N m
Qi
7
-
w
j
`
Glr+
cc,C
CU
0 o a o a 0 3 y y W
m
a.
■..
OI ■.
OI
m
14
�
O
E
�
�
�
5
�
7
§
E
�
G
S
\
£
a � -
> �
2 �
�
2
i
§
� J
c
k
e
�
§
�
#
�
2
§
2LA
k\
2
>cn
2/
E
k
y
\
\
@
\
°
/
\
c
\
2
f
2
7
c
eco
�
L
%/£
f
k
2\
9
d
-
e
I
=
_
£
_
R
=
�
�
-c-\
�
\
\
' �
�
�
_
=
a
=
o
�
=
a
� a
_■
k�
\
\
\
a
G
/
`
�
«
t
{
A
°
q
_
2
2°\
§~
E~
a
a
m
w
m
c
� �
•
a
'
-
c:
2 r
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
�
O
E
�
�
�
5
�
7
§
E
�
G
S
\
£