HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-2401
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-240
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE SCHEDULE NO.
2017021049) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-09, DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT) 16-11, SUBDIVISION 16-08
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19814) AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE -D 16-26,
AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2016 pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50
(General Plan Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter
19.44 (Development Permits), Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) and Chapter 19.74 (Zoning
Map Amendments) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, an application for
General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment)
16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-
26 was duly submitted by:
Property Owner(s)
Project Applicant:
Property Address:
APN(S):
Lot Area:
City of Riverside
3900 S. Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522
Hillwood
901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175
Ontario, CA 91764
Southern California Edison
287 Tennessee Street
Redlands, CA 92373
1494 S. Waterman Avenue
0141-421-14,18, 19 and 20; and, 0141-431-17 and 18
62.02 acres
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment
(Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11, Development Permit Type -D 16-26 and Subdivision 16-08
(Tentative Parcel Map 19814) is a request to allow the change of the General Plan Land Use
1 Designation and the Zoning District Classification of the properties contained within an area
I comprised of approximately 62.02 acres from Public -Commercial Recreation (PCR) to
Industrial Light (IL), allow the consolidation of six (6) separate parcels containing a total of
approximately 62.02 acres into two (2) parcels, and allow the development, establishment and
1
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
operation of an industrial high cube logistics warehouse building containing approximately
1,065,000 square feet (Alliance California Gateway South Building 4 Project), along with the
construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21067 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) (CEQA) 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 16-09,
Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11, Subdivision 16-08
(Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-26; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Division of
the Community Development Department of the City of San Bernardino determined that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential
adverse environmental impacts of proposed General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development
Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map
19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-26; 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 (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049) for proposed
General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment)
16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-
26 on February 14, 2017, and circulated the NOP for the CEQA-mandated thirty (30) day
public review period and a public scoping meeting was conducted on February 28, 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 CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department of the City of San Bernardino released a Notice of Completion of
the Draft EIR (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049) for proposed
General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment)
16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-
26 on June 16, 2016 for the CEQA-mandated forty-five (45) day public review and comment
period; and
2
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
WHEREAS, pursuant to §15086 of CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department of the City of San Bernardino consulted with and requested
comments on the Draft EIR (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049) from
all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and other during the CEQA-
mandated forty-five (45) day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of
the City of San Bernardino received comment letters on the Draft EIR (California State
Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049) from California Department of Transportation,
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Gabriellenio Band of Mission Indians—
Kizh Nation, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, and Golden State
Environmental and Social 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 (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049)for proposed
General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment)
16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-
26, 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; 4) CEQA Findings of Fact
and Statements of Overriding Considerations; and 5) the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 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 (California State Clearinghouse
Schedule No. 2017021049)and General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code
Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map
19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-26 to the Planning Commission for
consideration; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017 pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.42
I (Development Code Amendments), 19.44 (Development Permits),19.50 (General Plan
3
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
Amendments), 19.52 (Hearings and Appeals), 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 (California State
Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049) submitted by the applicant for General Plan
Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11,
Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-26, and
WHEREAS, after closing said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2017-063 recommending to the Mayor and City Council the certification of
the Final EIR (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049) and the approval of
General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment)
16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-
26; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 (General Plan
Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 19.44
(Development Permits), 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 (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049) and General Plan
Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11,
Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-26; and
WHEREAS, notice of the December 6, 2017 public hearing for the Mayor and City
Council's consideration of the proposed Resolution was published in The Sun newspaper on
November 24, 2017, in accordance with Development Code Chapter 19.52.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Mayor and City Council find that the above -stated Recitals are
true and hereby adopt and incorporate them herein.
SECTION 2. The Mayor and City Council having independently reviewed and
analyzed the record before it, including the Final Environmental Impact Report (California State
Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2017021049) and written and oral testimony, and having exercised
their independent judgment, find that General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code
2
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
Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814)
and Development Permit Type -D 16-26 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 (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No.
2017021049), as accepted by the Planning Commission as to the effects of the proposed General
Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11,
Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development Permit Type -D 16-26, has
I been completed in compliance with CEQA and is hereby certified and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 3. The Mayor and City Council hereby adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact
and Statements of Overriding Considerations (attached hereto as Exhibit "A").
SECTION 4. The Mayor and City Council hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (attached hereto as Exhibit "A-1"). Implementation of the mitigation
measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a
condition of approval'of General Plan Amendment 16-09, Development Code Amendment
(Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11, Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and
Development Permit Type -D 16-26. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation
measures set forth in other documents, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall
control.
SECTION 5. General Plan Amendment 16-09 and Development Code Amendment
(Zoning Map Amendment) 16-11, as may be approved by Ordinance, is incorporated herein
by reference.
SECTION 6. Subdivision 16-08 (Tentative Parcel Map 19814) and Development
Permit Type -D 16-26, as may be approved by Resolution, is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 7. 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
Development Department, 201 North "E" Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, California,
92401. The custodian for these records is the Community Development Department.
SECTION 8. 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
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
certifying the City's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in certifying
the Final EIR.
SECTION 9. 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.
///
111
IlI
111
111
///
111
111
///
n
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
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE SCHEDULE NO.
2017021049) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-09, DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT) 16-11, SUBDIVISION 16-08
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19814) AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE -D 16-26,
AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
and City Council of the City of San Bernardino at a Joint Regular Meeting thereof, held on the
6th day of December 2017, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members:
MARQUEZ
BARRIOS
VALDIVIA
SHORETT
NICKEL
RICHARD
MULVIHILL
AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
Georgeann 1- lira, CMC, Clerk
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this 6h day of December 2017.
R. Careyvis, Mayor
City of S Bernardino
Approved as to form:
Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney
By: l—J�
7
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
AND
STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
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 AND REPORTING PROGRAM
9
Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the
Alliance California Gateway South
Building 4 Project
(State Clearinghouse No. 2017021049)
November 16, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pate
I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1
II. PROJECT SUMMARY...................................................................................................................1
A. SITE LOCATION...................................................................................................................................... 1
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................ 1
C. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTIONS COVERED BY THE EIR............................................................................. 2
D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................................. 3
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION............................................................4
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING...........................................................................................6
V. FINDING OF NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO RECIRCULATE THE EIR............................................... 6
VI. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES......................................................................... 7
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS...............................................................................7
A. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT AS PART OF THE INITIAL STUDY PROCESS ............................................ 8
1.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources..............................................................................................
8
2.
Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................
9
3.
Population and Housing...............................................................................................................
9
4.
Public Services............................................................................................................................
10
5.
Recreation..................................................................................................................................
11
B. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT - NO MITIGATION REQUIRED.
12
1.
Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................12
2.
Air Quality..................................................................................................................................
15
3.
Biological Resources...................................................................................................................
18
4.
Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................
21
5.
Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................................
23
6.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................................
26
7.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................
27
S.
Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................................
34
N.
land Use and Planning...............................................................................................................
41
10.
Noise......................................................................................................................................42
11.
Transportation/Circulation....................................................................................................
48
12.
Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................................................
52
C. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT................................................................................................................................................
57
1.
Air Quality..................................................................................................................................
57
2.
Biological Resources...................................................................................................................
58
3.
Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................
60
D. IMPACTS DETERMINED BY THE EIR TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.....................................................
67
1.
Air Quality..................................................................................................................................
67
2.
Greenhouse Gas.........................................................................................................................
72
3.
Land Use and Planning...............................................................................................................
73
4.
Noise...........................................................................................................................................75
5.
Transportation/Circulation.........................................................................................................80
VIII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS........................................................... 8S
IX. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS................................................................................................. 86
X. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES...........................................................................................................87
A. NO PROJECT/ EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVE............................................................ 87
B. ALTERNATIVE SITES.............................................................................................................................. 88
November 16, 2017
C.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE....................................................................................................................
89
D.
EASTERN ACCESS ONLY ALTERNATIVE......................................................................................................
89
E.
SMALLER BUILDING WITH TRUCK TRAILER PARKING ALTERNATIVE.................................................................
91
F.
SMALLER BUILDING ALTERNATIVE...........................................................................................................
92
G.
RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................................
93
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................... 93
XII. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING PLAN FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................... 95
XIII. APPROVING THE PROJECT........................................................................................................95
XIV. REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION................................................................................................. 96
XV. REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD............................................................. 96
November 16, 2017
I. INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of San Bernardino (the "City Council") in approving the
Alliance California Gateway South Building 4 project (the "Project"), makes the Findings
described below and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented at the end
of the Findings. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, as
described in Section III below, including the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared
for the Project by the City of San Bernardino (the "City") acting as lead agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The City adopts the facts and analyses in
the EIR, which are summarized herein for convenience. The omission of some detail or
aspect of the EIR herein does not mean that it has been rejected by the City.
Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies,
Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and text and exhibit
revisions to the Draft EIR), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be
referred to collectively herein as the `BIR" unless otherwise specified.
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Site Location
The Project site is located on an approximately 62.02 -acre property located south of Dumas
Street and east of S. Waterman Avenue in the south-central portion of the City of San
Bernardino. Primary access to the site is from S. Waterman Avenue. The property is the
current location of the San Bernardino Public Golf Club. The Project site is located
approximately 1.3 miles east of I-215 and approximately 0.50 miles north of I-10. A San
Bernardino Flood Control Channel ("East Twin Creek") is located adjacent to the western
boundary of the Project site, and the Santa Ana River is located near the southern boundary
of the Project site.
B. Proiect Description
The Project involves the demolition of existing golf course features, structures and paved
surfaces, and the construction and operation of one high cube logistics warehouse building
having 1,063,852 square feet (s.f.) of interior floor space, 188 truck loading dock doors, and
1,171 auto and truck parking stalls. Associated improvements to the Project site would
include truck courts and drive aisles, landscaping, a water quality/detention basin, utility
infrastructure, lighting, signage, and other associated improvements. A Project driveway with
access from S. Waterman Avenue is proposed near the northeast corner of the Project site. In
addition, interim roadway access improvements are proposed off-site between the Project site
and Orange Show Road. As a reasonable consequence of the Project, the City of San
Bernardino may require that the interim off-site roadway access be replaced in the future with
a permanent roadway in a different alignment. As such, two options for a future permanent
alignment are identified. As part of the Project, one existing on-site City of Riverside Public
Utilities/Water Department (RPU) potable groundwater well, as well as the Rice -Thorne non -
potable groundwater pipeline, would be abandoned and replaced/realigned on site. In
addition, other on-site RPU facilities would be abandoned and protected in place. The Project
also would vacate existing SCE easements and relocate power poles.
November 16, 2017
TPM No. 19814 is subdivided into Parcel 1, which includes the Building Area, which
encompasses the parking area and the access -only area, and Parcel 2, which includes the
Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) well site. Parcel 1 is comprised of 61.58 net acres and Parcel
2 is comprised of 0.51 net acres resulting in a site area of 62.02 acres as disclosed and
evaluated in the Draft EIR. The proposed TPM No. 19814 includes 15 -foot wide access
easements along the southern and western sides of the building, at the northern portion of the
Project site and from Waterman Avenue to Parcel 2 (Well Site). These access easements
provide access for the City of Riverside to their RPU well facilities, upon construction of the
Project's building.
Approvals requested by the Project Applicant from the City of San Bernardino to implement
the Project include a General Plan Amendment No. 16-09 (GPA16-09), Development Code
Amendment No. 16-11 (DCA16-11), Subdivision No. 16-08 (SUB16-08), Development
Permit No. D16-26 (DP -D16-26), and Variance No. 16-03 (VAR16-03).
GPA16-09 proposes to change the General Plan land use designation on the portion of the
Project site designated "Open Space - Public/Commercial Recreation (PCR)" to "Industrial —
Industrial Light (IL)." DCA16-11 proposes to change the portion of the Project site currently
zoned "Open Space — Public/Commercial Recreation (PCR)" to "Industrial - Industrial Light
(IL)." SUB16-08 proposes to consolidate the site's existing parcels into one parcel through
Tentative Parcel Map 19814 (TPM 19814). Proposed DP -D16-26 provides a site plan,
including detailed architectural and landscape development concepts for the Project.
VAR16-03 is proposed to account for a possible 5 -foot increase in the maximum permitted
height of the building, including architectural projections, to a maximum height of 55 feet;
whereas the City Development Code allows a maximum building height of 50 feet in the
"Industrial - Industrial Light (IL)" zone.
C. Cite of San Bernardino Actions Covered By the EIR
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City to implement
the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative
approvals which may be needed to construct and implement the Project, whether or not they
are explicitly listed below.
• Approve General Plan Amendment No. 16-09 (GPA16-09);
• Approve Development Code Amendment No. 16-11 (DCA16-11);
• Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 19814 (SUB 16-08);
• Approve Development Permit No. D16-26 (DP -D16-26);
• Approve Variance No. 16-03 (VAR 16-03);
• Approve Conditions of Approval for GPA16-09, DCA16-11, SUB16-08, DP -
D16 -26, and VAR16-03;
November 16, 2017
• Approve final maps, parcel mergers, lot line adjustments, or parcel consolidations
as may be appropriate;
• Approve water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure design;
• Issue grading permits;
• Issue building permits;
• Approve road improvement plans; and
• Issue encroachment permits.
D. Project Obiectives
The underlying purpose of the Project is to facilitate the reuse of the San Bernardino Public
Golf Club in the City of San Bernardino for commerce and employment -generating purposes.
The following objectives are intended to achieve this underlying purpose:
A. To remove the existing San Bernardino Public Golf Club and expeditiously
redevelop the property.
B. To redevelop the San Bernardino Public Golf Club property with an
employment -generating use that is compatible with existing and planned
industrial warehousing development found in the surrounding area.
C. To develop a logistics warehouse use that capitalizes on the transportation
and locational strengths of San Bernardino.
D. To develop a logistics warehouse use that meets industry standards for
modern, operational design criteria and can accommodate a wide variety of
users.
E. To attract new employment -generating business to San Bernardino, thereby
reducing the needs of the local workforce to commute outside of the area for
employment.
F. To develop a logistics warehouse use that offers truck loading docks and
truck trailer parking in close proximity to the regional transportation system
in order to facilitate the efficient movement of goods as part of the southern
California goods movement network.
G. To develop a high cube logistics warehouse use that is economically
competitive with similar industrial warehouse buildings in the County of San
Bernardino and the surrounding region.
3 November 16, 2017
H. To increase the amount of available industrial warehouse space in the City of
San Bernardino to attract new businesses and jobs to the City.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City's
decision makers and the public are fully informed about potential significant environmental
effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or
significantly reduced; to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by
requiring changes in the Project through the use of mitigation measures which have been
found to be feasible; and to disclose to the public the reasons why the City has approved the
Project in the manner chosen in light of the significant environmental effects which have
been identified in the EIR. In order to do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA,
undertook the following:
Prepared an Initial Study, dated February 9, 2017, and a Notice of Preparation,
dated February 14, 2017 and received at the California Office of Planning and
Research (the "State Clearinghouse"), on February 15, 2017, which were used as
the basis for the determination that an EIR should be prepared for the Project.
The Notice of Preparation identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in
the Project's EIR as: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Noise,
Transportation/Circulation, and Utilities/Service Systems;
• Circulated the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation to the California Office of
Planning and Research (the "State Clearinghouse"), Responsible Agencies,
Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on February 15, 2017, for a 30 -day
review period;
• Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting at the San Bernardino City Hall on
February 28, 2017, to solicit comments from the public on the environmental
issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR;
• Sent a Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR to the California Office
of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on June 15, 2017;
• Filed a Notice of Availability with the San Bernardino County Clerk on June 14,
2017, informing the public that the Draft EIR was available for a 45 -day review
period beginning on June 16, 2017, and ending on July 31, 2017;
• Mailed the Notice of Availability to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies,
other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously
requested the Notice on June 14, 2017;
• Mailed the Notice of Availability to all property owners within a 500 -foot radius
of the Project site on June 14, 2017;
November 16, 2017
• Provided copies of the Draft EIR to 33 public agencies, organizations, and
individuals on June 14, 2017;
• Placed copies of the Draft EIR on the City's website, at the City Community
Development, Planning Division's public counter and at the public library located
at 555 West 6th St, San Bernardino, CA 92410.
• Published the Notice of Availability in the San Bernardino Sun, which is the
newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on June 16,
2017;
• Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45 -day
comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR;
• Published a notice on November 4, 2017, in the San Bernardino Sun, the
newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the
Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on November 14, 2017, to
recommend to the City Council the certification of the Final EIR as having been
prepared in compliance with CEQA and the approval of the Project;
• Mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to all property owners within
a 500 -foot radius of the Project site on November 2, 2017;
• Sent notice of the Planning Commission's hearing to all organizations and
individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do
with the Project on November 2, 2017; and
• Held a public hearing of the Planning Commission on November 14, 2017.
• Published a notice on November 26, 2017, in the San Bernardino Sun, the
newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the City
Council would hold a hearing on December 6, 2017, to consider certification of
the Final EIR as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA and approve the
Project;
• Mailed notice of the City Council hearing to all property owners within a 500 -
foot radius of the Project site on November 22, 2017;
• Sent notice of the City Council's hearing to all organizations and individuals who
had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on
November 22, 2017;
• Held a public hearing of the City Council on December 6, 2017, and, after full
consideration of all comments, written and oral, certified that the Final EIR had
been completed in compliance with CEQA and approved the Project, subject to a
second reading of Development Code Amendment No. 16-11 (DCA16-11);
November 16, 2017
• Held a public hearing of the City Council on December 20, 2017 to consider the
second reading of Development Code Amendment No. 16-11, and, after full
consideration of all comments, written and oral, certified that the Final EIR had
been completed in compliance with CEQA and approved the Project.
All of the documents and notices identified above and all of the documents and sources of
information that are required to be part of the Project's administrative record pursuant to
Public Resources Code §21167.6(e) are on file with the City's Community Development
Department, Planning Division, located at 201 North E Street, Yd Floor, San Bernardino, CA
92401. Questions should be directed to Travis Martin, Associate Planner with the City's
Community Development Department.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING
Finding: The EIR for the Project reflects the City's and the City Council's independent
judgment and analysis.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an
independent consulting firm hired and funded by the
Project applicant but working under the supervision and
direction of Planning Division staff of the City of San
Bernardino's Community Development Department. The
City Council, as the City's final decision-making body
for the Project, received and reviewed the Final EIR and
the comments, written and oral, provided by public
agencies and members of the public prior to certifying
that the Final EIR complied with CEQA. The
professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR
Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR
Consultant by City staff, the independent review of the
Draft EIR by the City's Development and Environmental
Review Committee (D/ERC), and the thorough and
independent review of the Draft EIR and Final EIR,
including comments and responses, by City staff, the
review and careful consideration by the Planning
Commission of the Final EIR, including comments and
responses, and the review and careful consideration by
the City Council of the Final EIR, including comments
and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is
the product of and reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City of San Bernardino as the Lead
Agency, and of the City Council as the decision-making
body for the Project.
V. FINDING OF NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO RECIRCULATE THE EIR
Finding: The City Council finds that the Final EIR does not add significant new
information to the Draft EIR (DEIR) that would require recirculation of the EIR.
November 16, 2017
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR
incorporates information obtained and produced after the
Draft EIR was completed and that the Final EIR contains
additions, amplifications, clarifications and minor
modifications to the Draft EIR. The City Council has
reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the
information contained in the Final EIR and has
determined that the new information added to the Final
EIR does not involve a new significant environmental
impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact nor a feasible mitigation measure
or an alternative considerably different from others
previously analyzed that the Project applicant declined to
adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant
environmental impacts of the Project. No information
provided to the City Council indicates that the Draft EIR
was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was
deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and
comment on the Draft EIR.
VI. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES
In preparing the Conditions of Approval for this Project, City staff incorporated the
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) as applicable to the Project. In the event that the Conditions of Approval
do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, in each
such instance, the adopted Conditions of Approval are intended to be identical or
substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measure. Any minor revisions were
made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better define the intended purpose.
Finding: Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, it is the City's intent
to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the EIR which are applicable
to the Project. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions
of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected
in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this
paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings,
all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation
measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in
avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the
Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
City staff reports, the EIR, written and oral testimony at public meetings or hearings, these
Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and other information in the
administrative record, serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination.
November 16, 2017
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed Project, which is included as Technical
Appendix A to the Draft EIR. Through the Initial Study process, the City determined that the
proposed Project could potentially cause adverse environmental effects, and that an EIR was
required. The City also determined that the Project had no potential to result in significant
adverse effects to five (5) environmental issue areas, including: Agriculture and Forestry
Resources, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. The
discussion of issues found not to be significant as part of the Initial Study process is
presented in Subsection 5.5 of the Draft EIR. The City concurs with the conclusion of the
Initial Study that the issues discussed under Subsection VILA, below, were found to have no
significant impact.
The detailed analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project and
proposed mitigation measures for the Project are presented in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR.
Responses to comments from the public and other government agencies on the Draft EIR are
provided in Section F.0 of the Final EIR.
The EIR evaluated 12 major environmental issues for potential impacts, including:
Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources (also including Tribal
Cultural Resources), Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Noise, Transportation/Circulation,
and Utilities/Service Systems. Both Project -specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated.
The City concurs with the conclusions of the EIR that the issues and sub -issues discussed in
Subsections VII.B and C, below, were found to have either no significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts or that the environmental impacts could be mitigated to a level of less
than significant. Further, the City concurs with the conclusions of the EIR that the issues and
sub -issues discussed in Subsection VII.D, below, would result in significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts after the implementation of all proposed Project design features,
federal, State, and City regulatory requirements, City -imposed Conditions of Approval, and
feasible mitigation measures.
A. Impacts Found Not to be Significant as Part of the Initial Study Process
1. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect
to Agriculture and Forestry Resources.
Finding: Impacts related to Agriculture and Forestry Resources are discussed in
Subsection 5.5.A of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect to Agriculture and Forestry
Resources, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is not used for agriculture. The Project
site contains lands classified as "Urban and Built -Up
Land" by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) and does not contain any soils mapped
by the California Department of Conservation as "Prime
Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of
Statewide Importance." The Project site is not within an
November 16, 2017
agricultural preserve, nor is it subject to a Williamson
Act contract. Under existing conditions, the Project site
is a public golf course and is zoned "Open Space -
Public/Commercial Recreation (PRC)" and "Industrial —
Industrial Light (IL)." There are no properties zoned for
agricultural use within the vicinity of the Project. The
Project site does not contain forest land, and no forest
land is located adjacent to or within the vicinity of the
Project site. Furthermore, no portion of the proposed
Project site or surrounding area is zoned for forest land or
timberland. (DEIR p. 5-14)
2. Mineral Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect
related to Mineral Resources.
Finding: Impacts related to Mineral Resources are discussed in Subsection 5.53 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect related to Mineral Resources, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is designated for "Open Space-
Public/Commercial Recreation" (PCR)" and "Industrial -
Industrial Light (IL)" land uses by the City's General
Plan. The City's General Plan only allows mineral
resource extraction activities within areas designated for
"Industrial Extractive" land uses. Thus, the General Plan
does not allow mineral extraction activities to occur on
the Project site. Use of the Project site for non -mining
land uses as called for by the General Plan was
previously addressed by the City of San Bernardino's
General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2004111132), which found
that implementation of the General Plan would not result
in a significant effect related to the loss of mineral
resources of value to the region or state. Because mining
of the Project site is already precluded by the City of San
Bernardino General Plan, the Project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
(DEIR p. 5-15)
3. Population and Housing
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect
related to Population/Housing.
Finding: Impacts related to Population/Housing are discussed in Subsection 5.5.0 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a
November 16, 2017
substantial adverse effect related to Population/Housing, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
4. Public Services
The Project site is developed as a golf course that is
served by existing public roadways and utility
infrastructure in the area. The Project site does not
contain any residential structures under existing
conditions. Although the Project proposes a GPA to
change the land use designation for a portion of the
Project site from "Open Space-Public/Commercial
Recreation (PCR) to "Industrial- Industrial Light (IL),"
which may induce the development of nearby properties
that are presently undeveloped or under -developed, the
lands surrounding the Project site with development
potential are already designed for "Industrial - Industrial
Light (IL)" and "Industrial -Office Industrial Park (OIP)"
uses. Workers that would be employed at the proposed
Project would be housed in residential areas in the
surrounding area, and new, unplanned residential growth
is not anticipated. As such, implementation of the
proposed Project would not induce substantial growth in
the area either directly or indirectly beyond what is
already envisioned by the City's General Plan and other
long-range planning documents. Additionally, the
Project would not displace substantial numbers of
existing housing units and would not necessitate the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (DEIR
p. 5-16)
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect
to Public Services.
Finding: Impacts related to Public Services are discussed in Subsection 5.5.1) of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect to Public Services, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would be served by two existing fire stations:
Station No. 231 (located at 450 East Vanderbilt Way, 0.7
miles southeast of the Project site) and Station No. 231
(located at 502 South Arrowhead Avenue, approximately
2.0 miles northwest of the Project site). The proposed
Project would be required to provide a minimum of fire
safety and support fire suppression activities, including
type of building construction, fire sprinklers, a fire
hydrant system and paved access to the proposed Project
area. Additionally, the proposed Project is required to
comply with the provisions of the City's Development
10 November 16, 2017
Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment
prior to the issuance of building permits that the City
applies to the funding of public facilities, including fire
suppression facilities, vehicles and equipment. (DEIR p.
5-16)
The Project would introduce a new warehouse building
and employees to the Project site, which would result in
an incremental increase in demand for police protection
services, but would not require or result in the
construction of new or physically altered police facilities.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project
Applicant would be required to comply with the
provisions of the City's Development Impact Fee
Ordinance, which requires a fee payment that the City
applies to the funding of public facilities, including
police facilities. (DEIR p. 5-17)
The Project would not create a direct demand for public
school services, as the subject property would be
developed with one warehouse building and would not
generate any school -aged children requiring public
education. The addition of employment uses on the
Project site would assist in the achievement of the City's
goal to provide a better jobs/housing balance within the
City and the larger San Bernardino County region. Thus,
the Project is not expected to draw new residents to the
region and would therefore not indirectly generate
additional school -aged students requiring public
education. Regardless, the Project Applicant would be
required to contribute development impact fees to the San
Bernardino Unified School District, in compliance with
California Senate Bill 50 (Greene). Mandatory payment
of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of
building permits. (DEIR p. 5-17)
The proposed Project would not create a demand for
public park facilities and would not result in the need to
modify existing or construct new park facilities. The
proposed Project would not result in a demand for any
other public facilities/services. (DEIR p. 5-17)
5. Recreation
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect
related to Recreation.
11 November 16, 2017
Finding: Impacts related to Recreation are discussed in Subsection 5.5.E of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect related to Recreation, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Development of the proposed Project could result in the
displacement of golfers to other golf courses in the
surrounding area; however, golf courses are regularly
maintained and professionally managed and it is not
reasonably foreseeable that other golf courses in the
surrounding area would physically deteriorate should
they be used by golfers that currently use the San
Bernardino Golf Club, which would be removed by the
Project. The Project does not propose any type of
residential use or other land use that may generate a
population that would increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities in the vicinity. Accordingly, implementation of
the Project would not result in the increased use or
substantial physical deterioration of an existing
neighborhood or regional park. The Project does not
propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreational
facilities and would not expand any existing off-site
recreational facilities. Therefore, adverse environmental
impacts related to the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities would not occur with
implementation of the Project. (DEIR p. 5-18)
B. Impacts Identified in the EIR as No Imnact or Less than Sianificant ImBact - No
Mitigation Reauired
1. Aesthetics
a. Scenic Vista
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista (Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.1 of the
DEIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is fully developed and operating as a
public golf course and does not contribute to any scenic
vistas. Scenic vistas within the City of San Bernardino
are defined by the San Bernardino Mountains to the north
and east, the Blue Mountains and Box Springs Mountains
to the south, the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest,
and the Jurupa Hills to the southwest. The Project site is
located in the low-lying, south-central portion of the City
12 November 16, 2017
and is not in close proximity to these scenic resources.
(DEIR p. 4.1-6) The distant landforms identified as
scenic resources are only faintly visible from the
Project's vicinity under typical conditions due to the
atmospheric haze characteristic of the region (DEIR p.
Figure 4.1-2 and Figure 4.1-3). The proposed high cube
warehouse building — which would reach a potential
maximum height of 55 feet, would not block views from
public viewing areas because these landforms would still
be visible beyond the building and along the horizon.
(DEIR p. 4.1-6)
The Santa Ana River, which is identified in the City of
San Bernardino General Plan as having scenic qualities,
is located south of the Project site. Under existing
conditions, the River's channel elevation sits below the
existing grade of the Project site and is not visible from
public viewing areas along the Project site's frontage
with S. Waterman Avenue or Dumas Street under
existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the
Project would not adversely affect any existing scenic
view of the Santa Ana River from public viewing areas
on a direct or cumulatively considerable basis. (DEER p.
4.1-6)
b. Scenic Resources within State Scenic Highway+
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.1 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would have no impact
to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is not located within or adjacent to a
scenic highway corridor and does not contain scenic
resources, such as trees of scenic value, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings. The nearest State -
eligible scenic highway to the Project site is State Route
("SR") 38, which is located approximately 6.0 miles east
of the Project site. The Project's proposed physical
features would not be visible from SR 38 due to
intervening development and distance. (DEIR p. 4.1-6
and 4.1-7)
13 November 16, 2017
Because the Project site is not visible from any State -
designated or eligible scenic highways and does not
contain scenic resources visible from a scenic highway,
implementation of the Project has no potential to result in
a direct or cumulatively considerable significant impact
within a state scenic highway corridor (DEIR p. 4.1-7).
c. Visual Character of Site and its Surroundings
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially degrade the existing
visual character of the site and its surroundings (Threshold
c).
Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.1 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that construction and operation of the
Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site
and its surroundings, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction activities are a common occurrence in the
developing Inland Empire region of Southern California
and are not considered to substantially degrade the area's
visual quality. Further, all Project -related construction
activities would be temporary in nature and all
construction equipment would be removed from the
Project site following completion of the Project's
construction activities. Buildout of the proposed Project
would change the existing visual character of the Project
site from that of a public golf course with associated
structures and improvements to a redeveloped site
containing one high cube logistics warehouse building.
Although the aesthetic character would change compared
to existing conditions, the Project incorporates a number
of architectural and landscape features to ensure a high-
quality visual character for the site from public viewing
areas. The proposed Project would be visually compatible
with the existing industrial/business park land uses
located in the vicinity of the Project site (DEIR pp. 4.1-7
and 4.1-11).
Considering existing and planned cumulative conditions,
the geographic area within the Project's viewshed would
be primarily characterized by land uses intended for
distribution warehousing, e-commerce, and other light
industrial uses. As with the proposed Project, other
development projects would be subject to development
regulations and design standards contained in the City's
Development Code. Mandatory compliance with these
standards would ensure consistency and quality standards
14 November 16, 2017
regarding building materials and efficient land use to
reduce the potential for cumulatively considerable
adverse effects to visual character to a level of less than
significant (DEIR p. 4.1-11).
d. Lip -ht and Glare
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create any new sources of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area (Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.1 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area, and not mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project and its future implementing permits and
approvals (i.e., building permits) would be required to
comply with Section 19.20.030 of the City's
Development Code to ensure that proposed outdoor
lighting fixtures do not produce substantial amounts of
light and/or glare (DEIR p. 4.1-10). Portions of the
proposed warehouse building (at the northeast and
southeast corners of the building at the locations of the
proposed office spaces) would incorporate reflective
building materials, including blue -reflective glass;
however, these materials would not create substantial
adverse glare effects because such building materials
would not be mirrored and would be screened from
public view by landscaping and/or screening walls.
Direct light and glare impacts would be less than
significant. (DEIR pp. 4.1-10, 11)
With respect to potential cumulative light and glare
impacts, City of San Bernardino Development Code
Section 19.20.030 sets standards for development to
ensure minimal impact upon surrounding development
relating to light pollution and glare. All development
within the City of San Bernardino is required to comply
with these standards; therefore, the Project's contribution
to cumulative lighting impacts is determined to be less
than significant and less than cumulatively considerable
(DEIR p. 4.1-12).
2. Air Quality
a. Air Quality Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations (Threshold d).
15 November 16, 2017
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project's construction -related emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate
matter (PMIo and PM2.5) would not exceed SCAQMD's
localized significance thresholds and therefore would
cause less than significant impacts to sensitive receptors
on both a direct and cumulative basis (DEIR p. 4.2-23).
Long-term operation of the Project would not exceed the
significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD for
localized emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon
monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
or diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions (DEIR pp.
4.2-23 through 4.2-26), and is not calculated to
cumulatively contribute to the exceedance of any
SCAQMD significance threshold for localized emissions
of criteria pollutants and/or DPM emissions (DEIR p.
4.2-26). At the maximally exposed individual receptor
(MSIR), the maximum cancer risk attributable to the
Project's DPM emissions is calculated to be 1.45 in one
million. A cancer risk of 1.45 in one million attributable
to the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer
risk threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location,
the non -cancer health risk index attributable to the
proposed Project would be 0.0009, which would not
exceed the SCAQMD non -cancer health risk index of
1.0. At the maximally exposed individual worker
(MEIW), the maximum cancer risk attributable to the
proposed Project's DPM emissions is calculated to be
0.93 in one million, which would not exceed the
SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. At
this same location, the non -cancer health risk index
attributable to the proposed Project would be 0.003,
which would not exceed the SCAQMD non -cancer health
risk index of 1.0 (DEIR p. 4.2-25).
For the Option 1 Future Access Alternative, at the
maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the
maximum cancer risk attributable to the Project's DPM
emissions is calculated to be 4.07 in one million which
would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of
10 in one million. At this same location, the non -cancer
health risk index attributable to the proposed Project
would be 0.0003, which would not exceed the SCAQMD
non -cancer health risk index of 1.0. At the maximally
16 November 16, 2017
exposed individual worker (MEIW), the maximum
cancer risk attributable to the proposed Project's DPM
emissions is calculated to be 0.84 in one million, which
would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of
10 in one million. At this same location, the non -cancer
health risk index attributable to the proposed Project
would be 0.003, which would not exceed the SCAQMD
non -cancer health risk index of 1.0. (DEIR p. 4.2-26).
For the Option 2 Future Access Alternative, at the
maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the
maximum cancer risk attributable to the Project's DPM
emissions is calculated to be 4.63 in one million. A
cancer risk of 4.63 in one million attributable to the
Project would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk
threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, the
non -cancer health risk index attributable to the proposed
Project would be 0.0003, which would not exceed the
SCAQMD non -cancer health risk index of 1.0. At the
maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the
maximum cancer risk attributable to the proposed
Project's DPM emissions is calculated to be 0.91 in one
million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer
risk threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location,
the non -cancer health risk index attributable to the
proposed Project would be 0.003, which would not
exceed the SCAQMD non -cancer health risk index of
1.0. (DEIR p. 4.2-23).
There are no schools located within a 1,320 -foot radius of
the Project site or its primary truck route; therefore, the
DPM analysis does not quantify potential cancer and
non -cancer risks to school child receptors as Project -
related DPM effects to school children would be
negligible at this distance. (DEIR p. 4.2-18).
Additionally, long-term operation of the Project would
not directly cause or cumulatively contribute to the
creation of a "CO Hot Spot" (DEIR p. 4.2-24 and 4.2-
25).
b. Obiectionable Odors
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people (Threshold e).
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project's potential to
17 November 16, 2017
create objectionable odors that may affect a substantial number of people would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Although the Project could produce odors during the
construction phase, standard construction industry best
practices would minimize odor emissions (DEIR p. 4.2-
27). Also, the Project would be required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402 during construction, which prohibits
the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a
public nuisance. Furthermore, any odors emitted during
construction would be temporary, short-term, and
intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the
completion of the respective phase of construction.
During long-term operation, the proposed Project would
include warehouse distribution land uses, which are not
typically associated with objectionable odors.
Additionally, the Project would be required to comply
with SCAQMD Rule 402 and the City's solid waste
regulations, which preclude the release of objectionable
odors.
The Project's potential to contribute to a cumulative
impact associated with objectionable odors is less than
significant because the Project would not create
objectionable odors and there are no sources of
objectionable odors in the areas immediately surrounding
the Project site (DEIR p. 4.2-27 and 4.2-28).
3. Biological Resources
a. Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantially adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Wildlife Service (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.3
of the DEIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not
impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"),
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: No riparian habitats or special -status plant communities
occur within the boundaries of the Project site or would
be affected by the Project. In addition, the Project site is
not located within federally designated Critical Habitat.
18 November 16, 2017
Therefore, the Project would not impact any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
CDFW or USFWS and no mitigation is required. (DEIR
p. 4.3-16)
b. Federally Protected Wetlands
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means (Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.3
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not
impact any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The four artificial ponds on the Project site have no
upstream or downstream surface hydrologic connection
to the Santa Ana River or East Twin Creek, and thus do
not qualify as jurisdictional "waters of the United States"
or "waters of the State." Additionally, the artificial
ponds do not contain/meet all three wetland parameters
(i.e., hydric soils, hygrophytic vegetation, and hydrology)
and therefore do not qualify as isolated wetland features.
(DEIR p. 4.3-16).
East Twin Creek and the Santa Ana River, which are
located off-site directly west and south of the Project site,
possess a surface hydrologic connection to downstream
"waters of the United States" and fall under the
regulatory authority of the Corps, Regional Board, and
CDFW. However, Project -related construction activities
would occur completely within the Project's boundary
and would not result in the discharge of dredged or fill
material to the Santa Ana River or East Twin Creek.
Further, the Project would not result in the removal of
riparian vegetation located off-site to the south of the
Project site along the Santa Ana River. Therefore,
impacts to Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW
jurisdiction would not occur and no mitigation is required
(DEIR p. 4.3-16 and 4.3-17).
19 November 16, 2017
c. Wildlife Movement. Wildlife Corridor, Wildlife Nursery Sites
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would interfere substantially with the
movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
(Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.3
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project does not
have the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is not identified as a wildlife corridor or
linkage or a native wildlife nursery site. The San
Bernardino General Plan identifies the Santa Ana River,
located to the south of the Project site, as a wildlife
corridor. Because Project -related construction and
operational activities would be limited to the existing San
Bernardino Public Golf Club and previously disturbed
areas and these areas are not identified as part of an
existing or planned wildlife corridor or linkage, the
Project would not significantly impact wildlife movement
opportunities or prevent the off-site Santa Ana River
from continuing to function as a wildlife corridor.
Therefore, the Project would have a less -than -significant
impact to wildlife corridors and linkages. (DEIR p. 4.3-
17)
d. Local Policies and/or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance (Threshold e).
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.3
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and
no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of San Bernardino Municipal Code 15.34.020,
Permit Required, states that is unlawful for any person,
firm, corporation, partnership, or association, either as
owner, agent or otherwise, to cut down, uproot, destroy,
and/or remove more than five (5) trees within any 36 -
month period from a development site or parcel of
property without first being issued a permit from the
Development Services Department of the City of San
20 November 16, 2017
Bernardino. The Project would not conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
(DEIR p. 4.3-17). As a condition of Project approval,
the Project Applicant would be required by law to
comply with Municipal Code 15.34.020. This mandatory
regulatory requirement is repeated as Mitigation Measure
MM 4.3-3. This Mitigation Measure is listed below, is
adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein.
MM 4.3-3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an arborist survey and report
including a tree replacement program shall be prepared for review and
approval by the City of Sana Bernardino Community Development Director.
Subject to the approval of the report, the City shall issue a tree removal
permit. No trees shall be removed from the Project site until the permit is
issued.
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan (Threshold f).
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.3
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City fords that the Project would not
conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is not located within the boundaries of
any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Accordingly,
there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a
significant cumulative impact due to a conflict with an
applicable conservation plan. (DEIR p. 4.3-17)
4. Cultural Resources
a. Historic Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in CEQA Section 15064.5 (Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project will not cause
or contribute to a substantial change in the significance of a historic resource, and
no mitigation is required.
21 November 16, 2017
Facts in Support of the Finding: The cultural resource assessment of the Project area
resulted in the identification of four historical built -
environment resources, that included the San Bernardino
Public Golf Club located on the Project site, and two
single-family residences located at 141 East Dumas
Street and 145 East Dumas Street, and a 700 -foot long
segment of South Washington Avenue, all located within
the Project's off-site improvement area. The San
Bernardino Golf Club was found to not meet any criteria
for listing on the California Register of Historic Places
and as such, is not considered a "historical resource" for
the purposes of CEQA. In addition, because the two off-
site residential buildings located at 141 East Dumas
Street and 145 East Dumas Street, and the off-site 700 -
foot long segment of South Washington Avenue do not
meet any of the criteria for listing on the California
Register of Historic Places, these resources are not
considered "historical resources." Therefore, the Project
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined by CEQA
Section 15064.5. Impacts would be less than significant
and no mitigation is required. (DEIR p. 4.4-18 and 4.4-
19).
b. Disturbance of Human Remains Outside Formal Cemeteries
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside formal cemeteries
(Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project's potential to
disturb human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries, would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no
known formal cemeteries are located within the
immediate site vicinity (DEIR p. 4.4-20). In the unlikely
event that human remains are unearthed during Project
construction, the construction contractor would be
required to comply with California Health and Safety
Code, §7050.5 and California Public Resources Code
§5097 et. seq. to ensure that any discovered remains are
treated or disposed with appropriate dignity and in
accordance with State law. This mandatory regulatory
requirement is repeated as Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-
6.
22 November 16, 2017
All ground -disturbing construction activities within the
City and elsewhere in the region are required to comply
with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq.,
to ensure human remains would receive proper treatment
if encountered. Mandatory compliance with State law
would preclude significant cumulative impacts to human
remains.
MM 4.4-6 Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human
remains are encountered, no further disturbance shall occur until the San
Bernardino County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin.
Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (b),
human remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final
decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. In the event that
the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted by the Coroner within the
period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the NAHC shall identify the
"Most Likely Descendent. " The "Most Likely Descendent" shall then make
recommendations and engage in consultation with the property owner
concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98. Human remains from other ethnic%ultural groups
with recognized historical associations to the Project area shall also be
subject to consultation between the appropriate representatives from that
group and the City Archaeologist.
5. Geology and Soils
a. Risk Exposure
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project has the potential to expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) 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,
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking,
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, or
iv) Landslides (Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.5 of
the DEIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would have
no impact or less -than -significant impacts due to the exposure of people or
structures to earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, or landslides.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Because no known earthquake faults underlie the Project
site, there is no potential for the Project to expose people
or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the
23 November 16, 2017
risk of loss, injury, or death related to hazards from
rupture of a known earthquake fault. (DEIR p. 4.5-8)
The Project site is subject to seismic ground shaking and
liquefaction hazards. The Project's high cube logistics
warehouse building is required to be constructed in
accordance with the latest applicable seismic safety
guidelines, and the most recent California Building
Standards Code (CBCS). The City of San Bernardino
also would impose the site-specific grading and
construction recommendations contained within the
Project's geotechnical feasibility study and infiltration
study as conditions of Project approval (Draft EIR
Technical Appendices El and E2). Therefore, with
compliance with the latest applicable seismic safety
guidelines, the most recent CBSC, and the grading and
construction recommendations as set forth in the
Project's geotechnical studies (Draft EIR Technical
Appendices El and E2), potential impacts associated with
seismic hazards (including ground failure, liquefaction,
and landslides) would be less than significant. (DEIR p.
4.5-8 and 4.5-9)
The Project has no potential to cause a seismic event or
affect the magnitude of a seismic event. As such, the
Project has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively
significant seismic impact. (DEIR p. 4.5-12)
b. Erosion
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in substantial erosion or
the loss of topsoil (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.5 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not
result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project Applicant is required to obtain a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
for construction activities as well as adhere to SCAQMD
Rule 403 during Project construction. With mandatory
compliance to these regulatory requirements, the
potential for soil erosion impacts during construction
would be less than significant. Following construction,
soil erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as
the areas disturbed during construction would be
landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces and
drainage would be controlled through a storm drain
24 November 16, 2017
system. Furthermore, the Project would be required to
comply with the site-specific Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) during operation, which would preclude
substantial erosion impacts in the long-term. Impacts
would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 4.5-10 and 4.5-
11)
c. Soil Stabili
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project is 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
(Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.5 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that impacts associated with
on- or off-site landslide, subsidence, and collapse would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site's soils are subject to subsidence and
liquefaction; however, the Project's high cube logistics
warehouse building is required to be constructed in
accordance with the latest applicable seismic safety
guidelines, including the most recent California Building
Standard Code (CBSC) which addresses these conditions.
The City of San Bernardino also would impose the site-
specific grading and construction recommendations
contained within the Project's geotechnical feasibility
study and infiltration study (Draft EIR Technical
Appendices EI and E2) as conditions of Project approval.
With mandatory compliance with the SBSC and
compliance with the grading and construction
recommendations as set forth in the Project's
geotechnical studies (Draft EIR Technical Appendices El
and E2), potential impacts associated with unstable soils
would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 4.5-11 and 4.5-
12)
d. Expansive Soils
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project is to be located on expansive soil,
creating substantial risks to life or property (Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.5 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that impacts associated with
expansive soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site's near surface soils generally consist of
fine sands and silty sands. Based on their composition,
25 November 16, 2017
the Project's geotechnical consultant classified the soils
as very low to non -expansive. The City of San
Bernardino has imposed the site-specific grading and
construction recommendations contained within the
geotechnical feasibility study and infiltration study (Draft
EIR Technical Appendices EI and E2) as conditions of
Project approval. With compliance with the grading and
construction recommendations as set forth in the
Project's geotechnical studies (Draft EIR Technical
Appendices E1 and E2), the Project would not create
substantial risks to life or property from exposure to
expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant.
(DEIR p. 4.5-12)
e. Wastewater Disposal Systems
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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 (Threshold e).
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.5 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would have no
impact related to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project
would install domestic sewer infrastructure and connect
to the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department (SBMWD) existing sewer conveyance and
treatment system. Accordingly, no impact would occur.
(DEIR p. 4.5-12)
6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy. or Adopted
Regulation
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are discussed in detail at
Subsection 4.6 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of San Bernardino does not have a Climate
Action Plan, and there are no other local/regional plans,
26 November 16, 2017
policies, or regulations that address greenhouse gas
emission reductions in the City of San Bernardino. The
Project would be consistent with the California Air
Resources Board (CARIB) Scoping Plan and would not
conflict with the greenhouse gas emission reduction
mandates of State Assembly Bill (AB) 32 or Senate Bill
(SB) 32. In addition, the Project would be consistent
with other applicable State regulations, policies, plans,
and policy goals that would further reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in California. (DEIR p. 4.6-17).
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Routine Transport, Use Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials (Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would result in a less -than -significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
during construction activities or long-term operation.
Facts in Support of the Finding: To implement the proposed Project, existing on-site
improvements would be demolished and removed. With
mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous
materials regulations that require the proper removal and
disposal of substances and materials, implementation of
the Project would not expose construction workers, the
public, or the environment to significant hazardous
materials associated with the existing conditions of the
Project site (DEIR p. 4.7-14). Heavy equipment would
be operated on the Project site during construction of the
Project which may be fueled and maintained by
petroleum-based substances which are considered
hazardous if improperly stored or handled (DEIR p. 4.7-
15). In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives,
solvents, and other substances typically used in building
construction would be temporarily located on the Project
site during construction activities. Construction
contractors would be required to comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations
regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous
construction -related materials, including but not limited
requirements imposed by the USEPA, DTSC, SCAQMD,
San Bernardino Fire Department, and the Santa Ana
RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with applicable
27 November 16, 2017
hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not
create a significant hazard to construction workers, the
public, or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the
Project's construction phase. (DEIR p. 4.7-15).
Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 is included
as a best practice measure to ensure compliance with
mandatory regulatory requirements for soil handling.
This Mitigation Measure is listed below, is adopted and
incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein.
The specific businesses or tenants that would occupy the
Project's proposed building are not known at this time,
therefore, it is possible that hazardous materials could be
used during the course of daily operations at the high
cube logistics warehouse. Future users would be
required to comply with all federal, state, county, and
local hazardous materials regulations. Per the
requirements of the California Health and Safety Code
(HSC), Chapter 6.95, Sections 25500 - 25532, a
Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
(HMBEP) must be prepared by any business that handles
specified amounts of hazardous materials or a mixture
containing a hazardous material. Businesses that are
involved in the transport, use, and/or disposal of
hazardous waste are required to submit a business plan to
the Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) of the San
Bernardino County Fire Department. With mandatory
regulatory compliance, the Project is not expected to pose
a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or
disposal of hazardous materials. (DEIR pp. 4.7-15,16).
MM 4.7-1. Prior to ground -disturbing construction activities, a Soil Management Plan
shall be prepared and submitted to the City of San Bernardino that includes
procedures to guide soil management during excavation, confirmation
sampling, and backfilling operations at the Project site. The Soil
Management Plan shall provide requirements for the proper treatment of
soils, in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, that may
contain soil contaminants including but not limited to residual pesticides,
should they be encountered. All contractors involved in ground -disturbing
construction activities shall be obligated by their contracts to adhere to the
Soil Management Plan.
28 November 16, 2017
b. Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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 (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would result in a less -than -significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during
construction activities or long-term operation.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As stated above, to implement the proposed Project,
existing on-site improvements would be demolished and
removed. With mandatory compliance with applicable
hazardous materials regulations that require the proper
removal and disposal of substances and materials,
implementation of the Project would not result in an
upset or accident involving the release of hazardous
material into the environment during demolition of
existing improvements on the Project site (DEIR p. 4.7-
14). Heavy equipment would be operated on the Project
site during construction of the Project which may be
fueled and maintained by petroleum-based substances
which are considered hazardous if improperly stored or
handled (DEIR p. 4.7-15). In addition, materials such as
paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically
used in building construction would be temporarily
located on the Project site during construction activities.
Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous
materials can result in accidental releases or spills,
potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and
the environment. Construction contractors would be
required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use,
and storage of hazardous construction -related materials,
including but not limited requirements imposed by the
USEPA, DTSC, SCAQMD, San Bernardino Fire
Department, and the Santa Ana RWQCB. With
mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous
materials regulations, the Project would not result in an
upset or accident involving the release of hazardous
material into the environment during the Project's
construction phase. (DEIR p. 4.7-15).
The specific businesses or tenants that would occupy the
Project's proposed building are not known at this time,
29 November 16, 2017
therefore, it is possible that hazardous materials could be
used during the course of daily operations at the high
cube logistics warehouse. Future users would be
required to comply with all federal, state, county, and
local hazardous materials regulations. Per the
requirements of the California Health and Safety Code
(HSC), Chapter 6.95, Sections 25500 - 25532, a
Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
(HMBEP) must be prepared by any business that handles
specified amounts of hazardous materials or a mixture
containing a hazardous material. Businesses that are
involved in the transport, use, and/or disposal of
hazardous waste are required to submit a business plan to
the Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) of the San
Bernardino County Fire Department. With mandatory
compliance with applicable hazardous materials
regulations, the Project would not result in an upset or
accident involving the release of hazardous material into
the environment during the Project's operational phase
(DEIR pp. 4.7-15,16).
c. Proximitv to a School
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school (Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not generate hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The nearest school to the Project site is the University of
Phoenix - San Bernardino Learning Center which is
located approximately 0.25 mile southeast of the Project
site (DEIR p. 4.7-16). With mandatory compliance with
applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project
would not create a significant hazard associated with the
emission of hazardous emissions or the handling of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school.
Construction contractors would be required to comply
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of
hazardous construction -related materials, including but
30 November 16, 2017
not limited requirements imposed by the USEPA, DTSC,
SCAQMD, San Bernardino Fire Department, and the
Santa Ana RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with
applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project
would not result in an upset or accident involving the
release of hazardous material into the environment during
the Project's construction phase. (DEIR p. 4.7-15).
The specific businesses or tenants that would occupy the
Project's proposed building are not known at this time;
therefore, it is possible that hazardous materials could be
used during the course of daily operations at the high
cube logistics warehouse. Future users would be
required to comply with all federal, state, county, and
local hazardous materials regulations. Per the
requirements of the California Health and Safety Code
(HSC), Chapter 6.95, Sections 25500 - 25532, a
Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
(I-IMBEP) must be prepared by any business that handles
specified amounts of hazardous materials or a mixture
containing a hazardous material. Businesses that are
involved in the transport, use, and/or disposal of
hazardous waste are required to submit a business plan to
the Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) of the San
Bernardino County Fire Department. With mandatory
compliance with applicable hazardous materials
regulations, the Project would not result in an upset or
accident involving the release of hazardous material into
the environment during the Project's operational phase
(DEIR pp. 4.7-15, 16).
d. Hazardous Materials Site
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project site would be located upon land which
is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment (Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the California Environmental Protection
Agency, the Project site is not located on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to California
Government Code §65962.5 (DEIR p. 4.7-16).
31 November 16, 2017
Therefore, the Project would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment related to
hazardous materials sites.
e. Public Airport/Aiiport Land Use Plan
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project is 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, and would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area (Threshold e).
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project's potential to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the Project area due to an incompatibility with a public airport would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is located within 2.0 miles of the San
Bernardino International Airport (SBIA) (formerly
Norton Air Force Base) (DEIR p. 4.7-16). No airport
land use compatibility plan has been prepared for the San
Bernardino International Airport. Because the Project site
is located approximately 2.0 miles southwest of the SBIA
and is not in the direct flight path of airport operations,
the Project would have no potential to affect SBIA flight
operations and would not create a safety hazard for future
workers on-site or residents in the area. Additionally, the
City's General Plan has designated industrial land uses in
the vicinity of the airport which would prohibit any new
residential uses that could be affected by the airport. The
proposed Project does not include residential uses;
therefore, the proposed Project would not create any
safety hazards associated with an airport land use plan, a
public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip,
impacts would be less than significant. (DE1R p. 4.7-17).
f. Private Airstrip./Heliport
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project is located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or heliport, and whether the Project would
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the Project area (Threshold f)
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City fords that the
Project's potential to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the Project area due to an incompatibility with a private airstrip or heliport would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
32 November 16, 2017
Facts in Support of the Finding:
The Project site is located approximately 0.33 miles
northwest of the R.I. San Bernardino G/L Helistop-
Heliport (DEIR p. 4.7-16). The Project has no potential
to interfere with operation of a private airstrip or heliport
and would not create an air operations safety hazard for
future workers on-site. Furthermore, the Project does not
include an air travel component (e.g., runway, helipad,
etc.) that could interfere with air traffic patterns at the
helipad. Accordingly, the Project would have no
potential to affect operations at any nearby private
airstrip or heliport and would not create a safety hazard
for future workers on-site (DEIR p. 4.7-17).
g. Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan (Threshold g).
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities
nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route
(DEIR p. 4.7-17). During construction and long-term
operation, the proposed Project would be required to
maintain adequate emergency access for emergency
vehicles as required by the City of San Bernardino. As
part of the City's discretionary review process, the City
will review the Project's application materials to ensure
that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be
available to -and -from the Project site and the Project's
proposed building. Because the proposed Project would
not interfere with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan, impacts would be less than significant.
(DEIR p. 4.7-17).
The Project, as well as every other development project
in the vicinity of the Project site, would be required to
maintain adequate emergency access for emergency
vehicles as required by the City of San Bernardino
(DEIR p. 4.7-17). Thus, there is no potential for the
Project to contribute to any cumulative impacts
associated with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
33 November 16, 2017
h. Wildland Fire Risk
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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
(Threshold h).
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is not located within a high wildfire
hazard area. The Santa Ana River wash is located south
of the Project site and Twin Creek is located west of the
Project site. Vegetation in the wash and along Twin
Creek is flammable. However, the proposed high cube
logistics warehouse building is required to be set back
from this area at an adequate distance to ensure fire
safety. In addition, the proposed Project would not
introduce wildfire hazards such as non -irrigated
landscaping. As such, the Project would not 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. Thus, no impact would occur
(DEIR p. 4.7-17).
The Project would not be developed in a Fire Hazards
Zone and would not introduce wildfire hazards (DEIR p.
4.7-18). Additionally, as the surrounding area continues
to develop, lands that are currently vacant would be
developed in a manner consistent with jurisdictional
requirements for fire protection, and would generally
decrease the fire hazard potential in the local area. As
such, within the cumulative context of the Project
vicinity, fire hazards are anticipated to decline over time,
and the Project's contribution to cumulative wildfire
potential would be less than cumulatively considerable.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
a. Water {duality Standards/Waste Dischan.; a Requirements
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project will violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements (Threshold a).
34 November 16, 2017
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not cause or contribute to the violation of any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Impacts to water quality have the potential to occur
during construction and operation of the Project in the
absence of any protective or avoidance measures (DEIR
p. 4.8-9). However, pursuant to the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City of
San Bernardino, the Project would be required to comply
with the requirements of the City of San Bernardino and
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Areawide Stormwater Program (DEER p. 4.8-
10). The Project would be required to be consistent with
the Project's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
(Draft EIR Technical Appendix H2), the San Bernardino
County's Municipal Storm Water Management Program
and the intent of the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino
County and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino
County within the Santa Ana Region. Mandatory
compliance with the Project's WQMP (Draft EIR
Technical Appendix H2) and its best management
practices (BMPs), the San Bernardino County's
Municipal Storm Water Management Program and the
NPDES Permit, would ensure that the Project would not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements during construction of the Project or long-
term operation of the Project. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant and no mitigation beyond
mandatory compliance with these requirements is
necessary.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB,
all construction projects within the Santa Ana River
Basin that disturb one or more acres of land are required
to obtain a NPDES Permit and obtain coverage for
construction activities (DEER p. 4.8-10). In addition, the
Project, as well as other development in the Project's
cumulative development area, would be required to
comply with the requirements of the San Bernardino
County Municipal Storm Water Management Program.
The Project, as well as all other cumulative development
in the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8) of the RWQCB,
would also be required to comply with the Santa Ana
RWQCB's Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control
Plan. With compliance to these mandatory regulatory
requirements, the proposed Project's contribution to
35 November 16, 2017
water quality impairments would not be cumulatively
considerable.
b. Groundwater Suppd
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted) (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is underlaid by the Bunker Hill
Groundwater Basin. The Project as proposed would be
mostly impervious and stormwater would be captured by
the on-site storm drain system and directed to an onsite
detention basin and the Santa Ana River, where
percolation into the same groundwater table would occur.
Thus, groundwater supplies would not be adversely
affected and the groundwater table would not be lowered.
The Project also proposes a new well (Warren 4R) that
would replace the existing well (Warren 4), which is
proposed to be abandoned. This replacement would have
a net neutral effect on the groundwater basin.
Additionally, the Project would realign an approximately
1,250 -foot portion of the Rice -Thorne pipeline. This
realignment would have no effect on the groundwater
table itself. (DEIR p. 4.8-10) The active and inactive
wells on-site, as well as the on-site monitoring well,
would be abandoned; however, the abandonment of these
wells would have no measurable effect on the
groundwater table (DEIR p. 4.8-10 and 4.8-11).
Accordingly, the proposed Project would have a less -
than -significant impact and less -than -significant
cumulative impact on recharge to the Bunker Hill Basin
and to the Riverside Public Utilities/Water Department's
(RPU) ability to extract their existing water rights (DEIR
p. 4.8-11).
36 November 16, 2017
c. Alteration of Existing Drains re Patterns: Erosion
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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 c).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not 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 contribute to substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site,
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project proposes to install a storm drain system to
direct site runoff to a water quality/detention basin before
discharge to the Santa Ana River that would reduce peak
flow compared to existing conditions (DEIR p. 4.8-11
and 4.8-12). In addition, the Project would be required
to comply with best management practices (BMPs)
specified in the Project's Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) (Draft EIR Technical Appendix H2). As
such, the Project would not result in substantial erosion
or siltation on -or off-site.
Because the Project would generally maintain the
existing drainage patterns of the local area. In addition,
the Project's design and compliance with its WQMP and
associated BMPs (Draft EIR Technical Appendix H2),
would ensure that the Project's potential to cause on or
off-site erosion and siltation would not be cumulatively
considerable. (DEIR p. 4.8-16)
d. Alteration of Existing Drainage Pattern: Flooding
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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 of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on or off site (Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area or substantially increase the rate of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The drainage pattern of the site and surrounding area
would not be substantially altered by the proposed
37 November 16, 2017
Project (DEIR p. 4.8-12). Because the Project would
maintain the Project site's drainage pattern to the Santa
Ana River and decrease the rate of surface runoff, the
Project has no potential to substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result
in flooding on- or off-site (DEIR p. 4.8-13). Impacts
would be less than significant.
Because the Project would maintain the Project site's
drainage pattern to the Santa Ana River and decrease the
rate of surface runoff, there is no potential for the Project
to contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts
associated with flooding. (DEIR p. 4.8-16)
e. Storm Water Drainage System Capacity
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create or contribute runoff which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff (Threshold e).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that
development of the Project would not create or contribute runoff which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project's proposed storm drain system is designed to
direct on-site runoff to an on-site detention/water quality
basin, from which water would be discharged into the
Santa Ana River at a peak flow rate that is approximately
25% less than the peak flow rate under existing
conditions. (DEIR p. 4.8-13). Water that runs onto the
Project site under existing conditions from off-site is
proposed to be routed around the Project site and would
not comingle with Project site runoff. In addition, the
Project would be required to comply with best
management practices (BMPs) specified in the Project's
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Draft EIR
Technical Appendix H2). Accordingly, the Project would
not contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of the existing and planned stormwater systems
or provide substantial additional sources of runoff.
Accordingly, direct and potentially cumulative impacts
are less than significant (DEIR p. 4.8-13 and 4.8-16).
38 November 16, 2017
f. Water Quality
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would otherwise substantially degrade
water quality (Threshold f).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that
development of the Project would not substantially degrade water quality, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: There are no conditions associated with the proposed
Project that could result in the substantial degradation of
water quality on a direct or cumulative basis beyond what
is described in the responses to Thresholds (a) and (c)
under EIR Subsection 4.8 (DEIR p. 4.8-13).
g. Housing in 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would place housing within a 100 -year
floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map (Threshold g).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that
development of the Project would not place housing within a 100 -year floodplain,
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would not construct housing; therefore, there
is no potential for the Project to place housing within a
100 -year floodplain or other flood hazard area (DEIR p.
4.8-14).
h. 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would place within a 100 -year flood
hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows (Threshold h).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would place a structure within a 100 -year flood hazard area which could
impede or redirect flood flows, but that the Project's potential impact can be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
Facts in Support of the Finding: A portion of the Project site along the southern boundary
of the Project site and adjacent to the Santa Ana River,
lies with Zone AE within the 100 -year floodplain, as
mapped by FEMA (DEIR p. 4.8-14). The Project's
39 November 16, 2017
proposed grading plan has been designed such that the
building pad of the proposed warehouse building would
be raised above the base flood elevation of the 100 -year
floodplain. As a result of the proposed Project, some
flood flows would be redirected around the proposed
structure and would be concentrated within other portions
of the Project site, particularly within proposed parking.
The Project would not place structures within a 100 -year
flood hazard structures which would impede or redirect
flows, impacts would be less than significant (DEIlt p.
4.8-14).
Because the proposed Project would not increase
flooding potential either on- or off-site, impacts
associated with flooding would not be cumulatively
considerable (DEIR p. 4.8-16).
i. Flood Hazards
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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
(Threshold i).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that
development of the Project would not 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, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Although the Project site has the potential to be exposed
to flooding as a result of the failure of the Seven Oaks
Dam, this hazard risk would be no different than the risk
posed to nearby properties (DEIR p. 4.8-14). The City's
General Plan EIR concluded that industrial land uses, like
the use proposed by the Project, is compatible within the
Seven Oaks Dam Inundation Area because industrial land
uses would not introduce a substantial number of people
within the Inundation Area. Additionally, the City's
General Plan EIR concluded the likelihood of failure of
the Seven Oaks Dam is highly unlikely because the Dam
is designed to withstand a catastrophic seismic event
measuring up to 8.0 on the Richter Scale (Id.). The
proposed Project would not expose people or structures
to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam,
impacts would be less than significant (DEIR p. 4.8-15).
The Project's impacts to subject people or property to
40 November 16, 2017
other hydrology hazards would not be cumulatively
considerable (DEIR p. 4.8-16).
j. Other Flood Hazards
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (Threshold j).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.8 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that
development of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow,
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: There is no potential for a tsunami to affect the Project
site because the subject property is located more than 50
miles east of the Pacific Ocean (DEIR p. 4.8-15). The
nearest large bodies of surface water susceptible to seiche
is Lake Arrowhead, located approximately 13 miles
northeast of the Project site, respectively. The Project
site is not subject to seiche because there are no semi -
enclosed water basins that would be conducive to
reverberation and creation of a seiche in proximity to the
site. There are no substantial hillsides on the Project site,
and any mudflow that may enter the Santa Ana River,
located adjacent to the Project site, would likely originate
in the San Bernardino Mountains and thereby be
dissipated by the time it reaches the location of the Santa
Ana River as it is located adjacent to the Project site
Thus, because the Project would not expose people or
property to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow,
no impact would occur.
Because the proposed Project site is not subject to
hazards associated with seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows
and because there are no components of the proposed
Project that would increase the potential for seiches,
tsunamis, or mudflows, there is no potential for the
Project to make a cumulatively considerable contribution
to these types of impacts (DEIR p. 4.8-16).
9. Land Use and Planning
a. Disrupt Community
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would physically divide an established
community (Threshold a).
41 November 16, 2017
Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail in Subsection
4.9 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would
not physically divide an established community, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Under existing conditions, there is no established
community that is not already physically divided from
the Project site via an existing roadway (DEIR p. 4.9-7).
Based on the existing and planned developments
surrounding and in the immediate vicinity of the Project
site, the Project would effectively serve as an extension
of the existing and planned development patterns
surrounding and in the immediate vicinity of the Project
site and therefore would not physically divide an
established community (DEER p. 4.9-8). Therefore,
direct and potentially cumulative impacts relating to the
division of a community would be less than significant.
b. Compatibility with Conservation Plan
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan (Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail in Subsection
4.9 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would
not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
10. Noise
a. Code Comi,liance
The County of San Bernardino has not adopted any
habitat conservation plans in or near the City of San
Bernardino (I)EIR p. 4.9-8). The City's Development
Code addresses the development standards and uses for
specific areas within the City (Id.). As such, the proposed
Project has no potential to conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan, because no such applicable plans
exist. Accordingly, no impact would occur.
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose persons to or generate
noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies (Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.10 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not expose
42 November 16, 2017
persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the City's
Noise Ordinance during Project construction and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City's General Plan does not set noise level
standards for construction noise; however, the Project
would be required to comply with the City of San
Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 8.54.070 (DEIR pp.
4.10-16, 17). Considering compliance with the City's
Municipal Code and that noise levels at sensitive receiver
locations would be below 85 dBA Leq, impacts would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required for
construction noise. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure
MM 4.7-1(a) is included as a best practice measure to
ensure compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. This
Mitigation Measure is listed below, is adopted and
incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein.
Project construction noise levels combined with ambient
noise and construction noise from cumulative
development that may be operating simultaneous to the
proposed Project's activities would add to the cumulative
noise environment (DEIR p. 4.10-23). However, there
are no cumulative development construction projects
known to have the potential to occur immediately south,
west, or east of the Project site. Also, all cumulative
development in this area would be required to comply
with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section
8.54.070. For these reasons, the Project's construction
noise level impacts would result in a less than
cumulatively considerable impact related to compliance
with noise standards.
MM 4.10-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans
shall include the following notes. The Project construction supervisor shall
ensure compliance with the notes and the City shall conduct periodic
inspection at its discretion.
a) All construction activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
must be approved by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section
8.54.020(L) and 8.54.060 (1) and any application pursuant to these
sections shall be accompanied with documentation to confirm noise will
not exceed a 85 dBA Leq threshold at the nearby sensitive receptors.
b) The construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed
or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent
with manufacturer's standards.
43 November 16, 2017
c) No stationary construction equipment shall be placed within 500 feet of
residential homes and other noise -sensitive receivers. The construction
contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that the
emitted noise is directed away from the noise -sensitive receivers nearest
the Project site.
d) The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in the western
portion of the property, near the western fagade of the proposed building,
which is the area that would create the greatest distance between the
construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest
the Project site.
e) The construction contractor shall schedule truck haul deliveries to occur
during the hours specified for construction equipment by the City of San
Bernardino Noise Ordinance (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. on any day) and the construction contractor shall design haul truck
delivery routes to minimize the use of roads that pass by noise -sensitive
land uses.
b. Temporary Noise Levels
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial temporary
or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project (Threshold
d).
Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.10 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that short-term construction of the
Project would not result in substantial or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project, and no mitigation
is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction equipment associated with the proposed
Project, especially involving heavy equipment, would
create intermittent periods of noise when construction
equipment is in operation and would cause a short-term
increase in ambient noise levels (DEIR p. 4.10-16). The
Project's peak construction noise levels at the potentially
impacted receiver locations are calculated to approach
75.4 dBA Leq (DE1R p. 4.10-17). The City's General
Plan does not set noise level standards for construction
noise; however, the Project would be required to comply
with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code.
Considering compliance with the City's Municipal Code
and that noise levels at sensitive receiver locations would
be below 85 dBA Leq, impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required for construction
noise (Id.). Although the Project's noise levels
associated with construction noise would be less than
44 November 16, 2017
significant and mitigation is not required, Mitigation
Measure MM 4.10-1 would further reduce any noise
level increases produced by the Project's construction at
nearby noise -sensitive land uses. This Mitigation
Measures listed below, is adopted and incorporated into
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Project, and will be implemented as specified therein.
MM 4.10-1 Prior to approval of grading plans andlor issuance of building permits, plans
shall include the following notes. The Project construction supervisor shall
ensure compliance with the notes and the City shall conduct periodic
inspection at its discretion.
a) All construction activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00
a.m. must be approved by the City pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 8.54.020(L) and 8.54.060 (I) and any application pursuant to
these sections shall be accompanied with documentation to confirm
noise will not exceed an 85 dBA Leq threshold at the nearby sensitive
receptors.
b) The construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment,
fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers,
consistent with manufacturer's standards.
c) No stationary construction equipment shall be placed within 500 feet
of residential homes and other noise -sensitive receivers. The
construction contractor shall place all stationary construction
equipment so that the emitted noise is directed away from the noise -
sensitive receivers nearest the Project site.
d) The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in the
western portion of the property, near the western fagade of the
proposed building, which is the area that would create the greatest
distance between the construction -related noise sources and noise -
sensitive receivers nearest the Project site.
e) The construction contractor shall schedule truck haul deliveries to
occur during the hours specified for construction equipment by the
City of San Bernardino Noise Ordinance (between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day) and the construction contractor shall
design haul truck delivery routes to minimize the use of roads that
pass by noise -sensitive land uses.
c. Groundborne Noise or Vibration
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose persons to or generate
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels (Threshold b).
45 November 16, 2017
Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.10 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not expose
persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, and
no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: It is expected that ground -borne vibration from Project
construction activities would cause only intermittent,
localized vibration (DEIR p. 4.10-20). The closest
existing residential home is located approximately 140
feet southeast of the Project's proposed northern access
on Washington Avenue (DEIR p. 4.10-21). It is not
expected that heavy equipment such as large bulldozers
would operate close enough to any residences to cause a
vibration impact. Construction activities that would have
the potential to generate low levels of ground -borne
vibration within the Project site include grading and
paving. Based on the City of San Bernardino vibration
standards, the Project's construction -related vibration
levels are considered less than significant and no
mitigation is required. Furthermore, vibration levels at
the closest noise -sensitive receivers are unlikely to be
sustained during the entire construction period, but would
occur only during the times that heavy construction
equipment is operating at the Project site perimeter (Id.).
Moreover, construction at the Project site would be
restricted to daytime hours consistent with City of San
Bernardino Municipal Code requirements; thereby
eliminating potential vibration impacts during the
sensitive nighttime hour.
Cumulative development projects that may be producing
construction ground -borne vibration simultaneous to the
Project's construction activities would also be restricted
to daytime hours consistent with City of San Bernardino
requirements thereby eliminating potential vibration
impacts during the sensitive nighttime hours (DEIR p.
4.10-26). Therefore, impacts associated with short-term
construction ground -borne vibration levels would not be
cumulatively considerable. Regarding long-term
operation, truck vibration levels would not exceed the
City of San Bernardino vibration threshold for haul trips
associated with operational activities. Additionally, truck
deliveries associated with cumulative development would
also be made at very low speeds, therefore, operational
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable (Id.).
46 November 16, 2017
d. Noise from Public Airport
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project is 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, and would
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels (Threshold e).
Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail at Section 4.10 of the EIR. Based
on the entire record, the City finds that Project would not expose people residing
or working in the Project area to excessive noise from a public airport, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA) is
located approximately 1.75 miles northeast of the Project
site (DEIR p. 4.10-22). An industrial warehouse use,
such as proposed by the Project, is not a noise -sensitive
land use; thus, the exposure of workers and visitors to the
Project site to aircraft -related noise would be less than
significant. The Project does not propose any aircraft
operations; therefore, there is no potential for the Project
to increase the exposure of off-site residents or workers
to aircraft -related noise.
The Project does not involve the construction, operation,
or use of any public airports or public use airports (DEIR
p. 4.10-27). There are no conditions associated with the
Project that would contribute to airport noise or expose
people working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels associated with airport noise. As such, the
proposed Project would not result in any cumulatively
considerable impact associated with aircraft noise.
e. Noise from Private Airstri
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project, being located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels (Threshold f).
Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail is Subsection 4.10 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from a
private airstrip, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is located approximately 0.33 miles
northwest of the R.I. San Bernardino G/L Helistop-
Heliport. An industrial warehouse use, such as proposed
by the Project, is not a noise -sensitive land use; thus, the
exposure of workers and visitors to the Project site to
aircraft -related noise would be less than significant
47 November 16, 2017
(DEIR p. 4.10-22). The Project does not propose any
aircraft operations; therefore, there is no potential for the
Project to increase the exposure of off-site residents or
workers to aircraft -related noise.
The Project is not located near any private airfields of
airstrips and does not include the construction, operation,
or use of any private airstrips airports (DEIR p. 4.10-27).
Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels associated with a private airstrip. As such, the
proposed Project would not result in any cumulatively
considerable impact associated with aircraft noise.
11. Transportation/Circulation
a. Air Traffic Patterns
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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
(Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation/Circulation are discussed in detail in Subsection
4.11 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would
not result in a change to air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project does not contain an air travel component;
thus, air traffic volumes would not be changed as a result
of the Project and the Project would not affect air traffic
patterns at the SBIA (1.2 miles northeast of the Project
site) or a nearby private helipad (0.3 -mile southeast of the
Project site) (DEIR p. 4.11-24). The warehouse building
proposed by the Project would have a height up to 55 feet
above finished grade and this building height would not
extend into the airspace or interfere with flight operations
at the SBIA or the nearby private helipad (Id.).
The Project does not contain an air travel component and
would not result in changes to air traffic patterns;
therefore, the Project has no potential to result in a
cumulative impact related to increases in air traffic levels
or alternations to air traffic flight paths (DEIR p. 4.11-
27).
48 November 16, 2017
b. Safety Hazards
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially increase hazards to
a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)
(Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation/Circulation are discussed in detail in Subsection
4.11 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would
not substantially increase hazards to a design feature or incompatible uses, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of San Bernardino Public Works Department
reviewed the Project's application materials and
determined that no hazardous transportation design
features would be introduced by the Project (DEIR p.
4.11-24). The City also determined that all lane widths
and turning movement radii along the Project's proposed
off-site interim roadway improvement alignment,
between the Project site's northern boundary and Orange
Show Road, meet applicable safety requirements (DEIR
p. 4.11-25). The Project would be compatible with
existing and planned industrial and office park land uses
located immediately north and east of the Project site. As
such, there would be no transportation hazards created as
a result of an incompatible land use.
Although the Project would generate traffic that would
traverse (at -grade) two existing railroad crossings located
approximately 600 feet to the south and 600 feet to the
west, respectively, of the Waterman Avenue / Orange
Show Road intersection (Intersection #9). Crossing
signals (with crossing gates) are in place under existing
conditions to prevent vehicles from stopping on the train
tracks during train crossings. Under Opening Year plus
Cumulative and Horizon Year traffic conditions, the
northbound and eastbound approaches to Intersection #9
would experience long stacking lengths that would
extend beyond the railroad crossings. The long vehicle
queues under Opening Year plus Cumulative and
Horizon Year traffic conditions would not result in any
safety hazards due to the aforementioned grade crossing
signals and crossing gates at the train crossing.
Accordingly, the Project would not substantially
contribute safety hazards due to an existing design
feature. (DEIR p. 4.11-25).
The Project area does not include any transportation
safety hazards and the Project would not introduce any
49 November 16, 2017
transportation safety hazards to the Project area;
therefore, the Project has no potential to cumulatively
contribute to the creation of any new hazard or the
worsening of an existing hazard (DEIR p. 4.11-27).
Although the Project's contribution to the projected LOS
deficiency at the Waterman Avenue / Orange Show Road
intersection (Intersection #9) is less than significant,
Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-4 is recommended to
improve vehicle stacking in the vicinity of the
intersection. This Mitigation Measure is listed below, is
adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein.
MM 4.11-4 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Project Applicant shall make a
fair -share payment to the City of San Bernardino, to be held in trust, for the
improvements to the Waterman Avenue / Orange Show Road intersection
improvements listed below. The required fair -share payment shall be in
accordance with Table 1-4 of the "Gateway South Building 4 Traffic Impact
Analysis " prepared by Urban Crossroads (dated April 6, 2017). The City of
San Bernardino shall only use the funds for the purpose of implementing
improvements to the Waterman Avenue / Orange Show Road intersection
listed below. If within five years of the date of collection of the Project's fair -
share fee payment, the City of San Bernardino has not completed the
improvements or established a fair -share funding program for the specified
improvements to the Waterman Avenue / Orange Show Road intersection,
then the City of San Bernardino shall return the funds to the Project
Applicant.
a) Install second northbound left turn lane;
b) Install northbound right turn lane;
c) Modify traffic signal to apply a railroad preemption.
c. Emergency Access
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in inadequate emergency
access (Threshold e).
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation/Circulation are discussed in detail in Subsection
4.11 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City fords that the Project would
not result in inadequate emergency access, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: During the course of the City's required review of the
proposed Project, the Project's design was reviewed to
ensure that adequate access to -and -from the site is
provided for emergency vehicles. The City also will
require that the Project provide adequate paved access to -
50 November 16, 2017
and -from the site as a condition of Project approval.
Furthermore, the City of San Bernardino will review all
future Project construction drawings to ensure that
adequate emergency access is maintained along abutting
public streets during temporary construction activities.
With required adherence to City requirements for
emergency vehicle access, no impact would occur.
(DEIR p. 4.11-25).
The Project would provide adequate emergency access
to -and -from the Project site and would not adversely
affect emergency access along adjacent public streets;
therefore, there is no potential for the Project to
cumulative contribute to inadequate emergency access
(DEER p. 4.11-27).
d. Alternative Transportation
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with adopted policies or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities (Threshold f).
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation/Circulation are discussed in detail in Subsection
4.11 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would
not conflict with adopted policies or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project is designed to comply with all applicable
City of San Bernardino transportation policies (DEIR p.
4.11-26). The Orange Show Road segment located north
of the Project site and the Waterman Avenue segment
located along the Project site's eastern frontage are
designated bicycle routes. The Project does not include
any element that would preclude the use of either of these
routes as bicycle routes. All Project driveways would be
stop -signed controlled and would provide adequate sight
distance to preclude conflicts with pedestrians and
bicyclists. The Santa Ana River trail is located south of
the Project site; however, the Project does not include
any component or off-site improvement that would
physically interfere with use of the Santa Ana River
Trail. There is one bus stop located along the Project's
frontage with Waterman Avenue. The Project would
retain the existing bus stop and would not conflict with
Omnitrans bus transit operations. Accordingly, the
Project would not conflict with local public transit
service. the Project would not conflict with adopted
51 November 16, 2017
policies, plans or programs related to alternative
transportation, or otherwise substantially decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities, and a less -than -
significant impact would occur. (DEIR p. 4.11-26).
The Project would not conflict with adopted policies or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities and thus has no potential to contribute to a
cumulative impact (DEIR p. 4.11-27).
12. Utilities and Service Systems
a. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Wastewater Treatment
Re�auirements
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.12 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Wastewater treatment and collection services would be
provided to the Project site by the San Bernardino
Municipal Water District (SBMWD) (DEIR p. 4.12-10).
Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be
treated at the Margaret Chandler Water Reclamation
Plant ("WRP"), which is operated by SBMWD.
SBMWD is required to operate Margaret Chandler WRP
in accordance with the waste treatment and discharge
standards and requirements set forth by the Santa Ana
RWQCB. Based on typical usage rates for industrial
warehouse buildings, the Project is estimated to result in
an indoor water demand of 88 gallons per minute (gpm)
which would have no potential to exceed wastewater
treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Further, the Project does not propose to install or utilize
septic systems or alternative wastewater treatment
systems. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (DEIR p.
4.12-10).
The SBMWD WRP operates within discharge limits
specified in San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC)
Chapter 13.32 and has adequate capacity to service the
Project site in addition to existing and cumulative project
commitments (DEIR p. 4.12-17). Therefore, the
Project's impacts to wastewater treatment and
52 November 16, 2017
conveyance facilities are determined to be less -than -
cumulatively considerable.
b. Construction or Expansion of Water or Wastewater Facilities
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would require or result in construction
of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.12 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that
implementation of the Project would not require or result in construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The existing SBMWD water and wastewater conveyance
infrastructure would be adequate to service the Project,
and the Project would not require or result in the
construction of new or expanded water or wastewater
conveyance facilities off-site, including storage tanks,
pump stations, or pipes (DEIR p. 4.12-10 through 4.12-
13). There would be no significant environmental effects
specifically related to the installation of water and sewer
facilities during the Project's construction (DEIR p.
4.12-11). Construction -related activities associated with
abandonment, replacement, and relocation of RPU water
facilities would result in potential physical impacts to the
environment; these potential impacts are inherent in the
Project's construction phase and are evaluated throughout
the Project's EIR accordingly (DEIR p. 4.12-10). There
would be no significant environmental effects
specifically related to the RPU water facilities during the
Project's construction.
According to the project's Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) (Draft EIR Technical Appendix K) and based on
the demonstrated reliability of its water supply sources at
the time the WSA was prepared, the SBMWD has
sufficient, reliable, and sustainable water supplies to meet
Project water demands in addition to existing and future
demands over the next 20 years, including during single
and multiple dry years (DEIR p. 4.12-17). For these
reasons, less -than -significant cumulatively considerable
impacts on water infrastructure or water supply would
result from construction or operation of the proposed
Project.
53 November 16, 2017
c. Construction or Expansion. of Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects (Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.12 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City fords that
implementation of the Project would not cause significant environmental effects
resulting from the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project's stormwater flows would be captured by on-
site storm drains and routed to an on-site water/quality
detention basin then discharged to the Santa Ana River
(I)EIR p. 4.12-13). In addition, as part of the off-site
interim roadway access improvements, the Project would
construct storm drain lines, a cross gutter, and storm
drain catch basins in the off-site interim roadway area.
There would be no significant environmental effects
specifically related to the installation of storm water
facilities during the Project's construction (Id.).
The Project does not propose connections to other off-site
storm water drainage infrastructure (DEIR p. 4.12-18).
The Santa Ana River has capacity to accept the Project's
stormwater, as occurs under existing conditions as sheet
flow (Id.). Thus, the Project's impacts associated with
the installation of stormwater facilities would be less than
significant and less -than -cumulatively considerable.
d. Water Supplies
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed
(Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.12 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that
sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project from existing
entitlements and resources, new or expanded entitlements are not needed and
mitigation is not required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As discussed in the 2015 San Bernardino Valley
Regional Urban Water Management Plan (June 2016
Draft), adopted by the SBMWD, adequate regional
supplies are anticipated for years 2012-2040 under
normal, dry, and multiple dry -weather years (I)EIR p.
54 November 16, 2017
4.12-14). SBMWD prepared a water supply assessment
for the proposed Project (Draft EIR Technical Appendix
K) to assess the ultimate effect of the Project's water
demands and service needs (Id.). Based on a review of
existing and anticipated future water supplies and
demands, SBMWD has determined that adequate water
supplies are available to serve the Project, and
implementation of the Project would not require any new
or expanded water entitlements. Therefore, the Project's
direct and cumulative impacts to water supply would be
less than significant.
e. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments (Threshold e).
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in Section
4.12 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would
result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project is estimated to generate approximately
126,720 gallons of wastewater per day which would
utilize approximately 0.003% of the total capacity of the
SBMWD WRP (DEIR p. 4.12-15). When the Project's
generation of wastewater is taken into consideration in
addition to the SBMWD's existing commitments, the
SBWMD WRP would have adequate capacity to serve
the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not
cause the SBMWD to exceed its existing wastewater
treatment commitments. Thus, the Project's impacts
would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 4.12-15).
The SBMWD WRP operates within discharge limits
specified in San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC)
Chapter 13.32 and has adequate capacity to service the
Project site in addition to existing and cumulative project
commitments (DEIR p. 4.12-17). Therefore, the
Project's impacts to wastewater treatment and
conveyance facilities are determined to be less -than -
cumulatively considerable.
55 November 16, 2017
f. Landfill CapacitW
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs (Threshold f).
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.12 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction wastes associated with the proposed Project
that are not recycled or reused would require disposal at
the Mid -Valley Landfill (DEIR p. 4.12-17).
Construction waste generated by the Project would
comprise approximately 22% of the reported remaining
daily capacity at the Mid -Valley Landfill (DEIR p. 4.12-
17, 18). Thus, the Project would be served by a landfill
that has adequate disposal capacity to receive
construction waste generated by the Project. Impacts
would be less than significant (I)EIR p. 4.12-18).
Non -recyclable solid waste generated during long-term
operation of the Project would be disposed at the Mid -
Valley Landfill (DEIR p. 4.12-18). This landfill receives
below the maximum permitted daily disposal volume;
thus, solid waste generated by the Project would not
cause this landfill to exceed its maximum permitted daily
disposal volume. Accordingly, direct and cumulative
impacts to regional landfill facilities during the Project's
long-term operational activities would be less than
significant.
g. Solid Waste Regulations
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would comply with federal, state, and
local statues and regulations related to solid waste
(Threshold g).
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.12 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related
to solid waste, and no mitigation is required
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would be required to comply with the City of
San Bernardino's waste reduction programs, including
recycling and other diversion programs to divert the
amount of solid waste deposited in landfills (DEIR p.
4.12-16). Additionally, in accordance with the California
56 November 16, 2017
Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub
Res. Code § 42911), the Project would provide adequate
areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials
where solid waste is collected. The implementation of
these programs would reduce the amount of solid waste
generated by the Project and diverted to landfills, which
in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected
disposal sites. The Project would comply with all
applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such,
impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 4.12-
16).
All development projects within the City and elsewhere
in the region are required to comply with applicable
federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to
solid waste, to reduce the amount of solid waste diverted
to landfills (DEIR p. 4.12-18). Mandatory compliance
with applicable law would preclude significant
cumulative impacts to solid waste.
C. Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Si-2nificant that Have Been
Mitizated to Less than Sip-nificant
1. Air Quality
a. Construction -Related Air Quality Violation
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that Project's short-term
construction emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide
(CO), oxides of sulfur (SOx), and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5) would be
less than significant, but emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) would violate
SCAQMD's air quality standard, as well as contribute to an existing air quality
violation, and be significant. The City also finds that mitigation measures applied
to the Project would lessen short-term construction -related emissions of NOX to
less -than -significant levels.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction -related emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of
sulfur (SOX), and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5)
would not exceed SCAQMD's regional criteria pollutant
thresholds, and would be less than significant (DEIR p.
4.2-21). Construction activities associated with the
Project would produce nitrogen oxides (NO,.) that exceed
the SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant threshold. The
57 November 16, 2017
South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non -attainment area
for State of California ambient air standards for NO.
(DEIR p. 4.2-7). The SCAB is also a non -attainment
area for State and federal ambient air standards for ozone
(NO,, is a precursor for ozone) ad.). The Project's
potential to exceed SCAQMD, State, and federal criteria
thresholds for NO. during short-term construction
activities is a significant direct and cumulative impact.
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 would
reduce the Project's emissions of NO. during
construction by placing restrictions on construction
activities, construction equipment, and building practices.
This Mitigation Measure is listed below and is adopted
and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein. MM 4.2-1 would
reduce short-term emissions of NO,, below SCAQMD
regional thresholds (DEIR p. 4.2-30). This Mitigation
Measure is listed below, is adopted and incorporated into
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Project, and will be implemented as specified therein,
thereby reducing potentially significant direct and
cumulative impacts associated with construction activity
to less than significant.
MM 4.2-1 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City shall verify
that the following note is specified on all grading and building plans. Project
contractors shall be required to comply with this note and permit periodic
inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff to confirm
compliance. This note shall also be specified in bid documents issued to
prospective construction contractors.
a) All graders, scrapers, and rubber tired dozers shall be California Air
Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 Certified or better
2. Biological Resources
a. Candidate. Sensitive. and Special -Status Species
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.3
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project has the
potential to result in a substantial adverse direct effect to nesting birds and/or the
58 November 16, 2017
burrowing owl, if these species are present on the Project site when construction
activities commence, but that these impacts can be mitigated to a less -than -
significant level.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The majority of the Project site is composed of
manicured golf course fairways, sand traps, cart paths,
artificial ponds, and associated ornamental landscaping.
The Project site thus comprises disturbed and developed
land cover and contains no special -status plant species.
Accordingly, the Project site does not provide suitable
habitat for special -status plant species identified by the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) or
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Therefore, the
Project would not impact special -status plant species and
no mitigation is required. (DEER p. 4.3-15).
The great egret, snowy egret, and loggerhead shrike were
the only special -status wildlife species observed on-site
during biological field surveys. Also, the Project site has
a high potential to support Cooper's hawk, great blue
heron, and Lawrence's goldfinch. Vegetation within and
surrounding the Project site has the potential to provide
refuge/cover from predators, perching sites, and
favorable conditions for avian nesting. Thus, migratory
nesting birds could be impacted by construction activities
associated with the Project, if construction activities
occur during the nesting season. Therefore, if Project
construction occurs between February 1 st and August
31 st, impacts to nesting birds, if present, would be a
significant direct impact of the Project and require
mitigation. Similarly, although no burrowing owl were
on the property during field surveys conducted in 2017,
the species is migratory and has the potential to be
located on the site prior to construction activities
commencing. If burrowing owl is present on the site at
the time ground -disturbing construction activities
commence, impacts to the species would be a significant
direct impact requiring mitigation. (DEER p. 4.3-15).
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM
4.3-2 would ensure that pre -construction surveys are
conducted and appropriate actions are taken to avoid
significant impacts to nesting birds protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and to reduce
impacts to burrowing owl to a less -than -significant level
(DEER p. 4.3-21). These Mitigation Measures are listed
below, are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and
will be implemented as specified therein, thereby
59 November 16, 2017
reducing potentially significant direct and cumulative
impacts to less than significant.
MM 4.3-1 A pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted
within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground
disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during
construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a
negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active
avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -
construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a
300 foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this
buffer shall be expanded to 500 feet. A biological monitor shall be present to
delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and monitor the active nest to
ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by construction
activities. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise
becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the
buffer area may occur.
MM 4.3-2 Prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities, a
pre -construction clearance survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted. In
accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDF99
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, two pre- construction clearance
surveys shall be conducted 14-30 days and 24 hours prior to any vegetation
removal or ground disturbing activities. If an occupied burrow is found
within the development footprint during the pre -construction clearance
survey, a burrowing owl exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for approval. The
exclusion plan, as approved by the CDFW, shall be implemented to ensure
that burrowing owl are not significantly impacted by Project -related
construction activities.
3. Cultural Resources
a. Archaeoloe,ical Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA § 15064.5 (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources, including archaeological resources, are
discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the
City finds that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a known or recorded archaeological resource. The City also finds
that the Project has the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological
resources during construction that meet the definition of a significant resource
pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, but that the Project's potential
impacts can be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
60 November 16, 2017
Facts in Support of the Finding: There are no known archaeological resources within the
Project site or its off-site impact area. The northern part
of the Project area consists of soil deposits that are
derived from overbank flows of the Santa Ana River and
Warm Creek with very weak soil development possibly
indicating the geologic unit is very young. Both of these
deposits are down -cut by drainages revealing that they
were deposited prior the current bed alignment and
suggesting that this area changed a lot in the late
Holocene period of geologic time. Due to the high
energy of the floodplain deposits and the young age of
the northern part of the Project area, there is a low
potential for encountering intact buried archaeological
deposits within the Project area. Nonetheless, there is a
remote potential to uncover previously undiscovered
archaeological resources during mass grading and
excavation activities. If archaeological resources are
unearthed during Project construction activities, and they
meet the definition of a significant archeological resource
as defined by California Code of Regulations § 15064.5,
there is a potential that the resource(s) would be
significantly impacted if not properly identified and
treated. Accordingly, direct impacts are potentially
significant and mitigation is required. (DEIR p. 4.4-19).
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1, 4.4-2,
and 4.4-3 would ensure that any significant archeological
or tribal cultural resource that may be uncovered on the
Project site during construction is properly treated.
These Mitigation Measures are listed below, are adopted
and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this
potentially significant direct impact to less than
significant.
The Project's potential to impact subsurface
archaeological deposits is also considered a cumulatively
significant impact because other development projects in
the area also have the potential to disturb significant
archaeological resources (DEIR p. 4.4-22).
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1, 4.4-2,
and 4.4-3 would ensure that any significant archeological
or tribal cultural resource that may be uncovered on the
Project site during construction is properly treated.
These Mitigation Measures are listed below, are adopted
and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing this
61 November 16, 2017
potentially significant cumulative impact to less than
significant.
MM 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of a clearing or grading permit, the developer/permit
applicant shall retain a Native American monitor to monitor all initial
ground disturbing activities including clearing, grubbing, tree removals,
mass grading, and trenching. At its discretion, the developer/permit
applicant may also retain a professional archaeological monitor for the same
purpose. The Native American monitor and the professional archaeological
monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the
ground disturbance activities to allow for professional identification,
evaluation, and potential recovery of archaeological and tribal cultural
resources as specified in Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-2 and MM 4.4-3. The
developer/permit applicant shall submit a fully executed copy of the
monitoring agreement, with a Native American tribe with cultural affiliation
to the property, to the City of San Bernardino to ensure compliance with this
requirement.
MM 4.4-2 If a suspected archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource is identified
on the property by either a Native American monitor or professional
archaeological monitor, the construction supervisor shall be required by
his/her contract to immediately halt and redirect grading operations within a
100 foot radius of the suspected resource(s) and seek identification and
evaluation of the suspected resource(s) by a professional archaeologist. This
requirement shall be noted on all grading plans and the construction
contractor shall be obligated to comply with the note. The archaeologist
shall evaluate the suspected resource and make a determination of
significance pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
If the resource is a suspected tribal cultural resource that potentially meets
the definition given in Public Resources Code Section 21074, the professional
archaeologist shall consult with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-
Kizh Nation and/or the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians before making a
definitive determination of significance. If the resource is determined to be
significant, then Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-3 shall apply.
MM 4.4-3 If a significant archaeological resource(s) or tribal cultural resource is
discovered on the property, ground -disturbing activities shall be suspended
within a 100 foot radius of the resource(s). The archaeological monitor and a
representative of the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), the Project
Proponent, and the City of San Bernardino Community Development
Department shall confer regarding mitigation of the discovered
archaeological or tribal cultural resource(s). A treatment plan shall be
prepared and implemented by the archaeologist to protect the identified
archeological resource(s) or tribal cultural resource from damage and
destruction. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings
shall be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the City of San
Bernardino Community Development Department and the San Bernardino
Archaeological Information Center as verification that the resource(s) was
properly treated.
62 November 16, 2017
b. Paleontological Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature (Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources, including paleontological resources, are
discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the
City finds that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a known or recorded paleontological resource. The City also finds
that the Project has the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological
resources during construction, but that the Project's potential impacts can be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site's Quaternary alluvium deposits were
determined to have a low paleontological resource
potential because they are likely too young to contain
fossilized materials. Nonetheless, there is a remote
potential, should the Project -related ground disturbing
activities extend into sensitive Pleistocene -age alluvial
deposits that are buried at unknown depth within the
Project site or its off-site impact area and exposed at the
ground surface nearby, that previously unearthed
paleontological resources could be uncovered.
Accordingly, if significant paleontological resources are
unearthed, there is a potential for a significant impact to
occur if the resources are not properly identified and
treated. Therefore, the Project's potential to directly or
indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources that
may be present beneath the ground surface of the Project
site is a potentially significant direct impact and
mitigation is required. (DEIR p. 4.4-19). Incorporation
of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-4 and 4.4-5 would
ensure that any paleontological resource that may be
uncovered on the Project site during construction is
properly treated. These Mitigation Measures are listed
below, are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and
will be implemented as specified therein, thereby
reducing this potentially significant direct impact to less
than significant.
The proposed Project has the potential to impact
paleontological resources that may be buried beneath the
ground surface of the Project site and/or off-site
improvement area. Other development projects that are
located on soils shown to have a level of sensitivity for
paleontological resources also would have the potential
to directly or indirectly destroy resources that may be
63 November 16, 2017
located below the surface. Accordingly, the Project's
potential to impact paleontological resources is a
significant cumulative impact (DEIR p. 4.4-23).
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-4 and 4.4-
5 would ensure that any paleontological resource that
may be uncovered on the Project site during construction
is properly treated (DEIR p. 4.4-26). These Mitigation
Measures are listed below, are adopted and incorporated
into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Project, and will be implemented as specified
therein, thereby reducing this potentially significant
cumulative impact to less than significant.
MM 4.4-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Proponent or
construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino
Community Development Department that the construction site supervisors
and crew members involved with the Project's grading and trenching
operations are trained to recognize paleontological resources (fossils),
should resources be unearthed during Project ground -disturbing activities. If
a suspected paleontological resource(s) is identified, the construction
supervisor shall be required by his/her contract to immediately halt and
redirect grading operations within a 100 foot radius of the suspected
resource and seek identification and evaluation of the suspected resource by
a qualified paleontologist meeting the definition of a qualified vertebrate
paleontologist as defined in the County of San Bernardino Development Code
Section 82.20.040. This requirement shall be noted on all grading plans and
the construction contractor shall be obligated to comply with the note. The
significance of the discovered resource(s) shall be determined by the
paleontologist. If the resource is significant, then Mitigation Measure MM
4.4-4 shall apply.
MM 4.4-5 If a significant paleontological resource is discovered on the property,
discovered fossils or samples of such fossils shall be collected and identified
by a qualified paleontologist meeting the definition of a qualified vertebrate
paleontologist as defined in the County of San Bernardino Development Code
Section 82.20.040. Significant specimens recovered shall be properly
recorded, treated, and donated to the San Bernardino County Museum,
Division of Geological Sciences, or other repository with permanent
retrievable paleontologic storage. A. final report shall be prepared and
submitted to the City of San Bernardino that itemizes any fossils recovered,
with maps to accurately record the original location of recovered fossils, and
evidence that the resources were curated by an established museum
repository.
c. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
64 November 16, 2017
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American Tribe and that is:
a) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Section 5020.1
(k), or
b) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of a resource to a California Native
American tribe. (Threshold e)
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources, including tribal cultural resources, are
discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the
City finds that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a known or recorded tribal cultural resource. The City also finds
that the Project has the potential to unearth previously unknown tribal cultural
resources during construction, but that the Project's potential impacts can be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
indicated that there are no Sacred Lands File (SLF)
resources known to exist in the vicinity of the Project
area (DEIR p. 4.4-21). 16 Native American individuals
and organizations were contacted to elicit information
regarding Native American resource information related
to the proposed Project; however, of the six responses
that were received, no sensitive tribal resources were
identified.
As part of the Native American consultation processes
required under California Senate Bill 18 (SB18) and
Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), the City of San Bernardino
sent notification of the proposed Project to all Native
American tribes with possible cultural affiliation to the
area. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation responded that the Project site lies in an area
where the Ancestral territories of the Kizh (Kitc)
Gabrieleno's villages adjoined and overlapped with each
other (during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Periods). The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
(SMBMI) also responded that the Project area exists
65 November 16, 2017
within the Serrano ancestral territory and therefore is of
interest to the SMBMI. At this time, no known tribal
cultural resources occur on the Project site, as the Project
site is primarily developed with a golf course and no
surface features have been identified that meet the
definition of a tribal cultural resource (DEIR pp. 4.4-21,
22). However, there is a remote potential to uncover
previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources during
the Project's mass grading and excavation activities. If
resources are unearthed during Project construction
activities, and they meet the definition of a tribal cultural
resource as defined by California Code of Regulations §
21074, there is a potential that the resource(s) would be
significantly impacted if not properly identified and
treated. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1,
4.4-2, and 4.4-3 listed above, would ensure that
uncovered resources are appropriately treated as
recommended by a qualified archaeologist and Native
American representative(s). These Mitigation Measures
are listed above, are adopted and incorporated into the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Project, and will be implemented as specified therein,
thereby reducing this potentially significant direct impact
to less than significant.
There is a remote potential to uncover previously
undiscovered tribal cultural resources during mass
grading and excavation activities (DEIR p. 4.4-23). If
tribal cultural resources are unearthed during Project
construction activities, and they meet the definition of a
significant archeological resource as defined by
California Code of Regulations § 21074, there is a
potential that the resource(s) would be significantly
impacted if not properly identified and treated. Other
ground -disturbing development projects in the region
would similarly have the potential to impact tribal
cultural resources associated with the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and/or the San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) (Id.). As such, any
impacts to resources on the Project site, should they be
unearthed, would be significant on a direct and
cumulatively considerable basis. Incorporation of
Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1, 4.4-2, and 4.4-3, listed
above, would ensure that uncovered resources are
appropriately treated as recommended by a qualified
archaeologist and Native American representatives.
(DEIR p. 4.4-26). These Mitigation Measures are listed
above, are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and
66 November 16, 2017
will be implemented as specified therein, thereby
reducing this potentially significant cumulative impact to
less than significant.
D. Impacts Determined by the EIR to be Si,_,nificant and Unavoidable
1. Air Quality
a. Air Quality Plan
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan (Threshold
a).
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The City also find
that there are no feasible mitigations measures available to ensure the Project
would remain consistent with the applicable air quality plan. The SCAQMD's
daily significance thresholds for air pollutants would be exceeded during the
Project's operation even after the implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The SCAQMD Final 2016 AQMP is the applicable air
quality plan for the Project area and contains criteria for
determining consistency with the Final 2016 AQMP
(DEIR p. 4.2-20). The SCAQMD's Consistency
Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Violations of
the NAAQS and/or CAAQS would occur if the
SCAQMD localized emissions thresholds were exceeded.
The Project would not exceed the SCAQMD localized
emissions thresholds during construction or long-term
operation and, by extension, would not result in
violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (M).
SCAQMD Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to the
Project's consistency with the growth projections
anticipated by the Final 2016 AQMP. The air quality
conditions presented in the Final 2016 AQMP are based
in part on the growth forecasts identified by SCAG in its
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) which further assumes
that regional buildout would occur in accordance with the
various adopted general plans in the region.
Development projects that propose to increase the
intensity and/or use on an individual property may result
in increased stationary area source emissions and/or
67 November 16, 2017
vehicle source emissions when compared to the Final
2016 AQMP assumptions. The Project would develop
the Project site with more intense land uses (a high cube
logistics warehouse building) than anticipated by the
Final 2016 AQMP (open space -recreation uses (golf
course)); due to the proposed change in land use the
Project would thus result in a significant environmental
impact due to exceedance of operational -source air
emissions thresholds established by the local air district
(DEER p. 4.2-21). Accordingly, the Project would be
inconsistent with the growth projections contained in the
Final 2016 AQMP, and the inconsistency would result in
a significant environmental impact due to long-term
criteria pollutant emissions (see Findings statements for
Air Quality Thresholds b and c, below). Because the
SCAQMD's daily significance thresholds for air
pollutants would be exceeded during the Project's
operation even after the implementation of feasible
mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1
through 4.2-5, see below), the Project would not fully
mitigate its significant conflict with the Final 2016
AQMP and a significant and unavoidable impact would
occur (DEIR p. 4.2-30).
b. Operational -Related Air Quality Violation
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation (Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that Project's long-term
operational emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) would violate SCAQMD's air
quality standard, as well as contribute to an existing air quality violation. The
City also finds that mitigation measures applied to the Project would lessen long-
term emissions of NO,, but would not reduce the Project's long-term emissions of
NOx to less -than -significant levels. The City also finds that no other feasible
mitigations are available that would reduce the Project's long-term emissions of
NO,, to less -than -significant levels.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project's long-term operational emissions of VOCs,
CO, SO, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would
not exceed SCAQMD's regional criteria pollutant
thresholds, and would be less than significant (DEIR p.
4.2-22). Operational activities associated with the
Project, however, would produce NOx that exceed the
SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant threshold, resulting
in a significant direct and cumulatively considerable
impact (DEIR p. 4.2-22 and 4.2-27). The South Coast
68 November 16, 2017
Air Basin (SCAB) is a non -attainment area for State of
California ambient air standards for NO,, (DEIR p. 4.2-
7). The SCAB is also a non -attainment area for State and
federal ambient air standards for ozone (NO. is a
precursor for ozone) (Id.).
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2 through
4.2-5 would require the Project Applicant to incorporate
design features that will reduce the Project's overall
demand for energy resources and would reduce the
Project's operational NOx emissions (NOx is created
during the generation of certain types of energy
resources). These Mitigation Measures are listed below,
are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and
will be implemented as specified therein. The required
mitigation would reduce the Project's long-term
emissions of NO,., but not to below SCAQMD regional
thresholds (DEIR p. 4.2-31). No other mitigation
measures are available that are feasible for the Project
Applicant to implement and the City of San Bernardino
to enforce that have a proportional nexus to the Project's
level of impact. Thus, the Project's long-term emissions
of NOx would be a significant and unavoidable direct and
cumulative impact.
MM 4.2-2 Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates,
loading docks, and truckparking areas that idents applicable California Air
Resources Board (CARB) anti -idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign
shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in
use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more
than five (5) minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to
"neutral" or "park, " and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone
numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations.
Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall conduct
a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.
MM 4.2-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide
documentation to the City of San Bernardino demonstrating that the Project
is designed to meet the mandatory California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6
standards in effect at the time of building permit application submittal and
includes the energy efficiency design features listed below at a minimum.
a) Up to three (3) electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided;
b) Solar or light -emitting diodes (LEDs) lights shall be installed for
outdoor lighting;
69 November 16, 2017
c) Any yard trucks used on-site shall be powered by natural gas or
electricity;
d) Service equipment used on the Project site, such as forklifts, shall be
electric;
e) Bicycle racks shall be provided at convenient locations on the Project
site;
J) The building's roof shall be designed and constructed to accommodate
maximally -sized photovoltaic (PI9 solar arrays taking into
consideration limitations imposed by other rooftop equipment, roof
warranties, building and fire code requirements, and other physical or
legal limitations. Applicant must develop the building with the
necessary electrical system and other infrastructure to accommodate
maximally -sized PV arrays in the future. The electrical system and
infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent
signage which informs future occupants/owners of the existence of this
infrastructure.
g) The building shall be designed and constructed to achieve the equivalent
of the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) "Certified" rating. The Project
Applicant shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating that
the Project has achieved LEED "Certified" equivalency; but, the Project
shall not be required to obtain the U.S. Green Building Council's official
LEED certification.
MM 4.2-4 The building plans for each building shall specify that all futures installed in
restrooms and employee break areas shall be U.S. EPA Certified WaterSense
or equivalent. The City of San Bernardino shall verify this information is
provided on the Project's building plans prior to issuance of building permits
and inspect for adherence during building construction.
MM 4.2-5 Prior to the issuance of permits that would allow the installation of
landscaping, the City of San Bernardino shall review and approve
landscaping plans for the site that requires: 1) a plant palette emphasizing
drought -tolerant plants; and 2) use of water -efficient irrigation techniques.
The City of San Bernardino shall inspect for adherence to these requirements
after landscaping installation.
c. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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) (Threshold c).
70 November 16, 2017
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project's long-term
operational emissions of NOX would result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment
under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. The City also
finds that mitigation measures applied to the Project would lessen short-term and
long-term NOX emissions; however, the required mitigation would not reduce
long-term NO,, emissions to less -than -significant levels and no additional feasible
mitigation measures are available to further reduce the impact.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction -related emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of
sulfur (SOX), and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5)
would not exceed SCAQMD's regional criteria pollutant
thresholds, and would be less than significant (DEIR p.
4.2-21). However, construction activities associated with
the Project would produce NOX emissions that exceed the
SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant threshold. The
South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non -attainment area
for State of California ambient air standards for NO,
(DEIR p. 4.2-7). The SCAB is also a non -attainment
area for State and federal ambient air standards for ozone
(NO,, is a precursor for ozone). Accordingly, the
Project's potential to exceed SCAQMD, State, and
federal ambient air standards for NOX during short-term
construction activities is a significant direct and
cumulatively considerable impact. Incorporation of
Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 would reduce the
Project's emissions of NO,, during construction by
placing restrictions on construction activities,
construction equipment, and building practices. This
Mitigation Measure is listed above and is adopted and
incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein. MM 4.2-1 would
reduce short-term emissions of NO,, below SCAQMD,
State, and federal standards (DEIR p. 4.2-30).
The Project's long-term operational emissions of VOCs,
CO, SOX, and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5) would
not exceed SCAQMD's regional criteria pollutant
thresholds, and would be less than significant (DEIR p.
4.2-22). The Project's long-term operational emissions
of NO,,, however, would exceed SCAQMD's regional
criteria pollutant thresholds (DEIR p. 4.2-22). The
South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non -attainment area
for State of California ambient air standards for NO.
(DEIR p. 4.2-7). The SCAB is also a non -attainment
area for State and federal ambient air standards for ozone
71 November 16, 2017
(NO,, is a precursor for ozone). Accordingly, the
Project's long-term operational emissions of NO. would
result in an increase in a criteria pollutant for which the
region does not attain federal or State ambient air
standards, which is a significant direct and cumulative
impact of the Project (DEER p. 4.2-22, 4.2-23, and 4.2-
27). Incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2
through 4.2-5, listed above, would require the Project
Applicant to incorporate design features that will reduce
the Project's overall demand for energy resources and
would reduce the Project's operational NOx emissions
(NOx is created during the generation of certain types of
energy resources). These Mitigation Measures are listed
above, are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and
will be implemented as specified therein. The required
mitigation would likely reduce the Project's long-term
emissions of NO,,, but not to below SCAQMD, federal,
or State ambient air standards (DEER p. 4.2-31). No
other mitigation measures are available that are feasible
for the Project Applicant to implement and the City of
San Bernardino to enforce that have a proportional nexus
to the Project's level of impact. Thus, the Project's long-
term emissions of NO. would be a significant and
unavoidable direct and cumulatively considerable impact.
2. Greenhouse Gas
a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would generate greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG), either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment (Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to GHG emissions are discussed in detail at Subsection 4.6 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project's GHG emissions
from direct and indirect sources would have a significant cumulatively
considerable impact on the environment. The City also finds that mitigation
measures applied to the Project would reduce Project -related GHG emissions;
however, these measures would not reduce Project -related GHG emissions to
less -than -significant levels. The City also finds that there are no other feasible
mitigations available to reduce Project -related GHG emissions to less -than -
significant levels.
72 November 16, 2017
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would generate approximately 18,515.33
cubic metric tons of carbon monoxide equivalent
(MTCO2e) emissions per year, of which approximately
85 percent (15,785.9 MTCO2e) would be generated by
mobile sources (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) and the
other 15 percent would be generated by building
operation, including but not limited to energy and water
usage and waste disposal (DEIR p. 4.6-16). The Project
would generate GHG emissions that exceed the
SCAQMD significance criterion of 10,000 MTCO2e per
year; therefore, the Project's GHG emissions could have
a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment.
Required compliance with California Code of
Regulations Titles 20 and 24, and the application of MM
4.2-2 through 4.2-5 (as shown under D.1, above) would
reduce Project -related GHG emissions; however, these
measures would not substantially reduce Project -related
mobile source emissions, which comprise approximately
85 percent of the Project's total greenhouse gas emissions
(DEIR p. 4.6-22). Mobile source emissions are
regulated by State and federal laws pertaining to vehicle
engines and fuel, and are outside of the control of the
Project Applicant, future Project occupants, and the City
of San Bernardino. CEQA Guidelines § 15091 provides
that mitigation measures must be within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Lead Agency in
order to be implemented (Id.). No other mitigation
measures are available that are feasible for the Project
Applicant to implement and for the City of San
Bernardino to enforce that have a proportional nexus to
the Project's level of impact.
3. Land Use and Planning
a. Conflict with Applicable Plans. Policies, Regulations
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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 (Threshold b).
73 November 16, 2017
Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.9 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City fords that the Project
would conflict with the SCAQMD's Final 2016AQMP, which is an applicable policy
document with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating environmental effects. The City also fords that there is no feasible
mitigation, beyond those incorporated elsewhere in the EIR, that would reduce the
Project's inconsistency with the Final 2016 AQMP. In addition, the Project is
inconsistent with the property's existing General Plan and zoning designation, and as
a result of the Project, significant adverse and unavoidable effects under the topics of
air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation/circulation would
occur. The City fords that there is no feasible mitigations, beyond those incorporated
elsewhere in the EIR, that would reduce these Project -related impacts to below levels
of significance.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Project is not consistent with the "Open
Space-Public/Commercial Recreation (PCR)" General
Plan land use designation or the City's "Open Space-
Public/Commercial Recreation (PCR)" zoning
designation which are applied to the Project site under
existing conditions (DEIR p. 4.9-8). The Project seeks a
General Plan Amendment (GPA 16-09) to change the
General Plan land use designation on the portion of the
Project site currently designated Open Space-
Public/Commercial Recreation (PCR) to "Industrial —
Industrial Light (IL)" so that the entire Project site is
designated "Industrial Light (IL)". The Project also
seeks a Development Code Amendment (DCA 16-11) to
change the zoning designation on the portion of the
Project site currently designated "Open Space—
Public/Commercial Recreation (PCR)" so that the entire
Project site is zoned "Industrial - Industrial Light (IL)"
(DEIR p. 4.9-9). The proposed Project would result in
significant adverse environmental effects under the topics
of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and
transportation/ circulation, that cannot be mitigated to
below levels of significance after the implementation of
Project design features, mandatory regulatory
requirements, and feasible mitigation measures. Thus,
there will be significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with changing the site's General Plan and
zoning designations.
The RTP/SCS's Transportation System/Goods Movement
appendix is applicable to the Project because the Project
is located in the SCAG region and the Project proposes
one high cube logistics warehouse building for intended
uses consisting of a variety of light industrial uses,
74 November 16, 2017
including warehousing/distribution. Because the Project
site is located within the SCAG region, an analysis of the
Project's consistency with SCAG's goals is provided in
the EIR. Development of the proposed Project would not
conflict with the applicable goals of SCAG's 2016-2040
RTP/SCS. (DEER p. 4.9-9 through 4.9-11).
The SCAQMD Final 2016 AQMP is the applicable air
quality plan for the Project area and contains criteria for
determining consistency with the Final 2016 AQMP
(I)EIR p. 4.9-11). The air quality conditions presented
in the Final 2016 AQMP are based in part on the growth
forecasts identified by SCAG in its 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) which further assumes that regional buildout
would occur in accordance with the various adopted
general plans in the region. Development projects that
propose to increase the intensity and/or use on an
individual property may result in increased stationary
area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions
when compared to the Final 2016 AQMP assumptions.
The Project would develop the site with more intense
land uses than anticipated by the Final 2016 AQMP and
would result in a significant environmental impact due to
exceedance of operational -source emissions thresholds
established by the local air district. Thus, the Project
would not be consistent with the Final 2016 AQMP and
would result in a significant land use/planning impact
(DEIR p. 4.9-12). However, a majority of the Project's
operational air emissions would be from mobile sources
(vehicle tailpipe emissions) stemming from vehicle
engines and fuel sources, that are not within the purview
of the City of San Bernardino to control or enforce, and
are beyond the control of the Project Applicant (DEIR p.
4.9-13). Thus, no feasible mitigation is available to
lessen this impact to below a level of significance.
4. Noise
a. Operational Noise — Compliance with Standards
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose persons to or generate
noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies (Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.10 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would expose persons to
or generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the City. The City
75 November 16, 2017
also finds that no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the
Project's noise contribution to less -than -significant levels.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
Stationary operational noise sources associated with
operation of the Project are expected to include idling
trucks, delivery truck activities, parking, backup alarms,
and the loading and unloading of dry goods at the
designated truck loading docks. The highest Project -
related operational noise level increase would approach
1.2 dBA Leq in the daytime and 1.6 dBA Leq in the
nighttime at Receiver Location R6 (the area of the Santa
Ana River) (DEIR p. 4.10-18). Because the ambient
noise level at Receiver Location R6 without the Project is
below 60 dBA Leq, the increase of 1.2 dBA Leq and 1.6
dBA Leq at Receiver Location R6 would not exceed the
significance criterion of 5 dBA or more at a location that
is below 60 dBA without the Project. Therefore, at all
representative noise level locations, the Project's
contributions to the operational noise levels would be
less than significant and 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. Impacts associated with the
Project's stationary -source operational noise would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Id.)
Project operation noise levels combined with ambient
noise and operation noise from cumulative development
that may be operating simultaneous to the proposed
Project would add to the cumulative noise environment
(DEIR p. 4.10-24). There are no cumulative
development projects known to have the potential to
occur immediately south, west, or east of the Project site.
Because the Project -related operational noise level
contributions would not exceed the significance criterion
in the representative noise level locations, Project -related
stationary operational noise level impacts would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
To quantify the Project's operational traffic noise impacts
on the surrounding areas, the changes in traffic noise
levels on 11 roadway segments surrounding the Project
were calculated based on Project -related changes in the
average daily traffic volumes (DEIR p. 4.10-19). Under
the "Existing Plus Project" scenario, noise level increases
at all study area roadway segments would be less than
significant, except for at the roadway segment identified
76 November 16, 2017
as Washington Avenue south of Orange Show Road (ID
#1). Without the Project, the noise level is calculated to
be 55.7 dBA CNEL at ID #1. With the addition of
Project traffic, the dBA CNEL at ID #1 is calculated to
be 65.9 dBA CNEL, which is an exterior noise level
increase of 10.2 dBA CNEL. Because the noise levels at
existing and future noise -sensitive land uses (e.g.
residential, etc.) are less than 60 dBA and the Project
creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater Project -
related noise level increase, the off-site, Project -related
traffic noise level increase at this roadway segment is
considered a significant impact under "Existing Plus
Project" conditions (DEER p. 4.10-20).
Under the "Existing Plus Ambient 2018" and "Existing
Plus Ambient Plus Cumulative 2018" scenarios, noise
level increases at all study area roadway segments would
be less than significant, except for at the roadway
segment identified as Washington Avenue south of
Orange Show Road (ID #1) (DEER p. 4.10-20 and 4.10-
25). Without the Project, the ambient 2018 noise level is
calculated to be 57.7 dBA CNEL at ID #1. With the
addition of Project traffic, the dBA CNEL at ID #1 is
calculated to be 66.1 dBA CNEL, which is an exterior
noise level increase of 8.4 dBA CNEL. Because the
noise levels at existing and future noise -sensitive land
uses (e.g. residential, etc.) are less than 60 dBA and the
Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater
Project -related noise level increase, the off-site, Project -
related traffic noise level increase at this roadway
segment is considered a significant impact under
"Existing Plus Ambient 2018" and a significant
cumulative impact under "Existing Plus Ambient Plus
Cumulative 2018" conditions. (Id.)
Under the "Horizon Year 2040" scenario, noise level
increases at all study area roadway segments would be
less than significant, except for at the roadway segment
identified as Washington Avenue south of Orange Show
Road (ID #1) (DEER p. 4.10-25). Without the Project,
the noise level is calculated to be 61.0 dBA CNEL at ID
#1. With the addition of Project traffic, the dBA CNEL
at ID #1 is calculated to be 66.8 dBA CNEL, which is an
exterior noise level increase of 5.8 dBA CNEL. Because
the noise levels at existing and future noise -sensitive land
uses (e.g. residential, etc.) are less than 60 dBA and the
Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater
Project -related noise level increase, the off-site, Project -
related traffic noise level increase at this roadway
77 November 16, 2017
segment is considered a significant cumulatively
considerable impact under "Horizon Year 2040"
conditions. (Id.)
Off-site Project -related traffic noise impacts would be
significant and unavoidable for all analyzed traffic
scenarios (Existing; Existing plus Ambient 2018;
Existing plus Ambient Plus Cumulative 2018; and
Horizon Year 2040) for the one roadway segment
identified as Washington Avenue, south of Orange Show
Road (ID #1) (DEIR p. 4.10-29). Mitigation measures
considered by the City of San Bernardino to address this
impact were dismissed because they would be ineffective
or infeasible. Two mitigation measures were considered,
the application of rubberized asphalt on Washington
Avenue and the installation of noise barriers.
Caltrans research shows that rubberized asphalt can
provide potential noise attenuation of approximately 4
dBA. However, the effectiveness of reducing traffic
noise levels through the application of rubberized asphalt
is higher on roadways with low percentages of heavy
trucks, because heavy truck engine and exhaust noise is
not affected by rubberized alternative pavement. This is
due to the truck height or the height at which truck
engines and exhaust systems sit above the pavement.
Therefore, the use of rubberized asphalt on Washington
Avenue would not be effective at measurably reducing
the Project's off-site traffic -related noise impact, which
is caused by truck travel on the roadway segment. For
this reason, the use of rubberized asphalt was dismissed
as a potential mitigation measure due to ineffectiveness.
Noise barriers also were considered as potential
mitigation. To achieve a readily perceptible 5 dBA
reduction, which is identified by Caltrans as the
minimum required noise attenuation to justify the
construction of a noise barrier, a minimum 8 -foot -high
barrier would be required, which would block the line -of -
sight from truck engine and exhaust noise along
Washington Avenue to the nearby, non -confirming
residential noise -sensitive receivers. Even with the
installation of an 8 -foot -high noise barrier, the Project -
related transportation noise impact would remain above 5
dBA Leq in the Existing plus Project scenario and the
significant impact would not be reduced to less than
significant. Furthermore, the barrier would face the front
yards of the existing non -conforming residential homes
on Washington Avenue south of Orange Show Road, and
78 November 16, 2017
physically block access from the existing homes to
Washington Avenue, which is not feasible. For these
reasons, the installation of a noise barrier was dismissed
as a potential mitigation measure due to infeasibility and
failure to adequately reduce the impact to less than
significant.
b. Permanent Noise Levels
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project (Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Noise are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.10 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project. The City also finds that no feasible
mitigation measures are available to reduce the Project's noise contribution to the
acoustic environment to less -than -significant levels.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Project -related construction activities would be short-
term in nature and would not result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity. Stationary operational noise sources associated
with operation of the Project are expected to include
idling trucks, delivery truck activities, parking, backup
alarms, and the loading and unloading of dry goods at the
designated truck loading docks. The highest Project -
related operational noise level increase would approach
1.2 dBA Leq in the daytime and 1.6 dBA Leq in the
nighttime (in the area of the Santa Ana River) (DEIR p.
4.10-18). in the nighttime at Receiver Location R6 (the
area of the Santa Ana River) Because the ambient noise
level at Receiver Location R6 without the Project is
below 60 dBA Leq, the increase of 1.2 dBA Leq and 1.6
dBA Leq at Receiver Location R6 would not exceed the
significance criterion of 5 dBA or more at a location that
is below 60 dBA without the Project. Therefore, at all
representative noise level locations, the Project's
contributions to the operational noise levels would be
less than significant and 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. Impacts associated with the Project's
operational noise would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Project operation noise levels combined with ambient
noise and operation noise from cumulative development
79 November 16, 2017
that may be operating simultaneous to the proposed
Project would add to the cumulative noise environment
(DEIR p. 4.10-24). There are no cumulative
development projects known to have the potential to
occur immediately south, west, or east of the Project site.
Because the Project -related operational noise level
contributions would not exceed the significance criterion
of 5, 3, or 1.5 dBA Leq in all representative noise level
locations, Project -related stationary operational noise
level impacts would be less than cumulatively
considerable and no mitigation is required.
As described in more detail above (under the previous
Findings statement), off-site Project -related traffic noise
impacts would be significant and unavoidable for all
analyzed traffic scenarios (Existing; Existing plus
Ambient 2018; Existing plus Ambient Plus Cumulative
2018; and Horizon Year 2040) for the one roadway
segment identified as Washington Avenue, south of
Orange Show Road (ID' #1) (DEIR p. 4.10-29).
Mitigation measures considered by the City of San
Bernardino to address this impact were dismissed
because they would be ineffective or infeasible. Two
mitigation measures were considered, the application of
rubberized asphalt on Washington Avenue and the
installation of noise barriers; however, neither of the
proposed mitigation measures were deemed feasible.
Accordingly, a significant and unavoidable direct and
cumulatively considerable impact would occur.
5. Transportation/Circulation
a. Performance of the Circulation System
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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 a).
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation/Circulation are discussed in detail in Subsection
4.11 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would
not cause any study area intersection to operate at unacceptable level of service
(LOS); however, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact
at two intersections in the Horizon Year (2040). The City also finds that although
the Project Applicant would be required to pay development impact fees and
80 November 16, 2017
participate in fair -share funding programs to address cumulatively considerable
impacts, these fees are not under the sole jurisdictional authority of the City of
San Bernardino and/or are not included in any existing mitigation funding
program to ensure a date -certain installation. Accordingly, the City finds that no
other feasible mitigation measures for these cumulatively considerable impacts
are available.
Facts in Support of the Finding: During the Project's construction phase, traffic to -and -
from the subject property would be generated by
activities such as construction employee trips,
construction materials deliveries, and the use/delivery of
heavy equipment (DEIR p. 4.11-15). Traffic from
construction workers and construction deliveries is not
expected to result in a substantial adverse effect to
Project study area intersections because most trips would
occur during non -peak hours and the total volume of trips
would be less than the Project's operational trips.
Accordingly, traffic generated by the Project's
construction phase would not result in a conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system (DEIR p. 4.11-16).
The Project would result in less -than -significant impacts
to the performance of the local circulation network under
Existing plus Project (E+P) and Existing plus Ambient
Growth plus Project (E+A+P). Under Existing plus
Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative
Development (E+A+P+C) traffic conditions, the I-10
Westbound Ramps / Carnegie Drive / Hospitality Lane
intersection (Intersection #16) would operate at
unacceptable LOS during the PM peak hour under
E+A+P+C traffic conditions. However, the Project's
contribution to the LOS deficiency at Intersection #16
would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. All
other intersections in the Project study area would
operate at acceptable LOS under E+A+P+C traffic
conditions and Project -related traffic would not exceed
applicable significance thresholds.
Under Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions, the Project
would make a significant and cumulatively considerable
contribution to a conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance, or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system at Intersection #3 (E Street / Auto Center Road /
Orange Show Road) and Intersection #13 (Waterman
Avenue / I-10 Westbound On -Ramp) (DEIR p. 4.11-17).
All other intersections in the Project study area would
81 November 16, 2017
operate at acceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040)
traffic conditions and Project -related traffic would not
exceed applicable significance thresholds.
Mitigation Measures MM 4.11-1 through MM 4.11-3
would require the Project to pay development impact fees
and participate in fair -share funding programs to address
cumulatively considerable impacts to the local roadway
network that would result from the Project's operation.
(DEER p. 4.11-29). These Mitigation Measures are listed
below, are adopted and incorporated into the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, and
will be implemented as specified therein, thereby
reducing potentially significant cumulative impacts to
less than significant.
The recommended improvements identified in MM 4.11-
1 through MM 4.11-3 either: 1) are not under the sole
jurisdictional authority of the City of San Bernardino
(meaning the City of San Bernardino cannot assure that
the recommended improvements would be implemented);
and/or 2) are not included in any existing mitigation
funding program to ensure a date -certain installation
(DEIR p. 4.11-29 and 4.11-30). Because the City of San
Bernardino cannot assure that the recommended
improvements would be implemented and/or in place at
the time of need, the cumulative impacts to Intersection
#3 and Intersection #13 are recognized as significant and
potentially unavoidable under Horizon Year conditions
(DEIR p. 4.11-30). No other feasible mitigation
measures for these cumulatively considerable impacts are
available that would have a proportional nexus to the
Project's impact.
MM 4.11-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall comply with
the City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, which
requires the payment of a fee to the City (less fee credits), a portion of which
is applied to reduce traffic congestion by funding the installation of roadway
improvements.
MM 4.11-2 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Project Applicant shall make a
fair -share payment to the City of San Bernardino, to be held in trust, for the
improvements to the E Street / Auto Center Road / Orange Show Road
intersection improvements listed below. The required fair -share payment
shall be in accordance with Table 1-4 of the "Gateway South Building 4
Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared by Urban Crossroads (dated April 6,
2017). The City of San Bernardino shall only use the funds for the purpose of
implementing improvements to the E Street / Auto Center Road / Orange
Show Road intersection listed below. If within five years of the date of
82 November 16, 2017
collection of the Project's fair -share fee payment, the City of San Bernardino
has not completed the improvements or established a fair -share funding
program for the specified improvements to the E Street /Auto Center Road /
Orange Show Road intersection, then the City of San Bernardino shall return
the funds to the Project Applicant.
a) Re -stripe and lengthen the storage for the existing dual northbound
left turn lanes; and
b) Modify the traffic signal with overlap phasing on the eastbound right
turn lane.
MM 4.11-3 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Project Applicant shall make a
fair -share payment to the City of San Bernardino, to be held in trust, for the
improvements to the Waterman Avenue / I-10 Westbound On -Ramp
intersection improvements listed below. The required fair -share payment
shall be in accordance with Table 1-4 of the "Gateway South Building 4
Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared by Urban Crossroads (dated April 6,
2017). The City of San Bernardino shall only use the funds for the purpose of
implementing improvements to the Waterman Avenue / I-10 Westbound On -
Ramp intersection listed below. If within five years of the date of collection of
the Project's fair -share fee payment, the City of San Bernardino has not
completed the improvement or established a fair -share funding program for
the specified improvements to the Waterman Avenue / I-10 Westbound On -
Ramp intersection, then the City of San Bernardino shall return the funds to
the Project Applicant.
a) Install traffic signal.
b. Congestion Management Plan
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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
(Threshold b).
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation/Circulation are discussed in detail in Subsection
4.11 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would
cumulatively contribute to a conflict with the San Bernardino Congestion
Management Plan arterial roadway/intersection performance standards. The City
also finds that although the Project Applicant would be required to pay
development impact fees and participate in fair -share funding programs to
address cumulatively considerable impacts, these fees are not under the sole
jurisdictional authority of the City of San Bernardino and/or are not included in
any existing mitigation funding program to ensure a date -certain installation.
Accordingly, the City finds that no other feasible mitigation measures for these
cumulatively considerable impacts are available.
83 November 16, 2017
Facts in Support of the Finding: The SANBAG San Bernardino County Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) is applicable to the Project
because of the Project site's proximity to freeway
mainline segments and major intersections that are
designated as part of the CMP roadway system (DEIR p.
4.11-17). Under Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions,
the Project would contribute a significant cumulatively
considerable traffic impact at the intersection of E Street /
Auto Center Road / Orange Show Road (Intersection 43),
which is identified as a CMP intersection. Accordingly,
the Project's contribution to the conflict with the San
Bernardino County CMP LOS standards for the CMP
arterial roadway network under Horizon Year (2040)
traffic conditions would be cumulatively considerable
and mitigation is required (DEII2 p. 4.11-18).
Various San Bernardino County CMP freeway facilities
are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during
Existing plus Project, Opening Year, Opening Year plus
Cumulative, and Horizon Year traffic conditions (DEIR
p. 4.11-24). However, traffic generated by the Project
would not exceed applicable significance thresholds and,
therefore, would not conflict with the San Bernardino
County CMP with regards to freeway performance (Id.).
Mitigation Measures MM 4.11-1 and MM 4.11-2 would
require the Project to pay development impact fees and
participate in fair -share funding programs to address
cumulative impacts to Intersection #3 (DEIR p. 4.11-30).
These Mitigation Measures are listed above, are adopted
and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project, and will be
implemented as specified therein, thereby reducing
potentially significant cumulative impacts to less than
significant.
Intersection #3 would operate at acceptable LOS under
Horizon Year conditions with the implementation of MM
4.11-1 and 4.11-2; however, the City of San Bernardino
cannot assure that the needed improvements are installed
at Intersection #3 by the time of need because the needed
improvements are not included in any existing mitigation
funding program (meaning there is no mechanism
available for development projects to contribute toward
the construction of needed improvements or for the City
to construct the improvements). Accordingly, the
cumulative impacts to Intersection #3 are recognized as
significant and unavoidable under Horizon Year
conditions. No other feasible mitigation measures for
84 November 16, 2017
this cumulatively considerable impact is available that
would have a proportional nexus to the Project's impact.
VIII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Potential Significant Impact: Whether any significant irreversible environmental changes
would result from implementation of the Project. An
environmental change would fall into this category if. a) the
project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable
resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the
project would generally commit future generations to similar
uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible
damage could result from any potential environmental
accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources are
not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of
energy).
Finding: Significant irreversible environmental effects which would be caused by the
Project are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.2 of the EIR. Based on the entire
record, the City finds that the Project would not cause an irreversible change that
would result in a significant adverse effect to the environment.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Natural resources in the form of construction materials
and energy resources would be used in the construction
of the proposed Project, but development of the Project
site as proposed would have no measurable adverse effect
on the availability of such resources, including resources
that may be non-renewable (e.g., fossil fuels) (DEIR p.
5-3). Construction and operation of the proposed Project
would not involve the use of large sums or sources of
non-renewable energy (Id.). Additionally, the Project is
required by law to comply with the California Building
Standards Code (CALGreen), compliance with which
reduces a building operation's energy volume that is
produced by fossil fuels (Id.). The proposed Project
would be required to comply with federal, state, and local
regulations related to hazardous materials, which would
ensure that construction and long-term operation of the
proposed Project would not have the potential to cause
significant irreversible damage to the environment,
including damage that may result from upset or accident
conditions. The proposed Project would not result in the
wasteful consumption of energy. Accordingly, the
proposed Project would not result in a significant,
irreversible change to the environment related to energy
use.
85 November 16, 2017
IX. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the proposed Project could be growth -inducing.
The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing
if it would foster economic or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA
Guidelines §15126.2(d)).
Finding: The Project's potential to result in growth -inducing impacts is discussed in detail
in Subsection 5.3 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the
Project would not directly or indirectly induce growth in the surrounding area
which could result in a significant adverse effect to the environment.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Economic growth would likely take place as a result of
the proposed Project's operation as a high cube logistics
warehouse building (DEIR p. 5-4). The Project's
construction -related and operational -related employees
would purchase goods and services in the region, but any
secondary increase in employment associated with
meeting these goods and services needs is expected to be
marginal, accommodated by existing goods and service
providers, and highly unlikely to result in any new
physical impacts to the environment based on the amount
of available commercial and retail services available in
areas near the Project site, including the Cities of Colton,
Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Redlands and Highland. In
addition, the Project would create jobs which would
likely serve the housing units either already built or
planned for development within the City of San
Bernardino. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that
the Project's future employees would already be living in
the area, the Project's on-site employment generation
would not induce substantial growth in the area
The Project would install new public infrastructure
improvements, including roads, drainage infrastructure,
and other utility improvements; however, these
infrastructure improvements are sized to primarily serve
the Project and to provide a future connection point for
land uses planned by the San Bernardino General Plan.
(DEIR p. 5-5). The proposed Project is located in an
area that is surrounded by flood control channels and
commercial and office development that is designated
with "Public Facility/Quasi-Public-Publicly Owned
Flood Control Channel (PFC)," "Industrial -Industrial
Light (IL)" and "Industrial -Office Industrial Park (OIP)"
land uses (Id.). Development of the Project site with one
high cube logistics warehouse building may place short -
86 November 16, 2017
term development pressure on several surrounding and
nearby parcels that are designated for "Industrial -
Industrial Light (IL)" uses that are currently either
undeveloped or developed with non -conforming
residential land uses (Id.). The land uses proposed by the
Project would differ substantially from the land uses
permitted under existing conditions; however, because
surrounding and nearby parcels would be developed with
"Industrial -Industrial Light (IL)" land uses, growth -
inducing impacts of the Project would be less than
significant. Accordingly, because surrounding and
nearby parcels are planned for "Industrial -Industrial
Light (IL)" land uses, the Project is not expected to
induce growth or land use changes on other parcels in the
vicinity of the Project site. Based on the foregoing, the
Project is not expected to directly or indirectly induce
growth in the local area.
X. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. No Proiect / Existing General Plan Designation Alternative
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the No Project / Existing General
Plan Designation Alternative was considered but rejected the because the use of
the site in accordance with existing General Plan designations is addressed under
the No Project Alternative and development of the property with any use allowed
by the existing General Plan designation other than the existing golf course is
highly speculative and would not meet any of the Project's objectives.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of San Bernardino General Plan designates the
majority of the Project site for "Open Space-
Public/Commercial Recreation (PCR)" with intended
uses as intensive recreational uses, such as golf courses,
sports complexes, and fair grounds, as approved through
the public review process (DEIR p. 6-4). A small area in
the northwest portion of the Project site is designated
"Industrial -Industrial Light (IL)". The Lead Agency
considered but rejected the No Project / Existing General
Plan Designation Alternative because the use of the site
as a golf course is already addressed under the No Project
Alternative and the development of a sports park or fair
ground on the Project site is highly speculative and
would not meet any of the Project's objectives.
87 November 16, 2017
B. Alternative Sites
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that no reasonably feasible and
available alternative site exists for the Project which would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant impacts of the Project while allowing for the feasible
attainment of most of the Project's basic objectives.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is located approximately 1.3 miles east of
I-215 and approximately 0.50 miles north of I-10, both of
which provide accessibility to/from the Project site to the
existing regional transportation system that facilitates the
efficient movement of goods as part of the California
goods movement network (DEIR p. 6-3). Additionally,
the Project site is located in an area mainly surrounded by
lands designated as "Industrial -Industrial Light (IL),"
"Industrial - Office Industrial Park (OIP)," and "Public
Facility /Quasi Public — Publicly Owned Flood Control
(PFC)". There are no other available properties in the
City of San Bernardino of similar size and accessibility to
the regional goods movement system that the Project
Applicant has the reasonable possibility of controlling
and that would have fewer developmental and
environmental constraints than the Project site evaluated
in this EIR (DEIR p. 6-4).
Development of the Project in an alternative location
would have similar impacts, with the potential for greater
impacts, as would occur with implementation of the
Project at its proposed location. In addition, most parcels
of land of similar size to the Project site and that could
accommodate the proposed Project's development are
located farther from I-215 and I-10 than the Project site
or are undeveloped and have greater environmental
sensitivity than the site of the San Bernardino Public Golf
Club. Because developing the Project at a location
further from the major roadways would require vehicles
traveling to and from the Project to travel a farther
distance on local roadways to access the state highway
system, environmental operational impacts associated
with traffic, vehicular noise, and air pollutant emissions
would be greater than those of the proposed Project.
Also, because developing the Project on an undeveloped
property as compared to property that has already been
developed as a golf course, there is much greater
potential for impacts to occur to the natural physical
environment, such as biological resources, cultural
resources, and geology/soils. Additionally, given the
regional demand for logistics and warehousing space in
88 November 16, 2017
the SCAG region, it is likely that the selection of an
alternative site would not eliminate the Project's
environmental effects, but merely displace the
development activity proposed by the Project to another
location resulting in the same or greater environmental
effects in the region. (DEIR pp. 6-4, 5).
C. No Proiect Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that the Project site would be left in its existing
condition. This alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the environmental
effects of the Project against leaving the property in its existing state.
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the No Project Alternative is
environmentally superior to the Project, but would not achieve the underlying
purpose of the Project nor would it attain any of the objectives for the Project.
Accordingly, the City rejects the No Project Alternative.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the No Project Alternative would
result in no physical environmental impacts to the subject
property beyond those that have historically occurred or
would continue occurring from operation of the existing
golf course. All significant impacts of the proposed
Project, except for impacts associated with geology/soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water
quality, and utilities/service systems, would be avoided
or lessened by the selection of this alternative (DEIR p.
6-7 through 6-15). The No Project Alternative would
fail to meet all eight of the Project's objectives (DEIR p.
6-15). Moreover, selection of the No Project Alternative
would not result in a reduction in demand for industrial
business park development in the San Bernardino Valley
area; thus, it is likely for the Project's environmental
impacts to be displaced to another property rather than be
avoided (DEER p. 6-4). Accordingly, the City rejects the
No Project Alternative.
A Eastern Access Only Alternative
Under the Eastern Access Only Alternative, the Project site would be developed as described
in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, with the exception that the Project site would be
accessed only via S. Waterman Avenue and no northern access to/from the Project site would
be constructed. The proposed Project includes the installation of an off-site access driveway
between the northern boundary of the Project site and Orange Show Road. Vehicular noise
generated by automobiles and trucks using this driveway would elevate noise levels
experienced by adjacent properties to perceptible levels that exceed the significance criteria
identified for noise impacts in this EIR. The Eastern Access Only Alternative is intended to
avoid the off-site access driveway and its associated noise impacts.
89 November 16, 2017
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Eastern Access Only
Alternative would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with vehicular noise on the off-site access road between the Project
site boundary and Orange Show Road and would slightly reduce the Project's
impacts associated with aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology/soils, and hydrology/water stemming from the elimination of this Project
design feature. The City also finds that the Eastern Access Alternative would
meet all of the Project's objectives, but would not achieve any substantial
environmental benefits and would increase traffic / circulation impacts and create
a potential safety hazard by limiting access routes to the site by emergency
vehicles. Accordingly, the City rejects the Eastern Access Only Alternative.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Eastern Access Only Alternative would eliminate the
Project's significant and unavoidable noise impact
associated with traffic on a proposed off-site access road
between the Project site boundary and Orange Show
Road because this alternative would not include a
northern access to/from the Project site and would not
introduce any vehicular -related noise along this roadway
alignment proposed by the Project (DEIR p. 6-19). This
alternative would result in similar significant and
unavoidable impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, and land use/planning (DEIR p. 6-15 through
6-20). Because the Project's physical disturbance
footprint would be slightly smaller due to elimination of
the off-site access road, this alternative would slightly
reduce impacts associated with aesthetics, biological
resources, cultural resources; geology/soils; and
hydrology /water quality (DEER p. 6-20). However, this
alternative would result in increased impacts associated
with transportation/circulation by concentrating all
vehicular traffic entering and exiting the site at the
intersection of the Project's driveway connection to S.
Waterman Avenue. Further, hazards impacts would
increase by limiting emergency vehicle access roads to
the site (DEIR pp. 6-17, 18). The Eastern Access
Alternative would meet all of the Project's objectives, but
would not achieve any substantial environmental benefits
and would increase traffic / circulation impacts along S.
Waterman Avenue and create a potential safety hazard by
limiting access routes to the site by emergency vehicles
(DEER p. 6-20). Accordingly, the City rejects the Eastern
Access Only Alternative.
90 November 16, 2017
E. Smaller Building with Truck Trailer Parking Alternative
The Smaller Building with Truck Trailer Parking Alternative would grade the entire Project
site and construct and operate an approximately 600,000 s.f high cube logistics warehouse
building and a truck trailer parking area on the Project site. The parking area would service
the proposed on-site building and would not generate more traffic than would generated for
the building itself. The parking lot would be paved and fenced and include artificial lighting
for safety purposes.
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Smaller Building with Truck
Trailer Parking Alternative would result in reduced impacts to the environmental
factors of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic / circulation.
The City also finds that building a smaller building on the Project site would not
reduce the demand for warehouse building space in the City of San Bernardino
and surrounding area, so the significant environmental impacts reduced by
developing a smaller building on the Project site would be displaced elsewhere in
the City or region order to accommodate for the difference in square footage.
Accordingly, the City rejects the Small Building Alternative.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Smaller Building with Truck Trailer Parking
Alternative would result in similar impacts to the
environmental factors of aesthetics, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology /soils, hazards and hazardous
materials, land use / planning, hydrology /water quality
and utilities /service systems as compared to the proposed
Project (DEIR p. 6-20 through 6-26). This alternative
would result in reduced impacts to the environmental
factors of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise,
and traffic / circulation; however, building a smaller
building on the Project site would not reduce the demand
for warehouse building space in the City of San
Bernardino and surrounding area, so the building space
not accommodated for on the Project site could be
constructed on another property, thereby displacing the
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions rather than
reducing them, which would have no environmental
benefit to the SCAB or the global climate (DEIR p. 6-
26). The Smaller Building with Truck Trailer Parking
Alternative would meet all of the Project's objectives,
although several would be met to a lesser degree due to
the provision of less building space on the Project site.
Accordingly, the City rejects the Smaller Building with
Truck Trailer Parking Alternative.
91 November 16, 2017
F. Smaller Building Alternative
The Smaller Building Alternative would construct an approximately 600,000 s.f high cube
logistics warehouse building on the Project site; thereby reducing the Project's building area
by approximately 463,852 s.f. (44%) in building area. Also, because a smaller building
would be constructed, less of the Project site would be graded. It is assumed that
development would occur on the eastern two-thirds of the Project site and northern portion of
the Project site and that the western portion of the Project site would remain as open space
comprised of an abandoned portion of the San Bernardino Public Golf Club. All other
aspects of the proposed Project would remain the same.
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Smaller Building Alternative is
the environmentally superior alternative to the Project and would result in
reduced impacts to the environmental factors of air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise, and traffic / circulation. The City also finds that building a
smaller building on the Project site would not reduce the demand for warehouse
building space in the City of San Bernardino and surrounding area, so the
significant environmental impacts reduced by developing a smaller building on
the Project site would be displaced elsewhere in order to accommodate for the
difference in square footage. Accordingly, the City rejects the Small Building
Alternative.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Smaller Building Alternative would result in similar
impacts to the environmental factors of aesthetics,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology /soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, land use / planning,
hydrology /water quality and utilities /service systems as
compared to the proposed Project (DEIR p. 6-26
through 6-32). This alternative would result in reduced
impacts to the environmental factors of air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic / circulation;
however, constructing a smaller building on the Project
site would not reduce the demand for warehouse building
space in the City of San Bernardino and surrounding
area, so the building space not accommodated for on the
Project site could be constructed on another property,
thereby displacing the air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions rather than reducing them, which would have
no environmental benefit to the SCAB or the global
climate (DEIR p. 6-26). The Smaller Building
Alternative would meet all of the Project's objectives,
although several would be met to a lesser degree due to
the provision of less building space on the Project site.
Accordingly, the City rejects the Smaller Building
Alternative.
92 November 16, 2017
G. Ranee of Alternatives
Finding: The City finds that Alternatives to the Project consisting of the No Project
Alternative, Eastern Access Only Alternative, Smaller Building with Truck
Trailer Parking Alternative, and Smaller Building Alternative represent a
reasonable range of alternatives.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002 and
the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR
must assess a reasonable range of alternatives to the
project action or location. Section 15126.6(a) places
special emphasis on focusing the discussion on
alternatives which provide opportunities for eliminating
any significant adverse environmental impacts, or
reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if the
alternative would impede to some degree the attainment
of the project objectives, or would be costlier. The
discussion of alternatives is governed by the "rule of
reason." The EIR need not consider an alternative whose
effect cannot be reasonably ascertained, or does not
contribute to an informed decision-making and public
participation process. Because are no reasonably feasible
and available alternative sites for the Project or
alternative land uses for the Project site, consideration of
the No Project Alternative, Eastern Access Only
Alternative, Smaller Building with Truck Trailer Parking
Alternative, and Smaller Building Alternative represents
a reasonable range of alternatives. The purpose of the
CEQA requirements of studying a reasonable range of
alternatives would not be met by constructing additional
alternatives that would not meet the basic objectives of
the Project. There are no other feasible alternatives that
would achieve all of the Project's basic objectives while
lessening or avoiding the Project's significant
environmental effects.
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This Section specifically addresses § 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires the City,
acting as the Lead Agency, to balance the benefits of the Project against its significant and
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and determine whether the benefits which will
accrue from the development of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts.
If the City finds that the major benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the City may approve the Project. Each of the
separate benefits listed below are hereby determined to be, in itself, and independent of the
Project's other benefits, the basis for overriding all significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts identified in the EIR.
93 November 16, 2017
As set forth in Section VII above, the EIR identified all of the Project's adverse
environmental impacts and mitigation measures which can reduce the Project's impacts to
less -than -significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels. Mitigation
imposed by the City must have a proportional nexus to the Project's impacts. As further set
forth in Section VII, above, the EIR presents evidence that implementing the Project would
cause or contribute to impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even after the
imposition of all feasible mitigation measures. Finally, as set forth in Section X above, there
are no feasible alternatives to the Project that would mitigate the Project's significant and
unavoidable impacts to less -than -significant levels or avoid those environmental impacts
while still attaining all of the Project's basic objectives. Based on the facts presented
throughout this document, the City makes the following finding:
Finding: As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, the City has reviewed the
Project description and the alternatives to the Project, as presented in the EIR, and
the City fully understands the Project and its alternatives. Further, the City finds
that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the Draft
EIR, Final EIR, and public testimony. Having considered the potential for the
Project to cause or contribute to significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Land Use/Planning, Noise, and Transportation/
Circulation, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation measures with
proportional nexus to the Project's impacts have been adopted to reduce or avoid
the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR, and that no
additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts.
Further, the City finds that economic, social, and other considerations of the
Project outweigh the Project's unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse
Gas, Land Use/Planning, Noise, and Transportation/Circulation and that approval
of the Project is appropriate. In making this finding, the City has balanced the
benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts, and has
indicated its willingness to accept those effects. These benefits include the
following:
A. The Project would remove the existing San Bernardino Public Golf Club and
expeditiously redevelop the property. The existing San Bernardino Public
Golf Club is at risk of closing, which could leave the condition of an
abandoned golf course subject to blight and safety hazards. Redevelopment
of the property with a logistics warehouse development would keep the
property in a state of productive use for the foreseeable future.
B. The Project would redevelop the San Bernardino Public Golf Club
property with an employment -generating use that is compatible with
existing and planned industrial warehousing development found in the
surrounding area. The general area surrounding the Project site is
transitioning to a mixture of industrial and employment -based uses. To
the east of the Project site is S. Waterman Avenue, east of which are
commercial and office uses, industrial warehouse uses, and a portion of the
Santa Ana River and Wash. Located directly west of the Project site is East
Twin Creek beyond which is the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Facility
94 November 16, 2017
(WW). Located south of the Project site is the Santa Ana River and Wash
beyond which is land developed with office and commercial uses. To the
north is land currently developed with scattered residences planned for the
future development of industrial uses. These uses are complementary to
the proposed industrial warehousing use of the Project site.
C. The Project would develop a logistics warehouse use that capitalizes on the
transportation and locational strengths of San Bernardino. The Project site is
located approximately 1.3 miles east of I-215 and approximately 0.50 miles
north of I-10, both of which provide accessibility to/from the Project site to
the existing regional transportation system that facilitates the efficient
movement of goods as part of the California goods movement network.
D. The Project would attract new employment -generating business to San
Bernardino, thereby reducing the needs of the local workforce to commute
outside of the area for employment. The Project also would increase the
amount of available industrial warehouse space in the City of San Bernardino
to attract new businesses and jobs to the City. Although the user(s) of the
Project's proposed building is not yet known, an employment estimate can be
made using the San Bernardino General Plan's Square Feet (SF)/Employee
Factor. Per the General Plan, the SF/Employee factor for Light Industrial (IL)
land uses is 1,500. Therefore, because the Project's proposed building is
1,063,852 s.f. in size, the number of employees is expected to be
approximately 709 (1,063,852 - 1,500 =709). The addition of new jobs to the
City of San Bernardino will create direct and indirect economic benefits, such
as increased tax income to the City and spending on goods and services.
XII. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING PLAN FOR MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to §21081.6 of the Public Resources Code the City hereby adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") provided at Table S-1 in the Final EIR. The
City finds that the MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes (i.e., mitigation
measures) imposed on the Project to mitigate or avoid effects on the environment during
Project implementation. The MMRP is on file with the City's Community Development
Department, Planning Division, located at 201 North E Street, 3'd Floor, San Bernardino, CA
92401.
XIII. APPROVING THE PROJECT
Based on the entire record before the San Bernardino Planning Commission, including the
Findings and all written and oral evidence presented, the San Bernardino Planning
Commission hereby approves the Project with all the mitigation measures and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, as set forth in this Facts, Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations document.
95 November 16, 2017
XIV. REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
within five (5) working days of final Project approval.
XV. REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these
findings have been based are located at the City of San Bernardino, Community
Development Department, 201 North E Street, Yd Floor, San Bernardino, California 92401.
The custodian for these records is Travis Martin, Associate Planner. This information is
provided in compliance with Public Resources Code §21081.6.
96 November 16, 2017
Mitigation N-�. , _nitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
SCH No. 2017021049
Alliance California Gateway
South Building 4
San Bernardino, California
Lead Agency
City of San Bernardino
Office: 201 North E Street, Td Floor
Mail: 290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
November 22, 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
SCH No. 2017021049
Alliance California -Gateway South Building 4
San Bernardino, California
Lead Agency
City of San Bernardino
Office: 201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
Mail: 290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100
Tustin, CA 92780
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
General Plan Amendment (GPA16-09)
Development Code Amendment (DCA16-11)
Subdivision (SUB16-08)
Development Permit (DP -D16-26)
Variance (VAR16-03)
Date: November 22, 2017
CL
E
P.
it
co
g.
m
c
v
CD
c
O
c
O
U)
L
r.
so-
■❑
■■
w
C z O
w
U
a w d
o00
z
a�
O
F
d w
w �
a
a
¢
d
z
z
a,
z
z
z
a
as
z x
� d
a
4
d
d
z
o
F
Hao
•�
own
z
z
z
��bo
r
yo��
�
?o m
U
o
O
i
wo > o Q o
y
�°
�. o cc
o
�
f 54,
�
3'
d o � ���3en o
0.0
bo
0 � �
OQ
y 0
� � cd
Oi, O O
y O y O 0 cC
v, o �. w,
fn a) U N O
�
r/�
H � 5 v � •5
H '5 ca 'S � ... � 3 � n � � �
H a � � � 3 ......
of
O
N
O
n
0
N
0
z
U
E❑
■■
of
O
N
O
0
N
o
ca
Y
w
W
z
u
p0y
w~ o
a�
cn�D
z
O
F
O
z
� -
�
H
•s
A
z
Upga
�
U
z
o
'ss
z
as
G' id O U = p N .2
N •cC
cdU
U
W
���
�°,4:
a.
�U
Y Y
0>,w�"o
��
o o
�2
un
W
a•'
.
bn •" It 'b C Q.
U
O . m
'4,
O
O
Y is
U9"
rl
ti
Y b
o�b
d
aoy�io�yod.°�
�"�
'' b4 •= U y CA
^a�y p
•0
'b •� Cd
'� bU o 0
y U O O
O ' O .Y
C Cd�•�
cd Y
O ;L'"-. •' p
+�+ Cdy
id U y 0 �., cn
b 0 Lti, N C
3 �• ❑
�
A
o
rn 3 'ti
O -a ' cd Y Y
•�'
�'��"
a�
�'Y .b .�.�
.� fd
0,
'" O p•Ld O bn •U
3bb
�
SF"30Cd
o
bp �
a�
o y
o w 3
D
d
w
•• y P,
> o
Nco
U a"i o o o
c
`� i
°�-''
Cd
a
m b
to vp •�
Q .� b
IL0
w
eq
o •r, e o
C U C SZ U
H a�bn V1 Y .1
cl, N 3 N w
of
O
N
O
0
N
IL
W
O
N r
Q rC
Q
S
Z
O —
U 16U
V z
pp
�e
W
■ ■
Ol
Iq
o_
N
0
0
N
O
Z
2
U
O
C
c
N
m
c
O
0
U
U
c
N
Q
N
CO)
d
a
w
w
O
z
U W
04
w
w w
z
U
YO Y
YO0 �
a�W
cd
C7
z
n y 4
0
a Z,
"0
4.
Ua1UAA
UfAUAA
w
c
o
U
_
U �
�
Q
a U Y
Q
w a
U
X24
o
o
2-4
u
; a, U
a
N ¢ O N �'�"•+ .!E M •U �' Y
p O
C b cOC •� .� Y
Q. m 'Ly `" y y X+ N
U
P.
gb
a cv p. v. o y
GEd
:oeo
WCao
o
3 o
ca U Y
c
"SI
w
U
5 = 1•q V �... fn
O
F
N •by ' C O 3 O> Q. O s.
Q O y N 0 eq O Y
O
bJDo
8
E"
M
QO N
d w v b E o
1•w O E F" O
Q
ami
Pi
00 O O •N ¢' y0, O O
4-.
'w
M O 'O U O
.
U
H 'Y N v Y y' U p U 0
N U CCS
b 0
lz Oma? a0 o
ab�bw 0
a
x
Ol
Iq
o_
N
0
0
N
O
Z
2
U
O
C
c
N
m
c
O
0
U
U
c
N
Q
N
CO)
d
a
a
Im
M❑
ON
o�
O_
N
O
0
N
w
w
z
►.a
w
U
w
W
F"
d
C7
�F
a
Un
z
0
F
�
F
w
F
�
W
�
a
C�
C7
z
o
H
z
a
0
w
a
o
H
x
�a
a
•C
y N
VI it
-., i-+
y
+� Y
O O
.b C'i �"� 4••i N +"� N 'C O
p N O 'Ci 2� ,�
O
b
N
� �
L".
'TIs
O
N `�
Uto
co�r.
S3
_
p ��.
v �.
P.,,
O
p _
N
°�°
mon
O
p
b
O
A, ° cd E4
y
W"
,
o
ao
°�'
a�
•'"
an b Id
�I
p
GO'O
cCiUCCy
W
♦+ >
Uiy •p O
U i1
N d •�
c� p c .�
Oily y,a �•q
U O O v
c'I
U
a o
d a
w
W
F� a
6' O fti
s° 3 0o r. o
0rig
c"a
N
N .D
MA
W
x
F
o�
O_
N
O
0
N
a
oc
m
O
h
re
Q
g
0 i
O —
ULU
U Z
W
o,
v
O
N
O
n
O
N
O
Z
2
U
O
C:
6
c
N
m
c
C3
0
U
a
U
C
a)
0)
a
a
a>
J
U
O
G70
.�
a
W
U W
z
O
F
4.
°
ui
U
a
o
c7
z
a
Ua1UAA
W
a
0
w• o
� U
Vi F
0 VJ
Q
P, U
F cd
°�' F
.moi rA b bA
as
E'd
3
2
34.• �-
y 00�a°��'i'iver
a
=:
'a
Q "
9Q
�
C/i
a'�'"+ c�C••� >,
Y ;- R a� « 3 - 0 U O
4r O U EP 'd - r-,
0.75
L! 1+ '0 �
OD
M
� � 0�D cl a� �
C �
Ho W N O N > ,p y Q
0 r. y 0 • � ,� '�
co
P,
0 ° ami G q w Ea U b � ami � C7 W-1
E-4 � 0 5 C. � 4.- o°y
F
N N y 'b 10 0 O
00 a
6. r— 0
A
x
H
o,
v
O
N
O
n
O
N
O
Z
2
U
O
C:
6
c
N
m
c
C3
0
U
a
U
C
a)
0)
a
a
a>
J
IL
0
Ol
_O
N
O
0
N
O
z
U
40
4)
O
CL
O
W
�
9A ,
ap
a
~ C `~ >
Y
Cd
z
b
v � O
z��.
rr^^
U
WW
P, o o
H
C7
OF
F
c 0 0
z�bo
�aaUAA
'z
W
�o
...
z
F
x
a
oo�
a�
avCde
o 'o o
aaU
z
v�
o O U N O
cbjD
N
O p+
bA
0 ;g 10
�s
cG cC cd O
��
I�
V]
.-1 O
h y w b
>0
Y a' �
3 UnQ", •� � � �
�
a'
0
7-. �>"a CC OE Wf.
N
r.b
Q � .� N °�' •o o Fz .�
N
cl
eIn
•� 'ti
�-
O
o
�w°�F�
�
z
�
,00do�'���.o
O Q m U N .-.'m
' d C°
P,
c
O�CA
s c� ' cv N N
O LO O
N
O
°J 01000 40, Ddb
° � � ��
�'
o
.fib O 4a O
d Q O
v
•• 'ia
U
i.
'�
O O O b O
o
°
' y' o P,
v ,�
N
�ba° o °• w ��y��
�..
o
��ob o.�z�
I
o
o'¢
Z .. U 5
o
Ol
_O
N
O
0
N
O
z
U
40
4)
O
CL
IL
Im
w
o
cd
w z
W w F
6�
b
w z F
Cd.3
.°
co
CA U
z
C
0
>
A> bqU
a
C o >
O
z
O cd�i
N cd
z
umuAA
" o
a
z
�
U �
z
a�
V X bo ,' A N T cd y N
3 Fcd
o s
}Comp+! A
�S�•i cr.)
r31
VJ
U
� C ••� N
bo
m 4ti bA O O C O
Q
• �••'
'
o
O '� � O U
z
p"
U .fl � Y fy' L�'i
O
.fir
N C r, O
Q •� M E ^5' C Y Oo, r
U
OO•�''"•�
y O•' a0.
O .�
'b ' •C y
° N A O O
Y Y o
O y' +�
O Ste. N •p O
o o
O O
� O O Y O� N O
3 3 3
y
O
'O � ~n-. OwlO
3
a i
Y cS TO,� •C
`� a� a�
� %�I � V
e�
aOAi C'
�; m
A
���y y 1--I V 4% � p
yC
a
U V Ir.
p^�.��n�
O•P.
h
y
yOY.NY~OC�Y
t, mU
' p •: C �'UF�vO
°.
O
P0H
Yy
r+1
On
U cd
0 a C)o
.� oe wy5
cd o•
.0�;
�Pw�•°'
0o
8
r.bA
id
�. 'peE o 0
0
F
O O � y .a� y YO C
c .° Y y o
-p [d 'O � .� � � O �
C
o
�
cd 'Q5
o
•� �, � �' L"r � � 3 Y �'
� o � '0
O rn C
P� cd N •[�. Y -C cd
ZZ ;� J ° .� p Y
F
E
ami a°i o 0i
o b
o o a a� ° Cs U
H o
of
Iq
0
N
0
n
0
N
0
z
U
cn
CL
Im
m
p�O
eT� �
2
W
a �
gL
G
U LU
W 2
U Z
W
o�
O_
N
O
O
N
O
Z
2
U
00
a
w
U
z
O
U
W
O
z
0
o
z
UCgUAA
o
z
H
a
Q
O
a
¢
N O
FN`wl
aW
cd b y � 'b '�
O
cON y O
'y V]
;j
40. VQ]
U O
'
p, pit
g
•
bo
Y 0 y ¢I �t•yq ' ii Q� f %000Q
"
•ti
y
•U r'- 3°
a>cci
•f�ti a
4°""� y��•a
rn
.�
ccco
0ozo
�
Io°
i�s
00
c
C�
b0° w °° o
0 C) to3
ce
°>
P,w
o o cd
o o
.�
V N p> w DD w A "� V°
v
2
w V
Q to
cd
04
z
:b�v0;g G�=.-�"
°oaV)=bO°'o��'yZ,0
0.4
b ¢ zs
OR
oo c
F.
0 Cl
. -moo o 0,
y N
a ~ N
° Tr"
"O
•3 V -fl A
bA
Fr
.� 0 Q 1) w ami
y F 0
q V ' N aca C4 wN cC y b
0
N 5° Q
� Cd>
'O �
V "
u
N U >,
•f�
O G Pa
v d
y O A; 4..
•�
•[C y �..
V Fy U WO :.
CL O
O O
U U
L+ ,s,'
id b m m U
b
U fdate+ f-.' S
�. ,O cC
.moi
o�It
dw�
���°°u -0 ��
9b
V w 2 O
i1 TS
Ao0
3 co v Z
O
eo; " w :o 0� `n
O 0 O d Cd Q o. 'o iC
U
O y z
o'er 03 o b �q
14
o�ro� °�'��'�� oo3
°v.�
ami v to
•� O
0o y�
OR.
•y y
o¢ •✓
Q Q
U
93
xu
o�
O_
N
O
O
N
O
Z
2
U
00
a
IL
■❑
ON
of
v
0
N
0
0
N
O
z
U
w
C
Wz
O
� W
�
�
z
z
O
H
F w
F
W �
.a
P.
z
z
�
z
F
O �
z a
'z
'z
a
� F
x
o
as
a
z
z
3 V
o A
Cr
U
as
as
Y�y
Q
o N
°
O
c
z
z
yaL) Vi .Y>1i VJ 0 'O N U
Y 'Y Y VI y i'yi �•r ri c Y cd � •['i
b ON "ou S U N o
O N � ,1 Y � "1
a�
(0
�
YYo�a>co0�
E i•owM c°
�
�wbUC
Y ca
o =
A
' a,° 3Y°o°w
v .0 c
o
Zvi
Ld
OW3
4 �
a
�¢
¢ ';
►�as
0�3:��ao
a�a
Floo
a,
p o ° w
`a
br.
o o " w
0-0 >'
�.ye�a.��
AA -o
° ; ca.. CA�
,
8`
,,
r 0E.0
y Y 3
�
�
� �
0 •0 •bio
•� '.:" �
Y � �
.Li � Y :.i
H o o ts -c H.
b a. U 3 w A
o
v a 0
c
.�
of
v
0
N
0
0
N
O
z
U
IL
9
a
2
3
U
I
■❑
■■
w
0 U z
W O
0
x
x
H
of
O_
N
O
r-
0
N
0
z
U
U)
0
c
c
a`)
m
]c'[
0
0
U
U
C:
a)
Q
m
J
0
F
F W
� Fr
W �
a
'z
z
Z4
'z
a
�a
Z x
o �
z
b
w
o
F
o
z
0
x
x
H
of
O_
N
O
r-
0
N
0
z
U
U)
0
c
c
a`)
m
]c'[
0
0
U
U
C:
a)
Q
m
J
SL
o,
14
O
N
O
O
N
0
z
U
U)
O
C4
�
z
z
O
r
w
rZ
bJ1
a
0 °A
o �
a o
Z
z
�
F
0
UPGUAA
'z
m
Mw
0-4
z a
20
a`�
z
bD Z;l JR. I'd Jol2
o��_
-0
_
(d
2>
w
Cd 4, V
O
U y 00 O V]
u O U
way
Yzo
b
"
•�
O
W 7�.1
Y o 2 Ay
A
N
P-1 03 0 o Z
Mp.00
y y
O
t: N bA = 'b O '••' 0- N 75 � y
C C,
O
�'
O
-6
avi b
y
Q O° h Q•
y
W
>3
Ea>9,6ob
Yd
�;0
pcqs
d�M
U
y•°
0
v
� �
UO
i
3
a
GAM�I
Q
�" ° �
d Cd t5
Ofy t^3�o"cN
•-�-a0
Up
O^°
30Mo
y O N
"Cly U.
�O, V] Pr
b
x
o w
3
.�
i� 0 3
m
U O
4,-C
chi
ti °a ti•� y E 0 yF""o
o�+•�
3 0
�
ai o
c `per' °ate
"3
�.Ui " •� O
° 'by iU+ ° •U N y O O v
a.+ •Q" .�
U U F.
cd y
p„ cC 'Ly O
tC G
O
O
'b � •� '�"
N 4:QO
F
'O
•
fn
[Ud
O
0 U�O N
0
a M.
0
-
UCL
Oo U
0
EN-,
.2-2
o,
14
O
N
O
O
N
0
z
U
U)
CL
W
■L
■ .
BE:
A
x
zz
zz
d
'z
oo 0- to gid.-�'E� o
Fi •u'i+ O '� +' Ci i fd v, Y " Q i, O +�+ N •`S 4J 'Y "Ci
° 3 ami
w 45
Yr. u
00
O 91 O Y f" ° •1-+ O LC O O i.y 0 0° ~ 0 0 00 N O• V 0
• Y •'Y -I 4% C� }? G �V-1 . Fid
7-r Cd �I O fA U Y -C 4i A ° •° f/ V b A c� b r7 �fj-�-!I (� O �+ Y
m �r. E"� O �^ ta-%� V] !"-I Y ,� '� O Y v� �''4/ ti"' a •^! G%
O O cC ,�' WSJ .G N 00 ' m U y 'L1 LG
U U O H i/1 H U pz CA b ;� xi s0, H V] id G U F+ 0.i. U
of
O_
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
U
CL
of
Iq
0
N
O
ED
N
CO)
d
a
o
w
z
W
~ F
V? Y
W
~
z
~
O
.� �U,,
�.3S.
0
rl
O
0
CL
cz
a
0��
z
�
At
a
o 0
c
>, > m
UmUAA
W
Y
wo
Z
oC
2 �o
0
y
O O O U
°AY o
= cd =F1
°
2
o > a
Y WC° Y
0 'r. o *r. 0 .
'r °°
0
_
� 3 abi gyp' 4. � ? v
O Z
o, Q
¢
.�
cd ' pp o a� �
GO
cto }�}u.. id O
O W �
>
cOv
U
cdCZ
O O o 0
o �
0 '� C v �
O > .= •ice' b . h ., 0
"C
> cd
'�
cd � � �
...• N U 0 Vj .... U •••� Id C/���•
.3
-d y cd
Ei Y . a
z
t.
•
•
Q 75
y Y r. 3•r
W cd '~
R. O1=0
F U U
Cd U O v, N U U U U
O
i
OFp
-06
o O .O.
•„ 0C
>�••� to
pOy
L."
��
>, 0 ,
U to
►�
o Qq
fd O p 4+
a�
O O
o° U° F R
o 'b .N O O O 0
O
"
cz
•Y•.
ap >
o b b
O O O
O' „O •� 4� O a� O
y b0 a¢ C v d °
cd
��
i! ". Y
O U �>' c0 O 6, U N t"„ U f•o
{•,
Y U VJ D
.� Fr O
�•
U Ld
.to
OA
cd .-Oi +•-+ v O p y
t+i Cd
0
4)O
p
O
0 0-
O �� b .�••
cts
A
Cd
Q bA Yom. U +' U Cd ' O^ ..�.
000 U
0 w 0U
LL cd
U 0
H"a0
YFr
' cU�d
� O
�O
°
y0y
A
s>
yd
'oo00 U
'�C
�_
F �'„ • O
�O°:"
=
�U�d"
W
0 Ucd
. o a
A•
o0, 5
'+�; .0� YvONi
i.
Uo°�•„
Ex�
0 �Q
ooUpY
- b
'
o
o o-a
mU- orNa•.
vl
O ��Cd �
O
•ono
O
ONO
b
t'UUpOv
bAyL
Ln O
aO^�'
U
•aam.+
cd>0
q
3 �.
,Fy .
O>
Uca
O
v.
U0
V y� p
m
`r3
bYOG]
w O ao xi
o
aicm o
of
Iq
0
N
O
ED
N
CO)
d
a
a
Ix
Ol
IZT
O_
N
O
n
O
N
O
Z
2
U
w
z
wz
O
F
'-1
U
w
d
o
.y
cl
}0
y FO.
a
.n N w >
QSA,O w
O N y
in
i••i
A -a 0 ce °�' b
z
w
e 0
o°co
pp U"
W
a+
a
�
a
oy N
C
d
o .o a o
v
p,
o i" d �" P; ti
• ^ > 0 U N ,SOy cd
O % b
U
N `d "cv a c;s!
NQ�("1V)'
N O m
y
• O
N vr 0
t
o
4%
U
•I U
•Ty
4 c�
O
c�.y cC � •�
V1
UFy +,, Q, U cdp
0
v,O�•tTo.�—
0 Cd
. yO
cd
.�O +t' •,� 4 cl
0O
�
O
�
cO
Pc�y
U O p
N O
. p
"CdN °0 �
O NLb0
'C
N O 0 O'
p O :brd
U O-
z
G
a° ami b
y o -" o .3
r°,
H
w o v N
rid` c� ami o b
�y SEE
•7�„i i
U
Q� Y
fb V y �+
c •55 0 ..�-
N
d
0 00 O N O •10'.
b
0 0 ce b U
CW
0
n,
N
r.+ y
Cd
V
•o Q, 0
Y
:3N y cd b
v, O U QrS7
°d ° foo
vQ,"
E
cC cC
g v v l
O
oU as K3 Wby
ra
rA
rA
Ol
IZT
O_
N
O
n
O
N
O
Z
2
U
0�
Iq
O
N
O
t\
0
N
O
Z
2
U
V)
w
O
I
Wo
Od
z
W
"
F
W
�
azo~
�3
�-1 N
z
0
�
N
U
f.
w
O
F
�� OWN
,�.,•�
as
• U
O CO
von rr
A a c 1'. -o
p: o
z
°a
�r�
�b
Cb
UPAUAA
Upq
a
z F
Q Q
0 O O. o 9 o
O
p0,
oa+r.
v>��b ¢
a
r y El
N
FQI/i
d Z aUvlUaauAA
a
N Vi > = • 7. CFy N V1 O O r. GJ ; -' (� O
Fr. O
0CA
.O 'o �,i O 0 o > U vj to C� � cd�+'
O
Cd
i. N 2 .b y �
c�
�
_
4
co vOi .O+ O r0 � 2 � � � � bA vOi 0 '+O•
Lv Q
r) ca o b o° U S
`: `0
o ors.
A
o Ej( 0
�C, `" o w o �, •o :o ,, Y "' o o w .14 ;o U
'ta N b0
as
O
id Q. C: aoi o
0.
.O
0
as 0 tg Cd
•0
W
F
^
O o
d
pA
H .d Sr" �'. N bU N a0+ 4. ❑ v >'
F
4
q v o c� c o p o 0 a U
q
03
p �, > Q
aoib
a>i bA v o VJ r
� 3H �d �A u
� a
� c�
�'D•'C7 °' �d.�Y�~+-d'�.°AGQU
�
o
A
�fa
a�
a
o
0
•o
U
F
'd
'G
O
'5
H
0�
Iq
O
N
O
t\
0
N
O
Z
2
U
V)
IL
■
■■
of
Iq
O_
N
O
n
O
N
6
z
U
w
z
W
z
o
�Y.
U
z
Y
b�
z
F
Y N Li
° 0
0 cd
UAA
w
a�
b o
U o
z
p U bAwU% UN
o o0
Sq Y
yCP
UUcpauo
u o Y b C .� _ o 00 o
•O
a >. o
Y
•� •U
Y
•U
�a..�r
U .� 'CC ��• i+ '�Y'� `i w Y "'CLl 4"i
it C� o CC N 10U 1w,
U
U '7' f-1
o N
boo
3 >
U
a
p" o o rte,
'b
do O
,� �'�• w _ bA w G p U
:0., N iG
°° 0 N y
N
m+'
� °F
°oi iN
o
OA•O°
bY
N Y
-d
•�
•
Cali
a ° Y --�
o o
�
�, Y w a�
o c°
� � U ° �
o
a�
cy d ani
A
CdoC',
�,
° A v ° m (D 0 Y N >,
(LI
`"ami
.� ° �� H
a w
cd
o ao o �'"
abi
o 0
t" o o
f o
�A
0 0
F
c°i ami
° �i .--i dQ '�. iti •CG
o
t "�• .,"'
Q�
ai
.--i �
N
b y d F h C Cd y
di
6 y
�y p N
O ° y N tom. p W O W .d N P"
U N U w ..� 'C i --i O
'�
w
C"y N cC (� N
ftvC cC 'C C�. V] oo
G." O, y N (�
O U Y s� Q.
bA
w
-Cd.4 'C
� O
A
p x y '� o y y'w N Cd p
oz
C;z
U
U.
P-1 �• N F. O N •a+
0 O F O G O O
°o a0 v
of
Iq
O_
N
O
n
O
N
6
z
U
IL
a
%;t
O
N
O
n
O
N
O
z
U
w
w
z
o
r.7
U W
+� U
H
C
as
� o0
F
el W
>
m o •�
C7
W
vOvi
cd U ;d N
b a+
W
o a+ 0.1A p
3 o m a
'"
a
cd
o zoa`
ce
td N 0 �'
z
EE>
UPGUAA
UmUAA
O> w Vl y N
O p b 0
1�
a
0 O
p tA
o p O X00
p+ o U d
a
b
vy C y 1. p 0
a0'abUpgAvl
a;Uin1AuZxU
w cd N (D 41 Vi O
'Vl w O p U N!�" O "''
3
f)
•^ Cd ice.+
O 4. N 'C O
m
'G C.'
0.Y V] +''
ow a"i
o� 0
0$ O
o
•r_" N
o b ou o zn
v o
b
id .o cd w w
�,
c a o •� > U
y
0 o
api aoi my
o .r
,
.• �" N
O t
O O
.0
N 'O
r.
4." O O O i"+ .kn O QI
Vl
+, U
O
o a, G
O •'
m O
'C N
U p z U 0 `d
o U
N >•, O O
oo�o m o ai `�
N .�
A o
>
G
s0. w 9 cd
o O O cC
c 2
Z
o
�p
Cc
� O P id
Q
0 cd
"Cy
id o �
'O~ N
� 0 ' � N
W wo s3.r
°
m
o � �
bwU
V N4.
0
� fi
•rJ 'b 7O
YU
m �Vi
0 bU)
t"J
4,w
rto
i(j N Li O
'b ��'
_"
L: Q 'd
•'d rn
C
i-4
o
b OU U � Y
O
Ny
�' Fr ' ii OQ)
b y U
O 4%+
Q% e5
},
5
.�•••
O p 0 O M O
N Q O
cd bA -"
N>
N 0 cd tOd N
y N p V
B
V N N
as rn U &.
O, Vl 00
F. U V)
y O _wO V¢04 w
c
Oo
a a Yw
U
z��°°bY
F
~ U
to
` `�
•Ei b •o
. Y r O •O
OA U CL
a
%;t
O
N
O
n
O
N
O
z
U
CL
Fq
of
0
N
O
0
N
O
Z
2
U
co
G1
CL
z
L
an
MSI
f"•r Y C O
� ra
a IH
0
H
�
w
�
H
w
�
a
c7
z
o
H
w
a
u m
H .L' --o G
O
C
p N C',
N
[d
N
ed
00 .� a c
3
Ny
5 o '� 3
Y
rA
Fp=rJ
•
❑• U O• p �, O
O
4
40, 16
J:), W
is O ~ F -i OO
'0.0
p
w
'un
z
y
— "16
O
w0
p
A%r
c�°Y
U Y ti x
F�
C
O
0
H
00
V] -O N y U N a
'q
v v
'o
per,
id
�> p o c y
�O 4
'� �r
c
Q
O� v r-
G p
•,fin yy O /••I� �E
U v� � L' a'r'••, � Q w a CIi .F{ �
V
i••1
p
U
O
U RI �,�...
y ip•�
i••i o N .O
C Y
yQ�3�z
°�a
A
°
ate+ U O r
fr
.y IS
"d � � Uj Y U � (�
� ' VJ �
b�A
• � U
Y
U
Op
H
O
Cd
O
• O
ON
N
Ovci,
C O
10y
>
U
O7
U
o a. �3
"
epi
of
0
N
O
0
N
O
Z
2
U
co
G1
CL
CL
of
9
s
m
t
V �
W Z
32
� i
W z
U
Y
�
�+
0 0
� a F
w
> w w
a*o
cd
co
�E
O
H
H W
c7
F
�
W �
a
Q
'z
z
Z a,
'z
a
a�
rp
z
rA
z
o
F
o
0
0
z
a�
c'"' U f� rA cd O U cd .V O p N rn •� +�
w
P. �Vo '�. v o
c�
L, 12
41. %' a�.
,yo 9
>1 N8-4
O ' y
.fl
xYb
O
? ulw oo co O
to O O
COD
c cd U
tr
CL
, O
0 yE 04
cd°�' "tea x'03
�a� U`�vO3�
.°; `� al G° `� ° o w °? �b
•�
6 ".bs E0y
O
00 +� • ¢+ O
U.
04.-
0O
=UU55U0ob 03 �o ►°',
y�W'
of
V
0
N
0
0
N
0
z
U
0
c
a�
m
c
0
0
U
a
U
c
N
Q
C3
a)
o�
O_
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
U
0
N
d
v
a
w
w
C
z
d a
O
F
a�
z
0
F w
a
a
d
'z
z
O
�
O p"
z
a
o �
a a
W
Q
z
w
of
z
° o 'o '� Ga .a� P� '0
a� �;
°
a3
u•4q,oQ .Y� �•�
,F
o ��o
a,,
°
o
A
p
its
o �O o
a,.
o
3
ab
° ��
°y
p°
�� 0Uy
o � °�'
0
°�
°
' o °33 3'g
w
.-
a°i
ami
o
0 b
•� b `'
3�°�
c °.°
0 2'0bb
0
�
a3
a°> a d
�' c P,
a
° o
0 3
° -t:4 c P, o
'��
b° d `�
° c°i on
a o o�n
3 v
o 5" 3 ami
_
C="
O
cl
V
U
V •�' LF'.
cd C� [d +••
y O N ..Vi �1"" +- CG 'O
. C�
OA
,� cd 'V•
U i.
O
U O O" 'L1 '� '� «S
O
'O vp
�•�
'C
0
y a3 O
a s
d
0
o�
O_
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
U
0
N
d
v
a
IL
5z
i
■
■ ■
o�
0
N
0
0
N
0
z
U
N
d
rn
CL
w
c
z
avw�
�O
u
w
w
w
z
C
0
F
d' W
W �
a
d
Q
z
z
z
o H
F
�
z
z
z
o �
�a
�
z
z
W
z
o
H
.Y
F
bo
bo
z
z
.,4: 00
codEn
Lei U
bo"O w ,�. f"„
tr,
y O'^
O
'Z
0
a+ 'g
• "moi . 0 0 U
� CA rn
w C-` Vl
y
U U �. U
Y 0,
cd•O `i
O
a�+
y0
Y
0 O
8
v c0.`�'�
0r
w
>�
In
a
o
F 3
.. O p
C
.� ami A 0
. w ri
2�
'o
0
o
U
" �— "
b
U o aj
.2
0 U 3 ed
y
a -0
U o
o cd�U .:
%W�
0 O
OO
.rO
V
py¢y
yw
0 U
.>
� ai
000
O � U
Q. •.. 0 �
OVU0y0y
a. b C O tom, �
m
� G." �, O t1....
r. 0
S�, � .fl
fA .-. U [�
C� i - U% O
4w
fd U •..n O
U
o�
0
N
0
0
N
0
z
U
N
d
rn
CL
CL
■
■ ■
of
Iq
O
N
O
I, -
FD O
N
0
z
U
N
N
d
0)
0
rw
W
U
F
Fd
a
:b c6 b
;.�
z
cooUU
0
F
�
F
�
W
�
a
z
H
o
�
z
a
�
z
F
x
O
Q
W
z
N
O
N
�
N
v
W
N
z
�
o
�
°�
z
o
O bA
ca
M0
O UN NmO�
'0 o
O
O
to
5'.
0
';a
aUpai
o
�U
.
°
a
Puoc�
Jc ,
aO
P • V yr Yi R id
to G)
��
c. b
CJ
0 bO '
U
.n
boN+
4 40y O
'in w
.. U
U U cq
O
x
.O
�3 �},
a� W U
a� o
-��:5o
W
o �'
a�� ¢
y
o
3 o
.�
'Y
p
• .U�.
~ m > U
'd Nom' A v,
•,
F 1
ate/00
, O .Y U Y 0 a
p+.
N N �G
�"O C
«dd
VI �C
G
f�"a 'gy p CC V �
N
Y
\O"
U C•' U C
F-
oCD
bn..dooUytod3�a�E-
r W 3�
riP
cG
0 � ��n bn
of
Iq
O
N
O
I, -
FD O
N
0
z
U
N
N
d
0)
0
IL
EL
411
of
o_
N
0
0
N
O
z
U
Cf)
as
C Z
w
w
.r
..4t
a
afro
W
O
a
0 -�
o
Q
'z
abs
ab�0
0
0
z
�aaUAA
�o
a
z
O
O d
Q� U
fir
�a
¢
•s•s
z
wa44. " .°o
w �4;co
00
r.+
O '° 45 •O
V]
••'
Q
o
Go 'Cp r.. v° C 4" U N c
Cd
o
O
•o
Edr. a v
c7
° ° go
a v' " °' o ° r.
°
ji
�
El
W)
pLd
CA
> V1i"•i
° Q y y!"•I '" °
m 0 3
i�l
N
• U O .b • 0 •�, ° • 0 J V]
3
`° p" , 0 3 0, C
A
,o X
'o 3 --a °
x
0 R
o•0 000•m to o�
b �
cd �y
•id
lod
•R% 0
°
W
to U
y
y ps ,�"
,� �• C O y bA Ob
H 3 U N >>rA
ed
Q"
y .� N C: .�y o.
•� t" N ate.•+ O
ca ii
.. Li Y M b .-= v
�(C••+
O
�Py�y
w
Y Y
Y V)i�r 'C
04
C
F�3y
. U
••� 7pa,
U
C'S
1�1
—O � — YO
•y N W
'apq
en
Y
0 r:.8E-.v�
3
c QE�r3�
of
o_
N
0
0
N
O
z
U
Cf)
IL
of
Iq
O
N
O
O
N
O
Z
2
U
a
N
4)
0
CL
Uzti
O
z
U
F
o
W
O
H
�
W
F
W
�
a
a
'z
z
F
O
�
O
p"
z
a
o
a
a
�
a
�
Um U +'
as
Q O
►7
... V]
0 N
C
z��
O
2
O r
Q
F
HCd
H U Y
•
O
.
�+ .�
0>
O
0 U O
O p N W O o
Q"
Q cd y
o
ta
o
d z
ab
3
�
a'!U°o�don
aamidbll
e
0
N U
^O
ro 4,
N
N
ce 5 b
d
W�
W� 2
O
P.
co
5 N
'�cd +�
8
C
En
A, °
' v
bA
s.
iC O y O b b
'O w
b
P"
o w b
� `
v '� a. y
w
Cd
o a°Ai
h °�'
PH U
a c
cG O �✓ C/1 fi
o a o
U O wr W
o
Y
Y
of
Iq
O
N
O
O
N
O
Z
2
U
a
N
4)
0
CL
CL
ce
■ F
■ ■
o,
14
O_
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
cnU
w
5
c
z
o
H
w
z
F
cd
y U
+�
z
a
alU
0
H
d W
F
�
W �
d
¢
d
z
o N
F a
oa
a
r
F
Z x
ua
o
F
¢
o
o
•Y
•o
Y
Fbo
opo
o�u
z
z
z
as
•'•" 00 O N
�
y y N -.�•. 'app40.•co
YO
Q 'td
Y 'd
G)
�OL
3 Q it fr YO 3Ly�. ❑ ^��'
icS�l
•b
AS
G
m LI
:d
��'i•�r�cc
^ O•L
Y i•• FY i'q YVJ Y �'y
•U
OA cd
G% Qi
F� ��AY
i�q G>
O.
O O
•G) •� rn
�m' •UUCi
Pa
W.
•� N 'cd i-. �•"
•.�°cG
V`cd]
Yate+
NO'
N N
O O O •�
'b
OU
A O
0
0.O.
O
Y di
+N oN
tv
UEl
2p4.p
�WW.4THy'
NaU Goo)
yE-
Q
.?, 0O>
c¢d Y
"''Ubd
P-1
N
9
ACd
bV]
O
,�
o
3.,
O1
a3G�, 0 �oF
.V
3(13
q)
Co
c }?
�o
'h
oOc
C
O�lp
�
.-.Qb�OU
.m .�v
O hO
f"•�
Y
O
Y F1
1-'
O .� U
42
it
0 0
Q)
b�
cd Vl •.. VJ y iy Q Uj
o o o a.o. Q
o"
>1 Q
0g�, 3b
Q
-
y ... • C
v� y
ko 0 0 3 .2
0 0 0 Y� O •id O N Q •id O id U
o
N
:�
to� •iG vi
'° ^d P-1
•�
y
F
F
44.
3
N
H
Y
G) •s.y y U
u
U
GXi
co
a
o d b o o 'ro o 0
c° w
Q o
a Q
o,
14
O_
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
cnU
IL
of
O_
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
O
c
a
c
am
C93
c
a
cn
O
U
U
C
Q)
Q
U
U
J
w
�
WZ
F
Cd
Cd
z
0
H
F W
W �
a
d
¢
¢
z
O F''
z p.,
a
z
o d
�a
un
COD
z
o
Q
o
.y
0
.Y
0
Cd
fd
O v N V] y y y .�. � C". O ,.d
�• r.a
�
.a'
a
o
3
a'24
3I:L4
a
iy
Cl
w
O O O 'Cy
_., 4-.
•y,
s.
O
o
o
O
p,
y
S7 y
«�
� � �'
3 z
iC
o
co
P�
N
x
c0
o
•w
�
N p
c
�
�
N
2 t s,
� O
z ~
� �
ao
N
N
00 ."'
N cd
Cl)
" O "d
3
G
a3
Cd
'
b
W
�
z y
i
t"' N
U
c�
'Zr
�✓'+
W"
O N
OC„
o..
.O p"� •
rUn
O "Cl O
y
A
U
y Fr'
~
^
N r-. C'�
O 7r
Fi
�,y •U L
F..
�� A
bA
O U
o°
3�
°°
o ti
, .z
•o
o
0
o off
aN
v�H
U..aPav�aA
cd 3'0
oP.,H
op
of
O_
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
O
c
a
c
am
C93
c
a
cn
O
U
U
C
Q)
Q
U
U
J
IN ■
■■
of
o_
N
0
0
N
0
z
U
N
N
O
CL
w
Cd
w
z
H
Cd
O
H
¢ w
t7
H
�
w v'
a
'z
'z
z
� H
oa
�
z
z
a
H
as
z
z
rA
z
cr
o
H
Y
y
z
z
°
°a.� �?
�
3 � 3
3
���-. �,b��3a•o
�
aye ,�,•�
Cd °
°
oa a
P. o
A
R
o
0
3°
o!°?
' o
,
a
v
o y 3
o .m P: °
`"
m o � � o�
r .y
F a
F o
y
ani o
y
o¢ C a
ti
o O cd
-0 r y
a� y 'C
, 0 O
Cd
bas
O
Ln Oh
cd
° O
" a b a
' � cy' o
o0,A o
F �o
c v
o
y d 3 i
F 3 axi a
of
o_
N
0
0
N
0
z
U
N
N
O
CL
CL
■
■ ■
of
Iq
O
N
O
n
0
N
0
z
U
0
C:
a
C:
4)
m
C
a
U)
0
U
U
C:
N
V
na
W
J
0o
N
4)
Wo
z
o
H
w
z
Cd
�.
z
O
F
d W
� H
W �
a
z
z
z
�a
a
z a
o �
�
z
z
W
o
F
�
•o
0
z
z
++
"
-2 2; p F"
L O
V o
C Q
O Y
•�
ceo
.
•U •U
b 3 b.
3
>
0
O
a
Q 6' Q Y '�''
Y
•��' Qi O 7•r b U [d
"''d
U
H
~Y -i
N 3 cOd N
o'
0'
3
A
y F y
.O
y WO
[d cd N U m
Q
cd U
0
O
O -I -. O
O Y O
O YO ~ O
i
O w O
H• U
d
.
U
N td y
crycr�r.]]
O N
p
.55 4C
Q O
O
_ y
R b
O
m
o
-0 75
cl0
o
O it O
Y. P-1 .Y..
O iY
'C
Cd cd
'r
En
p
DA i". .�
0. N r
v� rn �, > Q.
'b d
cd S'. p L:
N N N d O
Q .�._._ .'.^
p Q O Q ,' O O
R
Y
p
+ r. A
m_
N b
� t.
Li
o
ff
it N w [y N O ,� O
P. •0 A 'C f� � a C� Y 0
s•. Sr it p �. t•.
0. w a a, 0 P, pw
O >C it O O
o
Q 3 0 c Q
Q
H 0
of
Iq
O
N
O
n
0
N
0
z
U
0
C:
a
C:
4)
m
C
a
U)
0
U
U
C:
N
V
na
W
J
0o
N
4)
s
m
U9
Q
02
s�
O
U LU
v z
W
o,
v
O
N
O
n
0
N
(5
z
U
O
`a)
m
C
O
O
U
U
C
a)
Q
0
a)
J
ON
N
d
a
CL
W
�
�
GTo
U
O
tz
O
U
�
ao
r7
W
W
Q
i%�
w
4o W
z
C7
t
vl
c
c
O
z
a
a
0
F
W
C7
F
�
W �
a
a
d
d
d
z
O F"
F
p"'
O
�
Q
Q
z
z
z
z as
a d
z
z
z
rA
z
o
H
�
•o
Y
•o
Y
0
•Y
z
z
z
b
y
r-
-cg c o
o o
o to C,3
�+
• r,
°
..�i ;
'
U
w y v =O 4
�'
°o en $iz�,
O
O .
0,
cC
O
3
o b
3
0 ^a
o a``"i
o
?? �
a�
° ,
A
Y
-°a .:
a o •d
CC
i
y 0N
� .�
o
a eq 0 ami
O
v
Oo
t
C
.�, d
0
4.
O
O
n y y
° a' p p 3
p
x c°
o
F' d
b
b °' o p
Y° a°i
o7
•o a
c o
a�
GJ
iay�
F.
o
O .0 N '-'
�aFy�y o
.C"i O
o O O
CO 'b
°�'F
i0y
3 o
O O 5
rs o v�E�F-
oFw mF�
°= C www
m
3 ° A
o,
v
O
N
O
n
0
N
(5
z
U
O
`a)
m
C
O
O
U
U
C
a)
Q
0
a)
J
ON
N
d
a
CL
IL
■
no
ol
Iq
0
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
U
O
70
CZc
a`)
m
C
C/)
O
U
U
C
a)
Q
70
a)
J
o
c
z
0
>
N
U
U
I�
(7
trl O
cd>
z
z�
O
F
d
F
W
F
�
W
�
a
�
d
'z
d
'z
z
O
Fa"
d
964
o
'z
'z
a
�
o
F
d
�
z
z
°
°
o � �
N i
q"
G
�
�dc�i
b4
bA
U �
N O
H
p
U �
zzcs
,y
La
cd U
cd
cd
O - O
O �'o § U m cd 't7 � N
O O
O
y
a
N
3ai�.�a��
2�Y�,
cd N O
8, N
— >
co
x
F
o
w
td
w w o w b 'o o
to C
04
cc
N O b
O O
H
aki
v�
F
<r O
° a a ° 3 a
, ,b
E� . �, urs, a cd °: cd
�A ds 3 <v
ol
Iq
0
N
O
n
O
N
0
z
U
O
70
CZc
a`)
m
C
C/)
O
U
U
C
a)
Q
70
a)
J
■
■■
w
°
Pro U o
�' z
0.4
04 U
wY
Y
WPro
Z F
a
A
w >
vs
a
z
v�N
0
0-4
d
2
w
0 0 y
W
o on
1a�1
o
'z
ao.0
z
�
0
0 � EI
0
I
z
ucauAA
�o
3
w
Oa
o
Q
0
U A
PA
a
o .o
Z
P�•a P�-1 V1
O
4-4
00 +r
U
0Ln
v�
N U O
o 3 ° > 00 y
0 Cd
p c� U C >> O O
OYi a+
El 0
m >. o ce
~ p 00 O 'w
.0
�" LL
0
t4 0 >
Q cn O 0
�
y �o. -0
coU
0Y 0 0 b 0 %l v rn
.4 0 .4. cis0 y U , 0 O
0 Cd
0 03
• ya�a
`d.o
Y x
ti o a"Id
cA a° a
t) Y
c co
00
vi
>c.S Q RY
0 rn
a 0
N
o
° c
o°
O
a
a
d 3 �?
��'
•ld
CO i"i •N U N �•;
b
° Y b 0 m0
0
�iO�j'
co .0 bA bA
o 4 o
:r
Id
ce P-4 h
0
rn
H °.� 3 rig v,
o,
v
0
N
0
n
0
N
O
z
U
U)
t;
w
a
� F
z x
O Q
E
rm'
i
Y
Y o
o
=s.
Ce o
OR
FY �i.1 as �
❑
U y
[�
�I
Cd 0
k
m
w
o
b
U cC ~
a�
G
ao '01 b o
Cd
y
In
U O" A vi
OU Q •p
o
.� ^O
�
ir"
'0 ,o
UO
• U
• •�•
o
CL
15
b •m N rn
H
° 00
C
Q
h C4
H
rk
�//�il
O O N
�yy
� �+. •'� Yom, O
U `�
O o
U U U
C6
O cc
i
4�
o
U
OR
FY �i.1 as �
❑
U y
[�
�I
Cd 0
U �
o
m
w
o
b
U cC ~
a�
G
ao '01 b o
Cd
y
OU Q •p
o
.� ^O
�
ir"
OU
UO
• U
• •�•
o
CL
15
b •m N rn
C
U G
H
rk
U `�
O o
cu
iG
0
WD
0�
Iq
CD
_
N
O
r"
O
N
O
Z
2
U
O
C
70
C:
N
m
C
0
0
U
U
c
N
Q
N
m
0)
M
C
CL
4�
o
FY �i.1 as �
❑
U y
[�
�I
Cd 0
U �
o
m
w
o
b
U cC ~
a�
G
ao '01 b o
Cd
y
0�
Iq
CD
_
N
O
r"
O
N
O
Z
2
U
O
C
70
C:
N
m
C
0
0
U
U
c
N
Q
N
m
0)
M
C
CL
u co
x
o
CL
15
b •m N rn
H
v
U `�
O o
0
O
-o
¢, O
Y
c� y
�•� O CCi
O
U
'C
,y42 �."
J" R
3
p
0. 2
O
0
p O Q 0
Y U 0 Pa
0�
Iq
CD
_
N
O
r"
O
N
O
Z
2
U
O
C
70
C:
N
m
C
0
0
U
U
c
N
Q
N
m
0)
M
C
CL
9L
CG
o,
v
0
N
0
0
N
O
Z
2
U
V)
w
U
O
Pro
O04
r.
U W
z
o
Y b
w
o �
H
a
o
G7
z
0-4
�b
a
_TE 0 > �.
UPgUAA
a
zPm
o
a y
Go�
t5
a�
.6.
P., w
f� U !.i"
•O
c
��'
mti
p❑p
.b
y p p p
U
y p
"'
O N• m Y
id
y O N cd G"
pp
p
y O c�
•
a
° �'
zs
^rS Q� Q%
U
in.
ci Y
ao y
° o o°
.2 '"
° 0
y° Cd
Q
y v U p
Op
L p
p y
O
} y
t8
�
O
'
cN
co
un
Up•y
toNNO60
4.
E~ o U
v tirA
o
b 0 Z cd v
w P,
o cw
ca v O a
.a
A
x
o,
v
0
N
0
0
N
O
Z
2
U
V)
IL
of
0
N
0
0
N
O
z
U
v
m
d
C
z
�
x
F
w
H
C7
�
r
Q?w
w
zas
V1
co
ce
z
0
w
�
F
a
a
Q
z
z
z
H
C)
F
�
Q
'z
'z
a
o
H
x
as
a
z
z
O
�I
y
'b v, O •O y 'a+ W O
3
.Yb
y tQ
D
a
0
°A '� '°
32OR
0-4
Z
S3
0
Z
z
.�i
U O
O O
+�
N
,sa,� U`n
O
•� CJ
'Y
WE
,Ly"
> Y ,N
O
O •O
>
u
o
v
IS
P4.=—
00
ul
F
°°
Cs,
-d O
rOi
N
o
V s
3
u9.1
o
o
�o
Cd 0
H3
a
o b c°i
[- a
ce
of
0
N
0
0
N
O
z
U
v
m
d
CL
■o
■■
o
c z
W .�
TUU
O
�
H
o o
°
P, n P.,, o
C7
O F'
F a
o O �'' a°i o o 2 o
a
° ,r o
d o¢ c o a
o o
0 0 >
i, OL �,
a
z
o a
O
a
Fa=/J
O O
.o .o
a a"
> a�
°
O >
y y O U .� •Q+ Y
�, +�.+ ice. O
�"
°' 0
d0° a3°
W
�3e,
„oo
0. ,o°>,� ey p "
��. m
U Q Y;
W w .2 co 'C � 0 o
Yy°0.Cd0& vta0o
0 .E -b _E°
° 'r o o
_ CO)
CII o °O amaa� en
ami o 0 o°
W c^d^ w p Y n W c° w o
a U CO o V5P �y �, o `i' °° y'' c, o b
�i
i•y �.'•
�••I y y �• y,� ° y N NLS y y iL N FI .Y �r Y
r)iU°W
,H.,
'" � ,� o °� •b � > '" � � GG > � > F" � S°y� � o o ami °
.�
c°�A o o. �. 3pq cwc o.o�.� >,
R
tia) Cdo°0M oma'
O
O N O
'� •O d a°, 5 o .� � 0
�:...
A
ro
w o° o o co
y 5 �Y
p>
• a.
o in. o 0� n°
a O a `a00rZ
V
Co
O �••� '� •Vl Y W N •'O"�
1�
W
o
�
/�
�
�,,,, y V] O
H cd °�l'G o.° y0 cc.� �O P,
Y y U
P:
�
1+1
F •1
I U .- U U 14 W
Ei
N a� (MU cd cu 0
°M o
iw
it
LO
O° ate+ >. +' S O O O
O v v t] '� A i C]
Eiy
v
U
m° y O—
U..-, 3 ��' U U cd
N
0
d �+ 3 0 •�
PG
LO
CO)
as
rn
a
CL
m
CR
Q
S
Z
V LU
W i
V Z
W
■
■■
D,
O_
N
O
n
O
N
w
z
w
z
o
W
w
E�
G7
-i
O4.
Fy
O
U
O
I•i
P� O
z
P6(
o°
o0�
UoaUAA
O
�
Q
U
O
a
/�ijryy�
`�'.�
�•�?
o��
o.� a tea. •c �n° Td
�' .b '3
y
0
4 v
U t:
y
N
�i ii A� 0
U ,y, �
d O
U � �• �, O �
_
Y!�
¢ O
Q.
H•
b 1
r,
^7
�" O
�°,, U
'C
N
Y
'LS
h N N G Cd
0 0.
_.. o 99
cos Y
o
P4
�A b
0
w o
L: �
O y 3 p� E
O i=1 cd � +-' fC �I
o 0� c
V�"i ��'
C�
O � L; Q
�� �
�". t00
�O _
U Q" U U cd .L:
V] 4-. > '� N
z
o
o o
3.'i.
0
°°
Y
y
N W tea+ y h
y y
O U uj
PN 'o
Iv�l
NTi
+%r
U)t]. Qr �. a'��+
�j' N
a vi.P;
y y
o o.�. 3a1
ago o.3P;
A
x
x
H
D,
O_
N
O
n
O
N
IL
O,
Iq
O_
N
O
n
O
N
O
Z
2
U
w
o
�
0 4i
�i
V •F.
Q
G7
°a
�
W)5
b�0
a
o� >�
0o0�
VCgUAA
a
NWy
°
.o
a
y ° Y di N di Y
ld Y o •�
i (d °
0 >wC °
Cd
❑U
O
4"
o =. ,�
> •
VU• Q� �C�S, Qi N V ld
y�.� s.
•�
Cd
b Y
Cd CA �+
ccd
cd
'� di cd
° 0 3 N p+
.�
g (� '�
4% F••'1 V b
N bD C E
d
c°i .
�, -63 ,.:;
o
_ °
a .2
d o o.
9n
.0
o P. cd u cd o 4
�0� °/
� �� w
y 3 ° 0
sn.o-
�,
° ° �s
(n 42,
00 04 Pm�
Z
Ca.a°i
w
A. °034 �
�'A•
4
O
a� c3�'
w� = o X00
0
r^ Y 0= �F.,
�Cj
N�b >~ = o
F
4
oa
YaN0�
a
�y
w.-
QIISH'I
c aN� •
�i
..
°
]
�' Y
ta
Od
EQ)
.N�."
1Ry. U MWcNd
[n •T
•ti
�F�\
rl Q) 0 O
rN �O
to
•� � �YL0.
Q%
CF<yl
re
a�''oa�3���dvia�a::•�,s�,o>,�,,
VJ
fd
Lir ° O
w 6 CIO
o 0 . 0 . 3 as
a go 0
. 3 . ;, r% un
a
x
Qn
O,
Iq
O_
N
O
n
O
N
O
Z
2
U
IL
9
a �
U
s9L
U LU
W Z
V
W
Ol
O
N-
0
0
N
U
G
cz
�
w
w w
w
z
gib'
o
M41�
a,
WCQ
O 04 cd
�
Y
f1y
z
w
>,0 0 >
d
'z
UaaUAA
a
� F
Z
o,
Qn
U
0-
(D
(D
>
Cd
F
O
O
to
'(".
.gb O
�p.+
•�
Cd
U
O
p
cd a)
iy
�
70.E
O
cd
•
ti
a O
z
O
C = CI .m
IN
R F�-1 7�•i
p OA O m
'C cd O O s U O -dYO O O
O w
•"
'd
O
O •a .O r O
cd
OO 4c
Y 3
4" C
�+ N p> +O+
O
3
c. cd cd 'C
/^O
C) Yd "� F•1
Y .,�
cd
O s.. ,y' O
•�
Y .0p >
O a
s, ,•O rN.
p
cd>,
.. 0
U
y v yz>. OY�
i O>-
c% c
O cd Y cid
7 -d 0
� � U
O A
�
o y
U
� � G N r/p� cd
y'
r�i, V Y • � 'tJ
H U U
A. 9
H P. b• C
v v c�. r�i u 5 m
cd
Ol
O
N-
0
0
N
CL
■
No
o,
v
o_
N
0
r"
0
N
O
z
U
a
CO)
as
a�
d
O
cri
O�
z
0-4
w
w
F
H
U
U
ply
zcd
Cd
Cd
Cd
a
a
c
O
F
w
H
�
w �
a
z
F
O
�
z a,
w
a
o x
a a
z
z
z
z
a
r
z
lu
0
o
rn
F
YDp
YD`�n
a`�o
aA
z
z z
z
w
y r 0 g
(V
cC 0 O 0 O cd 0;
.� y yC 'o -
'�
oa
o,
o
Y .�
5
0 3vi
a 'A
"tibbcad
?
Y
aCy
A a
c N c
3��-
P6q "0
'b�
c
Q, U
o
U
OQa
O
L O
cO
G
Cn
++
N3
O w Q
vo���F"��`�.��
a pOQO
CL
oax"+
•p
wi
�1� x
n
Y
O
F U
,.,
p
D4 "E
U [C
an
^r DOA O
Y
U
U d
V O
O Y
0 O
N p
O=
b O• U. -�"
-;--.
3 �°
H 3 w
H
00
ani a. ° 3
ani
H
y
G
r
ri
F 3 tU Q U
o,
v
o_
N
0
r"
0
N
O
z
U
a
CO)
as
a�
d
CL
■
■■
of
v
O_
N
O
n
O
N
O
Z
2
U
V)
w
ro
C
Z
O
w
w
U
E
�1
W
aon
o�u
W
pro
00
c
w
z
F
0
F
F
W
F
�
W
�
�
z
z
z
O
F''
O
a
�
z
z
w
a
z
H
�
o
d
�a
'z
'z
on
z
o
�
z
z
Y
° '�'
VJ
b o r
.o
3
v ro' 3
o y
o
w'
P:
U
O
ami O Z • -CO
A
is -d
c
3
icn d O
o°
N
o
..i
°
N .�
x
C O
>
y, rn
m
o
Cl
C y
O U
'� Q, ^'
ca
,�
.=
a) V
N
cd
N
F'
a 'C 0
C
O
Cd
r.
cUd
?UG
N
U
OO�
0
"r 1=1
N 'Y
F'1 U U
V
Y�+
Ly.
U Y
Y�U
NN cd
iV
1—IU0 UY
w w as
Yit
on
% y°
FLL•.
2P'. 3
�0
yH�A
O.
Y
3 ��a ao.5
U ° •a..
H� �"0
i•y •(�
Cd ❑ .�
PGA 2w �b
of
v
O_
N
O
n
O
N
O
Z
2
U
V)
O,
_o
N
O
n
O
N
O
z
U
W
z
Y
Y
Y
(rtly
�
d
W
k.
a
a
a
zLt
vs
cc
a
a
a4
a 0--(
O
F
d W
F
W
a
z
o x
a
Pa �
z F
o �
a
w
d
o
O
O
O
H
bA
bA
by
pip
z
z z
z
3-i W
°
° +•• N ° ii
y b,°
'>
C." Ci O
O
C m
y �'
Q
3 0
0
�
3
0 b
o b y' o O
c a3i o c� aai o
+Y+
Cd c:
>
o Q
3 ami
x
o
m
a o
A~
o
a�
a aoi
o Ecal
'V U •Y
U
Q� Vl
�^:-Q
i�
.moi
co '„y
Vi
C�
ti U �r
U �•+
I °
° 'k
.�• U Y
F U
IPrry_T'f17
�y
73
cis •�
0
.
.• V .�
..
F
"
°
°4C."W
bP.,0
rs
'C1
3
'
~o
o,
Pa
°K
b
w'
a�
PKffo
P. P,
U
H v v
O,
_o
N
O
n
O
N
O
z
U
IL
so
w
w
z
o
w
z �
z
0
F
d'
W
� F
W �
a
C7
z
�a
w
a
z x
O �
�a
w
z
0
d
w
3
•o
A
o
0
�
U
O
'd
b�iD
ti