HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 02 - Ordinance Adopting the Addendum to Final I. E. Hub Center
Page 1
Public Hearing
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: April 1, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Teri Ledoux, City Manager
By:Michael Huntley, Community & Economic Development Director
Subject: Ordinance Adopting the Addendum to Final I. E. Hub Center
Project
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino,
California:
1) Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance No. MC -
1532, adopting the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report and
approving Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 to change the Waterman + Baseline
Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Land Use Zone from Neighborhood
Residential to Employment that includes three (3) parcels (APN: 0278-051-08, 17
and 24) containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres located at 1066 N.
Tippecanoe Avenue (Attachment 1); and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-59 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San
Bernardino, California, approving Development Permit Type-P 19-06 allowing the
development, establishment and operation of a truck and trailer service and
storage facility on a project site containing approximately 15.39 acres located at
1066 N. Tippecanoe Avenue (APN: 0278-051-08, 17 and 24) within the Waterman
+ Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Employment Land Use
Zone, pursuant to an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Attachment 2); and
3) Schedule the second reading and adoption of th e above mentioned Ordinance
No. MC-1532 for the regularly scheduled meeting of the Mayor and City Council
on April 15, 2020.
Background
The I.E. Hub Center Project is located on a vacant 15.39 acre site at 1066 N.
Tippecanoe Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet south of E. Baseline Street, adjacent to
the north side of Highland Creek and adjacent to the east side of East Twin Creek,
within the boundaries of the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation
Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is requested to accommodate
the proposed Truck and Trailer Service and Storage Facility.
6657
Page 2
On March 10, 2020, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5 -1, adopted Resolution No.
2020-13 forwarding a recommendation that the Mayor and City Council:
1) Adopt an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
2) Approve Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-P
19-06 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the recommended
Conditions of Approval.
Discussion
Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.64 (Specific Plans), Chapter 19.74 (Zoning
Map Amendments) and Chapter 19.44 (Development Permits), of the City of San
Bernardino Development Code, the applicant is requesting the approval of:
1. Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 to change the Waterman + Baseline
Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Land Use Zone from Neighborhood
Residential to Employment of three (3) parcels containing a total of
approximately 15.39 acres; and
2. Development Permit Type-P 19-06 to allow the development, establishment and
operation of a Truck and Trailer Service and Storage Facility.
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan
On December 19, 2016, the Mayor and City Council certified the Final Environmental
Impact Report, adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approved
the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan. The project site
is comprised of three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres located
within the Neighborhood Residential Land Use Zone of the Specific Plan. The permitted
uses within this zone include single-family residences and multi-family housing
developments. The permitted uses within the Employment Land Use Zone include multi -
family housing developments, commercial uses similar to those typically permitted
within the Commercial General (CG-1) zone, and light industrial uses similar to those
permitted within the Industrial Light (IL) zone.
The exhibit below illustrates the location of the project site and the surrounding land
uses.
6657
Page 3
The subject property is a triangularly shaped vacant parcel bound to the west by the
East Twin Creek flood control channel and to the south by the Highland Creek flood
control channel which makes it challenging to design/deve lop a successful project. By
changing the Land Use Zone from Neighborhood Residential to Employment, the
development of this underutilized site is able to address existing constraints and would
benefit the City of San Bernardino in the following ways:
1. The project will allow the orderly development of an existing vacant site,
consistent with the General Plan.
2. The project will improve the site aesthetics from existing vacant dirt lots to a
modern employment use serving the City’s important distribution business sector.
3. The project will provide for local circulation improvements consistent with the
Specific Plan, including improvements along the project frontage on N.
Tippecanoe Avenue.
4. The project will create a one-time net positive economic benefit (through
development fees) and an on-going annual positive economic benefit.
5. The project will be consistent with the overall conclusions in the Specific Plan
Final EIR, in that the EIR Addendum shows that the project would not create any
new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.
Analysis
6657
Page 4
The proposed project is in compliance with the City of San Bernardino Development
Code for the proposed use and complies with the guidelines established in the
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transform ation Specific Plan Employment Land
Use designation.
Architecture/Site Design
The architectural design of the proposed office/shop building , which contains
approximately 7,000 square feet, is a retro and stylish theme emulating an industrial
building of years past while utilizing varying paint and façade material schemes to
create a visual interest along the streetscape.
The site design is such that the development on the frontage of N. Tippecanoe Avenue
is comprised of the proposed office/shop building and the employee/customer off-street
parking areas. Along with the proposed streetscape landscaping this is intended to
minimize potential visual aesthetic impacts by featuring the vintage architectural theme
and vibrant landscaping pallet. Additionally, the proposed truck and trailer storage
component of the proposed facility will be set back approximately 315 feet from N.
Tippecanoe Avenue and will also be screened by landscaping. Finally, an eight (8) foot
high, decorative block wall will be constructed along the northern property line which
separates the proposed project from the residential properties to the north.
Access/Traffic
The project site will have direct primary access from two (2) driveways located along N.
Tippecanoe Avenue. The internal site circulation has been designed to adequately
accommodate on-site truck circulation and access to the off -street parking areas.
Designated “paths of travel” have also been provided to ensure pedestrian safety.
Finally, the City’s Traffic Engineering Division has accepted the Traffic Impact Analysis
prepared for the proposed development, and adequate traffic improvement measures
will be implemented based upon the approved Traffic Impact Analysis and the
recommendations of the City’s Traffic Engineer.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping plan provides for a combined total of approximately 15.3%
(102,300) of coverage for on-site landscaping, primarily provided along the perimeter of
the project site, whereas at least 15% is required. The landscaping for the proposed
project has been enhanced to add pedestrian friendly features, as well as landscaping
measures aimed at screening the truck and trailer storage area.
General Plan Goals and Policies
The City of San Bernardino General Plan includes goals and polic ies to guide future
development within the City, including the following:
1. Land Use Element Policy 2.2.1: Ensure compatibility between land uses and
quality design through adherence to standards and regulations in the
Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design
Element.
2. Land Use Element Goal 2.4: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in
6657
Page 5
San Bernardino by strategic infill of new development and revitalization of
existing development.
3. Community Design Element Goal 5.4: Ensure individual projects are well
designed and maintained.
4. General Plan Community Design Element Policy 5.4.1: Requires that “individual
projects aggressively apply and enforce citywide landscape and development
standards in new and revitalized development throughout the City.”
With respect to the proposal for Specific Plan Amendment 19 -01 and Development
Permit Type-P 19-06, the proposed development of a truck and trailer storage facility
has been designed with consideration for the adjacent re sidential neighborhoods, is
consistent with the Employment Land Use Zone designation of the Specific Plan, is
compatible with existing developments, and satisfies the City of San Bernardino
Development Code requirements and the City’s General Plan goals an d policies.
California Environmental Quality Act
On December 19, 2016, the Mayor and City Council certified the Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH #2015081086) and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific
Plan. In accordance with §15164 (Addendum to an EIR) of CEQA, an Addendum was
prepared to re-evaluate the potential environmental impacts.
The proposed project will not introduce new significant environmental impacts bey ond
those analyzed in the previous Final EIR, and all mitigation measures previously
adopted with the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and the Addendum are included for this project.
2020-2025 Key Strategic Targets and Goals
The Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-P 19-06 aligns with
Key Target No. 3: Improve Quality of Life. The proposed development will create an
economic benefit to an otherwise vacant and underutilized parcel and has been
designed to achieve visual interest and a clean, landscaped industrial site.
6657
Page 6
Fiscal Impact
Development impact fees associated with the project will be approximately $145,000.
City services will be provided to this project similar to other commercial dev elopments in
the City and surrounding area. Additionally, the overall net fiscal impact to the City's
General Fund resulting from the revenues anticipated to be generated by the project's
build-out, as compared with the cost of public services associated with the project's
build-out, will be an annual recurring fiscal surplus of $8,066. This fiscal surplus is
based on total General Fund revenues of $12,516 versus total annual General Fund
costs of $4,450. As the property taxes paid by the Project are 100% committed to the
San Bernardino County Consolidated Fire District, the largest generator of revenues will
be Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees of $7,401. The highest annual costs
($3,101) will be expenditures associated with police services. Ann ual recurring
revenues generated by the project are forecasted to equal approximately 2.81 times the
General Fund costs associated with the Project.
Conclusion
The proposed project is located on an undeveloped site within the Waterman + Baseline
Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan which is intended to establish a land use
and development framework in which the proposed truck and trailer storage facility is
permitted within the Employment Land Use Zone of the Specific Plan subject to the
approval of a Development Permit. The proposed project, with the concurrent approval
of Specific Plan 19-01, is consistent with the policies of the City’s General Plan and
complies with the standards of the City’s Development Code and the Specific Plan.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Mayor and City Council:
1) Introduce for first reading the proposed Ordinance adopting the Addendum to the
Final Environmental Impact Report and approving Specific Plan Amendment 19 -
01 to change the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific
Plan Land Use Zone from Neighborhood Residential to Employment of three (3)
parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres located at 1066 N.
Tippecanoe Avenue;
2) Adopt the proposed Resolution approving Development Permit Type-P 19-06
allowing the Development, Establishment and Operation of a Truck and Trailer
Service and Storage Facility on a project site containing approximately 15.39 acres
located at 1066 N. Tippecanoe Avenue within the Waterman + Baseline
Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Employment Land Use Zone,
pursuant to an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
3) Schedule the second reading of the above Ordinance to the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Mayor and City Council on April 15, 2020.
Attachments
Attachment 1 Ordinance No. MC-1532; Exhibit A
Attachment 2 Resolution No. 2020-59; Exhibit A; Exhibit B
Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-013
Attachment 4 Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
6657
Page 7
Ward: 1
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions: None.
Ordinance No. MC-1532
1
ORDINANCE NO. MC-1532
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 19-01
CHANGING THE WATERMAN + BASELINE
NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE ZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL TO EMPLOYMENT OF THREE (3)
PARCELS (APN: 0278-051-08, 17 AND 24) CONTAINING A
TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 15.39 ACRES LOCATED
AT 1066 N. TIPPECANOE AVENUE, PURSUANT TO AN
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPART REPORT
WHEREAS, together, Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-P
19-06 constitute the I. E. Hub Center Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2016, the Mayor and City Council certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015081086), adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and approved the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 is a request to change the Waterman +
Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Land Use Zone from Neighborhood
Residential to Employment of three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres;
and
WHEREAS, Development Permit Type-P 19-06 is a request to allow the development,
establishment, and operation of a truck and trailer storage facility with an office/shop building
containing approximately 7,000 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site
and off-site improvements, on a project site containing approximately 15.39 acres; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Public
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), Section 21067, and State CEQA Guidelines (California Code
of Regulations, § 15000 et seq.), Section 15367, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency
for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of Section 15164(b) (Addendum to an EIR) of
CEQA, the Planning Division of the Community and Economic Development Department
accepted the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared by Kimley-Horn on
behalf of and submitted by the applicant for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of San
Bernardino held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report,
and adopted Resolution No. 2020-013 recommending the adoption of the Addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Report, and the approval of Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and
Development Permit Type-P 19-06 to the Mayor and City Council; and
Ordinance No. MC-1532
2
WHEREAS, notice of the April 1, 2020 public hearing for the Mayor and City Council's
consideration of this proposed Ordinance was published in The Sun newspaper on March 21,
2020, and was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site in
accordance with Development Code Chapter 19.52 (Hearings and Appeals); and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the Mayor and City
Council, and no additional information submitted to the City Council, has produced substantial
new information requiring substantial revisions that would trigger recirculation of the Addendum
to the Final Environmental Impact Report or additional environmental review under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.52 (Hearing and Appeals) and
Chapter 19.74 (Zoning Map Amendments) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the
Mayor and City Council have the authority to take action on Specific Plan Amendment 19-01.
NOW THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance
with Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR), as the decision-making body for the project, the
Mayor and City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in the
administrative record for Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-P 19-
06, and the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015081086) certified on December 19,
2016 in conjunction with the approval of the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood
Transformation Specific Plan. Based upon the facts and information contained in the
administrative record and the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report, including
all written and oral evidence presented to the Mayor and City Council, the Mayor and City
Council find as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were previously analyzed in the Final
Environmental Impact Report certified on December 19, 2016 in conjunction with the approval
of the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan and within the
Addendum for the approval for Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-
P 19-06; and
(2) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum contains a
complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the project; and
(3) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum was
completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(4) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum reflects the
independent judgment of the Mayor and City Council; and
Ordinance No. MC-1532
3
(5) The proposed project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts
beyond those previously analyzed in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report, and all
mitigation measures previously adopted with the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program
and the Addendum are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. Finding of Facts – Specific Plan Amendment 19-01
Finding No. 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
Finding of Fact: The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan
changed the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning District
Classifications of the properties contained within an area comprised of
approximately 710 acres in order to establish the land use policies and
development standards to facilitate the maximum build out of up to 4,341
residential units and approximately 3,570,448 square feet of non-
residential uses, and the future construction of the associated
transportation/mobility and infrastructure improvements. The primary
purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide a vision and implementation
program for the future development of vacant or underutilized properties
within Specific Plan boundaries. This Specific Plan also contains a
comprehensive set of goals, objectives, strategies and guidelines to be
used by the City to support, attract and facilitate new development and
revitalization projects.
Additionally, the City of San Bernardino General Plan includes primary
goals and policies to guide future development within the City.
Accordingly, the Specific Plan provides a detailed explanation of the
Specific Plan’s relationship to the City’s General Plan, including a
comparison of goals, objectives and policies.
Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 proposes to change the Land Use Zone of
three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres within the
Specific Plan from Neighborhood Residential to Employment in order to
accommodate the development, establishment, and operation of a truck
and trailer storage facility.
The Neighborhood Residential Land Use Zone of the Specific Plan allows
for single-family residential and multi-family residential developments
which is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Designations of
Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential. The
Employment Land Use Zone of the Specific Plan allows for multi-family
residential and light industrial developments which is consistent with the
City’s General Plan Land Use Designations of Multi-Family Residential
and Industrial. With the approval of Specific Plan Amendment 19-01,
proposed Employment Land Use Zone for the subject 15.39 areas will be
consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Ordinance No. MC-1532
4
Finding No. 2: The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Finding of Fact: The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan
established a land use and development framework, identified needed
transportation and infrastructure improvements, and serves as a marketing
tool for attracting developers to key sites and for boosting economic
development. The Specific Plan is intended to encourage residential and
neighborhood-serving commercial establishments on major corridors such
as Baseline Avenue and Waterman Avenue, direct the creation of
employment generating uses to the southern portion of the project area
closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, and protect and enhance the
existing residential neighborhoods. The Specific Plan is not detrimental to
the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in
that the primary purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide a vision and
implementation program for the future development of vacant or under-
utilized properties within Specific Plan boundaries and contains a
comprehensive set of goals, objectives, strategies and guidelines to be
used by the City to support, attract and facilitate new development and
revitalization projects and will enhance the physical and visual qualities of
the project area thereby enhancing the aesthetics of the surrounding
neighborhood, while preserving the environmental environs.
Specific Plan Amendment 19-06 proposes to change the Land Use Zone of
three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres within the
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan from
Neighborhood Residential to Employment in order to transform a vacant
and underutilized site with the development, establishment, and operation
of a truck and trailer storage facility which would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Finding No. 3: The subject properties are physically suitable for the requested land use
designations and the anticipated land use developments..
Finding of Fact: The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan
changed the General Plan Land Use Designations and the Zoning District
Classifications of the properties contained within an area comprised of
approximately 710 acres in order to establish the new Land Use Districts
and Design Guidelines maintains an appropriate balance of land uses by
providing for the revitalization of existing under-utilized properties.
Specific Plan Amendment 19-06 proposes to change the Land Use Zone of
three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres within the
Specific Plan from Neighborhood Residential to Employment in order to
transform a vacant and underutilized site with the development,
establishment, and operation of a truck and trailer storage facility in which
the project site is physically suitable for the requested land use designation
Ordinance No. MC-1532
5
and the proposed land use development with the approval of Specific Plan
Amendment 19-01.
Finding No. 4: The proposed plan shall ensure development of desirable character which
will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the
surrounding neighborhood.
Finding of Fact: The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan is
intended to encourage residential and neighborhood-serving commercial
establishments on major corridors such as Baseline Avenue and Waterman
Avenue, direct the creation of employment generating uses to the southern
portion of the project area closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, and
protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhoods. The land use
plan accommodates an increase in existing residential uses from an
estimated 2,049 units to approximately 4,341 units, an increase in
commercial uses from approximately 2,366,385 square feet to
approximately 3,570,448 square feet, and establishes six (6) distinct
districts to guide future development of key parcels throughout the project
area.
Specific Plan Amendment 19-06 proposes to change the Land Use Zone of
three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres within the
Specific Plan from Neighborhood Residential to Employment in order to
transform a vacant and underutilized site with the development,
establishment, and operation of a truck and trailer storage facility which is
a development of desirable character which will be compatible with
existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood with
the approval of Specific Plan Amendment 19-01.
Finding No. 5: The proposed plan will contribute to a balance of land uses so that local
residents may work and shop in the community in which they live.
Finding of Fact: The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan
creates employment generating uses to the southern portion of the project
area closer to the Civic Center and Downtown, and protects and enhances
through the accommodation of increased residential uses from an
estimated 2,049 units to approximately 4,341 units and increased
commercial uses from approximately 2,366,385 square feet to
approximately 3,570,448 square feet.
Specific Plan Amendment 19-06 proposes to change the Land Use Zone of
three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres within the
Specific Plan from Neighborhood Residential to Employment in order to
transform a vacant and underutilized site with the development,
establishment, and operation of a truck and trailer storage facility which
contributes to a balance of land use with the approval of Specific Plan
Amendment 19-01.
Ordinance No. MC-1532
6
SECTION 4. Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 to change of the Waterman + Baseline
Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Land Use Zone of three (3) parcels containing a
total of approximately 15.39 acres (APN: 0278-051-08, 17 and 24) from Neighborhood
Residential to Employment, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, is
hereby approved.
SECTION 5. Notice of Determination: The Planning Division of the Community and
Economic Development Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the
County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final project
approval certifying the City’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in
approving the Project.
SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or clause or
phrase in this Ordinance 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 Ordinance or any part thereof. The 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.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days
after the date of its adoption.
SECTION 8. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino shall
certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause publication to occur in a newspaper of general
circulation and published and circulated in the City in a manner permitted under Section 36933
of the Government Code of the State of California.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested
by the City Clerk this ___ day of _________, 2020.
John Valdivia, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:
__________________________________
Genoveva Rocha, CMC, Acting City Clerk
Approved as to form:
__________________________________
Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
Ordinance No. MC-1532
7
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, Acting City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true
copy of Ordinance No. MC-[**INSERT**], introduced by the Mayor and City Council of the
City of San Bernardino, California, at a regular meeting held the day of , 20
. Ordinance No. MC-[**INSERT**] was approved, passed and adopted at a regular
meeting held the day of , 20 by the following
vote:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ _____ _____ _______ _______
IBARRA _____ _____ _______ _______
FIGUEROA _______
SHORETT _____ _____ _______ _______
NICKEL _____ _____ _______ _______
RICHARD _____ _____ _______ _______
MULVIHILL _____ _____ _______ _______
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this day of
____________, 20 .
______________________________
Genoveva Rocha, CMC, Acting City Clerk
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 6: Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Plan
I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San Bernardino
Source: Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan “Figure 4.1 - Proposed Land Use Plan” 2016, Kimley-Horn 2019
Resolution No. 2020-59
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-59
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-P 19-06
ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT, ESTABLISHMENT AND
OPERATION OF A TRUCK AND TRAILER SERVICE AND
STORAGE FACILITY ON A PROJECT SITE CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 15.39 ACRES LOCATED AT 1066 N.
TIPPECANOE AVENUE (APN: 0278-051-08, 17 AND 24)
WITHIN THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD
TRANSFORMATION SPECIFIC PLAN EMPLOYMENT
LAND USE ZONE, PURSUANT TO AN ADDENDUM TO THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2019, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.64 (Specific
Plans) and Chapter 19.44 (Development Permits) of the City of San Bernardino Development
Code, an application for Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-P 19-
06 was duly submitted by:
Property Owner/
Applicant: Geoff Rosenhain
32932 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 14-365
Dana Point, CA 92674
Parcel Address: 1066 N. Tippecanoe Avenue
APN: 0278-051-08, 17 and 24
Lot Area: 15.39 acres
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2016, the Mayor and City Council certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015081086), adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and approved the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 is a request to change the Waterman +
Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Land Use Zone from Neighborhood
Residential to Employment of three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres;
and
WHEREAS, Development Permit Type-P 19-06 is a request to allow the development,
establishment, and operation of a truck and trailer storage facility with an office/shop building
containing approximately 7,000 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site
and off-site improvements, on a project site containing approximately 15.39 acres; and
WHEREAS, together, Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-P
19-06 constitute the I. E. Hub Center Project (“Project”); and
Resolution No. 2020-59
2
WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community and Economic Development
Department of the City of San Bernardino has reviewed Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and
Development Permit Type-P 19-06 for consistency with the City of San Bernardino General Plan
and compliance with the City of San Bernardino Development Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Public
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), Section 21067, and State CEQA Guidelines (California Code
of Regulations, § 15000 et seq.), Section 15367, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency
for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of Section 15164(b) (Addendum to an EIR) of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Division of the Community and Economic
Development Department accepted the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
prepared by Kimley-Horn on behalf of and submitted by the applicant for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of San
Bernardino held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report,
and adopted Resolution No. 2020-013 recommending the adoption of the Addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Report, and the approval of Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and
Development Permit Type-P 19-06 to the Mayor and City Council; and
WHEREAS, notice of the April 1, 2020 public hearing for the Mayor and City Council's
consideration of this proposed Resolution was published in The Sun newspaper on March 21,
2019, and was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site in
accordance with Development Code Chapter 19.52 (Hearing and Appeals); and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the Mayor and City
Council and no additional information submitted to the City Council, has produced substantial
new information requiring substantial revisions that trigger recirculation of the Addendum to the
Final Environmental Impact Report or additional environmental review under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.52 (Hearing and Appeals) and
Chapter 19.44 (Development Permits) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the
Mayor and City Council have the authority to take action on Development Permit Type-P 19-06.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance
with Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR), as the decision-making body for the project, the
Mayor and City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in the
administrative record for Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-P 19-
06, and the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015081086) certified on December 19,
2016 in conjunction with the approval of the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood
Resolution No. 2020-59
3
Transformation Specific Plan. Based upon the facts and information contained in the
administrative record and the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report, including
all written and oral evidence presented to the Mayor and City Council, the Mayor and City
Council find as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were previously analyzed in the Final
Environmental Impact Report certified on December 19, 2016 in conjunction with the approval
of the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan and within the
Addendum for the approval for Specific Plan Amendment 19-01 and Development Permit Type-
P 19-06; and
(2) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum contains a
complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the project; and
(3) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum was
completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(4) The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum reflects the
independent judgment of the Mayor and City Council; and
(5) The proposed project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts
beyond those previously analyzed in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report, and all
mitigation measures previously adopted with the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program
and the Addendum are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. Findings of Fact – Development Permit Type-P 19-06.
Finding No. 1: The proposed development is permitted within the subject zoning district
and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code,
including prescribed site development standards and applicable design
guidelines.
Finding of Fact: With the concurrent approval of Specific Plan Amendment 19-01, the
proposed development of a truck and trailer storage facility is a permitted
use within the proposed Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood
Transformation Specific Plan Employment Land Use Zone, subject to the
approval of a Development Permit with the appropriate Conditions of
Approval and Mitigation Measures. The proposal under Development
Permit Type-P 19-06 will be developed in compliance with all of the
applicable provisions of the Specific Plan and City of San Bernardino
Development Code, including development standards and applicable
design guidelines.
Finding No. 2: The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
Finding of Fact: Land Use Element Policy 2.2.1: Ensure compatibility between land uses
and quality design through adherence to standards and regulations in the
Resolution No. 2020-59
4
Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design
Element.
Land Use Element Goal 2.4: Enhance the quality of life and economic
vitality in San Bernardino by strategic infill of new development and
revitalization of existing development.
Community Design Element Goal 5.4: Ensure individual projects are well
designed and maintained.
General Plan Community Design Element Policy 5.4.1: Requires that
“individual projects aggressively apply and enforce citywide landscape
and development standards in new and revitalized development
throughout the City.”
The proposed development of a truck and trailer storage facility has been
designed with consideration for the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
An eight (8) foot high masonry wall will be constructed along the northern
property line to reduce potential noise impacts, and landscaping will be
provide around the perimeter of the project site as an aesthetic feature.
Additionally, the proposed project is a permitted use within the proposed
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan
Employment Land Use Zone, subject to the approval of a Development
Permit with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Measures, in which with the concurrent approval of Specific Plan
Amendment 19-01, is consistent with the proposed Employment Land Use
Zone and the Industrial Land Use Designation set forth by the General
Plan Land Use Map.
Finding No. 3: The proposed development is harmonious and compatible with existing
and future developments within the land use district and general area, as
well as the land uses presently on the subject property.
Finding of Fact: The proposed development of a truck and trailer storage facility will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within
the proposed Employment Land Use Zone and the Waterman + Baseline
Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan. The surrounding area
consists of a mixture of residential and industrial uses. Appropriate
Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures have been imposed on
the proposed development to ensure that the existing residential
neighborhoods will not be negatively impacted by the development of the
proposed truck and trailer storage facility. The scale and density of the
proposed development conforms to the development standards of the
Specific Plan. Since the proposal is consistent with the Waterman +
Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan, General Plan and
Development Code, no land use conflict is expected to result from
construction of the proposed project.
Resolution No. 2020-59
5
Finding No. 4: The proposed development is in compliance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 19.20.030 of
the Development Code.
Finding of Fact: In accordance with Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR), an Addendum
was prepared for the previously analyzed and certified Final EIR on
December 19, 2016 in conjunction with the approval of the Waterman +
Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan and included within
the Addendum for the approval of Development Permit Type-P 19-06 for
the development, establishment and operation of the proposed truck and
trailer storage facility.
Finding No. 5: There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon
environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly
mitigated and monitored.
Finding of Fact: In accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts were previously analyzed and
certified Final EIR on December 19, 2016 in conjunction with the
approval of the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation
Specific Plan and included within the Addendum for the approval of
Development Permit Type-P 19-06 for the development, establishment and
operation of the proposed truck and trailer storage facility. The proposed
project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond
those previously analyzed in the certified Final EIR, and all mitigation
measures previously adopted with the certified Final EIR and the
Addendum are incorporated herein by this reference.
Finding No. 6: The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of
use being proposed.
Finding of Fact: With the concurrent approval of Specific Plan Amendment 19-01, the
proposed truck and trailer storage facility is permitted within the proposed
Employment Land Use Zone, subject to the approval of Development
Permit Type-P 19-06 with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and
CEQA determination. The subject site as an industrial development is
sufficient in size to accommodate the proposal under Development Permit
Type-P 19-06 as required by the City of San Bernardino Development
Code. Therefore, the subject site is physically suitable for the proposal.
Finding No. 7: There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be
detrimental to public health and safety.
Finding of Fact: There are adequate provisions for public access, public utilities, and public
services for the proposed truck and trailer storage facility. The existing site
is located adjacent to and already served by existing public streets and a
full range of public utilities and services. All applicable Codes will apply
Resolution No. 2020-59
6
to the proposed development. Therefore, subject to the Conditions of
Approval and Mitigation Measures, the proposed development under
Development Permit Type-P 19-06 will not be detrimental to public
services or public health and safety.
Finding No. 8: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the
general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create
significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be
objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or
adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the
City.
Finding of Fact: The proposed development of the truck and trailer storage facility
conforms to all applicable development standards and land use regulations
of the proposed Employment Land Use Zone of the Specific Plan and the
City’s Development Code. Therefore, the design of the project, in
conjunction with the recommended Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Measures, will ensure that the proposal will not create significant noise,
traffic, or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or
detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity of the site, nor will it be
adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the
City. The location, size, design and character of the proposed development
will enhance the neighborhood to the benefit of the public interest and
general welfare of the City.
SECTION 4. – Conditions of Approval. Development Permit Type-P 19-06 is hereby
approved, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. This approval is to allow the development, establishment, and operation of a truck and
trailer storage facility with an office/shop building containing approximately 7,000
square feet on a project site containing approximately 15.39 acres, along with the
construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements, on a project site
comprised of three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 15.39 acres. The
project site is located at 1066 N. Tippecanoe Avenue (APN: 0278-051-08, 17 and 24),
within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan
Employment Land Use Zone.
2. The project site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the plans stamped
April 1, 2020 (EXHIBIT “A”), approved by the City, which includes a site plan, floor
plans, exterior elevations, conceptual landscaping plan, and preliminary grading plan on
file in the Planning Division; the Conditions of Approval contained herein; and, the
City’s Municipal Code regulations.
3. The project shall be subject to all of the mitigation measures contained within the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (EXHIBIT “B”), dated April 1, 2020, and
incorporated herein by reference as Conditions of Approval.
Resolution No. 2020-59
7
4. Within two (2) years of the Development Permit approval, commencement of
construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In
addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one
year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. However, approval of the
Development Permit does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary
permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities
included in the Conditions of Approval.
EXPIRATION DATE: April 1, 2022
5. The review authority may grant a time extension, for good cause, not to exceed twelve
(12) months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required
submittal items, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. The review authority shall
ensure that the project complies with all Development Code provisions in effect at the
time of the requested extension.
6. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of this
matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City of San Bernardino (City), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or
commission of the City as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors,
elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of the City from any
claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. The applicant
further agrees to reimburse the City for any costs and attorneys’ fees, which the City may
be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not
relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. The costs, salaries, and
expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as
“Attorney’s fees” for the purpose of this condition. As part of the consideration for
issuing this Development Permit, this condition shall remain in effect if the Development
Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of applicant.
7. An eight (8) foot high decorative block wall shall be installed along the northern property
line. An eight (8) foot high decorative wrought iron/tubular fence shall be installed along
the western and southern property lines.
8. A ten (10) foot wide landscaped planter shall be installed along the northern, western and
southern property lines. Detailed Landscaping Plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any grading or building
permits.
9. Construction-related activities may not occur between the hours of 8:00 pm and 7:00 am.
No construction vehicles, equipment, or employees may be delivered to, or arrive at the
construction site before 7:00 am or leave the site after 8:00 pm. Construction activities
shall only occur Monday through Friday.
Resolution No. 2020-59
8
10. If the colors of the buildings or other exterior finish materials are to be modified beyond
the current proposal and improvement requirements, the revised color scheme and/or
finish materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to
commencement of work.
11. Signs are not approved as part of this permit. Prior to establishing any new signs or
replacing existing signs, the applicant shall submit an application and receive approval
for a Sign Permit from the Planning Division. Banners, flags, pennant, and similar signs
are prohibited unless a Temporary Sign Permit is obtained.
12. The facility operator and property owner shall be responsible for regular maintenance of
the project site, including the area at the terminus of N. Barton Street adjacent to the
project site. The site shall be maintained in a clean condition and free of litter and any
other undesirable material(s). Vandalism, graffiti, trash and other debris shall be removed
and cleaned up within 24 hours of being reported.
13. The project landscape plans shall be in substantial compliance with the Conceptual
Landscape plan and prepared in accordance with the Development Code 19.28.120,
Water Efficient Landscaping Standards.
14. Minor modification to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director through the
Minor Modification Permit process. Any modification that exceeds 10% of the allowable
measurable design/site considerations shall require the refilling of the original
application.
15. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Building and Safety
Division, Police Department, Municipal Water Department, Public Works Department,
Business Registration Division, and the County of San Bernardino Consolidated Fire
District.
16. All exterior lighting shall be contained within property lines and energy efficient with the
option to lower or reduce usage when the facility is closed.
17. Submittal requirements for permit applications (site improvements, landscaping, etc.) to
Building Plan Check and/or Land Development must include all Conditions of Approval
issued with this approval, printed on the plan sheets.
18. The applicant is required to pay all development impact fees, including the Waterman +
Baseline Neighborhood Transformation Specific Plan Recovery Fee.
19. All Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements shall be implemented and/or
completed prior to final inspection and/or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Resolution No. 2020-59
9
Land Development Division
20. Drainage and Flood Control
a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to requirements of
the Building Official, which may be based in part on the recommendations of the San
Bernardino County Flood Control Department. The developer's Engineer shall
furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood control.
b) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage improvements,
structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the
development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-
of-way dedicated as necessary.
c) The detention basin shall be designed in accordance with “Detention Basin Design
Criteria for San Bernardino County.” Retention basins are not acceptable.
d) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage
facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
e) If site drainage is to be outlet into the public street, the drainage shall be conveyed
through a parkway culvert constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 400.
Conveyance of site drainage over the Driveway approaches will not be permitted.
f) A Preliminary Full-Categorical Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be
conceptually approved prior to the Planning Commission. The applicant is directed to
the County of San Bernardino’s Flood Control web page for the template and
Technical Guidance Document.
g) A Full-Categorical Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required for this
project. The applicant is directed to the County of San Bernardino’s Flood Control
web page for the template and Technical Guidance Document. The Land
Development Division, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve the WQMP. A
CD copy of the approved WQMP is required prior to grading permit issuance.
h) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. The applicant is
directed to State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SMART Login system.
The SWPPP shall be approved by the State and a CD copy of the approved SWPPP
shall be submitted to City prior to grading permit issuance.
i) A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control
Board for construction disturbing 1 acre or more of land (including the project area,
construction yards, storage areas, etc.). A WDID number issued by the State of
California is required prior to the issuance of grading permit.
j) The Land Development Division, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an
Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and
wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including graded
areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon.
Resolution No. 2020-59
10
21. Grading and Landscaping
a) The grading and on-site improvement plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil
Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in
strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's
"Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the Building Official.
b) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit
conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.100 of the Development Code shall
be obtained from the Department of Community Development - Planning Division
prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits.
c) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, the grading shall be
supervised in accordance with Section 3317.2 of the California Building Code.
d) If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the import material or the
site for the deposition of the export shall be noted on the grading plan. Permit
numbers shall be noted if the source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino.
e) If more than 50 cubic yards of earth is to be hauled on City Streets then a special
hauling permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. Additional conditions, such
as truck route approval, traffic controls, bonding, covering of loads, street cleaning,
etc. may be required by the City Engineer.
f) Wheel stops are not permitted by the Development Code, except at designated
accessible parking spaces. Therefore, continuous 6” high curb shall be used around
planter areas and areas where head in parking is adjacent to walkways. The parking
spaces may be 16.5’ deep and may overhang the landscaping or walkway by 2.5’.
Overhang into the setback area or into an ADA path of travel (minimum 4’ wide) is
not permitted.
g) Continuous concrete curbing at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide shall be
provided at least 3 feet from any wall, fence, property line, walkway, or structure
where parking and/or drive aisles are located adjacent thereto. Curbing may be left
out at structure access points. The space between the curb and wall, fence, property
line, walkway or structure shall be landscaped, except as allowed by the Development
Review Committee.
h) The refuse enclosure(s) shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard
Drawing No. 508 with an accessible path of travel. The minimum size of the ref use
enclosure shall be 8 feet x 15 feet for bins storage area. Where a refuse enclosure is
proposed to be constructed adjacent to spaces for parking passenger vehicles, a 3’
wide by 6 “ high concrete planter shall be provided to separate the enclosure from the
adjacent parking. The placement of the enclosure and design of the planter shall
preclude the enclosure doors from opening into drive aisles or impacting against
adjacent parked cars.
i) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on
the on-site improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the on-site improvement
permit issued by the Building Official. All masonry walls shall be constructed of
decorative block with architectural features acceptable to the City Planner.
Resolution No. 2020-59
11
j) No construction on a site shall begin before a temporary/security fence is in place and
approved by the Building Official or his designee. Temporary/security fencing may
not be removed until approved by the Building Official or his designee. The owner or
owner’s agent shall immediately remove the temporary/security fencing upon the
approval of the Building Official or his designee. Sites that contain multiple
buildings shall maintain the temporary/security fencing around the portion of the site
and buildings under construction as determined by the Building Official or his
designee. All temporary/security fencing for construction sites shall include
screening, emergency identification and safety identification and shall be kept in neat
and undamaged condition.
k) The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting, including light
location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design with structural calculations,
conduit location, material and size, and Photometric plot shall be provided which
show that the proposed on-site lighting design will provide:
i) 1 foot-candle of illumination uniformly distributed over the surface of the
parking lot during hours of operation, and
ii) 0.25 foot-candles security lighting during all other hours.
l) The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of The
California Building Code, Title 24, relating to accessible parking and accessibility,
including retrofitting of existing building access points for accessibility, if applicable.
m) An accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public way to the building
entrance. All pathways shall be paved and shall provide a minimum clear width of 4
feet. Where parking overhangs the pathway, the minimum paved width shall be 6.5
feet. All accessible parking spaces shall be a minimum of 18 feet by 9 feet net.
n) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Land
Development Division prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 3 copies to the
Land Development Division for Checking.
o) A liquefaction evaluation is required for the site. This evaluation must be submitted
and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any grading requirements
recommended by the approved liquefaction evaluation shall be incorporated in the
grading plan.
p) A Lot Merger is required for this project. The Lot Merger shall be recorded prior to
Building Permit issuance. The applicant is directed to the City’s web page at
www.sbcity.org – Departments – Public Works – Submittal Requirements for
submittal requirements.
q) Prior to occupancy of any building, the developer shall post a bond to guarantee the
maintenance and survival of project landscaping for a period of one year.
r) The applicant must post a grading bond prior to issuance of a grading permit. The
amount of the bond is to be determined by the Land Development Division.
Resolution No. 2020-59
12
s) The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb (also known as
“parkway”) along adjoining streets shall be landscaped by the developer and
maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping
shall be included in the project’s on-site landscape plan.
t) All electrical transformers located outdoors on the site, shall be screened from view
with a solid wall or landscaping and shall not be located in any setback/right-of-way
area. If the transformer cannot be screened, it shall be located in an underground
vault unless approved by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 19.30.110.
22. Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City
Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric,
telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial,
or institutional uses).
b) The project site shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so the City
or the agency providing such services in the area can serve it.
c) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San
Bernardino Municipal Water Department. Therefore, any necessary sewer main
extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance to the requirements of
SBMWD.
d) On-site Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as
required.
e) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the
street shall be placed underground in accordance with Section 19.20.030 of the
Development Code unless where/when applicable exceptions apply.
f) Existing on-site Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at
the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer.
23. Required Engineering Plans
a) A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:
street improvement plans (may include street lights or street lighting may be
separate plan),
demolition plans,
sewer plans (Private sewers may be shown on on-site improvement plan;
public sewers must be on a separate plan to San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department),
storm drain plans (Private storm drains may be shown on on-site improvement
plans; public storm drains must be on a separate plan with profile),
traffic signal plans,
signing and striping plan (may be on sheets included in street improvement
plan),
Resolution No. 2020-59
13
lighting (on-site lighting may be included in on-site improvement plan or may
be on a separate stand-alone plan),
grading (may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan),
on-site improvement plans and on-site landscaping and irrigation,
water plans (shall be submitted to San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department),
other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of plans for the
same project will not be allowed.
All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be included in
the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils
reports, structural calculations).
b) All off-site improvement plans submitted for plan check shall be prepared on the
City’s standard 24” x 36” sheets. A signature block satisfactory to the City Engineer
or his designee shall be provided.
c) After completion of plan checking, final mylar drawings, stamped and signed by the
Registered Civil Engineer in charge, shall be submitted to the City Engineer and/or
Building Official for approval.
d) Copies of the City’s design policies and procedures and standard drawings are
available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of reproduction. They are also
available at no charge at the Public Works Web Site at http://www.sbcity.org
24. Required Engineering Permits
a) Grading permit.
b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development
Services-Building Division), including landscaping.
c) Off-site improvement construction permit.
25. Applicable Engineering Fees
a) All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on the Public Works
Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100% of the estimated checking fee for
each set of plans will be required at time of application for plan check. The amount
of the fee is subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more than
10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan checking.
b) The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter and at
http://www.sbcity.org
Public Works Department
26. Street Improvement and Dedications
a) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-way (R.W.) per the
General Plan and Municipal Code shall provide the distance from street centerline to
property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation to the street centerline
shall be as follows:
Resolution No. 2020-59
14
Street Name Right of Way(ft.)
From Centerline
Curb Line(ft)
From Centerline
Tippecanoe Avenue
(278-051-08,278-051-17
278-051-24)
41.25’ Existing
8.75’ Dedication
“Major Arterial”
35’ Existing
36’ Proposed
Per General Plan
b) Tippecanoe Avenue:
i) For widened areas the street shall be rehabilitated to meet the requirements
detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the traffic
Index. The City’s has a minimum standard for new streets (4” AC over 8”
Base); However the Soils Report may indicate a thicker or different
improvement.
ii) For the existing street the street shall be rehabilitated to meet the requirements
detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the traffic
Index. The City’s has a minimum of 2” Grind and Overlay; However the Soils
Report may indicate a thicker or different improvement.
iii) If a Radius type Driveway Approach is proposed in lieu of the standard drive
approach, than a truck turning curb radius shall be 35’. An accessible bypass
crossing the approach shall be provided to comply with current ADA standard
or Construct Commercial Driveway Approach per City Standard No. 204,
Type II, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach.
iv) Construct Commercial Driveway Approach per City Standard No. 204, Type
II, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach at the
bridge to the south.
v) Driveways in Commercial, Industrial, or multi-Family units, no gates shall be
placed closer or impede 40’ from back of sidewalk, as directed.
vi) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200, type “B”.
vii) Construct 8" Curb to connect to the bridge to the south.
viii) Construct Sidewalk per City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to
curb).
ix) Construct Sidewalk to connect to the bridge to the south, per City Standard
No. 202; Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to curb).
x) Install LED Street Lights System adjacent to the site in accordance with City
Standard No’s. SL-1, SL-2, and SL-3. Also, a separate light plan shall be
submitted in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street Lighting
Design Policies
xi) Install type II Bike Lane per “Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices -
California”
xii) Install a city approved trash screen and filtration device in the catch basins.
xiii) Appropriate Permits from Fish and Game, Army Corp of Engineers, Regional
Water and any others shall be required when connecting to Upper Warm
Creek Channel.
Resolution No. 2020-59
15
xiv) Underground existing Poles as directed by the City Engineer.
xv) Install 2-3” Conduit 36” under the sidewalk with pull rope and pull boxes for
future Traffic connections.
xvi) Survey Monuments and ties shall be placed, replaced, tied out and recorded at
any corner or alignment changes that are adjacent to the project area in
accordance to California Land Surveyors Association – Monument
Preservation Guidelines, Copies of Recorded Monuments/Ties shall be
delivered to Public Works/Engineering.
These Conditions are set for an estimated construction with-in two years. If construction
exceeds two (2) years from this Approval these conditions shall be reviewed and updated
as needed.
c) With Submittal of improvement plans including but not limited to grading plans,
Street improvement plans, storm drain and retention/detention basin plans, and
erosion/sediment control plans, The Applicant shall cause to be formed, or shall be
annexed into an existing, Community Facilities District(s) (CFD) for landscaping,
lighting, streets, drainage facilities, street sweeping, graffiti removal, or other
infrastructure as required by the City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
Applicant shall initiate the maintenance and benefit assessment district(s) formation,
or annexation, by submitting a landowner petition and consent form (provided by the
City) and deposited necessary fees concurrent with the application for street and
grading plan review and approval; and said maintenance and benefit assessment
district(s) shall be established concurrent with the approval of the final map in the
case of the subdivision of land, or prior issuance of any certificate of occupancy
where there is no subdivision of land, and as approved by the City Engineer.
d) If a drainage report is required by Land Development, A second copy of the drainage
report will be delivered to public works, if offsite or overflow storm drain systems are
identified, all systems shall be identified on the street improvement plans, and public
storm drain shall be on a separate set of plans.
e) City approved trash screens and filtration devices shall be installed in all catch basins
or manhole connections.
f) A temporary construction encroachment permit from Public Works Department shall
be required for utility cuts into existing streets or any work within City’s right-of-
way. Pavement restoration or trench repair shall be in conformance with City
Standard No. 310. Public facilities shall be restored or constructed back to Public
Works Department satisfaction.
g) Any pavement works affecting the traffic loop detectors shall be coordinated and
subjected to Public Works Traffic Division requirements.
h) The applicant must post a performance bond prior to issuance of the off-site permit.
The amount of the bond is to be determined by Public Works Department.
i) The above conditions shall comply with current codes, policies, and standards at time
of construction.
j) Prior to Certificate of Occupancy or Completion of Project all As -builts shall be
submitted to Public Works.
Resolution No. 2020-59
16
27. Required Engineering Plans
a) A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:
street improvement plans (include engineering conditions and cross sections
in these plans),
if storm drain plans are required then public storm drains must be on a
separate plan with profile, private storm drains may be shown on on-site and
off-site improvement plans,
traffic signal plans must be submitted on a separate plan (if required by
conditions or traffic reports),
signing and striping plan (may be on sheets included in street improvement
plan, verification and approval prior to submission),
lighting for offsite plans (may be on sheets included in street improvement
plan, verification and approval prior to submission),
CFD Plans are required, they shall include Landscaping, Irrigation, Basins,
etc. that are included in the CFD that are not listed in the plans above.
other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of plans for the
same project will not be allowed.
All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be included in
the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils
reports, structural calculations)
Each discipline shall have its own title sheet unless packaged as a set.
b) All off-site improvement plans submitted for plan check shall be prepared on the
City’s standard 24” x 36” sheets. A signature block (city standard block) satisfactory
to the City Engineer or his designee can be found on the City Web Site
http://www.sbcity.org. or http://www.ci.san-
bernardino.ca.us/cityhall/publicworks/engineering_division/engineering_development
_resources/default.asp. Engineering conditions of the project shall be inserted in the
last pages of the plans.
c) After completion of plan checking, final mylar drawings with city standard block,
stamped and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, shall be submitted to
the City Engineer and/or Building Official for approval.
d) Electronic files of all improvement plans/drawings shall be submitted to the City
Engineer. The files shall be compatible with AutoCAD 2015, and include a .dxf file
of the project. Files shall be on CD and shall be submitted at the same time the final
mylar drawings are submitted for approval.
e) Copies of the City’s design policies and procedures and standard drawings are
available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of reproduction. They are also
available at no charge at the Public Works Web Site at http://www.sbcity.org or
http://www.ci.san-
bernardino.ca.us/cityhall/publicworks/engineering_division/design_policy_and_proce
dure_documents.asp
Resolution No. 2020-59
17
28. Required Engineering Permits
a) Off-site improvement construction permits.
b) Traffic Control and ROW Permits.
29. Applicable Engineering Fees
a) All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on the Public Works
Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100% of the estimated checking fee for
each set of plans will be required at time of application for plan check. The amount
of the fee is subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more than
10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan checking.
b) The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter and at
http://www.sbcity.org
30. Traffic Requirements
a) All Traffic mitigation measures shall be implemented according to the
recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer prior to Street Improvement plan
approval.
Building and Safety Division
31. This is a formal submittal to the Building and Safety Division and shall include all
required documents, which includes a soils report, when determined to be required.
32. Address the requirements of the California Green Code 2019 for all debris. Check the
VOC forms per code.
33. Check Chapter 3 of the California Building Code for the Occupancy Requirements and
Chapter 4 for the Special Use Requirements.
34. As a reminder the Building and Safety Division submittal is separate from the Fire
Department. Please show location of all existing hydrants.
35. Refer to Chapter 11B of the California Building Code 2019 for ADA Requirements.
36. Refer to Section 105 Permits for all required permits of the California Building Code
2019.
SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The Planning Division of the Community and
Economic Development Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the
County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final project
approval certifying the City’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in
approving the Project.
SECTION 7. 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.
Resolution No. 2020-59
18
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested
by the City Clerk this ___ day of _________, 2020.
John Valdivia, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:
Genoveva Rocha, CMC, Acting City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2020-59
19
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, Acting City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true
copy of Resolution No. 2020-___, adopted at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of _______
2020 by the following vote:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ
IBARRA
FIGUEROA
SHORETT
NICKEL
RICHARD
MULVIHILL
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this ___ day of
____________ 2020.
Genoveva Rocha, CMC, Acting City Clerk
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 1 February 11, 2020
I.E. HUB CENTER PROJECT
ADDENDUM TO THE WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Air Quality
MM AQ-1: Applicants for new development projects within
the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area
shall require the construction contractor to use equipment
that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Tier 4 emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower,
unless it can be demonstrated to the City of San Bernardino
that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control
device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized
engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s
regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall
ensure that all demolition and grading plans clearly show the
requirement for EPA Tier 4 or higher emissions standards for
construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During
construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list
of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for
verification by the City of San Bernardino. The construction
equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of
construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly
serviced and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors
shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction
equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance
with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
Prior to
initiating
ground-
disturbing
activities.
Site inspections Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 2 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
In the event that pre-contact/historic era cultural resources
are discovered during site grading or excavations, all work in
the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer)
shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standard shall be hired to assess the find (due to low
resource sensitivity, an archaeologist is not required onsite
during construction). Work on the other portions of the
Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this
assessment period. Additionally, the SMBMI Cultural
Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed within
MM TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact/historic era finds and
be provided information after the Project archaeologist
makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so
as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and
treatment.
MM AQ-2: Applicants for new development projects within
the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan shall
require the construction contractor to prepare a dust control
plan and implement the following measures during ground -
disturbing activities—in addition to the existing requirements
for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403—to further reduce
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The City of San Bernardino shall
verify that these measures have been implemented during
normal construction site inspections.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor
shall sweep streets with SCAQMD Rule 1186–compliant,
PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried
over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of
hauling.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor
shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a
During ground-
disturbing
activities.
Site inspections Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 3 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a
minimum of three times per day.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor
shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more
than 15 miles per hour.
MM AQ-3: Applicants for new development projects within
the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area
shall require the construction contractor to use coatings and
solvents with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content
lower than required under South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints).
The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural-
colored building materials, where feasible. Use of low -VOC
paints and spray method shall be included as a note on
architectural building plans and verified by the City of San
Bernardino during construction.
During
construction
activities.
Site inspections Community
Development
Department
MM AQ-6: Prior to issuance of building permits for
nonresidential development projects within the Waterman +
Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the property
owner/developer shall indicate on the building plans that the
following features have been incorporated into the design of
the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be
verified by the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
Designated parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and
carpool/van vehicles, or combination thereof, shall be
provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential
Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle
charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more
parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section
A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the
CALGreen Code.
During ground-
disturbing
activities.
Site inspections Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 4 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits for future
projects containing nonnative grassland and/or ruderal
communities identified on Figure 3 of the biological technical
report: A pre-construction, take-avoidance survey shall be
conducted in accordance with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (2012). If there is no sign of burrowing owl
occupation (“occupied” is defined in the CDFW Staff Report),
no further mitigation would be required. If sign of occupation
is present, the following mitigation shall be implemented.
Direct impacts to occupied burrowing owl burrows shall be
avoided during the breeding period from February 1 through
August 31 and during the nonbreeding season as described in
the CDFW Staff Report.
Mitigation for direct, permanent impacts to nesting,
occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat
shall be required based on the burrowing owl life history
information in Appendix A of the CDFW Staff Report, site-
specific analysis, and consultation with the CDFW. A
Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and
submitted to the City and CDFW for approval prior to impacts
to the burrowing owl and/or its habitat.
Prior to issuance
of grading
permits
Pre-construction
survey
Site inspection
Biologist
Community
Development
Department
MM BIO-3: The mature trees within the Specific Plan area
could be used for nesting by migratory birds protected under
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (United States
Code, Title 16, §§ 703–712). The MBTA prohibits direct
impacts to nesting birds and their nests. Also, the California
Fish and Game Code (§ 3503.5) prohibits activities that take,
possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird. Future
project applicants are required to comply with the MBTA.
Prior to the start of grading activities bet ween January 15 to
September 1 (bird nesting season), future project applicants
Prior to ground
disturbing
activities
Site survey,
Site inspections
Biologist
Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 5 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
are required to conduct a site survey for nesting birds by a
qualified biologist before commencement of grading
activities. If nesting birds are found, the applicant is required
to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding
means to avoid or minimize impacts to nesting birds in
accordance with MBTA requirements.
If nests are not observed and the City approves the results of
the preconstruction survey, vegetation clearing and tree
removal/trimming may proceed. If nests are found, work may
proceed provided that activity is: 1) at least 500 feet from
raptor/owl nests; 2) at least 300 feet from federal- or state-
listed bird species’ nests; and 3) at least 100 feet from
nonlisted bird species’ nests. A qualified biologist shall
conspicuously mark the buffer so that vegetation clearing
and tree removal/trimming does not encroach into the buffer
until the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings fledge, the
nest fails, or the nest is abandoned, as determined by a
qualified biologist).
Cultural Resources
MM CUL 3: If, at any time during ground-disturbing activities
during the course of Specific Plan buildout, evidence of
Native American resources is uncovered, the construction
contractor for the affected project shall halt work within 50
feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist assesses the
nature and significance of the find. The archaeologist shall
notify the City of San Bernardino Planning Division of the
discovery immediately. No further disturbance within 50 feet
of the find shall occur until the archaeologist has cleared the
area. A Native American tribe with traditional tribal territory
on or near the Specific Plan area, who agrees to accept such
resources without fees, may take possession of such
resources after the archaeologist has assessed and reco rded
them. If no Native American tribe seeks possession of the
During ground
disturbing
activities
Qualified
Archeologist
Archaeological
Monitor, Tribal
monitor, and
Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 6 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
resources or if multiple tribes cannot agree on disposition of
the resources, the resources shall be curated at the facilities
of the Western Science Center in Hemet in Riverside County.
MM CUL-4: If, at any time, evidence of Native American
resources is uncovered, local representatives of the Serrano
and Gabrieleno and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
must be notified within 24 hours and, depending on the
location and nature of the find, a determination as to the
need for an archaeological monitoring program shall be
revisited. If an archaeological monitoring program is justified,
the archaeological consultant will work with the Native
American representatives to ensure adequate coverage and
protection of the identified resource(s).
During ground
disturbing
activities
Qualified
Archeologist
Archaeological
Monitor, Tribal
monitor, and
Community
Development
Department
MM CUL-5: All excavations more than ten feet below ground
surface shall be periodically monitored for paleontological
resources. This monitoring should include the preparation of
a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP)
document and adherence to a ll standard protocols of the San
Bernardino County Museum Earth Science Department.
a. The paleontological monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect excavation construction
efforts if paleontological resources are discovered.
b. In the event of a paleontological discovery, the monitor
shall flag the area and notify the construction crew
immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area
shall occur until the qualified paleontologist has cleared
the area.
c. The paleontological monitor shall quickly assess the
nature and significance of the find. If the specimen is not
significant, it shall be quickly removed and the area shall
be cleared.
During ground
disturbing
activities
Qualified
Archeologist
Archaeological
Monitor, Tribal
monitor, and
Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 7 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
d. If the discovery is significant, the qualified paleontologist
shall notify the applicant and the City immediately.
e. In consultation with the applicant and the City, the
qualified paleontologist shall develop a plan of mitigation
that will likely include salvage excavation and removal of
the find, removal of sediment from around the specimen
(in the laboratory), research to identify and categorize the
find, and preparation of a report summarizing the find. All
recovered specimens shall be curated at the San
Bernardino County Museum in Redlands.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1: Before issuance of grading permits or building
permits by the City of San Bernardino, a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment would be required for the
pertinent development or redevelopment site.
Where a Phase I Assessment identified one or more
recognized environmental conditions potentially affecting a
property, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would be
required, consisting of sampling of soil, soil vapor, and/or
groundwater and testing samples for contaminants; and a
human health hazard assessment for any contaminants
identified.
Where a Phase II Assessment identified contaminant
concentrations in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater that
could pose substantial human health hazards, remediation of
such contamination to below regulatory action thresholds
would be required before disturbance of soil or structures
could be permitted on that site.
Prior to the
issuance of any
ground
disturbance-
related permits
(such as grading
permits); during
grading
Phase I and
Phase II
Environmental
Assessment
Review and
Implementation
Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 8 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Noise
MM N-1: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or
building permits for development projects accommodated by
the Specific Plan, a note shall be provided on development
plans indicating that during grading, demolition, and
construction, the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for requiring contractors to implement the
following measures to limit construction-related noise:
The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to
the same hours specified for construction equipment (7:00
AM and 8:00 PM).
To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass sensitive
land uses or residential dwellings and should avoid using
alleyways adjacent to said uses.
The project contractor shall use power construction
equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling
devices.
During all project site excavation and grading on-site,
construction contractors shall equip all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers'
standards.
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in
areas that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
The construction contractor shall place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed
away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project
site.
Prior to
issuance of
grading/
building
permits
Review of
construction
plan notes,
site inspection
Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 9 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
The use of vibratory equipment shall be avoided or minimized
within 25 feet of existing vibration-sensitive land uses.
If vibratory equipment must be used within 25 feet of an
existing structure, vibration monitoring shall be conducted
and work shall be halted and re-evaluated if vibratory levels
near 0.20 PPV are indicated, which is the standard
established to protect structures.
MM N-2: Before issuance of any building permits for projects
developed pursuant to the Specific Plan, the architects for
such projects will add the following specifications to building
plans for such projects:
New non-residential development shall be constructed with
roof-ceiling assemblies that make up the building envelope to
have an STC of at least 50 and exterior windows must have
minimum STC of 30 where sound levels at the property line
regularly exceed 65 decibels.
It is recommended that buildings with few or no occupants
and where occupants are not likely to be affected by exterior
noise, as determined by the enforcement authority, such as
factories, stadiums, storage, enclosed parking structures and
utility buildings be exempt from this measure.
Prior to
issuance of
grading/
building
permits
Review of
building plan
notes, Site
inspections
Community
Development
Department
MM N-4: Prior to issuance of building permits for non-
residential land uses located adjacent to residential land
uses, City staff shall require the preparation of a detailed
noise study to ensure that these sources do not exceed noise
level limits presented in the City’s noise ordinance which are
dependent on the type of land use. The assessment shall be
prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall
document the noise generation characteristics of the
proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the
nearest use. Compliance with these levels shall be
demonstrated and any measures required to comply with the
Noise Ordinance will be included in the project plans. The
Prior to issuance
of grading/
building permits
Review of
detailed noise
study, Site
inspections
Community
Development
Department
I.E. Hub Center Project
City of San Bernardino Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 10 February 11, 2020
Mitigation Measures (MMs)
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring/
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to
issuance of building permits
Transportation/Traffic
MM T-3: Prior to issuance of any building permit after 80
percent buildout of the Specific Plan area, the Project
applicant shall provide fair share funding for the following
improvements as determined by the City:
Modify the shared through-right lanes to a through lane and
an exclusive right-turn lane at the east and west approaches.
The eastbound and westbound Baseline Street approaches
are wide enough for the lane modifications to be made
through restriping of the affected approaches.
The estimated cost for the improvement at this intersection
is $3,000. The fair share contribution is 57 percent of the total
cost, that is, $1,710.
Prior to issuance
of grading/
building permits
Payment of fair
share toward
indicated
improvements
Community
Development
Department
I.E. HUB CENTER PROJECT
ADDENDUM TO THE WATERMAN + BASELINE
NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIF I C PLAN FINAL EIR
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2015081086
Prepared For:
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, CA 92501
February 11, 2020
Table of Contents
Addendum to the Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan i I.E. Hub Center Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Purpose of the Addendum ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 Description of Proposed Project ............................................................................................................ 3
3 Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis Summary ........... 27
4 Environmental Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................ 29
5 Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation ....................................................................... 124
6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 127
7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 128
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Location .......................................................................................................................... 7
Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity .............................................................................................................................. 9
Exhibit 3: Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Exhibit 4: Floor Plan .................................................................................................................................... 13
Exhibit 5: Existing Specific Plan Land Use Plan ........................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 6: Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Plan ........................................................................................ 17
Exhibit 7: Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................................ 19
Exhibit 8a: Elevations .................................................................................................................................. 21
Exhibit 8b: Elevations .................................................................................................................................. 23
Exhibit 9: Proposed Building Rendering ...................................................................................................... 25
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Existing Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................ 3
Table 2: Existing Specific Plan Land Use........................................................................................................ 3
Table 3: Proposed Specific Plan Land Use..................................................................................................... 4
Table 4: Regional Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ......................................................... 38
Table 5: Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ................................................................................................... 39
Table 6: Equipment-Specific Site Disturbance Rates .................................................................................. 42
Table 7: Construction LST Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 43
Table 8: On-Site Operational LST Evaluation .............................................................................................. 43
Table 9: Risk Assessment Results ................................................................................................................ 44
Table 10: CO2e Emissions for Construction of Proposed Project ................................................................ 68
Table of Contents
Addendum to the Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan ii I.E. Hub Center Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 11: Operational GHG Emissions ........................................................................................................ 68
Table 12: Estimated Project Net Employment Generation by Land Use District. ...................................... 94
Table 13: Jobs/Housing Balance for City of San Bernardino ....................................................................... 95
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Technical Reports
C. Biological Resources/Jurisdictional Delineation
D. Cultural Resources Assessment
E. Fiscal Impact Analysis
F. Traffic Impact Analysis
Purpose
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 1 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
1 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 21000 et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] §§ 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures
for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of San Bernardino (City).
Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall
prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none
of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”
Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent environmental impact report
(EIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
The City of San Bernardino is the Lead Agency under CEQA. On December 19, 2016, the City certified the
Final Program EIR for the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan (Specific Plan), State
Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2015081086, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Specific
Plan Final EIR is a comprehensive policy and regulatory guidance document for the private use and
development of all properties within the Specific Plan Update area, including the Proposed Project. By
providing the necessary regulatory and design guidance, the Specific Plan Final EIR ensures that future
development of parcels within the Specific Plan (both privately owned lands as well as publicly owned
Purpose
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 2 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
lands which are approved for private use and development) implements the goals and policies of the City
San Bernardino General Plan (General Plan). The Specific Plan establishes a land use concept that provides
for six separate districts and includes infrastructure improvements necessary to support development
within the Specific Plan area.
The City has received an application (entitled I.E. Hub Center Project) for the development of a 15.39-acre
site (670,356-square feet) to develop an approximately 7,000-square foot truck repair building with
approximately 410 trailer parking stalls and 47 vehicle stalls. The Project site is located at 1066 N.
Tippecanoe Avenue in the City of San Bernardino, California (assessor parcel numbers [APNs] 0278-051-
08, -17, -24). The Project site is currently zoned Neighborhood Residential under the existing approved
Specific Plan (which would allow approximately 210 dwelling units). The Project requires City approval of
a site plan and related site development plans and permits, in addition to amending the existing Specific
Plan land use for the site from Neighborhood Residential to Employment.
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts identified in
the Final EIR and those that would be associated with the Proposed Project. As detailed herein, the
Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts that were not analyzed in the Final EIR,
nor would the Proposed Project cause a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified
environmental impact. The potential impacts associated with Proposed Project would either be the same
or less than those described in the Final EIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the
circumstances under which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more
severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Final EIR, nor has any new information
regarding the potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts been identified.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum to the
previously certified Final EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the Proposed Project.
In taking action on any of the approvals, the decision-making body must consider the whole of the data
presented in the Final EIR and the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), as augmented by this Addendum.
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 3 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Setting and Location
The Proposed Project is in the eastern portion of the City in southwestern San Bernardino County,
California; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Location. The Project site is located at 1066 N. Tippecanoe Avenue;
refer to Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity. The Proposed Project site is located within the Eastside Neighborhood
District of the Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan Area (District #4). The Proposed Project site includes
three parcels (APNs 0278-051-08, -17, -24) on approximately 15 acres; refer to Table 1, Existing Project
Site and Surrounding Land Uses, and Table 2, Existing Specific Plan Land Use Plan.
Table 1: Existing Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses
Location Use
Project Site
0278-051-08 Vacant Site
0278-051-17 Vacant Site
0278-051-24 Vacant Site
North Vacant and Single Family Residential
South Warm Creek Concrete Channel and Industrial
East Single Family Residential
West East Twin Creek Concrete Channel and Industrial
Table 2: Existing Specific Plan Land Use
Location Existing Land Use
Project Site
0278-051-08 Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan Neighborhood Residential
0278-051-17 Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan Neighborhood Residential
0278-051-24 Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan Neighborhood Residential
North Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan Neighborhood Residential
South Commercial General -1 and Public Owned Flood Control
East Residential Medium
West Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan Neighborhood Residential
The Project site is a vacant parcel, bordered on the north by vacant land and residential development, on
the south by the Warm Creek Channel owned and maintained by the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District (SBCFCD), on the west by the East Twin Creek Channel owned and maintained by the SBCFCD, and
on the east by Tippecanoe Avenue. Both channels are concrete-lined. The Project site has been subject to
weed abatement activities and is situated in a heavily urbanized area of the City. Elevations onsite range
from a high of approximately 1,180 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the north to a low of approximately
1,030 amsl in the south.1
The Project site is covered with young alluvial valley deposits (Qya4), young alluvial-fan deposits (Qyf3),
and very young wash deposits (Qw). These are locally exhibited as silty sands deposited by flooding of the
Santa Ana River, which flows intermittently from northeast to southwest approximately two and one half-
mile south of the Project site.2
1 Jericho Systems. 2019. Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation.
2 BCR Consulting. 2019. Cultural Resources Assessment.
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 4 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2.2 Project Description
The Project proposes to develop the 15.39-acre site (670,356-square feet) with an approximately 7,000-
square foot truck repair building, approximately 561,056-square feet of paved parking areas as shown on
Exhibit 3, Site Plan, and approximately 102,300-square feet of landscaping (15.3 percent). The Project site
is designed to include 47 employee parking stalls and approximately 410 trailer parking stalls. The Project
would be utilized to park truck trailers and the proposed shop building would be utilized to provide
repairs/maintenance to trucks and trailers; refer to Exhibit 4, Floor Plan. The site would be enclosed by a
wrought iron railing fencing. The Project is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to allow the
Project site to implement the Proposed Project use within District #4. As noted above, the approved
Specific Plan indicates Neighborhood Residential land uses for the site, which is estimated to allow
approximately 210 dwelling units.
Note that the full set of Project application materials and associated plans are available at the City of San
Bernardino Planning Department.
Table 3: Proposed Specific Plan Land Use
Location Proposed Land Use
Project Site
0278-051-08 Employment
0278-051-17 Employment
0278-051-24 Employment
Refer to Exhibit 5, Existing Specific Plan Land Use Plan, and Exhibit 6 Proposed Specific Plan Land Use
Plan.
2.2.1 Site Access
Project site ingress and egress would be via two driveways located on Tippecanoe Avenue. The northern
driveway would be used by both cars and trucks (mostly trucks), and the southern driveway would be
used for cars only. The parking areas will allow for internal truck and automobile movement. Automobile
parking areas would be separated from the truck container parking areas by tubular steel fences and
gates.
2.2.2 Parking
The Project site would include 47 automobile parking spaces along the northeastern and eastern corners
of the site and 410 truck trailer parking stalls dispersed throughout the site.
2.2.3 Landscaping
Approximately 91,432-square feet of landscaping (13.6 percent of the site) would be landscaped, and
approximately 10,868-square feet (1.7 percent of the site) of buffer setback landscaping would be
provided along all property lines, for a total of 102,300 square feet of landscaping (15.3 percent of the
site). Three bio swales would be provided in the middle of the Project site for water retention purposes;
refer to Exhibit 7, Landscape Plan.
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 5 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2.2.4 Lighting
Site lighting would be used to provide adequate lighting for circulation, safety, and security. The Project
site assumes that night lighting would be provided seven days per week. Outdoor lighting for the parking
areas would be provided consistent with the requirements set forth in the Specific Plan. Additionally, all
lighting on the Project site would be required to be in conformance with Chapter 19.08.030, Land
Use/Subdivision Regulations of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code which outlines light shielding.
The purpose of these standards is to minimize light pollution, glare, and spillover, conserve energy
resources, and curtail the degradation of the nighttime visual environment.
2.2.5 Elevations
The proposed onsite repair building would have an approximate elevation of 23 feet high; this is consistent
with the maximum allowed Specific Plan building heights. The structure would be built from metal roof
trim in gunmetal gray and off-white, would have composite material siding in off-white color, and would
include eight doors for truck servicing; refer to Exhibit 8a and 8b, Elevations and Exhibit 9, Proposed
Building Rendering.
2.2.6 Hours of Operation
Although the end user for the Proposed Project is currently undetermined, it is anticipated that the facility
would operate 12 hours per day 7:00 am thru 7:00 pm, 7 days per week. Additionally, the Project would
hire approximately 25 employees with ten employees per shift anticipated to work at the repair building
facility each day.
2.3 Construction Schedule
Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to take approximately 13 months.
2.4 Discretionary Actions of Approvals
The City of San Bernardino is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for
reviewing and approving the Addendum to the Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan. The City will consider
the following discretionary approvals for the Proposed Project:
• Specific Plan Amendment (zone change)
• Design Review (DR)
Permits are required upon review of construction documents. Permits required for the Project may
include but are not limited to the issuance of encroachment permits for driveways, sidewalks, and utilities;
security and parking area lighting; building permits; grading permits; and permits for new utility
connections.
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 6 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 1: Regional Locaon
I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San Bernardino
Source: Waterman Baseline Specific Plan “Figure 1.1 - Regional Locaon Map” 2016
Project
Site
Not to Scale
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 8 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
Project Site0 400200FeetEXHIBIT 2: Project Vicinity I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San BernardinoSource: Nearmap - Image Dated September 20, 2019Baseline Street9th StreetBobbett DriveBarton StreetBelvan AvenueMyrtle DriveTippecanoe AvenueConejo DriveWarm CreekEast Twin Creek
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 10 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
Not to scaleEXHIBIT 3: Site Plan I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San BernardinoSource: Archimetrics Design Build Studio “Proposed Architectural Site Plan” 02-03-2020
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 12 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
Not to scaleEXHIBIT 4: Floor Plan I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San BernardinoSource: Archimetrics Design Build Studio “Shop Floor Plan” 2019BREAKROOM101PARTS ROOM103R/R102R/R104OFFICE100WORK BAYS105OUTDOOR AWNINGAREA108MECHANICAL106WELDING107CANOPY109STAIRS-1STAIRS-2FLOOR PLAN NOTESKEYNOTESLEGEND
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 14 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 5: Exisng Specific Plan Land Use Plan
I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San Bernardino
Source: Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan “Figure 4.1 - Proposed Land Use Plan” 2016
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 16 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 6: Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Plan
I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San Bernardino
Source: Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan “Figure 4.1 - Proposed Land Use Plan” 2016, Kimley-Horn 2019
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 18 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
Not to scaleEXHIBIT 7: Landscape Plan I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San BernardinoSource: Land Arq, Inc. “Conceptual Landscape Plan” 2019SHOPBUILDINGPLANTING LEGENDSYMBOL PLANT NAME SIZE WUCOLSQTY.TREET1Acacia aneuraMulga Acacia24" BOX L 19T2Chilopsis linearisDesert Willow24" BOX M72T3Chitalpa tashkentensis 'Pink Dawn'PinkDawn Chitalpa24" BOX L 12T4Cercidium-parkinsonia 'hybrid'Palo Verdo24" BOX L 6T5Prosopis hybrid 'Thornless Hybrid''Thornless Hybrid' Mesquite24" BOX M38PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE3'-0" TUBULAR STEEL PEDESTRIAN GATE FENCE LEGENDAMOUNTDESCRIPTIONSYMBOLS6'-0" HIGH TUBULAR STEEL FENCE299 L.F.6'-0" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE3,380 L.F. 40'-0" WIDE CANTILEVER TUBULAR STEEL GATE1 EA.2 EA. 26'-0" WIDE CANTILEVER TUBULAR STEEL GATE1 EA.SHRUBLANDSCAPE AREAS1Agave 'Blue Glow'Blue Glow Agave5 GAL L 27S2Agave desmettiana 'variegata'Variegated Smooth Agave5 GAL L 5S3Ceanothus 'Dark Star'Dark Star California Lilac5 GAL L 22S4Aloe striataCoral Aloe1 GAL L 23S6Festuca glauca 'elijah blue'Elijah Blue Fescue1 GAL L 76S7Hesperaloe parvifloraRed Yucca5 GAL L 82S8Muhlenbergia capillaris 'regal mist'Regal Mist Muhlenbergia1 GAL L 124S9Bougainvillea 'rasberry ice'Rasberry Ice Bougainvillea1 GAL L 13S10Leucophyllum frutescens 'Green Cloud'Texas Sage 'Green Cloud'5 GAL L 45S11Senecio serpensBlue Chalksticks1 GAL L 210S12Lantana x 'new gold'Dwarf Yellow Lantana1 GAL L 66S13Agave AmericanaMescal Agave5 GAL L 16S14Caesalpinia pulcherrimaMexican Bird Paradies5 GAL L -S15Salvia greggii 'furman's red'Frumans Red Autumn Sage5 GAL L10S16Agave weberiWeber Agave5GAL L 17GROUND COVERG1 6" to 12" DIA. cobble areas- - -G2 1 1/2" to 2" DIA. cobble areas- - -G3 BASIN- - -G4Boulders placed as shown 18"-36" size- - -PLANTING LEGENDSYMBOL PLANT NAME SIZE WUCOLSQTY.TIPPECANOE AVENUET1T4T5S1S2S3S4S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15BICYCLERACKTUBULAR STEELFENCE & GATETRASHENCLOSURECHAIN LINK FENCES16TUBULAR STEELFENCE & GATECHAIN LINK FENCECHAIN LINK FENCEBASINLANDSCAPE SWALET2T3PEDESTRIANGATE
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 20 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
EXHIBIT 8a: Elevaons I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San BernardinoSource: Archimetrics Design Build Studio “Shop Building (East) - Right Elevaon” 2019Lorem ipsumEast ElevaonSouth Elevaon
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 22 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
EXHIBIT 8b: Elevaons I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San BernardinoSource: Archimetrics Design Build Studio “Shop Building (West) - Le! Elevaon” 2019West ElevaonNorth Elevaon
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 24 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
EXHIBIT 9: Proposed Building Rendering I.E. Hub Center Project, City of San BernardinoSource: Archimetrics Design Build Studio “00a R1_S02a” 2019
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 26 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intentionally Left Blank
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 27 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
3 WATERMAN + BASELINE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The environmental impact findings of the Waterman + Baseline FEIR are summarized below.
No Impact: The Waterman + Baseline FEIR determined that no impact would occur with respect to the
following environmental topic areas.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impact 5.7-5).
Less Than Significant Impact: The Waterman + Baseline FEIR identified less than significant impacts in the
following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics (Impacts 5.1-1, 5.1-2, and 5.1-3);
• Air Quality (Impact 5.2-1);
• Biological Resources (Impact 5.3-2 and 5.3-5);
• Cultural Resources (Impact 5.4-4, and 5.4-5);
• Geology and Soils (Impacts 5.5-1 through 5.5-9);
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impact 5.6-2);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impacts 5.7-1, 5.7-3, and 5.7-4);
• Hydrology and Water Quality (Impacts 5.8-1 through 5.8-6);
• Land Use and Planning (Impacts 5.9-1 through 5.9-6);
• Mineral Resources (Impacts 5.10-1 and 5.10-2)
• Population and Housing (Impacts 5.12-1 and 5.12-2);
• Public Services (Impact 5.13-1 through 5.13-4);
• Recreation (Impacts 5.14-1 and 5.14-2);
• Transportation and Traffic (Impacts 5.15-2 through 5.15-6); and
• Utilities and Service Systems (Impacts 5.16-1 through 5.16-5).
Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation: The Waterman + Baseline FEIR identified
impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures in
the following environmental topic areas:
• Air Quality (Impact 5.2-6);
• Biological Resources (Impacts 5.3-1, 5.3-3, 5.3-4);
• Cultural Resources (Impacts 5.4-1, 5.4-2 and 5.4-3);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impact 5.7-2); and
• Noise (Impact 5.11-2).
Description
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 28 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The Waterman + Baseline FEIR identified significant and unavoidable
impacts in the following environmental topic areas:
• Air Quality (Impacts 5.2-2 through 5.2-5);
• Greenhouse Gas (Impact 5.6-1);
• Noise (Impact 5.11-1 and 5.11-3); and
• Transportation and Traffic (Impact 5.15-1).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 29 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum,
the topical areas identified in the CEQA Appendix G form were used as guidance for this Addendum. This
comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the
Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the Final EIR was certified would
require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined, on the basis of
substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that implementation of the Proposed Project does
not propose substantial changes to the Specific Plan Project, no substantial changes in circumstances
would occur which would require major revisions to the Final EIR, and no new information of substantial
importance has been revealed since the certification of Final EIR that would result in either new significant
effects or an increase in the severity of previously analyzed significant effects.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) was adopted as a part of the Final EIR certification
and Specific Plan approval. The previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the Proposed
Project will be imposed as conditions on the Project. The MMRP, as applicable to the Proposed Project, is
contained in Appendix A. Minor modifications to the Specific Plan MMRP are identified as underline. Deletions
are identified with strikethrough.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 30 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.1 Aesthetics
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the development of the Specific Plan, including District #4,
would create less than significant impacts on scenic vistas and would comply with existing local
requirements. The long-term buildout of industrial, commercial, and office uses would result in less than
significant impacts to views of the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. Impacts associated with
light/glare and scenic resources were also determined to be less than significant. Impacts associated with
the visual character of the Specific Plan area were generally determined to be less than significant. As
shown in Section 3, Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Summary, development of the Specific Plan would create less than significant impacts.
Impact 5.1-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would alter the visual appearance and
character of the Specific Plan area. [Thresholds AE-1 and AE-3]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
• AE-3 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
The Final EIR concluded that buildout of the Specific Plan area would introduce a substantial amount of
new land uses, buildings, structures, and public improvements into the Specific Plan area, including
District #4. In some areas, vacant lots and low-scale development would be replaced with multi-story,
urban land uses. However, components of the proposed Specific Plan have been designed to ensure that
these changes are beneficial impacts. Because of the Specific Plan area’s numerous neglected and
underutilized sites, redevelopment activities and related improvements to public rights-of-way would
substantially improve the Specific Plan area’s visual appearance. Permitted land uses in existing residential
neighborhoods and land use compatibility provisions of the Specific Plan would ensure that the
neighborhood character and scale of such areas would be preserved. Adverse impacts related to visual
appearance and character would be less than significant.3
Similar to the Final EIR findings, the Proposed Project would have no significant adverse effect on a scenic
vista. Compared to the Project site’s existing zoning which permits the site to be developed with
residential dwelling units of up to 30 feet in height, the Proposed Project proposes to develop a truck
parking facility with one approximately 23-foot high building structure; refer to Exhibits 8a and 8b,
Elevations. Furthermore, while the approved Specific Plan allows for development and associated
structures throughout the entire Project site, the Proposed Project would have limited above-grade
structures, consisting mostly of the single maintenance structure. Scenic views of the San Bernardino
Mountains visible from central San Bernardino, including those visible from large vacant parcels east of
the Project site would not be otherwise hindered by the Proposed Project.
3 PlaceWorks. 2016. Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 31 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project includes a Landscape Plan and lighting that would be consistent with City
requirements, which provides a buffer between the site and adjacent residential uses to the northwest.
Additionally, the Proposed Project is at a similar elevation as the surrounding area and would be
consistent with surrounding industrial development located immediately to the south and west which
include industrial developments of similar or greater scale. Views of the San Bernardino Mountains would
not be blocked for residential dwelling units located to the east and north of the Project site. For these
reasons, the Project’s encroachment into the viewshed would be less than significant.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on a scenic vista or a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally,
no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the Final EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant
impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified in the Final EIR with respect to scenic vistas or the
degradation of the visual character of the site. The Proposed Project would be designed consistent with
the Specific Plan guidelines and standards. Moreover, the site would be fully developed with curb and
gutter, perimeter landscaping, and a perimeter wall to provide visual screening and a buffer between
adjacent land uses. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues
related to scenic vistas or visual character.
Impact 5.1-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter scenic resources within a State
scenic highway. [Threshold AE-2]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that there are no State- or County-designated scenic highways in the
vicinity of the Project site. The Final EIR also determined that future development that is consistent with
the Specific Plan would not result in any adverse scenic resource impacts.
Consistent with the Final EIR findings on damage to scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historical buildings with a State scenic highway, the Proposed Project would also not cause any damage
to any of these resources. The site is vacant and has been previously disturbed and trees are located
onsite. Therefore, no adverse impacts on scenic resources, including resources within a State scenic
highway, would result from the Proposed Project’s implementation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 32 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not create any new impacts on scenic resources, trees, or historical buildings,
and no state scenic highway traverse or are located near the Project site.4 Therefore, no new and/or
modified mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.1-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate additional light and glare.
[Threshold AE-4]
Final EIR Threshold:
• AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Regarding the generation of additional light and glare, the Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the
development of the Specific Plan Area, as planned, would increase in existing residential uses from an
estimated 1,946 units to approximately 4,341 units, and an increase in commercial uses from
approximately 2,366,385 square feet to approximately 3,570,448 square feet. Development and
redevelopment in the Specific Plan area would generate new sources of light and glare that could affect
day or nighttime views. Sources of light would include lighting needed to provide nighttime street and
building illumination, security lighting, nighttime traffic, and lighting associated with construction
activities.
However, because the Specific Plan area already contains buildings, streets, parking areas, and other light-
generating land uses, any additional light and glare resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan
would be minimal, generated incrementally over time, and would not expand the geographic range of
light pollution in San Bernardino. The Specific Plan area is developed with residential, commercial, office,
and public uses, all land uses that generate substantial amounts of light and glare under existing
conditions.
Nighttime Light levels
Existing sources of nighttime light in the Specific Plan area include building lights (interior and exterior),
security lights, sign illumination, and parking facility lighting. Other sources of nighttime light include
street lights, vehicular traffic along roadways, and athletic field lighting. However, because the Specific
Plan area is largely built out, the lighting associated with improvements and structures of future
development projects would not substantially increase nighttime light within the area.
4 Caltrans. 2019. State Scenic Highway System Lists. Available https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-
community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed November 2019.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 33 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project would change the site appearance from vacant and disturbed land to a truck and
trailer parking area with a repair building onsite. Nighttime lighting would be introduced to the site
consistent with those assumed for the development of the Specific Plan area, and similar in nature to
existing truck parking facilities immediately south and west of the site.
With the Proposed Project, the aesthetic appearance of the development would be consistent with the
overall Specific Plan as design guidelines are intended to create a uniform and consistent theme within
the overall Specific Plan area. Furthermore, consistent with the Specific Plan EIR, the Proposed Project
would be required to comply with portions of the City’s Development Code that address building design.
These include Section 19.20.030.07, which regulates materials allowed on exterior walls, and Section
19.20.030.11, which requires that “no glare incidental to any use shall be visible beyond any boundary
line of the parcel.” Lastly, Section 5.5.1(C), Green Building Practices, of the proposed Specific Plan requires
development projects to: “minimize light trespass from site, reduce sky-glow to increase night sky access,
improve nighttime visibility through glare reduction, and reduce development impact on the nocturnal
environment.” The Proposed Project includes a Landscape Plan and perimeter wall which will provide
visual screening and a buffer between the site and adjacent land uses. Adherence to the Development
Code and provisions of the proposed Specific Plan would further minimize any sources of glare generated
by implementation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
No significant impacts to visual character are identified in the Final EIR. The Proposed Project would be
designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the Specific Plan. Therefore, no new and/or
modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics.
Overall Aesthetics Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Proposed Project
would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with
respect to aesthetics. Therefore, the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 34 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.2 Air Quality
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the
Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to air quality for both short and
long-term air quality as well as inconsistency with the Air Quality Management Plan. An Air Quality
Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment were prepared to evaluate construction and operational
impacts associated with the Proposed Project relative to impacts identified in the Final EIR. These
technical reports are included in this Addendum as Appendix B and the results are summarized herein.
Impact 5.2-1: Buildout of the Proposed Project would generate slightly more growth than the existing
general plan; therefore, the Proposed Project would be inconsistent with SCAQMD’s air
quality management plan. [Threshold AQ-1]
Final EIR Threshold:
• AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) which includes parts of San Bernardino, Los
Angeles, and Riverside counties and all of Orange County. The South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitor air quality within the Basin.
Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies and measures to be implemented by a city,
county, region, and/or air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does
not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an
area maintains a healthful level of air quality based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) is prepared by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The
AQMP provides policies and control measures that reduce emissions to attain both State and federal
ambient air quality standards.
According to the SCAQMD, a project is consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an
increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new
violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified
in the AQMP. The Basin is designated as attainment for criteria pollutants Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) and Lead. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 would ensure reactive organic gas (ROG)
emissions are below SCAQMD threshold levels. The Basin is in nonattainment for particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less (PM10) and particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). The
impact analysis performed demonstrates that PM10 and PM2.5 emissions generated throughout the
operation of the Proposed Project would be far below the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The
Basin is also in nonattainment for Ozone (O3). The Proposed Project would generate Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
emissions, a precursor to O3, that are expected to exceed the long-term operational thresholds
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 35 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
established by the SCAQMD. However, the net increase in NOx beyond what was analyzed under the
approved Specific Plan would be less than significant.
The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook, identifies two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:
1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout
and phase.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 5,
below, the net increase in operational emissions would not exceed the long-term operational thresholds
and therefore would not violate air quality standards. Thus, a less than significant impact is expected, and
the Proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on
SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local
governments and with reference to local general plans. The Specific Plan designates the Project site as
multi-family and single-family residential. In order to allow the Project site to be used for truck parking,
the Project proposes to amend the Specific Plan to allow the Project site to develop a truck
parking/maintenance building use. The Specific Plan was not consistent with the assumptions used to
develop the AQMP and would therefore have the potential to conflict with the AQMP. Although the
Proposed Project is also not consistent with the second criterion, the Proposed Project would not result
in new air quality impacts beyond what was previously approved under the Specific Plan EIR. Therefore,
impacts from the Proposed Project are consistent with the findings identified in the Specific Plan EIR.
The Specific Plan Final EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality during construction.
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 were identified in the Final EIR to reduce air emissions resulting
from implementation of the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan Final EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality associated with the
long-term operation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-8 were identified in the
Final EIR to reduce air emissions resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan.
Mitigation Program
The Final EIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Specific
Plan. The following measures from the Final EIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
AQ-1 Applicants for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood
Specific Plan area shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards for off-road
diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, unless it can be
demonstrated to the City of San Bernardino that such equipment is not available. Any
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 36 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that
are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for
a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s regulations.
Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all demolition and grading
plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 4 or higher emissions standards for
construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction
contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site
for verification by the City of San Bernardino. The construction equipment list shall state
the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be
properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling
of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with
California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
AQ-2 Applicants for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood
Specific Plan shall require the construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and
implement the following measures during ground-disturbing activities—in addition to the
existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403—to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
The City of San Bernardino shall verify that these measures have been implemented
during normal construction site inspections.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with
SCAQMD Rule 1186–compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is
carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed
ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the
construction site and a minimum of three times per day.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle
speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour.
AQ-3 Applicants for new development projects within the Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood
Specific Plan area shall require the construction contractor to use coatings and solvents
with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). The construction
contractor shall also use pre-coated/natural-colored building materials, where feasible.
Use of low-VOC paints and spray method shall be included as a note on architectural
building plans and verified by the City of San Bernardino during construction.
AQ-6 Prior to issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects within the
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the property owner/developer
shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 37 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by
the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• Designated parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles, or
combination thereof, shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each
nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be
consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the
CALGreen Code
Conclusion
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-8 were included in the Specific Plan EIR to reduce construction and
operational air quality emissions; however, the Specific Plan was inconsistent with the AQMP and even
with mitigation the air quality impacts from the Specific Plan remained significant and unavoidable. The
Proposed Project would also be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
However, the Proposed Project would not result in new air quality impacts beyond what was previously
approved under the Specific Plan EIR. Impacts from the Proposed Project are consistent with the findings
identified in the Specific Plan EIR.
Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate a
substantial increase in short-term criteria air pollutant emissions that exceeds the
threshold criteria and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
designations of the SoCAB. [Thresholds AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• AQ-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
• AQ-3 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)?
• AQ-4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction
Emissions?
Emissions from the construction phase were estimated based on information from the Applicant and
equipment estimates generated by CalEEMod. It is assumed construction of the Proposed Project would
occur for a period of approximately ten months. Construction activity would occur for eight hours per day,
at least five days per week; sometimes six days if necessary. CalEEMod w as used to calculate expected
pollutant emissions generated from the construction of the Proposed Project. Emissions were estimated
for summer and winter seasons. Table 4: Regional Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 38 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
displays the maximum daily emissions in pounds per day that are expected to be generated from the
construction of the Proposed Project in comparison to the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD.
CalEEMod was used to estimate pollutant emissions from the construction and operation of the Proposed
Project. Inputs for calculating the construction emissions include the following:
• Construction schedule; including phases of construction activity, start dates and end dates,
• Construction equipment used, and
• Truck trips generated
Table 4: Regional Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Year
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
2020 6.19 50.26 36.09 0.09 10.51 6.54
SCAQMD Significance
Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed Significance? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.
As shown in Table 4, construction of the Proposed Project would not cause exceedances for ROG, NOx,
CO, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10. The calculated emission results for ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 from
CalEEMod demonstrate that the construction of this Project would not exceed average daily thresholds
created by the SCAQMD. The Project is proposing to construct an approximately 7,000 square-foot shop
building to repair trucks and trailers and 561,056 square feet of paved parking for truck trailers and truck
container storage, which would require the application of architectural coating on the outside and inside
of the building and striping for the stalls. The application of architectural coatings is typically the largest
source of ROG emissions during construction activity. The SCAQMD addresses construction-related
emissions of ROG through the implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113, which regulates ROG emissions
from architectural coatings. With the implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113, construction of the
Proposed Project ROG emissions are below the SCAQMD threshold. The Proposed Project emissions
would not worsen ambient air quality, create additional violations of federal and State standards, or delay
the Basin’s goal for meeting attainment standards. The maximum daily construction emissions for the
Proposed Project are less than the levels identified in the Specific Plan Final EIR.
Operational Emissions
Operational impacts are related to area source emissions and mobile source emissions. Area sources
include natural gas for space and water heating, gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance
equipment, consumer products (such as household cleaners). Mobile source emissions are generated
from vehicle operations associated with the operation of the Proposed Project. Typically, area sources are
small sources that contribute very little emissions individually, but when combined may generate
substantial amounts of pollutants. Area-specific defaults in the CalEEMod were used to calculate area
source emissions.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 39 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
CalEEMod was also used to calculate pollutants emissions from vehicular trips generated from the
Proposed Project. CalEEMod default inputs and trip distances, were unaltered for this analysis. In addition
to the default inputs, it is assumed that operations of the truck parking facility would begin in 2021.
CalEEMod estimated emissions from the operation of the Proposed Project and site buildout under the
approved Specific Plan are shown in Table 5: Operational Emissions (lbs/day). The dispersion rate for
each air pollutant differs during the summer and winter seasons. During the summer months, the
inversion periods can augment the formation of O3. In the winter months, steep inversion layers typically
set up after the passage of a cold front and these stagnant conditions can be characterized by a buildup
of particulates or carbon monoxide.
Emission calculations generated from CalEEMod demonstrate that the operation of the Project site if
developed as approved under the Specific Plan would generate more ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 than
Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project would generate more NOX emissions. CalEEMod was
used to calculate average daily emissions for both area source, energy source, and mobile source
emissions. Project-related mobile emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s established threshold for NOX
emissions; however, the net increase in NOX over the approved Specific Plan would be less than significant.
Table 5: Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Source
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Site Buildout Under Approved Specific Plan1 (15.34 acres)
Area 8.49 1.63 17.97 0.01 0.21 0.21
Energy 0.18 1.62 0.69 0.01 0.13 0.13
Mobile 4.50 28.69 53.99 0.20 14.58 3.99
Total Emissions 13.18 31.96 72.66 0.22 14.92 4.34
Proposed Project (15.34 acres)
Summer Emissions
Area 2.43 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.06 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile2 1.96 74.46 12.71 0.16 3.14 0.94
Total Emissions 4.40 74.53 12.83 0.16 3.14 0.94
Winter Emissions
Area 2.43 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.06 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile2 2.06 72.74 15.36 0.15 3.14 0.94
Total Emissions 4.51 72.80 15.48 0.15 3.14 0.95
Net Emissions
SP Project Site 13.18 31.96 72.66 0.22 14.92 4.34
Proposed Project3 4.51 74.53 15.48 0.16 3.14 0.95
Net Change -8.67 +42.57 -57.18 -0.06 -11.78 -3.39
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55 150
Exceed thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.
1. Site buildout under approved Specific Plan conditions, the project site would contain a maximum of 210 homes.
2. Proposed Project mobile emissions are based on the total Project trip generation of 943 vehicle trips per the project Traffic Impact Analysis.
3. The highest value, between summer and winter results were used as worst-case scenario.
Note: Total values are from CalEEMod and may not add up 100% due to rounding.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 40 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Cumulative Emissions
The regional analysis of construction and operational emissions conducted for the Final EIR indicates that
with mitigation, the Specific Plan Project would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for
ROG, NOX, and CO). Mitigation Measures would reduce cumulative emissions to the extent feasible;
however, the Final EIR concluded that cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The Proposed Project’s emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during operation. Thus, the
impact would be potentially cumulatively significant. The impacts associated with Proposed Project are
consistent with the impact findings disclosed in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 are applicable for construction and Mitigation Measure AQ-6 is
applicable for operations.
Conclusion
The Specific Plan EIR determined that the Specific Plan would exceed air quality thresholds for ROG, NOX,
and CO and would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. Based on the approved
Specific Plan, the Proposed Project site was designated as Residential Medium and Residential Suburban
land uses, supporting a maximum of 210 homes. An analysis of site-specific impacts under Specific Plan
conditions determined that the Project site’s portion of the Specific Plan alone would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds.
The Proposed Project increase NOX emissions as shown in Table 5; however, all other emissions would
decrease when compared with the approved Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would include all
Mitigation Measures identified in the Specific Plan EIR and would incorporate additional mitigation
measures to reduce NOX impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Although NOX emissions would
increase, the net increase would be below SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not generate new impacts or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR because the previously approved Specific Plan EIR identified
a significant and unavoidable impact. Impacts from the Proposed Project are consistent with the findings
identified in the Specific Plan EIR.
Impact 5.2-3: Long-term operation of the Proposed Project would generate a substantial increase in
criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed the threshold criteria and would
cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. [Thresholds
AQ-2 and AQ-3]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• AQ-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 41 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• AQ-3 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)?
The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a potentially significant impact could occur if a project would
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The criteria used in the Final EIR to
address this impact included the preparation of a localized impact traffic analysis and a CO hot spot
analysis. CO concentrations were found to be well below the state and Federal standards according to the
Specific Plan Final EIR.
Air quality impacts related to the Proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the Final
EIR. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is
available. The Basin is currently considered a nonattainment area for the NAAQS for ozone, PM 10, and
PM2.5. Although the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is designated a nonattainment area for the
NAAQS for lead, all other portions of the Basin (including San Bernardino County) are designated
attainment. The Basin is considered a nonattainment area for CAAQS for NO2, ozone, and PM10, and PM2.5.
Levels of PM10 and PM2.5 are locally high enough that contributions from new sources may add to the
concentrations of those pollutants and contribute to a projected air quality violation. Two criteria are used
to assess the significance of this impact: (1) the localized significance analysis; and (2) the carbon
monoxide (CO) hot spots analysis.
Localized Mobile Source Impacts - CO Hot Spots Analysis
The Project is anticipated to generate 943 daily vehicle trips per day. Based on the analysis presented
below, a CO “hot spots” analysis is not needed to determine whether the change in the level of service
(LOS) of an intersection in the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or
NAAQS. An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the state
one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. At the time of the 1993
Handbook5, the SCAG was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. It has long
been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested
intersections. However, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty
years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for
passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of
older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient
emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the Basin is now designated as attainment. Also, CO
concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined.
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO
concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase
5 SCAQMD is in the process of developing an “Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook” to replace the 1993 Handbook. Refer to
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook for updated sections.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 42 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour- or 24,000 vehicles per
hours where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix to generate a significant CO impact. The Proposed
Project would not produce this volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot.” Therefore, CO
“hotspots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Proposed Project. Localized air quality
impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.
Localized Significance Threshold
The SCAQMD’s latest Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology (2008b) was used to analyze the
neighborhood scale impacts of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with project-specific mass emissions.
Introduced in 2003, the LST methodology was revised in 2008 to include the PM2.5 significance threshold
methodology and update the LST mass rate lookup tables for the new one-hour NO2 standard.
For determining localized air quality impacts from small projects in a defined geographic Source Receptor
Area (SRA), the LST methodology provides mass emission rate lookup tables for 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre
parcels by SRA. The tabulated LSTs represent the maximum mass emissions from a project that will not
cause or contribute to an exceedance of CAAQS or NAAQS for the pollutants listed above and were
developed based on ambient concentrations of these pollutants for each SRA in the Basin; refer to Table 6:
Equipment-Specific Site Disturbance Rates.
Table 6: Equipment-Specific Site Disturbance Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Grading
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.5 8 1.0
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.
For most projects, the highest daily emission rates occur during the site preparation and grading phases
of construction due to the use of heavy earthmoving equipment. The Proposed Project site is
approximately 15 acres in SRA Zone 34, the Central San Bernardino Valley. The peak daily soil disturbance
occurs during the site preparation phase and equates to a maximum soil disturbance of 4.0 acres based
on the construction equipment in use and the SCAQMD guidance document “Fact Sheet for Applying
CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” Thus, 4.0-acre screening lookup tables were interpolated
to evaluate NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The nearest receptors are located to the north, adjacent to the main
construction area. Therefore, the shortest distance threshold was used, 25 meters. Additionally, the 5-
acre thresholds were used for operations. The LSTs increase as site acreages increase because pollutants
would be able to disperse more readily. Although the Project site is greater than 5 acres, the LST lookup
tables can be conservatively used to show that even if the daily emissions from all Project operations were
emitted on a 5-acre site, the impacts would be less than significant.
The LST results provided in Table 7: Construction LST Evaluation and Table 8: On-Site Operational LST
Evaluation show that on-site emissions from both construction and operations, respectively, would not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds at the nearest receptors. Thus, localized air quality impacts would be less
than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 43 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 7: Construction LST Evaluation
Construction Activity
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOX)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Site Preparation 42.41 21.51 10.32 6.49
Grading 50.19 31.95 5.42 3.54
Building Construction 19.18 16.84 1.11 1.05
Paving 14.06 14.65 0.75 0.69
Architectural Coating 1.68 1.83 0.11 0.11
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4.0 acres at 25 meters) 237 1,466 12 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.
Table 8: On-Site Operational LST Evaluation
Construction Activity
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOX)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions 74.46 12.78 3.14 0.94
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(5 acres at 25 meters) 270 1,720 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1. SRA Zone 34 – Central San Bernardino Valley; 5-acre area, 25 meters to receptor; conservatively assumes 100 percent of mobile emissions
are on-site.
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.
Operational-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
CARB identified Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) as a Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) in 1998. Mobile sources
(including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships, and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of
diesel emissions. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate
components, many of which are toxic. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, either gas or particulate
– both contribute to the risk. The gas phase is composed of many of the urban TACs, such as acetaldehyde,
acrolein, benzene, 1,3‐butadiene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The particulate
phase has many different types that can be classified by size or composition. The sizes of diesel
particulates of greatest health concern are fine and ultrafine particles. These particles may be composed
of elemental carbon with adsorbed compounds such as organics, sulfates, nitrates, metals, and other trace
elements. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad range of on‐ and off‐road diesel engines. As the project
proposes a truck parking facility and associated truck traffic in the vicinity of residences, an analysis of
DPM was performed using the EPA‐approved AERMOD model.
Vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using emission factors for course particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10) generated with the 2017 version of the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC)
developed by CARB. EMFAC is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from
motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 44 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on‐road mobile sources. EMFAC2017, incorporates
regional motor vehicle data, information and estimates regarding the distribution of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) by speed, and number of starts per day. The model includes the emissions benefits of the truck and
bus rule and the previously adopted rules for other on‐road diesel equipment.
For this project, annual average PM10 emission factors were generated by running EMFAC for vehicles in
the SCAQMD within the South Coast portion of San Bernardino County. EMFAC generates emission factors
in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors
at specific values of vehicle speed, temperature, and relative humidity. The model was run for speeds
traveled on and within the vicinity of the Project site. The vehicle travel speeds for each segment modeled
are summarized below.
• Idling – on‐site loading/parking (15 minutes per truck trip);
• 15 miles per hour – on‐site vehicle movement including driving and maneuvering;
• 25 miles per hour – off‐site vehicle movement including driving and maneuvering; and
• 40 miles per hour – off‐site vehicle movement including driving and maneuvering.
Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest expected hourly average diesel PM10 emission concentrations
from diesel truck traffic on the project site would be 0.047 µg/m3. The highest expected annual average
diesel PM10 emission concentrations at the project site would be 0.01654 µg/m3, which is below the
SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below the SCAQMD
threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.003 and an acute hazard index of 0.040. The
calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology with lower emissions in future years. As shown
in Table 9, Risk Assessment Results, the highest calculated carcinogenic risk as a result of the project is
6.85 in one million. Thus, impacts related to cancer risk would be less than significant at the Project site.
Table 9: Risk Assessment Results
Exposure Scenario Maximum Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)1,2
Significance Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold?
Residents 6.85 10 No
Notes:
1. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.
2. The maximum cancer risk would be experienced to the northeast and based on worst-case exposure durations for the Project, 95th
percentile breathing rates, and 30-year averaging time.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
AQ-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for new development projects within the Waterman
+ Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the property owner/developer shall show on
the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers,
and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star appliances. Installation of Energy Star
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 45 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
appliances shall be verified by the City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy.
AQ-5 Prior to issuance of building permits for residential development projects within the
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the property owner/developer
shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into
the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the
City of San Bernardino prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• For multifamily dwellings, electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in
Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the Proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the Final
EIR. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is
available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.
Impact 5.2-4: Construction activities related to buildout of the Proposed Project could expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. [Threshold AQ-4]
Impact 5.2-5: Buildout of the Proposed Project could result in new source sources of criteria air
pollutant emissions and/or toxic air contaminants near existing or planned sensitive
receptors. [Threshold AQ-4]
Impact 5.2-6: Industrial land uses associated with the Proposed Project could create objectionable
odors. [Threshold AQ-5]
Final EIR Threshold:
• AQ-4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction
Emissions?
• AQ-5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, as amended in 2015, (SCAQMD 2015) identifies certain land
uses as sources of odors. These land uses include the following: agriculture, wastewater treatment plant,
food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, diaries, and fiberglass molding.
The Proposed Project is a truck parking facility and does not propose to include any odor-inducing uses
on the Project site. The Proposed Project would not be a source of objectionable odors; no impact would
occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Specific Plan Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 46 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
AQ-7 New industrial land uses that have industrial equipment which requires a permit to
operate from the SCAQMD or have the potential to generate 40 or more diesel trucks per
day and are located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g. residential, schoo ls,
hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the
property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to
the City of San Bernardino prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall
be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the applicable air quality management
district. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (I0E-
06), that particulate matter concentrations would exceed 2.5 μg/m3, or that the
appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify
and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) are capable
of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including
appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to,
restricting idling onsite, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate
matter, and requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T-BACTs identified in the
HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or
incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project.
AQ-8 If it is determined during project-level environmental review that a development project
has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management
plan may be required, subject to County’s regulations. Facilities within the Specific Plan
that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to, food-
processing facilities. If an odor management plan is determined to be required through
CEQA review, the County of San Bernardino shall require the project applicant to submit
the plan prior to approval to ensure compliance with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s Rule 402, for nuisance odors. If applicable, the odor management
plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be
utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement
mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, scrubbers (e.g., air pollution
control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan
shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or
incorporated into the site plan.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to air quality.
Overall Air Quality Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to air quality. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 47 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Biological Resources
The Final EIR identifies the Specific Plan area as being mostly developed, with land uses including
residential, industrial, commercial, public facilities, a public park, roadways, and concrete-lined flood
channels. The undeveloped portion of the Specific Plan area have been identified as being repeatedly
disturbed by human activity, and these disturbed areas predominantly support ruderal vegetation (i.e.,
non-native plants growing on highly disturbed land).
Consistent with the Specific Plan Final EIR general biological findings, the Project-specific Biological
Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation prepared by Jericho Systems Inc. on September 13,
2019, found that the Project site’s habitat is consistent of primarily ruderal, non-native grasses. The
Biological Resources Assessment/Jurisdictional Delineation found that a less than significant impact would
occur from Project implementation. This technical study can be found under Appendix C of this
Addendum.
Data regarding biological resources on the Project site were obtained through literature review and field
investigations. Prior to performing the surveys, available databases and documentation relevant to the
Project site was reviewed for documented occurrences of sensitive species in the area. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) threatened and endangered species occurrence data overlay, as well as the most
recent versions of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society
Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) databases, Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Wetland Inventory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), and Designated Critical Habitat Maps. These databases contain records of reported
occurrences of State- and federally-listed species or otherwise sensitive species and habitats that may
occur within the vicinity of the Project site.
Biologists from Jericho Systems Inc. walked the entire site on August 31, 2019, as part of their assessment
in order to gather 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. Wildlife species detected during the
field surveys were identified by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other distinguishable signs. Using known habitat
locations and preferences, expected species were also searched for during field surveys.
Impact 5.3-1: Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan could impact burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia),
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo
swainsoni). [Threshold B-1]
Final EIR Threshold:
• B-1 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.
The Final EIR determined that a potentially significant impact could occur on candidate, sensitive, or
special status species from the development of the Specific Plan, more specifically, impacts could
potentially occur on Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (BUOW). The Final EIR determined that although
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 48 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the general conditions of the Specific Plan area are not adequate for BUOW due to the disturbed nature
of the Specific Plan area, there is always an opportunity for BUOW to nest. For this reason, the Final EIR
requires that Mitigation Measure BIO-1, BUOW Preconstruction Survey is conducted prior to construction
initiation. Additionally, the Final EIR identified other species, such as the California Horned Lark
(Eremophila alpestris actia) (watch list) and the Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (federal bird of
Conservation Concern and State Threatened species), that could occur in, or around, the Specific Plan, but
have a very low potential to use nonnative grassland, ruderal, and ruderal/disked communities of the
Specific Plan area.
Consistent with the Final EIR, the Biological Resources Assessment found no evidence of BUOW in the
Project site. There was no sign of historic or current use of BUOW. No BUOW pellets, feathers or
whitewash, no burrows, and no ground squirrels or other fossorial animals to provide surrogate burrows
were observed onsite. Additionally, no BUOW have been documented within a 3-mile radius of the Project
site. However, similar to the Final EIR, the Biological Resources Assessment recommend that Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 is implemented prior to construction initiation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for future projects containing nonnative grassland
and/or ruderal communities identified on Figure 3 of the biological technical report: A pre-
construction, take-avoidance survey shall be conducted in accordance with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If
there is no sign of burrowing owl occupation (“occupied” is defined in the CDFW Staff
Report), no further mitigation would be required. If sign of occupation is present, the
following mitigation shall be implemented.
Direct impacts to occupied burrowing owl burrows shall be avoided during the breeding
period from February 1 through August 31 and during the nonbreeding season as described
in the CDFW Staff Report.
Mitigation for direct, permanent impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or
burrowing owl habitat shall be required based on the burrowing owl life history information
in Appendix A of the CDFW Staff Report, site-specific analysis, and consultation with the
CDFW. A Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City and
CDFW for approval prior to impacts to the burrowing owl and/or its habitat.
Conclusion
Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to cause an adverse impact,
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 CDFW or USFWS.
Additionally, with the implementation of the Final EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a less than significant
impact would occur.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 49 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Impact 5.3-2: There are no sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats in the Specific Plan area,
and Specific Plan buildout would not impact such communities or habitats. [Threshold
B-2]
Final EIR Threshold:
• B – 2 Have a substantial 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The Final EIR concluded that there are no sensitive natural communities in the Specific Plan area. No
riparian habitat was identified in the Specific Plan area; the only riparian vegetation identified was one
western cottonwood tree (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) next to the streambed in the southeast part
of the Specific Plan area. Western cottonwood is not listed as a sensitive species on the CNDDB maintained
by the CDFW. The buildout of the Specific Plan would not impact sensitive natural communities or riparian
habitats. Similar to the Final EIR conclusions, the Biological Resources Assessment concluded that the
Proposed Project site does not contain any riparian habitat. No drainages occur onsite and no aspect of
the site presents any evidence of jurisdictional waters.
Warm Creek Channel and East Twin Creek Channel border the site to the south and west of the site,
respectively. These channels do not occur onsite and no channel improvements are proposed as part of
the Project. The Final EIR notes that the East Twin Creek Channel further west, and the Warm Creek
Channel further south, are within Flood Zone A, that is, 100-year flood zones. However, the Final EIR also
notes that the part of the Specific Plan area east of East Twin Creek, which is where the Project is located,
is in an area protected from 100-year floods by levees. Final EIR Figure 5.8-3, Flood Hazard Zones Map,
identifies the Project site as “Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee.”
No impacts relative to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community or a substantial increase in
the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur with
implementation of the Proposed Project. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that
would change the finding of less than significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required. A less than significant impact would occur.
Impact 5.3-3: The proposed Specific Plan could impact approximately 2.2 acres of ephemeral
streambed. [Threshold B-3]
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 50 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Final EIR Threshold:
• B-3 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?
The Final EIR concluded that approximately 2.2 acres of ephemeral streambed (Warm Creek) is present in
the southeast part of the Specific Plan area. The ephemeral streambed is labeled Warm Creek on the San
Bernardino County Stormwater Facility Mapping Tool. Warm Creek is also the name of the engineered
concrete channel forming the Project site’s southern boundary. To avoid impacts to Warm Creek, the Final
EIR imposed Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
According to the Project’s Biological Resources Assessment, Warm Creek does not occur onsite and no
channel improvements are proposed as part of the Proposed Project. Nor are there any wetlands on the
Project site. The Biological Resources Assessment finds that no impacts would occur to Warm Creek.
Therefore, Final EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is not applicable to the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
BIO-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, future project applicants for any project adjacent to
the ephemeral streambed shown on Figure 5.3-1 of this DEIR shall provide evidence from
a qualified biologist to the City that nonwetland Waters of the United States and Waters
of the State have been avoided to the extent feasible. Where avoidance is not feasible,
mitigation will be required in accordance with federal and state regulations. The types of
mitigation would include onsite protection, enhancement, and/or restoration. Mitigation
is typically required at a 1:1 ratio and in close proximity to the impacts, or at least in the
same watershed. The final mitigation requirements and locations for the mitigation,
however, are subject to the permit processes with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the CDFW. If avoidance is not feasible, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the
City that all required federal and state permits have been obtained prior to issuance of
grading permits.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Final EIR in that it would not result in a significant
impact to federally protected wetlands. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that
would alter the impact finding of federal wetlands.
Impact 5.3-4: There are no wildlife movement corridors in the Specific Plan area, and Specific Plan
buildout would not impact any such corridors. Vegetation clearance or construction by
projects developed pursuant to the Specific Plan could impact nesting birds protected
under federal and state laws. [Threshold B-4]
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 51 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Final EIR Threshold:
• B-4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migrat ory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The Final EIR concluded that the Specific Plan area is almost completely developed and is surrounded by
development. The Specific Plan does not provide habitat that connects otherwise isolated pieces of
habitat, nor does it provide habitat for movement or dispersal of plants and animals. Warm Creek and
East Twin Creek channels are concrete lined, and thus do not serve as corridors for wildlife movement.
Buildout of the Specific Plan are was not anticipated to impact wildlife movement. However, because the
Specific Plan area does provide habitat for nesting birds, and in order to avoid any potential impacts to
nesting birds, the Final EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be applicable. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-3, a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
BIO-3 The mature trees within the Specific Plan area could be used for nesting by migratory
birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (United States Code,
Title 16, §§ 703–712). The MBTA prohibits direct impacts to nesting birds and their nests.
Also, the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3503.5) prohibits activities that take, possess,
or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird. Future project applicants are required to
comply with the MBTA. Prior to the start of grading activities between January 15 to
September 1 (bird nesting season), future project applicants are required to conduct a
site survey for nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of grading
activities. If nesting birds are found, the applicant is required to consult with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service regarding means to avoid or minimize impacts to nesting birds in
accordance with MBTA requirements.
If nests are not observed and the City approves the results of the preconstruction survey,
vegetation clearing and tree removal/trimming may proceed. If nests are found, work
may proceed provided that activity is: 1) at least 500 feet from raptor/owl nests; 2) at
least 300 feet from federal- or state-listed bird species’ nests; and 3) at least 100 feet from
nonlisted bird species’ nests. A qualified biologist shall conspicuously mark the buffer so
that vegetation clearing and tree removal/trimming does not encroach into the buffer
until the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings fledge, the nest fails, or the nest is
abandoned, as determined by a qualified biologist).
Conclusion
Similar to the Final EIR findings, the Biological Resources Assessment concluded that the Project site and
surrounding areas do contain habitat suitable for nesting birds. As such, the Final EIR Mitigation Measure
BIO-3 is applicable. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, a less than significant impact to
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 52 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
nesting birds would occur. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed
Project; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.3-5: Proposed Project buildout would not impact local ordinances or policies protecting
biological resources or habitat conservation plans. [Thresholds B-5 and B-6]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• B-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• B-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
The Final EIR concluded that trees on City property, including street trees, are protected under Municipal
Code Chapter 12.40. Development in the Specific Plan is proposed on private parcels and would not affect
City street or parkway trees. Additionally, no Biological Resource Management (BRM) Areas are located
in the Specific Plan area and no portion of the Specific Plan area is located in the plan area of any habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Because the Project site is located within a
previously analyzed area of the Specific Plan, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to conflict with any
local policies or ordinances related to protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would change the finding of
less than significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Biological Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to biological resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 53 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Cultural Resources
The Final EIR identified that at least 39 historical resources have been identified in or within one mile of
the Specific Plan area, including 10 resources within the Specific Plan area; refer to the Final EIR. None of
10 resources identified within the Specific Plan area are located within District #4. A Cultural Resources
Assessment was conducted by BCR Consulting LLC (September 12, 2019) which concluded the following:
data from the SCCIC revealed that 26 previous cultural resources studies have taken place, and 52 cultural
resources have been recorded within one mile of the Project site. Of the 26 previous studies, one has
assessed the Project site, and no cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Project site
boundaries. The Cultural Resources Assessment is included in Appendix D to this Addendum.
Impact 5.4-1: Specific Plan buildout could impact historic resources. [Threshold C-1]
Impact 5.4-2: Development of the Specific Plan could impact archaeological resources.
[Threshold C-2]
• Final EIR Thresholds:
• C-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; and
• C-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
The Final EIR concluded that historic resources could occur within the Specific Plan area. The Final EIR
determined that the Specific Plan area was not considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological
resources. However, although presence of historical or archaeological resources was considered low or
unlikely, the Final EIR incorporated Mitigation Measures CUL-1 (Historical Resources Evaluation prior to
the development of specific project sites) and CUL-2 (additional measures to mitigate impacts to historical
resources), in order to mitigate any potential that could exist.
As part of the Project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment, a wooden light pole originally constructed
to provide electricity for residences during and prior to the 1960s was identified as potentially of historical
significance. After analysis, although the wooden pole was intended for residential use, it was determined
that the wooden pole is not specifically associated with events significant to local, state, or national history
(Criterion 1), or with lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history (Criterion 2). This
resource consists of ubiquitous t-shaped wooden-pole style towers that do not embody distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important
creative individual or possess high artistic values (Criterion 3). It has not and is not likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4). This resource is therefore recommended not
eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, and as
such is not recommended a historical resource under CEQA.
Because the Proposed Project would not add any new impacts relative to cultural resources or a
substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR,
a less than significant impact would occur. Additionally, the Project site is vacant, and no other structures
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 54 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
are on site. Similarly, no archaeological artifacts were found onsite as part of the cultural investigation.
Because the Final EIR states that Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is to conduct as historical resources evaluation
prior to Project development, MM CUL-1 has been satisfied by completion of the Project-specific Cultural
Resources Assessment (refer to Appendix D). Additionally, because Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been
satisfied, and because the Proposed Project would not cause adverse change in significance to a historical
or archaeological resource, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is no longer applicable. However, Final EIR
Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4 would be applicable during ground-disturbing activities.
As such, the Proposed Project would not cause and adverse effect on cultural or historical resources. A
less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
CUL-1 Future development or redevelopment projects on any of the properties listed in Table
5.4-1 (Historical Resources Identified within Specific Plan area) of this DEIR shall require
that an intensive-level historical evaluation of the property be conducted by the property
owner or project applicant/developer; the evaluation shall be conducted in accordance
with all applicable federal, state and local guidelines for evaluating historical resources. If
based on the evaluation of the property it is determined that the proposed development
or redevelopment project will have a substantial adverse effect on a historical resource
(i.e., it would reduce its integrity to the point that it would no longer be eligible for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or in the list of San Bernardino
Landmarks), then the provisions of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall be implemented by
the property owner or project applicant/developer to eliminate or reduce the project’s
impact on historical resources.
CUL-2 If based on the intensive-level historical evaluation of a property listed in 5.4-1 (Historical
Resources Identified within Specific Plan area) of this DEIR, as required under Mitigation
Measure CUL-1, it is determined that the proposed development or redevelopment
project will have a substantial adverse effect on a historical resource, the City of San
Bernardino shall require the property owner or project applicant/developer to implement
the following measures:
A. Rehabilitation According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
1. If the Proposed Project includes renovation, alteration, or an addition to an
historical resource (not including total demolition), then the property owner or
project applicant/developer shall first seek to design all proposed renovation,
alterations or additions to the historical resource in a manner that is consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) found
at: http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/stand.htm.
a. Plans for rehabilitation shall be created under the supervision of a professional
meeting the Department of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in
Architectural History or Historic Architecture and be designed by a licensed
architect with demonstrated historic preservation experience.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 55 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
b. Plans shall be reviewed in the schematic design phase prior to any
construction work, as well as in the 60 and 90 percent construction documents
phases for compliance with the Standards by a historic preservation
professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards with demonstrated experience with the Standards compliance
reviews.
c. The qualified historic preservation professional reviewing the plans shall
create a technical memo at each phase and submit the memo to the City of
San Bernardino Community Development Department for concurrence.
d. At the discretion of the City, a detailed character-defining features analysis
and/or historical resource treatment plan may need to be prepared for select
historical resources by a historic preservation professional meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards if the nature
of the project or the significance of the property warrants such detailed
analysis.
e. A qualified historic preservation professional shall monitor construction
activities at key milestones to ensure the work to be conducted complies with
the Standards. The milestones shall be agreed upon in advance by the City and
property owner or project applicant/developer.
f. City staff and the qualified historic preservation professional shall review the
finished rehabilitation/renovation in person upon completion.
g. In the event that any historical resource(s) are leased to third-party tenants
and tenant improvements will be made, all of the terms of this stipulation shall
be disclosed in the lease agreements, agreed upon in writing, and mutually
enforced by the property owner or project applicant/developer and the City.
The tenants shall not be permitted to conduct work that does not comply with
the Standards.
B. Retention/On-Site Relocation- For Proposed Demolition
1. If the Proposed Project includes total demolition of a historical resource, the
property owner or project applicant/developer shall first consider an alternative
that retains the historical resource and incorporates it into the overall project
development as an adaptive re-use of the building, as determined feasible.
2. If the project site permits, the historical resource should be relocated to another
location on the site and the resource should be re-incorporated into the overall
project, as determined feasible.
3. If the City determines that retention/onsite relocation of the historical resource
is not feasible through a credible feasibility study, then the City shall elect to allow
the property owner or project applicant/developer to move forward with the
development/redevelopment project; however, all other requirements outlined
in this mitigation measure shall apply.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 56 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
C. Third Party Sale
1. If the City determines that retention or onsite relocation of the historical resource
is not feasible, then the property owner or project applicant/developer shall offer
any historical resources scheduled for demolition to the public for sale and offsite
relocation by a third party:
a. The historic resource(s) shall be advertised by the property owner or project
applicant/developer at a minimum in the following locations: project
applicant’s/developer’s website (if applicable); City of San Bernardino website;
Los Angeles Times website and print editions; San Bernardino County Sun
Newspaper.
b. The bidding period shall remain open for 60 days after the date of
advertisement to allow adequate response time from interested parties.
c. Qualified parties shall meet the following minimum qualifications to be
considered a realistic buyer: possess adequate financial resources to relocate
and rehabilitate the historical resource(s); possess an available location for the
historical resource(s); and provide for a new use for the historical resource(s).
d. The City shall approve the qualified buyer. If no such buyer comes forward
within the allotted time frame, the City shall elect to issue a demolition permit
for the historical resource. However, all other requirements outlined in this
mitigation measure shall apply.
D. Recordation
1. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall create HABS-like Level II
documentation prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation.
Information on the Standards and Guidelines is available at the following links:
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_6.htm.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/standards/index.htm.
a. Photographs with large-format (4 inches by 5 inches or larger), black and white
negatives of the property as a whole shall be provided; photocopies with large
format negatives of select existing drawings, site plans, or historic views where
available. A minimum of 12 views showing context and relationship of
historical resources to each other shall be provided; aerial views showing the
whole property shall also be provided.
b. Written historical descriptive data, index to photographs, and photo key plan
shall be provided.
c. The above items shall be created by a historic preservation professional
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards
with demonstrated experience in creating HABS Level II documentation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 57 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
d. The above items shall be created prior to any demolition or relocation work.
e. The above items shall be distributed to the following repositories for use by
future researchers and educators. Before submitting any documents, each of
the following repositories shall be contacted to ensure that they are willing
and able to accept the items: City of San Bernardino Public Library; City Of San
Bernardino Historical and Pioneer Society; California State University, San
Bernardino Department of Anthropology; and City of San Bernardino
Community Development Department (building files).
E. Salvage and Reuse
1. If offsite relocation of the historical resource by a third party is not accomplished,
the property owner or project applicant/developer shall create a salvage and
reuse plan identifying elements and materials of the resource that can be saved
prior to any demolition work.
a. The salvage and reuse plan shall be included in bid documents prepared for
the site and shall be created by a historic preservation professional meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards with
demonstrated experience in creating salvage and reuse plans.
b. Elements and materials that may be salvageable include windows; doors; roof
tiles; decorative elements; bricks, foundation materials, and/or paving
materials; framing members; furniture; lighting; and flooring materials, such
as tiles and hardwood.
2. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall identify individuals,
organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items; these may
include Habitat for Humanity Restore; other affordable housing organizations; or
salvage yards. The following steps shall be taken by the property owner or project
applicant/developer:
a. Identification of the individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in
receiving the salvaged items shall be completed in consultation with the City.
b. Identification of the individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in
receiving the salvaged items shall be accomplished by contacting potentially
interested parties directly first.
c. Items to be salvaged shall be advertised in the following locations for a period
of 60 days if none of the contacted parties are able to receive the items: Los
Angeles Times and San Bernardino County Sun.
3. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall remove salvageable
items in the gentlest, least destructive manner possible. Historic materials and
features shall be protected by storing salvaged items in indoor, climate- and
weather-controlled conditions until recipients can retrieve them. The removal of
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 58 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
salvageable items shall be performed by a licensed contractor with demonstrated
experience with implementing salvage and reuse plans.
F. Other Optional Interpretive, Commemorative, or Educational Measures
The City may also elect to require additional (optional) mitigation measures crafted in
response to a specific historical resource’s property type or significance, association with
a specific historic person, or overall value to the community, as practical, so long as the
measure is commensurate with the significance of the property and the level of impact
to that resource. Such measures may include educational or interpretive programming;
signage; incorporation of historical features into new developments or public art;
contribution to a mitigation fund for future historic preservation efforts; written histories
or contexts important to the public’s understanding of the lost resource (presuming no
other extant resource can interpret such significance); etc. The need for these additional
measures shall be determined by the City on a case by case basis and incorporated into
the conditions of approval for the project. Some measures may be made available to the
public through museum displays, written reports at research repositories or made
available through on- or offsite signage or existing online multi-media sites.
CUL-3 If, at any time during ground-disturbing activities during the course of Specific Plan
buildout, evidence of Native American resources is uncovered, the construction
contractor for the affected project shall halt work within 50 feet of the find until a
qualified archaeologist assesses the nature and significance of the find. The archaeologist
shall notify the City of San Bernardino Planning Division of the discovery immediately. No
further disturbance within 50 feet of the find shall occur until the archaeologist has
cleared the area. A Native American tribe with traditional tribal territory on or near the
Specific Plan area, who agrees to accept such resources without fees, may take possession
of such resources after the archaeologist has assessed and recorded them. If no Native
American tribe seeks possession of the resources or if multiple tribes cannot agree on
disposition of the resources, the resources shall be curated at the facilities of the Western
Science Center in Hemet in Riverside County.
CUL-4 If, at any time, evidence of Native American resources is uncovered, local representatives
of the Serrano and Gabrieleno and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians must be notified
within 24 hours and, depending on the location and nature of the find, a determination
as to the need for an archaeological monitoring program shall be revisited. If an
archaeological monitoring program is justified, the archaeological consultant will work
with the Native American representatives to ensure adequate coverage and protection of
the identified resource(s).
Conclusion
Implementation of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to historic and
archaeological resources. No new impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Furthermore, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is
available. The Final EIR concluded that a less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 59 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
measures would occur from the development of the Specific Plan area; however, the Proposed Project
has already complied with MM CUL-1 and it was concluded from the Project-specific Cultural Resources
Assessment that the Project would not affect historical or archaeological resources. As such,
implementation of the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Impact 5.4-3: The Proposed Project could destroy paleontological resources. [Threshold C-3]
Final EIR Threshold:
• C-3 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
The Final EIR concluded that paleontological sensitivity of the Specific Plan is not considered sensitive for
fossil resources. Although the sensitivity of paleontological resources for the Specific Plan area was
determined to be low, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 was implemented as part of the Final EIR.
Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment found that the
presence of any fossil material in the Project site is unlikely.6 However, consistent to the Final EIR, the
Cultural Resources Assessment recommends that Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is implemented. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-5, a less than significant impact would occur.
No new impact relative to paleontological resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Furthermore, no new information of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was
certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact for the Proposed
Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
CUL-5 All excavations more than ten feet below ground surface shall be periodically monitored
for paleontological resources. This monitoring should include the preparation of a
Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) document and adherence to
all standard protocols of the San Bernardino County Museum Earth Science Department.
a. The paleontological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect
excavation construction efforts if paleontological resources are discovered.
b. In the event of a paleontological discovery, the monitor shall flag the area and notify
the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall
occur until the qualified paleontologist has cleared the area.
c. The paleontological monitor shall quickly assess the nature and significance of the
find. If the specimen is not significant, it shall be quickly removed and the area shall
be cleared.
6 BCR Consulting Inc. 2019. Cultural Resources Assessment – Consultation with Western Science Center for Paleontological Resources
Consultation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 60 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
d. If the discovery is significant, the qualified paleontologist shall notify the applicant
and the City immediately.
e. In consultation with the applicant and the City, the qualified paleontologist shall
develop a plan of mitigation that will likely include salvage excavation and removal of
the find, removal of sediment from around the specimen (in the laboratory), research
to identify and categorize the find, and preparation of a report summarizing the find.
All recovered specimens shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum in
Redlands.
Conclusion
Implementation of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on paleontological
resources with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3. No new impact or a
substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR
would occur. Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of less than significant impact with mitigation under this threshold.
Impact 5.4-4: Grading activities could disturb human remains. [Threshold C-4]
Final EIR Threshold:
• C-4 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
According to the Final EIR, the Project site is located approximately 1.2 miles east of the Pioneer Memorial
Cemetery and Home of Eternity Cemetery of Congregation Emanuel, located within the Specific Plan area.
Additionally, eleven unmarked burials were discovered in Secombe Park in 1989, just south of the two
previously mentioned cemeteries. Many projects developed pursuant to the Specific Plan would involve
ground disturbance. Considering the previous discovery of unmarked burials in the Specific Plan area,
there is some possibility that ground disturbance during the course of Specific Plan buildout would disturb
human remains; as such, the Final EIR determined that any development conducting ground disturbance
activities should consider and implement the following:
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered on a
project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an
investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and made recommendations
concerning the treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or
to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his
or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native
American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage
Commission.
Consistent with the Final EIR recommendations, the Project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment had
the same recommendation. Because the Proposed Project would comply with existing law, potential
impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 61 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would change the finding of less than
significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Cultural Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to cultural resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 62 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.5 Geology and Soils
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts
relative to geology and soils, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce potential impacts.
Impact 5.5-1: Buildout/implementation of the Proposed Project would not subject people or
structures to substantial hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault.
[Threshold G-1.i-iv]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• G-1 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?
iv) Landslides?
Faulting and Seismicity
The Final EIR concluded that no active faults or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are mapped within
the Specific Plan area. The nearest mapped active fault to the Specific Plan area is the San Jacinto Fault
Zone, about 1.8 miles southwest of the Specific Plan area; the nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
zone is along the San Jacinto Fault Zone, about 1.7 miles southwest of the Specific Plan area (CGS 2016;
CGS 1977). The Specific Plan area buildout would not subject people or structures to substantial hazards
from surface rupture of a known active fault, and no impact would occur.
Although no active faults are known to traverse the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, the
Project site would experience ground shaking from earthquakes generated along active faults located
off-site. The intensity of ground shaking would depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, distance
to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the Project site. Adherence to
standard engineering practices and design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards in accordance
with the latest California Building Code (CBC) would reduce the significance of potential impacts to less
than significant. The CBC includes detailed design requirements related to structural design, soils and
foundations, and grading to ensure that public safety risks due to seismic shaking are minimized to below
significant.
Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Project site does not lie on a fault zone.7
7 USGS. 2019. U.S. Quaternary Faults. Available at
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf, accessed on November 2019.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 63 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
The Final EIR concluded that the Specific Plan area is in a seismically active region, and strong ground
shaking onsite is likely during the design lifetimes of structures that would be developed in accordance
with the Specific Plan. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including
occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with a specified
probability at the site. The geotechnical investigation for a project under the Specific Plan would calculate
seismic design parameters, pursuant to CBC requirements, that must be used in the design of the
proposed building. Consistent with the Final EIR recommendations, the Proposed Project would design
and build the proposed structures according to the latest CBC guideline. As such, impacts would be less
than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Most of the Specific Plan area—that is, the part of the site south of Baseline Street, including the Project
site—is mapped as highly susceptible to liquefaction in the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Most of
the catalytic sites and many of the redevelopment sites are south of Baseline Street; therefore, large
fractions of the net increases of 2,395 residential units and 1.2 million square feet of nonresidential uses
would be permitted in the area highly susceptible to liquefaction. Geotechnical investigations for projects
developed in conformance with the Specific Plan would assess liquefaction potential on their specific site
and recommend measures, including foundation designs, for minimizing liquefaction hazards. Compliance
with recommendations in geotechnical reports is required.
Although the Proposed Project is located in an area prone to liquefaction, the Proposed Project would be
designed and built according to the latest CBC guidelines. As such, impacts would continue to be less than
significant.
iv) Landslides?
The Specific Plan area is nearly flat, with a south slope of about one percent grade. Buildout of the Project
site would not subject people or structures to landslide hazards, and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.5-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project could cause increased soil erosion. [Threshold
G-2]
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 64 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Final EIR Threshold:
• G-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The Final EIR concluded that young alluvial sediments underlying the Specific Plan area is generally poorly
consolidated and is susceptible to erosion. Grading and other construction activities temporarily increase
the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation.
The Final EIR recommends compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by
the Building Division would ensure that no significant impact would occur. In addition, construction
activities on project sites larger than one acre would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Under the NPDES, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) would be required in conjunction with use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to
prevent erosion and siltation during a project’s construction phase. Individual project applicants would
also be required to adhere to the applicable provisions outlined in Article 5 Section 8.80.501, Storm Water
Quality Management Plan, of the City’s Municipal Code.
The Project site is a relatively flat area within the Specific Plan which is devoid of plants. As such,
construction activities would not further exacerbate soil erosion. Consistent with the Final EIR
recommendations, with adherence to NPDES requirements, the SWPPP and related BMPs, and the City’s
stormwater and urban runoff pollution regulations would ensure that no significant impacts would occur
as part of the Proposed Project implementation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.5-3: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not cause or accelerate substantial ground
subsidence. Buildout of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to
substantial hazards from collapsible soils. [Threshold G-3]
Final EIR Threshold:
• G-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
The Final EIR concluded that current groundwater levels in the Bunker Hill Subbasin do not indicate any
significant land subsidence. Most of the water demand that would be generated by net increases in
development intensity that could be built pursuant to the Specific Plan would be supplied by groundwater.
The water suppliers for the Specific Plan area—which rely largely on groundwater—estimate that they
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 65 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
will have sufficient water supplies for the Specific Plan buildout (see Section 5.17, Utilities and Service
Systems, of the Specific Plan DEIR), and Specific Plan water demands would not cause substantial ground
subsidence.
Because the Proposed Project (truck parking facility and repair shop) is anticipated to require less water
than the currently allowed development (residential dwelling units), impacts associated with the
Proposed Project are anticipated to be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.5-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause substantial hazards from
expansive soils. [Threshold G-4]
Final EIR Threshold:
• G-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or increases; the shrinking or swelling
can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. According to the Final EIR, expansive soils were not
encountered by previous geotechnical investigations for other projects near the intersection of Waterman
Avenue and Baseline Street. Project-specific geotechnical investigations for projects developed pursuant
to the Specific Plan would assess subsurface soils on the affected project sites for expansion potential and
provide recommendations as needed for foundation design and drainage measures to limit infiltration of
stormwater into soils. The Proposed Project would be in compliance with geotechnical recommendations,
as such, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 66 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Impact 5.5-5: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not involve development of septic tanks or
other alternative waste water disposal systems on soils incapable of adequately
supporting such systems. [Threshold G-5]
Final EIR Threshold:
• G-5 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
wastewater?
The Proposed Project would include the installation of new sewer mains. The new sewer mains, along
with existing sewer mains, would convey wastewater from the development to existing wastewater
treatment facilities. Consistent with the Final EIR, the Proposed Project would not involve installation of
septic tanks, and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.5-6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
See Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of the DEIR and Section 4.5, Cultural Resources of this Addendum.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
Mitigation Measures CUL-3.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Geology and Soils Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to geology and soils. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 67 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in significant
and unavoidable impacts relative to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This technical study evaluates
construction and operational impacts associated with the Proposed Project relative to impacts identified
in the Final EIR.
Background
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including
temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring
atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O),
as well as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These GHGs
allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus
warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities.
Concentrations of GHG have increased in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Human activities
that generate GHG emissions include combustion of fossil fuels (CO2 and N2O); natural gas generated from
landfills, fermentation of manure and cattle farming (CH4); and industrial processes such as nylon and
nitric acid production (N2O).
GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap
heat in the atmosphere; it is the “cumulative radiative forcing effect of a gas over a specified time horizon
resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas.” The reference gas for GWP
is CO2; therefore, CO2 has a GWP factor of 1. The other main GHGs that have been attributed to human
activity include CH4, which has a GWP factor of 28, and N2O, which has a GWP factor of 265. When
accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are
typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established a State goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which would require a reduction of
approximately 173 MMT net CO2e below “business as usual” emission levels. Senate Bill (SB) 97, a
companion bill, directed the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) to certify and adopt
guidelines for the mitigation of GHGs or the effects of GHG emissions. SB 97 was the State Legislature’s
directive to the Resources Agency to specifically establish that GHG emissions and their impacts are
appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was enacted in June 2005 and calls
for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 was signed into law in 2016 and establishes
an interim GHG emission reduction goal for the State to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by the year 2030.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 68 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Impact 5.6-1: Buildout of the Proposed Project would generate a substantial increase in GHG
emissions compared to existing conditions and would have a significant impact on the
environment. [GHG-1]
Final EIR Threshold:
• GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
GHG emissions were calculated from activities that would occur onsite, mechanical building operations,
and trip generations associated with vehicular traffic for the Proposed Project. CalEEMod was utilized to
estimate CO2e emissions from the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Table 10, CO2e
Emissions for Construction of Proposed Project displays the CalEEMod results for construction.
Table 10: CO2e Emissions for Construction of Proposed Project
Construction CO2e Emissions, metric tons/year
Total (2020) 641.05
Emissions amortized over 30 years 21.36
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.
Identified within CalEEMod are specific sources of Project Operational GHG emissions in the form of area,
energy, mobile, waste and water. Table 11, Operational GHG Emissions displays the CalEEMod results.
Table 11: Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Source CO2e Emissions, metric tons/year
Specific Plan Buildout
Total 138,785.00
Site Buildout Under Approved Specific Plan1 (15.34 acres)
Total 4,249.07
Proposed Project
Area 0.01
Energy 97.71
Mobile 2,754.94
Waste 6.72
Water 4.25
Subtotal Total 2,863.63
Amortized Construction Emissions 21.36
Total Annual Project GHG Emissions 2,884.99
Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.
1. Site buildout under approved Specific Plan conditions, the project site would contain a maximum of
210 homes
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 69 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Draft guidance from the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the City of San Bernardino
recommend a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. This threshold has been determined to be
the most appropriate for the proposed truck parking project. Table 11 shows that annual GHG emissions
for the Project would be approximately 2,885 MTCO2e per year, which would be 1,364.08 MTCO2e less
than the emissions calculated for the Project site if it were developed as planned under the Specific Plan.
Construction and operation emissions for the Proposed Project are also below the 3,000 MTCO2e per year
screening threshold. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant cumulative contribution to
global climate change impacts.
The Final EIR concluded that, although the Specific Plan would reduce GHG emissions per capita, it would
not meet the SCAQMD Year 2035 target efficiency metric of 2.2 MTCO2e per year. The Specific Plan Final
EIR identified mitigation measures that would further reduce GHG emissions; however even with
mitigation, GHG emissions remained above the significance threshold. Therefore, GHG impacts from the
approved Specific Plan were considered potentially significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Specific
Plan Project. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 through AQ-8 discussed previously would be applicable to the
Proposed Project.
Conclusion
As discussed previously, the Specific Plan Final EIR determined that Specific Plan related GHG emissions
would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The Proposed Project would not result in significant
and unavoidable impacts to Climate Change as a result of the generation of GHG emissions. As shown in
Table 11, Project related GHG emissions would decrease when compared with site-specific impacts under
the approved Specific Plan and GHG emissions for the Proposed Project would remain below the
significance threshold. Therefore, no new impact or an increase in the severity of identified impacts would
therefore occur with implementation of the Proposed Project.
Impact 5.6-2: The Proposed Project would be consistent with plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions.
[GHG-2]
Final EIR Threshold:
• GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
GHG emissions generated by the Proposed Project would be below SCAG’s 3,000 MTCO2e annual
screening threshold for projects in the City of San Bernardino. As a result, the Proposed Project would not
have a significant and unavoidable impact on an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions. GHG emissions are within the emissions disclosed in the Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, this
significance finding is consistent with the determination made in the Final EIR for impacts related to
climate change.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 70 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Specific Plan Final EIR
The Final EIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Specific
Plan Project. Mitigation Measure AQ-6 discussed previously would be applicable to the Proposed Project.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to GHG. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 71 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts
relative to hazards and hazardous materials with implementation of mitigation.
Impact 5.7-1: Project construction and operations would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal
of hazardous materials. [Thresholds H-1, H-2, and H-3]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• H-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
• H-2 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.
• H-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Release of Hazardous Materials from Transport/Disposal
The Final EIR concluded that the development of the Specific Plan buildout would result in increases in
residential units and commercial square footage allocated according to the Specific Plan land use plan.
Specific Plan buildout is expected to involve redevelopment and development of portions of the Specific
Plan area, including demolition of existing structures. Demolition and site clearance of redevelopment
sites would likely involve disturbance, handling, and transport of hazardous materials, including asbestos-
containing materials and lead-based paint. However, because the Proposed Project site is completely
vacant and devoid of any structures, no demolition would take place as part of the construction. Minor
site preparation would be necessary considering that the site is relatively flat. Any routine use, transport,
disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials due to construction activities would be limited to
solvents used for the proposed temporary construction and maintenance of the building. Additionally,
some solvents are anticipated as part of the maintenance facility. However, the Proposed Project does
not anticipate transportation of large quantities of hazardous materials in sufficient quantities to warrant
a significant impact.
Sensitive Receptors
Additionally, the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are Sierra High School located at 570 9th
Street and Indian Springs High School located at 650 N. Del Rosa Drive, in the City of San Bernardino,
located approximately 0.6 miles southeast and southwest from the Project site , respectively. No schools
are located within a quarter-mile of the Proposed Project site. For this reason, the Proposed Project is not
anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As such, a less than significant
impact would occur.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 72 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; a less than
significant impact would occur.
Impact 5.7-2: Portions of the Specific Plan area are on a list of hazardous materials sites. [Threshold
H-4]
Final EIR Threshold:
• H-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment.
The Final EIR concluded that disturbances of soil or structures by development and redevelopment
projects in conformance with the Specific Plan could expose people or the environment to hazardous
materials from hazardous materials sites known to regulatory agencies. Contamination in new
development or redevelopment sites would be required to be remediated prior to construction activities.
Additionally, any unknown contamination discovered during excavation would require halting of all
construction activities and remediation. Remediation would be required to occur to the satisfaction of the
appropriate responsible agency— Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board, or San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD). Because some areas of
the Specific Plan area were identified to contain hazardous materials, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 was
incorporated in the Final EIR, which requires that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is prepared
prior to the issuance of building permits.
However, review of the DTSC EnviroStor website shows that the Project site is not in an area contaminated
with hazardous materials.8 As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to generate, use, or handle
hazardous wastes or materials. As a result, impacts will be less than significant. However, the Final EIR
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be applicable.
Mitigation Program
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.
8 DTSC. 2019. EnviroStor. Available at https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=city+of+san+bernardino, accessed
November 2019.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 73 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
HAZ-1 Before issuance of grading permits or building permits by the City of San Bernardino, a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be required for the pertinent development
or redevelopment site.
• Where a Phase I Assessment identified one or more recognized environmental
conditions potentially affecting a property, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
would be required, consisting of sampling of soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater and
testing samples for contaminants; and a human health hazard assessment for any
contaminants identified.
• Where a Phase II Assessment identified contaminant concentrations in soil, soil vapor,
and/or groundwater that could pose substantial human health hazards, remediation
of such contamination to below regulatory action thresholds would be required
before disturbance of soil or structures could be permitted on that site.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required. However, Final EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be
applicable. Like the Final EIR findings, the proposed would have a less than significant impact with
implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
Impact 5.7-3: The Specific Plan area is located in the vicinity of the San Bernardino International
Airport and within the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino Airport Master Plan and the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. [Thresholds H-5 and H-6]
Impact 5.7-4: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. [Thresholds H-7]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• H-5 For a Project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
• H-6 For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area.
• H-7 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Land Use Compatibility
The Final EIR identified a portion of the Specific Plan area as being within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)
as adopted by the San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA). The SBIA is located in the southeastern
portion of the City, and the Project site is located approximately 1.5 miles away from the airport. The
Project site is the portion of the Specific Plan located within the AIA. Additionally, the Final EIR concluded
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 74 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
that the Specific Plan does not anticipate development of structures that would be significantly
inconsistent with the current development such that construction of new structures/features would
impact air traffic patterns. New development standards consistent with the land use plan would ensure
consistency between uses. Because the Project area is within airport noise and safety zones; future site-
specific development would be required to conform to the City General Plan goal and policies listed below.
Compliance with applicable policies and regulations would result in less than significant impacts.
Goal 2.9. Protect the Airspace of the San Bernardino International Airport and minimize related noise and
safety impacts on our citizens and businesses
• Policy 2.9.1. Require that all new development be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for the San Bernardino International Airport and ensure that no structures or
activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.
• Policy 2.9.2. Refer any adoption or amendment of this General Plan, specific plan, zoning
ordinance, or building regulation within the planning boundary of the adopted Comprehensive
Airport Master Plan for the SBIA to the airport authority as provided by the Airport Land Use Law.
• Policy 2.9.6. As required by State Law for real estate transactions within the Airport Influence
Area, as shown on Figure LU-4, require notification/disclosure statements to alert potential
buyers and tenants of the presence of and potential impacts from the San Bernardino
International Airport..9
As stated in the Final EIR, the proposed land use plan and development standards for the Specific Plan
would consider noise and safety zones during design review for site-specific projects within the Specific
Plan area. Additionally, the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) would be analyzed for relative
information on a project-specific basis. City General Plan policies 2.9.1, 2.9.2, and 2.9.6 would ensure that
any future development within the AIA would be consistent with the Airport Master Plan and the CLUP.
Because the Proposed Project would not introduce dwelling units, but rather a truck parking facility with
a maintenance building well within the allowed building heights, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project
would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. A less than significant
is anticipated to occur.
Emergency Response and Evacuation Plan
San Bernardino County Consolidated Fire District (SBCFD) is responsible for planning emergency response
for the City; maintaining the emergency operations plan (EOP); and operating the City’s Emergency
Operations Center. The City’s EOP anticipates that all major streets within the City would serve as
evacuation routes. Highways and arterial streets that connect to the major freeways, including State
Route 210 (SR-210) and Interstate 215 (I-215), would serve as potential evacuation routes in the event of
an unusual emergency situation. The Proposed Project would ensure that the minimum right-of-way
widths on City streets would be maintained, which would continue to ensure that various evacuation
routes are accessible to residents. Individual project review of subsequent projects within the Specific
9 City of San Bernardino. 2005. San Bernardino General Plan. Accessible at
http://www.sbcity.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26199.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 75 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Plan area by the City including the SBCFD would also be required. The Project would incorporate all
applicable design and safety requirements in the California Building and Fire Codes. For these reasons,
the Final EIR concluded that development of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact.
Similarly, the Proposed Project does not anticipate closure of main roads that would impact the EOP. For
this reason, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on an
emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.7-5: The Specific Plan area is not in a designated fire hazard severity zone. Project buildout
would not expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. [Threshold H-8]
Final EIR Threshold:
• H-8 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
The Final EIR notes that no fire hazard severity zones are mapped in or near the Specific Plan area by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, and that buildout of the Specific Plan would not
expose people or structures to wildfire hazards. Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Proposed
Project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Final EIR
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Hazards-Related Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to hazards and hazardous wastes. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
analysis is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 76 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts
relative to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce potential impacts.
Impact 5.8-1: Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would increase the amount of
impervious surfaces and would therefore increase surface water flows into drainage
systems within the watershed. [Final EIR Thresholds HYD-3, HYD-4, and HYD-5]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• HYD-3 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 a
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
• HYD-4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
• HYD-5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
The Final EIR concluded that developments conforming with the Specific Plan would increase the total
amount of impervious surfaces in the Specific Plan area. For this reason, priority projects with the Specific
Plan would be required to prepare and implement water quality management plans (WQMPs) subject to
approval and enforcement by the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program. According to the Final EIR,
Section 5.8.1.2 Applicable Plans and Programs, the following are considered priority projects:
• Redevelopment projects adding or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious area
• New development projects creating 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area
• New development or redevelopment of auto repair shops of 5,000 or more square feet
• New development or redevelopment of restaurants of 5,000 or more square feet
• Developments of 5,000 square feet or more on hillsides of 25 percent or more natural slope
• Parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more exposed to stormwater
• New development or redevelopment of gas stations of 5,000 square feet or more (CDM Smith
2013)
Additionally, many projects would be required to implement low impact development (LID) BMPs that
mimic pre-development site hydrology using techniques that store, infiltrate, evapotranspiration, bio-
filter, or detain runoff close to its source.
The Final EIR also outlines several structural source control BMP’s that will be implemented on all Specific
Plan sites. These include: Roof runoff controls, protection of slopes and channels, efficient irrigation, and
storm drain system signage. Implementation of Project-specific water quality management practices for
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 77 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
projects developed or redeveloped pursuant to the Specific Plan would reduce operational water quality
impacts to less than significant.
The Proposed Project is anticipated to be a less intensive use than the currently planned residential
development of the site. The Proposed Project would be limited to truck parking and a maintenance
building which would require a minimal amount of water sources; thus, the Project would not deplete
groundwater supplies. Additionally, the Project would not violate any water quality standards, and the
Project would not contribute to runoff that would exceed existing or planned capacity not already planned
for in the Specific Plan.
The Project site is a vacant parcel, bordered by the following two concrete-lined channels: on the south
by the Warm Creek Channel, and on the west by the East Twin Creek Channel, both owned and maintained
by the SBCFCD. These channels do not occur onsite and no channel improvements are proposed as part
of the Project. The Final EIR notes that portions of the Specific Plan west of East Twin Creek Channel and
south of Warm Creek Channel are within Flood Zone A, that is, 100-year flood zones. However, the Final
EIR also notes that the part of the Specific Plan area east of East Twin Creek, which is where the Project is
located, is in an area protected from 100-year floods by levees. SBCFCD utilizes an existing gate and access
road that abuts the site’s southern boundary which is anticipated to continue to operate in this manner.
Lastly, as part of the City’s discretionary review process, a WQMP would be required and would be subject
to the approval and enforcement through the City and County Stormwater Program. With compliance to
the preparation of the WQMP and consistent with the Final EIR, a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8-2: Development pursuant to the Proposed Project increases the amount of impervious
surfaces in the Specific Plan area and would therefore impact opportunities for
groundwater recharge. [Threshold HYD-2]
Final EIR Threshold:
• HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
The Final EIR determined that developments pursuant to the Specific Plan would increase the total
amount of impervious areas in the Specific Plan area. The San Bernardino County Stormwater Program
requires that priority projects infiltrate stormwater to the maximum exte nt practicable and use
biotreatment and harvest-and-use BMPs for the remainder of the design capture volume—that is,
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 78 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
approximately the stormwater volume from a two-year storm. Therefore, Specific Plan buildout would
not substantially reduce groundwater recharge into the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin, and impacts
would be less than significant.
Consistent with the Specific Plan requirements, the Proposed Project would provide three landscaped
swales for water infiltration purposes. The Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8-3: Portions of the Specific Plan area proposed for development are not within a 100-year
flood hazard area: [Threshold HYD-7 and HYD-8]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• HYD-7 Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
• HYD-8 Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
The Project site is bordered on the south by the Warm Creek Channel, and on the west by the East Twin
Creek Channel, both owned and maintained by the SBCFCD. These channels do not occur onsite and no
channel improvements are proposed as part of the Project. The Final EIR notes that west of East Twin
Creek Channel and south of Warm Creek Channel are within Flood Zone A, that is, 100-year flood zones.
However, the Final EIR also notes that the part of the Specific Plan area east of East Twin Creek, which is
where the Project is located, is in an area protected from 100-year floods by levees. Because the Specific
Plan buildout would not involve developments within 100-year flood zones, it was determined that no
impact would occur.
Consistent with the Final EIR, the Proposed Project would not develop any housing within a 100-year flood
hazard zone nor any other type of structures . This is also verified from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s webpage, which notes that the Proposed Project is not within a 100-year flood
zone, it is within a Zone X flood zone.10 Zone X is an area with reduced flood risk due to levee. As such, the
10 FEMA. 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at
https://p4.msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/nfhlprinttool2_gpserver/jc2f08b4b876248b78a3c16bceac0c2c3/scrat
ch/FIRMETTE_abf0cd30-1073-11ea-9a13-0050569ce01d.pdf, accessed November 26, 2019.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 79 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Proposed Project would be consistent with the Final EIR findings, and a less than significant impact would
occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required. The Proposed Project would not develop a site within a
100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone.
Impact 5.8-4: During the construction phase of the Proposed Project, there is the potential for short-
term unquantifiable increases in pollutant concentrations from the Specific Plan area.
After Specific Plan development, the quality of storm runoff (sediment, nutrients,
metals, pesticides, pathogens, and hydrocarbons) may be altered. [Thresholds HYD-1
and HYD-6]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
• HYD-6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The Final EIR identified the following construction pollutants of concern: bacteria and viruses, metals,
nutrients, pesticides, organic compounds, sediments, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances,
and oil and grease. The Final EIR also concluded that development and redevelopment of the Specific Plan
involving construction of one acre or more would prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP would
serve to estimate sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters, and specifying
construction BMPs to be implemented to minimize stormwater pollution. Consistent with the Final EIR,
with the development of a SWPPP specifying BMPs, a less than significant impact on water quality
standards would occur. Table 5.8-1 of the Final EIR summarizes construction BMPs.
Additionally, the Final EIR identified that operational pollutants of concern would be the same as those
from construction activities, as previously stated. However, any project discharging urban runoff to the
Santa Ana River watershed must comply with the requirements by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permit. Additionally, implementation of a Project-specific WQMP for projects developed or
redeveloped pursuant to the Specific Plan would reduce operational water quality impacts to less than
significant. As such, with development of a Project-specific WQMP, a less than significant impact would
occur to water quality.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 80 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required. With the preparation of appropriate SWPPP with BMPs
and Project-specific WQMP, a less than significant impact on water quality would occur.
Impact 5.8-5: The southeast quarter of the Specific Plan area, approximately, is within the inundation
area of the Seven Oaks Dam. [Threshold HYD-9]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• HYD-9 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?
The Final EIR identifies that approximately one-quarter of the Specific Plan area, including much of the
area’s southeast quadrant (including the Project site) is in the Seven Oaks Dam inundation area. The Seven
Oaks Dam is a flood control dam that operates in tandem with the Prado Dam on the Santa Ana River
about 25 miles southwest of the Specific Plan area.
Consistent with the Final EIR, the City’s General Plan Figure S-2, Seven Oaks Dam Inundation, shows the
Project site in the inundation area. However, a low risk exists from flooding to occur in this portion of the
Specific Plan area. Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Proposed Project is anticipated to not create
a hazard to people or structures due to inundation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8-6: The Specific Plan area would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. [Threshold HYD-10]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• HYD10 Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The Final EIR identifies the following:
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 81 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Seiche
There are no aboveground water bodies near enough to the Specific Plan area to pose a seiche flood
hazard to the Specific Plan area. Specific Plan implementation would not place people or structures at risk
of flooding due to a seiche.
Tsunami
Specific Plan buildout would not subject people or structures to tsunami flood hazards.
Mudflow
According to the Final EIR, page 5.8-10, the Specific Plan area is not subject to flooding due to mudflow,
and Specific Plan implementation would not place people or structures at risk from mudflows.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required. Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Proposed
Project would not be subject to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. No impact would occur.
Overall Hydrology and Water Quality Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
analysis is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 82 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9 Land Use and Planning
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts
relative to land use and planning, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce potential impacts.
The San Bernardino Zoning Code (San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 19, Article II) provides the basis
for current zoning in the Specific Plan area. Existing zoning designations in the Specific Plan area largely
reflect the land use designations in the General Plan; refer to Table 2, Existing Specific Plan Land Use,
which shows existing Specific Plan Land Use.
As part of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project and requested Specific Plan Amendment would
update the existing Specific Plan Land Use from Neighborhood Residential to Employment in the Project
site parcels.; refer to Table 3, Proposed Existing Specific Plan Land Use.
Eastside Neighborhood District (District #4)
The Eastside Neighborhood District includes approximately 144 net acres at the eastern end of the Specific
Plan area adjacent to the Midtown Core. The boundaries of this district are loosely formed by Tippecanoe
Avenue and the flood control channel to the east and south, the parcels fronting Baseline Street to the
north, with no formal boundary to the west. This district is currently zoned primarily for residential uses
with commercial fronting Baseline Street. Commercial tenants along the Baseline Street corridor range
from a new Dollar General store to older antique and furniture merchants, a carpet store, a restaurant
and a laundromat. Within District #4 there are also three different mobile home parks with roughly 515
units, in addition to approximately 150 single-family homes. A flood control channel runs along the
eastern edge of the district with low density uses including a bus storage yard owned by Laidlaw, and
vacant land; refer to Exhibit 6, Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Plan.
Impact 5.9-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not divide an established community.
[Threshold LU-1]
Final EIR Threshold
• LU-1 Physically divide an established community?
The Final EIR identified that the Specific Plan area contains a wide range of existing land uses, including
residential, commercial, industrial, office, and public uses, in additional to vacant parcels. The Final EIR
added that the development of the Specific Plan would not divide an established community for a variety
of reasons, including: 1) residential dwelling units are sprawled throughout the Specific Plan area and not
concentrated in specific areas, as such, no one community would be divided as part of the Specific Plan
area development; 2) commercial uses would be strategically located throughout the Specific Plan to fill
gaps; 3) industrial/light industrial uses would be generally located east of Waterman Avenue between 6th
Street and 9th Street and many of the vacant parcels are located within this area; 4) medical and office
uses are clustered next to St. Bernardino Medical Center; and 5) public uses include uses in the Specific
Plan such as E. Neal Roberts Elementary School, Pioneer Memorial Commentary, and Seccombe Lake Park.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 83 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Additionally, the Final EIR indicates that the Specific Plan area where the Project site is located, the
southeast of the Specific Plan area, is a transitional area that is not characterized by any single land use.
The area contains single-family residential neighborhoods, large warehouses and distributions centers,
numerous vacant lots, and SBIA.
While the Proposed Project would be located adjacent to two neighborhoods to the north and east, it
would not divide a community. Land south and west is lined by concrete channels and beyond is industrial
land. The Project site is located along Tippecanoe Avenue, a truck route that traverses the City. The
additional associated Project traffic would not divide the communities and the Proposed Project is
introducing a land use that is similar to uses just south and west of the site. Moreover, upon approval of
the Proposed Project by the City of San Bernardino City Council, the Proposed Project would become
compatible with the Specific Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable plans
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Threshold
LU-2]
Final EIR Threshold:
• LU-2 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
The Final EIR identified that in order to adopt the Specific Plan and allow for the proposed changes in land
use in order to ultimately allow for commercial and industrial designations along with the Specific Plan
land use distribution.. Upon approval of the Specific Plan by the City of San Bernardino City Council, the
Specific Plan land uses became compatible with the City’s General Plan.
Similarly, upon approval of the requested SPA, the Proposed Project would be a permitted use within
District #4. The Proposed Project would remain consistent with all plans and policies in the San Bernardino
General Plan, Zoning Code, and the SCAG 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Therefore, upon approval of the Proposed Project and associated
Specific Plan Amendment, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 84 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-3: The Proposed Project would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan.
[Threshold LU-3]
Final EIR Threshold:
• LU-3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
The Final EIR identified the Specific Plan area is not in the plan area of any habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not
conflict with an adopted conservation plan. Similarly, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to conflict
with a habitat conservation plan and no impact is anticipated to occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-4: The Specific Plan area is not within the Hillside Management Overlay District.
[Threshold LU-4]
Final EIR Threshold:
• LU-4 Be developed within the Hillside Management Overlay District?
The Final EIR identified the Specific Plan area is located in a flat area of the City and not within a hillside.
Consistent with the Final EIR, the Proposed Project site is located on the southeast corner of the Specific
Plan area, in a portion that is also relatively flat. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the Hillside
Management Overlay District. No impact is anticipated to occur from Project implementation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 85 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-5: The Specific Plan area is not located within fire hazard areas identified by the San
Bernardino General Plan. [Threshold LU-5]
Final EIR Threshold:
• LU-5 Be developed within Foothill Fire Zones A, B, or C as identified in the City’s General Plan?
The Final EIR identified that Figure S-9 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan identifies fire hazard
areas in San Bernardino. Areas identified as susceptible to “extreme” fire hazards are located in the
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains at the northern edge of the City and in the Shandin Hills. Areas
identified as facing “moderate” fire hazards generally consist of the urban-wildland interface at the edge
of the foothills where they meet the City’s urbanized neighborhoods. The Specific Plan area is not within
fire hazards areas identified by the General Plan. Therefore, no impact would occur from Project
implementation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.9-6: The Proposed Project would allow development within the airport influence area of San
Bernardino International Airport. [Threshold LU-6]
Final EIR Threshold:
• LU-6 Be developed within the Airport Influence Area as adopted by the San Bernardino
International?
The Final EIR identified that the SBIA is about 1.25 miles southeast of the Specific Plan area. SBIA Runway
6/24 is 10,000 feet long and classified as a “long general aviation runway.” It is aligned east-northeast to
west-southwest. No SBIA flight paths pass directly over the Specific Plan area since the airport’s runway
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 86 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
is entirely south of the Specific Plan area and roughly perpendicular to the orientation of the Specific Plan
area.
The southern and eastern parts of the Specific Plan area are within Airport Safety Review Area 3 (AR3)
designated in the San Bernardino County General Plan (refer to Figure 5.7-1, Airport Safety Review Area,
of the Specific Plan Final EIR). No land use categories are prohibited in AR3 areas, and no limits for
residential density (or capacity for places of assembly) are identified for AR3 areas in the County’s general
plan. Airport safety reviews by the SBIA Authority are required for projects within AR3 areas. The Specific
Plan area is also in the area surrounding SBIA where heights of structures are regulated pursuant to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 Regulations to prevent obstructions to air navigation.
The Proposed Project site lies within the SBIA AR3 area. However, as previously stated, AR3 area does not
prohibit any land use categories. As such, and consistent with the Final EIR determination of the Specific
Plan, upon approval of the SPA, and with adherence to the FAA Part 77 Regulations for building/structure
heights, a less than significant impact would occur from Project implementation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Land Use Impacts Conclusion
No new impacts relative to adverse land use impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, upon the
approval of the SPA, the Proposed Project would be permitted in the Project site. Therefore, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the Final EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact.
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is
not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 87 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.10 Mineral Resources
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts
relative to mineral resources, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce potential impacts.
Impact 5.10-1: Buildout of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource. [Thresholds M-1]
Final EIR Threshold:
• M-1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
The Final EIR noted that no mineral resource sectors are mapped within the Specific Plan area. Consistent
with the Specific Plan Final EIR determination, the Proposed Project would not cause a loss of mineral
resources availability and would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.10-2: Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan. [Thresholds M-2]
Final EIR Threshold:
• M-2 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The Final EIR concluded that there are no mineral resource recovery sites in or near the Specific Plan area
that are designated in the City of San Bernardino General Plan.11 Additionally, there are no existing mineral
resource recovery operations in or adjacent to the Specific Plan area. Implementation of the Proposed
Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on the City of San Bernardino General Plan, specific plans, or any other land use plan.
11 City of San Bernardino. 2005. General Plan.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 88 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Therefore, consistent with the Final EIR determination, no impact would occur from Project
implementation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Mineral Resources Impacts Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral resources. With regard to
CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would
not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect
to mineral resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 89 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.11 Noise
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR noted that the Specific Plan area is mostly developed and therefore has a number of noise
generators, including existing urban land uses and associated activities, traffic, and aircraft associated
with the SBIA. The primary source of noise near the Specific Plan area is vehicular traffic, primarily traffic
from area roadways (e.g., Waterman Avenue, Baseline Street, Sierra Way, Tippecanoe Avenue, 3rd Street,
and Highland Avenue).
As concluded in the Final EIR, Section 8.54.060 exempts noise resulting from construction, repair, or
excavation work performed pursuant to a valid written agreement with the City or any of its political
subdivisions, which provides for noise mitigation measures from the standards in Section 8.54 of the
municipal code. However, it was determined that the development of the Specific Plan, including District
#4 would create potentially significant and unavoidable impacts, even with mitigation measures
implemented.
Impact 5.11-1: Construction activities related to the Specific Plan, including pile drilling and other
extreme noise-generating construction activities, would temporarily increase noise
levels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. [Threshold N-2 and N-4]
Final EIR Thresholds
• N-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
• N-4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The Final EIR concluded that development of the Specific Plan is anticipated to have demolition and
construction noise. Additionally, analysis showed that construction activities related to the Specific Plan,
including pile drilling and other extreme noise-generating construction activities, would temporarily
increase noise levels within each of the six land uses districts and in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area
boundaries.
Unlike the noise anticipated to be generated from demolition activities from the development of the
Specific Plan, the Proposed Project site is vacant and no structures occur onsite. As such, no demolition
activities would occur. Minimal site grading and preparation would be necessary. Additionally, although
the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate construction noise, the Proposed Project would require
less construction effort and time compared to the land use analyzed in the Specific Plan for residential
use of the site.
Mitigation Program
The Final EIR includes mitigations measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation
of the Specific Plan. The following mitigation measures from the Final EIR are applicable to the Proposed
Project.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 90 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
N-1 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits for development
projects accommodated by the Specific Plan, a note shall be provided on development
plans indicating that during grading, demolition, and construction, the property
owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the
following measures to limit construction-related noise:
• The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours
specified for construction equipment (7:00 AM and 8:00 PM).
• To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass sensitive land uses or residential
dwellings and should avoid using alleyways adjacent to said uses.
• The project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art
noise shielding and muffling devices.
• During all project site excavation and grading on-site, construction contractors shall
equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards.
• The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create
the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
• The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that
emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project
site.
• The use of vibratory equipment shall be avoided or minimized within 25 feet of
existing vibration-sensitive land uses.
• If vibratory equipment must be used within 25 feet of an existing structure, vibration
monitoring shall be conducted and work shall be halted and re-evaluated if vibratory
levels near 0.20 PPV are indicated, which is the standard established to protect
structures.
Conclusion
Consistent with the Final EIR determination, even implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, the
Proposed Project is anticipated to introduce a new noise source during construction activities. With regard
to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would
not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect
to noise. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Impact 5.11-2: Specific Plan implementation would result in long-term operation-related noise
exceeding City of San Bernardino standards. [Threshold N-1 and N-3]
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 91 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Final EIR Thresholds
• N-1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
• N-3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
The Final EIR examined the anticipated increased traffic associated with buildout of the Specific Plan and
concluded that a permanent increase in ambient noise levels would result in less than significant impacts
with implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4. Like the Final EIR determination, the
Proposed Project would also introduce operational traffic associated with full-time workers and truck-
related traffic and Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4 would be applicable.
Mitigation Program
The Final EIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Specific
Plan. The following measures from the Final EIR are applicable to the Proposed Project. Note the
mitigation measure N-3 is not applicable as it pertains to residential development.
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
N-2 Before issuance of any building permits for projects developed pursuant to the Specific
Plan, the architects for such projects will add the following specifications to building plans
for such projects:
• New non-residential development shall be constructed with roof-ceiling
assemblies that make up the building envelope to have an STC of at least 50 and
exterior windows must have minimum STC of 30 where sound levels at the
property line regularly exceed 65 decibels.
• It is recommended that buildings with few or no occupants and where occupants
are not likely to be affected by exterior noise, as determined by the enforcement
authority, such as factories, stadiums, storage, enclosed parking structures and
utility buildings be exempt from this measure.
N-3 Prior to issuance of building permits for residential land uses located within a 65 dBA CNEL
noise contour as shown in Table 8, a detailed noise assessment shall be prepared to show
that noise levels in those areas will not exceed the 65 CNEL outdoor noise criteria and the
45 CNEL indoor noise standard. The noise assessment shall be prepared by a qualified
acoustical consultant and shall document the sources of noise impacting the areas and
describe any measures required to meet the standard. These measures will be
incorporated into the project plans. The report shall be completed and approved by the
City prior to issuance of building permits.
N-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for non-residential land uses located adjacent to
residential land uses, City staff shall require the preparation of a detailed noise study to
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 92 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
ensure that these sources do not exceed noise level limits presented in the City’s noise
ordinance which are dependent on the type of land use. The assessment shall be prepared
by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall document the noise generation characteristics
of the proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the nearest use. Compliance
with these levels shall be demonstrated and any measures required to comply with the
Noise Ordinance will be included in the project plans. The report shall be completed and
approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits
Conclusion
Consistent with the Final EIR determination, with implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2 and N-4,
the Proposed Project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts.
Impact 5.11-3: Construction activities could generate groundborne vibration during construction, but
that vibration is very unlikely to cause architectural damage. Groundborne vibration
from project operation would not cause annoyance or architectural damage. [Threshold
N-2]
Final EIR Thresholds
• N-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
The Final EIR concluded the following:
Construction Vibration
Groundborne vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider groundborne
vibration an annoyance that may affect concentration or disturb sleep. Construction activities can result
in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation
of construction equipment causes vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength
with distance. Ground vibrations from future construction activities (other than pile driving) rarely reach
levels that can damage structures. Refer to Table 5.11-13, of the Final EIR, which gives approximate
vibration levels for particular construction activities in a wide range of soil conditions. The Final EIR noted
that use of vibration-generating construction equipment and trucks would be limited to the hours of 7:00
AM to 8:00 PM, conforming with City of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 8.54.070. Implementation
of Section 8.54.070 provides reasonable regulation of the hours of construction. With required
implementation of the City’s municipal code, construction vibration impacts would be less than
significant. This determination would be applicable to the Proposed Project as construction activities are
similar; however, the Proposed Project would require less construction activities than the currently
allowed land use, given the relatively limited structures necessary for the truck parking facility, compared
to the approved Specific Plan which allows up to 210 DU. As such, it is anticipated that the Proposed
Project would have a less than significant impact due to construction vibration.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 93 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Operational Vibration
The Final EIR concluded that medium- and heavy-duty delivery trucks would be expected to visit the
Specific Plan area on a regular basis. Heavy-duty trucks would not be anticipated to exceed 0.10 in/sec
peak particle velocity (PPV) at 10 feet (Caltrans 2002). Predicted operation-related vibration levels at the
nearest on and offsite structures, which are more than 10 feet from the traveled roadway segments,
would not be anticipated to exceed even the most conservative threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV, and impacts
would be less than significant. Consistent with the Final EIR determination, and because the Final EIR
analyzed potential impacts from trucks within the Specific Plan, the Proposed Project is also anticipated
to produce a less than significant impact due to operational vibration.
Mitigation Program
None from the Final EIR.
Conclusion
No new impact relative to vibration or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. A less than significant impact would occur.
Overall Noise Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to noise and vibration. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 94 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.12 Population and Housing
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts
relative to population and housing, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce potential impacts. The
following is a summary of the Final EIR findings:
Employment in the Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan area currently includes several employment-generating land uses, including three
neighborhood commercial centers, the St. Bernardine Medical Center, and medical and business offices.
Employment is estimated as 3,580, as shown in Table 12, Estimated Project Net Employment Generation
by Land Use District.
Table 12: Estimated Project Net Employment Generation by Land Use District.
Land Use District
Proposed
Employment-
Generation Land Uses
Nonresidential Land
Uses, Square Feet
Employment Density
(Square feet per
employee)1
Estimated Employees
Uptown Professional
District #1
Office and
Neighborhood-
servicing commercial
1,244,332 6002 2,074
Westside
Neighborhood
District #2
Neighborhood-serving
commercial 243,519 8133 300
Midtown Core Mixed
Use
District #3
Retail, restaurants,
community center 346,981 8133 427
Eastside
Neighborhood
District #4
Neighborhood-serving
commercial 108,527 8133 133
Gateway
District #5
Neighborhood-serving
commercial 136,318 8133 168
Employment
District #6
Office, commercial,
and business park 286,708 6002 478
Total -- -- 3,580
1 Source: Natelson 2001. Employment density factors are for a five-county region (San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, and
Ventura) and used as a conservative estimate. Employment density factors for San Bernardino County are lower, that is, more square
feet per employee.
2 The employment density factor used is for low-rise office use.
3 The employment density factor used is for services and retail other than regional retail.
Job-Housing Balance
The Final EIR identified that the American Planning Association (APA) recognized that an ideal jobs-
housing ratio will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its recommended target for an appropriate jobs-
housing ratio is 1.5, with a recommended range of 1.3 to 1.7 (Weltz 2003). The existing and projected
future jobs/household ratio is provided in Table 13, Jobs/Housing Balance for City of San Bernardino.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 95 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 13: Jobs/Housing Balance for City of San Bernardino
2012 2040
Population 211,900 257,400
Households 59,300 77,100
Employment 88,900 128,900
Jobs-to-Household Ratio 1.50 1.67
Source: SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast.
Note: City numbers were rounded to the nearest 10 for jurisdictions with small numbers, or to the nearest 100 for all others, while county
numbers were rounded to the nearest 1,000.
As shown, the jobs-housing balance in San Bernardino in 2012 was 1.50, indicating a balance between
jobs and housing. This balance is forecast to increase to 1.67 by 2040, still within the recommended range
for jobs-housing.
Impact 5.12-1: The Proposed Project would directly result in population growth in the Specific Plan
area. [Threshold P-1]
Final EIR Threshold:
• P-1 Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
The Final EIR notes that buildout of the Specific Plan would slightly reduce a nearly balanced jobs-housing
balance in the City of San Bernardino from 1.67 to 1.64 in 2040. Both figures are within the recommended
target range of 1.3 to 1.7 jobs-housing balance, and this slight difference is considered neutral. These
projections account for the Proposed Project site being developed with single-family residential dwelling
units. The Final EIR notes that jobs-housing balance only applies to regions; thus, no estimate of the jobs-
housing balance in the Specific Plan area is made.
Upon approval of the Proposed Project, no housing nor population would be introduced into the Project
site as originally envisioned in the approved Specific Plan. Rather, the Proposed Project would introduce
a truck parking facility with approximately twenty full-time employees. Based on the 2040 job-housing
ratio projections of 1.64 jobs-housing ratio, the City is anticipated to be well within the upper limit of the
APA recommended job-housing ratio. As such, because of the change in land use for the Project site from
residential to employment, the job-housing ratio is anticipated to slightly increase from the projected
1.64. However, because the projected job-housing ratio is anticipated to drop from 1.67 to 1.64 in 2040,
it is anticipated that with implementation of the Proposed Project, the job-housing ratio would remain
well within the recommended 1.3 to 1.7 job-housing ratio. As a result, there will be a less than significant
impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 96 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.12-2: Specific Plan buildout would not displace substantial numbers of housing and residents.
[Thresholds PH-2 and PH-3]
Final EIR Threshold:
• PH-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
• PH-3 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
The Final EIR indicates that most of the existing residential neighborhoods are within enhancement areas
where no substantive land use changes are proposed. Regardless, the Specific Plan buildout is planning
on an overall increase in housing units within the Specific Plan area. The Project site is vacant and no
housing would be displaced; consequently, the construction of replacement housing would not be
necessary. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Population and Housing Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to population and housing. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis
is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 97 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.13 Public Services
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts
relative to public services, with the exception of impacts to parks.
Impact 5.13-1: Impact 5.14-1: The Proposed Project would introduce new structures, residents, and
workers into the San Bernardino County Consolidated Fire District service boundaries,
increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel.
Impact 5.13-2: Buildout of the Proposed Project would introduce new structures, residents, and
workers into the City of San Bernardino Police Department service boundaries,
increasing the need for police protection facilities and personnel.
Impact 5.13-3: The Proposed Project would generate new students within the service area of the San
Bernardino City Unified School District.
Impact 5.13-4: The Proposed Project would generate additional population increasing the service
needs for local libraries.
Final EIR Threshold
• FP-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for: fire protection, police protection, schools, and
other public facilities?
The Final EIR conclude that buildout of the Specific Plan would be expected to add approximately 2,395
residential units and 1.2 million square feet of nonresidential building space to the Specific Plan area
compared to existing conditions. This growth expected to generate 8,359 new residents, who would
generate additional demands on fire protection services provided by the SBCFD. The Proposed Project
would change the land use of the site from residential to employment; thus, reducing the projected
number of residents who are projected to ultimately increase SBCFD demand.
Additionally, the Final EIR notes that Section 3.27.040 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code
establishes the City’s fire suppression facilities fee that is imposed on new residential, commercial, and
industrial development. The amount of the fee is set by resolution of the mayor and City Council. Owners
and/or occupants of new developments would also be required to pay property taxes and sales taxes that
would contribute to the City’s General Fund, which is SBCFD’s main source of funding. The money
generated from new growth in the Specific Plan area would go toward improvements, maintenance, and
addition of fire stations and resources as fire service demands increase. Buildout would occur gradually
over a number of years, and the need for fire protection services would increase concurrently with
development. Therefore, revenue generated by the facilities fees, property taxes, and sales taxes would
be expected to grow in rough proportion to any increase in residential units and businesses. Furthermore,
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 98 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
SBCFD would continue monitoring deployment times, response times, and call loads to estimate future
needs for personnel and equipment in anticipation of new development. Additionally, based on the City’s
projected population growth, the City of San Bernardino Police Department (SBPD) anticipates police
demands to increase.
A Project-specific Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) prepared by DTA Finance (provided as Appendix E in this
Addendum) concluded the following:
The overall net fiscal impact to the City's General Fund resulting from the revenues anticipated to be
generated by the Project's build-out, as compared with the cost of public services associated with the
Project's build-out, will be an annual recurring fiscal surplus of $8,066. This fiscal surplus is based on total
General Fund revenues of $12,516 versus total annual General Fund costs of $4,450. As the property taxes
paid by the Project are 100% committed to theSan Bernardino County Consolidated Fire District , the
largest generator of revenues will be Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees of $7,401. The highest
annual costs ($3,101) will be expenditures associated with police services. Annual recurring revenues
generated by the Project are forecasted to equal approximately 2.81 times the General Fund costs
associated with the Project.12
Based on the FIA forecast, the Proposed Project would offset any SBCFD and SBPD demands. Additionally,
because the Proposed Project would generate less SBCFD and SBPD demands than the currently allowed
use, at buildout, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to create adverse conditions or need new or
altered governmental facilities. As such, consistent with the Final EIR findings, a less than significant
impact would occur on SBCFD and SBPD.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Public Services Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to public services. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
12 DTA Finance. 2019. Fiscal Impact Resulting from the Proposed Truck Parking Facility.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 99 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.14 Recreation
Impact 5.14-1: The Proposed Project would generate 8,359 additional residents that would increase
the demand for park and recreational facilities. [Threshold R-1]
Impact 5.14-2: Project implementation would generate a need for new and/or expanded recreational
facilities. [Threshold R-2]
Final EIR Thresholds:
• R-1 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated;
• R-2 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Final EIR notes that at Specific Plan buildout, approximately 8,359 additional residents can be
expected in the City. As such, the need for parkland according to National Recreation and Park Association
(NRPA), based on the project population growth could be as much as 41.8 additional acres to a minimum
of 27.3 acres of additional parkland to adequately serve the growing population. It is also noted that based
on projected development impacts fees, the demand for parks and recreational facilities associated with
the implementation of the Specific Plan would be met and a less than significant impact would occur.
As previously stated, the Proposed Project would not introduce additional residents to the area, nor would
it introduce recreational facilities. Although the Project site is identified as a park site opportunity, the
Project site is currently designated for residential use. Upon the approval of the Proposed Project, it would
allow the Project site to be utilized for employment (truck parking) purposes, with approximately 20
employees.
Because the Proposed Project would not induce population growth that would require additional park
space, does not include recreational aspects, and would pay applicable development fees, it is anticipated
that the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on recreational facilities.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 100 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Recreation Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to recreation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 101 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.15 Transportation/Traffic
This section was prepared based on the Specific Plan Final EIR and the Project-specific Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA), prepared by Kimley-Horn, dated November 2019. Refer to Appendix F for the TIA.
Impact 5.15-1: Project-related trip generation would impact levels of service for the existing area
roadway system.
Final EIR Thresholds
• T-1 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?
The Final EIR determined that buildout of the Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts even with implementation of Final EIR Mitigation Measures T-1, T-2, and T-3, due to increases in
traffic which would affect the following intersections, under the following scenarios:
The following six intersections were found to operate at unacceptable LOS under Existing Plus Project
(Specific Plan) conditions, as shown below:
Existing (2015) Plus Project (Specific Plan) Conditions
Intersection #2. Waterman Avenue & SR-210 Eastbound Ramps (The Proposed Project adds traffic
to the intersection already operating at LOS F in the AM & PM Peak Hour.)
Intersection #16. I-210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street (The Proposed Project adds traffic to the
intersection already operating at LOS D in the PM Peak Hour.)
Intersection #17. I-210 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street (AM Peak Hour is LOS D; the Proposed
Project adds traffic to the intersection already operating at LOS F in the PM Peak Hour.)
Intersection #20. I-215 Southbound On-Ramp & 2nd Street (The Proposed Project decreases traffic
to the intersection operating at LOS E, resulting in LOS D in the PM Peak Hour.)
Intersection #21. I-215 Northbound Off-Ramp & 2nd Street (AM Peak Hour LOS F)
Intersection #23. Waterman Avenue & I-10 Westbound On-Ramp (The Proposed Project adds
traffic to the intersection already operating at LOS F in the PM Peak Hour.)
Buildout (2035) Without-Project (Specific Plan) Conditions
The following six intersections were found to operate at unacceptable LOS and would continue to operate
at unacceptable LOS in 2035 Without Project (Specific Plan) conditions:
Intersection #1. Waterman Avenue & 30th Street (AM & PM Peak Hour LOS E)
Intersection #2. Waterman Avenue & SR-210 Eastbound Ramps (AM & PM Peak Hour LOS F)
Intersection #17. I-210 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street (AM Peak Hour LOS D & PM Peak Hour
LOS F)
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 102 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Intersection #20. I-215 Southbound On-Ramp & 2nd Street (PM Peak Hour LOS E)
Intersection #21. I-215 NB Off-Ramp/I-215 NB Ramp & 2nd St (AM Peak Hour LOS E)
Intersection #23. Waterman Avenue & I-10 Westbound On-Ramp (PM Peak Hour LOS F)
The following intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS in 2035 Without Project (Specific
Plan conditions:
Intersection #16. I-210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street (AM Peak Hour LOS E & PM Peak Hour
LOS F)
Buildout (2035) With-Project (Specific Plan) Conditions
The following ten intersections were found to operate at unacceptable LOS in 2035 With-Project (Specific
Plan) conditions:
Intersection #1. Waterman Avenue & 30th Street (In the AM Peak Hour the LOS degrades from E
to F & in the PM Peak Hour the project adds traffic to the intersection already operating at LOS
E.)
Intersection #2. Waterman Avenue & SR-210 Eastbound Ramps (The Proposed Project add traffics
to the intersection already operating at LOS F in the AM & PM Peak Hours.)
Intersection #8. Waterman Avenue & Baseline Street (In the AM Peak Hour the LOS degrades from
D to E & in the PM Peak Hour the LOS degrades from D to F.)
Intersection #10. Waterman Avenue & 9th Street (In the PM Peak Hour the LOS degrades from D
to E.)
Intersection #12. I-215 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street (In the PM Peak Hour the LOS degrades
from C to D.)
Intersection #16. I-210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street (In the AM Peak Hour the LOS degrades
from E to F & the Proposed Project adds traffic to the intersection already operating at LOS F in
the PM Peak Hour.)
Intersection #17. I-210 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street (In the AM Peak Hour the LOS degrades
from D to E & the Proposed Project adds traffic to the intersection already operating at LOS in the
PM Peak Hour.)
Intersection #20. I-215 Southbound On-Ramp & 2nd Street (The Proposed Project adds traffic to
the intersection already operating at LOS E in the PM Peak Hour.)
Intersection #21. I-215 NB Off-Ramp/I-215 NB Ramp & 2nd St (The Proposed Project adds traffic
to the intersection already operating at LOS E in the AM Peak Hour)
Intersection #23. Waterman Avenue & I-10 Westbound On-Ramp (The project adds traffic to the
intersection already operating at LOS F in the PM Peak Hour.)
The Final EIR concluded that Specific Plan-generated traffic in 2035 With-Project conditions would have
significant impacts on the 10 intersections listed above. All of the intersection impacts in the 2035 With-
Project (Specific Plan) scenario are considered cumulative impacts (Specific Plan traffic generation in
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 103 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
combination with traffic generation due to regional growth, modeled using San Bernardino Transportation
Analysis Model (SBTAM)).
Project Specific Traffic Impact Analysis Conclusions
The Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) concluded that under the Existing Conditions and Existing
Conditions Plus Project scenarios, all intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS.
Project traffic was added to Project Opening Year (2021) traffic volumes to establish the conditions for
the Project Opening Year (2021) Plus Project scenario. Under this scenario, the addition of the Proposed
Project traffic would not have a significant impact on the network, and all intersections would continue
to operate at an acceptable LOS.
Horizon Year (2035) Conditions
Horizon Year (2035) traffic volumes were forecasted based on the SBTAM. Under the Horizon Year (2035)
conditions, all intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service except for:
Intersection #5 – Waterman Avenue at Baseline Street: AM & PM – LOS F (Intersection #5 of the TIA
coincides with intersection #8 of the Final EIR).
Horizon Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions
The Proposed Project is estimated to generate 2,749 daily Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) trips, 80 PCE
trips in the morning peak hour, and 118 PCE trips in the evening peak hour. The Project traffic was added
to Horizon Year (2040) traffic forecasts to establish the conditions for the Horizon Year (2035) Plus Project
scenario. Under this scenario, the same intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS:
Intersection #5 – Waterman Avenue at Baseline Street: AM & PM – LOS F
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to the Waterman Avenue and Baseline Street
intersection under Horizon Year (2035) Plus Project scenario and Project mitigation would be required.
The TIA recommended Mitigation Measure suggests that the Proposed Project should pay fair share
contribution to stripe an eastbound right-turn lane on Baseline Street. This would create a left turn lane,
two through lanes, and a right turn pocket. (Horizon Year impact mitigation).
The TIA recommended mitigation measure, for the Proposed Project, is similar to Mitigation Measure T-
3 of the Final EIR, which notes the below mentioned specific mitigation for the Waterman Avenue at
Baseline Street intersection. With implementation of Final EIR mitigation measure T-3, no significant
impacts would occur. In fact, as discussed in greater detail in the TIA and its Trip Generation Memo
appendix (Appendix F to this Addendum), the Proposed Project would result in only a slight increase in
daily trips and a considerable reduction in peak hour trips, even after adjusted to convert truck trips to
Passenger Car Equivalents.
Mitigation Program
Final EIR Mitigation Measure:
T-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall enter into a
mitigation agreement with Caltrans for project-related impacts to Caltrans facilities. The
agreement shall identify the project’s fair-share contribution to the following traffic
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 104 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
improvements that result in improved levels of service at the impacted ramp locations,
via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City of San Bernardino:
• Intersection of I-210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street: Optimize signal timing
• Intersection of I-215 Southbound Ramps & 2nd Street: Optimize signal timing
• Intersection of I-215 Northbound Ramps & 2nd Street: Optimize signal timing
• Intersection of Waterman Avenue & I-10 Westbound On-Ramp: Signalize the
intersection with a protected northbound left-turn phase.
T-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall enter into a
mitigation agreement with Caltrans for project-related impacts to Caltrans facilities. Due
to right-of-way constraints at the two affected intersections, listed below, it is unknown
whether installation of the specified turn lanes is feasible. The agreement shall identify
the project’s fair-share contribution to the following traffic improvements, if found to be
feasible, that result in improved levels of service at the impacted ramp locations, via an
agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City of San Bernardino:
Waterman Avenue & SR-210 Eastbound Ramps:
• Add two exclusive eastbound right-turn lanes
• Add one southbound left-turn lane
I-210 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street:
• Add one eastbound left-turn lane
• Add one exclusive northbound right-turn lane
T-3 Prior to issuance of any building permit after 80 percent buildout of the Specific Plan area,
the Project applicant shall provide fair share funding for the following improvements as
determined by the City:
Waterman Avenue & 30th Street:
• Add one westbound left-turn lane
• Add one westbound right-lane lane
• Add one eastbound right-turn lane with right-turn overlap phase
• Add an overlap phase for the northbound right-turn
• Modify signal phasing to split phase in the east/west direction. This requires signal
pole modifications in the east/west direction to accommodate new split-phase
vehicle heads on a longer mast arm
The eastbound and westbound 30th Street approaches are wide enough for the
additional eastbound and westbound turn lanes to be added through restriping of the
affected approaches.
The estimated cost for the improvements at this intersection is $125,000 to $200,000.
The fair share contribution is 24 percent of the total cost, that is, $30,000 to $48,000.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 105 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Waterman Avenue & Baseline Street:
• Modify the shared through-right lanes to a through lane and an exclusive right-turn
lane at the east and west approaches.
The eastbound and westbound Baseline Street approaches are wide enough for the lane
modifications to be made through restriping of the affected approaches.
The estimated cost for the improvement at this intersection is $3,000. The fair share
contribution is 57 percent of the total cost, that is, $1,710.
Waterman Avenue & 9th Street:
• Modify the shared through-right lanes to a through lane and an exclusive right-turn
lane at the east and west approaches.
The northbound and southbound Waterman Avenue approaches are wide enough for the
lane modifications to be made through restriping of the affected approaches.
The estimated cost for the improvement at this intersection is $3,000. The fair share
contribution is 50 percent of the total cost, that is, $1,500.
T-4 Prior to issuance of any building permit after 80 percent buildout of the Specific Plan area,
the project applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with Caltrans for project-
related impacts to Caltrans facilities. The agreement shall identify the project’s fair-share
contribution to the following traffic improvements that result in improved levels of
service at the impacted ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans
and the City of San Bernardino:
I-210 Southbound Ramps & 2nd Street:
• Optimize signal timing
The fair-share contribution is 4 percent of the total cost.
I-210 Northbound Ramps & 2nd Street:
• Optimize signal timing
The fair-share contribution is 16 percent of the total cost.
Waterman Ave & I-10 Westbound On-Ramp:
• Optimize signal timing
• Install a signal with a protected northbound left-turn phase
The estimated cost for the improvements at this intersection is $90,000 to $125,000. The
fair share contribution is 31 percent of the total cost, that is, $27,900 to $38,750.
T-5 Prior to issuance of any building permit after 80 percent buildout of the Specific Plan area,
the project applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with Caltrans for project-
related impacts to Caltrans facilities. Due to right-of-way constraints at the three affected
intersections, it is unknown whether installation of the specified lanes is feasible. The
agreement shall identify the project’s fair-share contribution to the following traffic
improvements, if found to be feasible, that result in improved levels of service at the
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 106 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
impacted ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City
of San Bernardino:
Waterman Avenue & SR-210 Eastbound Ramps:
• Add one exclusive eastbound right-turn lane
• Add one eastbound left-turn lane
• Add one exclusive northbound right-turn lane
• Add one southbound left-turn lane
The fair-share contribution for improvements at this intersection is 41 percent.
I-215 Northbound Ramps & 5th Street:
• Add one exclusive westbound right-turn lane
• Add one northbound left-turn lane
• Add two exclusive northbound right-turn lanes
The fair-share contribution for improvements at this intersection is 35 percent.
I-210 Southbound Ramps & 5th Street:
• Add one eastbound through lane
• Add one exclusive southbound right-turn lane
• Add two southbound right-turn lanes
The fair-share contribution for improvements at this intersection is 34 percent.
Conclusion
No new impacts associated with non-vehicular transportation or a substantial increase in the severity of
a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, because the
propose Project does not affect any Caltrans facilities, Final EIR Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 are not
applicable to the Proposed Project. No new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would impact the
prior finding. Overall impacts to the Specific Plan would be mitigated to result in a less than significant
impact and the Proposed Project would result in no impact in regards to transportation and traffic.
Impact 5.15-2: The proposed Specific Plan would be subject to the County of San Bernardino Regional
Transportation Development Mitigation Plan Fee Schedule and would not conflict with
the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program. [Threshold T-2]
Final EIR Threshold:
• T-2 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?
The Final EIR concluded that the Specific Plan area in the City of San Bernardino is subject to the County
of San Bernardino Regional Transportation Development Mitigation Plan Fee Schedule. Therefore, a
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 107 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
congestion management program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis report is not required for the Specific Plan
and impacts would be less than significant.
Nonetheless, all signalized and unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the methods described in
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition, consistent with the requirements of the 2016 San
Bernardino County CMP. The San Bernardino County CMP guidelines require analysis of traffic operations
to be based on the vehicular delay methodologies of the HCM (Transportation Research Board Special
Report 209). Although the Final EIR concluded even without CMP analysis, the Specific Plan buildout would
have a less than significant impact, and because the Project TIA conducted the traffic analysis consistent
with the 2016 San Bernardino County CMP, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would have a less
than significant impact and would not conflict with the San Bernardino County CMP.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.15-3: Specific Plan buildout would not change air traffic levels in or out of San Bernardino
International Airport (SBIA) or require relocation of air traffic patterns to or from SBIA.
[Threshold T-3]
Final EIR Threshold:
• T-3 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?
The Final EIR concludes that the Specific Plan buildout is estimated to generate a population increase of
roughly 8,359; this would equal roughly 1.2 percent of the population increase forecast for San Bernardino
County (645,709 residents) between 2015 and 2035. The population increase resulting from Specific Plan
buildout would not cause a substantial increase in air traffic levels at San Bernardino International Airport.
Consistent with the Final EIR conclusions, the Proposed Project would not be anticipated to result or
impact air traffic patterns, or an increase in traffic levels.13 Similar to the Final EIR conclusions, added
Project traffic would not be substantial and would not cause for an increase in air traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks.
13 Kimley-Horn. 2019. Traffic Impact Analysis.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 108 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.15-4: Adequate parking would be provided for the Specific Plan. [Threshold T-7]
Final EIR Threshold:
• T-7 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
The Final EIR concluded the Specific Plan buildout would provide adequate parking for all land uses.
Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Proposed Project is subject to Section 5.4, Parking Standards,
of the Specific Plan. Additionally, the Proposed Project is subject to review and approval in regards to
meeting parking standards from the City of San Bernardino. According to parking requirements, the
Proposed Project is required to provide 44 parking stalls. The Proposed Project will be providing 47 parking
stalls, which exceeds the minimum required. Thus, consistent with the Final EIR determination regarding
parking, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.15-5: Project circulation improvements have been designated to adequately address
potentially hazardous (sharp curves, etc.) potential conflict uses, and emergency access.
[Thresholds t-4 and T-5]
Final EIR Threshold:
• T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
• T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Final EIR concluded the Specific Plan buildout would involve the restriping of existing lanes at two
intersections under jurisdiction of the City of San Bernardino. All restriping of roadways would be designed
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 109 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
by a licensed traffic engineer in conformance with City of San Bernardino Public Works Department street
design standards, and buildout would not cause substantial hazards arising from the design of proposed
roadway improvements and modifications.
Additionally, the Final EIR noted that Specific Plan buildout would not add conflicting uses such as farm
equipment to area roadways. Public streets in the City of San Bernardino must be kept free from
obstructions pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 12.44. Construction staging by projects developed in
conformance with the Proposed Project would not block public streets, in accordance with this chapter.
Specific Plan buildout would not impede emergency access to the Specific Plan area or surrounding
neighborhoods, and thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Consistent with the Final EIR determination, the Proposed Project would be required to pay its fair share
to restripe of intersection #8 to maintain acceptable levels of service at nearby intersections. The
restriping is not anticipated to introduce hazardous conditions or curves. Additionally, no street closures
would be anticipated that would affect emergency access. Moreover, the Proposed Project site would
provide adequate onsite emergency access, as determined appropriate through consultation with City
police and fire departments. A less than significant impact would occur from Project implementation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.15-6: The Proposed Project would comply with adopted policies, plans, and programs for
alternative transportation. [Threshold T-6]
Final EIR Threshold:
• T-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
The Final EIR notes that the Specific Plan includes an extensive network of pedestrian-only trails and
sidewalks connecting all areas of the Specific Plan. For example, striped on-road (Class II) bicycle lanes in
both directions of travel at Specific Plan boundaries are proposed on Waterman Avenue and Baseline
Street. Off-road (Class I) bicycle paths are proposed along Warm Creek and East Twin Creek, along the
southern and western site boundaries, within the Specific Plan area, and a third proposed Class I bicycle
path would extend eastward along City Creek from the confluence of City Creek and East Twin Creek at
the southeast corner of the Specific Plan area.
The Final EIR indicates that Specific Plan buildout would not interfere with operation of Omnitrans bus
routes passing through the Specific Plan area and that Proposed Project buildout would comply with
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 110 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
policies promoting alternative transportation. Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Proposed Project
is anticipated that no adverse impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Transportation and Traffic Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to utilities and service systems. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
analysis is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 111 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts
relative to utilities and service.
Impact 5.16-1: Wastewater generated in the Specific Plan area under the Proposed Project could be
adequately treated by the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. [Thresholds
U-1, U-2 (part), and U-5]
Final EIR Threshold
• U-1 Would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
• U-2 Would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
• U-5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that is has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
The Final EIR concluded that at buildout of the Specific Plan area, total wastewater generation in the
Specific Plan area is estimated at about 1.5 million gallons per day (gpd). As shown in Table 5.16-2 of the
Final EIR, the net increase in wastewater generation is estimated at approximately 655,000 gpd. According
to the Final EIR, the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) has about 7.7 million gpd residual
capacity, which is sufficient to accommodate wastewater generated in the Specific Plan area. Additionally,
according to the Final EIR, the increase in wastewater generation would require supplemental backbone
sewer mains to be connected to existing sewer mains as the Specific Plan area, as the Specific Plan is built
out over time.
The Final EIR also identifies that the proposed supplemental backbone is estimated to be about 17,500
feet long and would cost roughly $360 per linear foot, for a total capital cost of about $6.3 million.
However, the City of San Bernardino requires new development to pay a sewer service charge to maintain
sewer systems (Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, Connection with Public Sewer). The estimated cost would
be aggregated across the entire plan so that each new development would pay an apportioned portion of
the cost at time of development and subsequent occupancy.
Consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, Connection with Public Sewer, the Proposed
Project would pay the applicable fees. Additionally, the Proposed Project would generate substantially
less wastewater than currently approved for the Project site, in comparing the approved Specific Plan’s
210 DU with the Proposed Project’s truck parking facility with an estimated 20 employees.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 112 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As such, consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Proposed Project would cause a less than significant
impact. As noted in the Final EIR, the full development of the Specific Plan would be adequately served by
the WRP. A less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.16-2: Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet requirements of land uses
under the Proposed Project. [Thresholds U-2 and U-4]
Final EIR Thresholds
• U-2 Would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
• U-4 Would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, and new and/or expanded entitlements would be needed?
According to the Final EIR, the San Bernardino Municipal Water District (SBMWD) would provide water to
most of the Specific Plan area. The balance of the Specific Plan area would be served by East Valley Water
Department (EVWD). As shown in Tables 5.16-4 and 5.16-5 of the Final EIR, SBMWD and EVWD both
forecast adequate water supplies to meet demands in their respective service areas through the 2015–
2035 period.
The Final EIR also summarizes water demand for existing conditions in the Specific Plan area which is
estimated at about 2.2 million gpd, as shown in Table 5.16-6 of the Final EIR. About 94 percent of this
demand, or 2.06 million gpd, is in SBMWD’s service area; the balance is in EVWD’s service area.
Because the Specific Plan is anticipated to be adequately served by SMBWD and EVWD, and because the
Proposed Project would require substantially less water than the 210 DU permitted with the approved
Specific Plan, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on water
supplies.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 113 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.16-3: Existing and proposed storm drainage systems are adequate to serve the drainage
requirements of the Proposed Project. [Threshold U-3]
Final EIR Threshold
• U-3 Would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
The Final EIR determined the Specific Plan would permit net increases of 2,395 residential units and
1,204,063 square feet of commercial uses in the Specific Plan area compared to existing conditions.
Existing and proposed land uses in the Specific Plan area are shown in Exhibit 5, Existing Specific Plan
Land Use Plan, and Exhibit 6, Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Plan. Because the Specific Plan area is
largely developed with urbanized land uses under existing conditions, Specific Plan buildout would only
moderately increase impervious areas. The specific increase of impervious areas for each project
developed pursuant to the Specific Plan would be determined during engineering design of that project.
Priority projects are required to infiltrate stormwater to the maximum extent practicable and to use
biotreatment and harvest-and-use BMPs for the remainder of the design capture volume, which is
approximately the stormwater volume from a 24-hour, 85th-percentile storm.
While most of the Specific Plan area is served by the SBMWD, the proposed Truck Parking Facility would
be served by the EVWD. EVWD water supplies consist of local groundwater from the Bunker Hill Basin,
surface water from the Santa Ana River, and imported water from the State Water Project (SWP). EVWD
would provide water to the southern portion of the Specific Plan area south of 6th Street and east of
Waterman Avenue and to the east end of the Specific Plan area. The total net increase in water demands
in the two portions of EVWD territory in the Specific Plan area is estimated at 356,455 gpd. Buildout of
the Specific Plan area would include replacement of approximately 78,300 linear feet of water mains, or
about 14.8 miles, due to the age and condition of existing mains in the Specific Plan area. Water mains
would be replaced as needed for each development or redevelopment project built pursuant to the
Specific Plan; such projects would pay the replacement costs. All Specific Plan water main upgrades would
be in roadways and under parking lots, areas that are developed and paved and have been disturbed by
previous construction. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of
approval, impacts would be less than significant.
The Specific Plan area’s storm drain system would be reconfigured to better serve the area on a project-
by-project basis. The Final EIR determined that impacts to storm water drainage facilities would be less
than significant. The Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water in excess of what was
analyzed in the Final EIR for the Project site and would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff not already analyzed in the
Final EIR, as the Proposed Project will comply with applicable Specific Plan and City site development
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 114 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
requirements. Additionally, the Proposed Project will comply with applicable existing regulations and
standard conditions for MS4 Permit, Order No. R8-2009-0030, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The Final EIR notes that the Specific Plan area’s storm drain system would be reconfigured to better
serve the area on a project-by-project basis. The Specific Plan details a new storm drain system to reduce
on- and offsite flooding. Also refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts in this regard.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.16-4: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate solid waste
generated by the Proposed Project, and the Proposed Project would comply with
applicable solid waste regulations. [Thresholds U-6 and U-7]
Final EIR Threshold:
• U-6 Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals; and
• U-7 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
The Final EIR concluded that buildout of the proposed Specific Plan Project is estimated to generate an
increase of approximately 18,160 pounds—or 9.3 tons—of solid waste per day. The two landfills accepting
nearly all solid waste landfilled from San Bernardino—Mid-Valley and San Timoteo Sanitary landfills—
have a combined residual capacity of 4,900 tons per day, with estimated closure dates in 2054 (San
Timoteo) and 2053 (Mid-Valley). CalRecycle show that the two landfills combined currently have a higher
residual capacity than that noted in the Final EIR at 9,500 tons per day.14 This is consistent with Final EIR
conclusions which suggest that there is adequate solid waste disposal capacity in the region to
accommodate solid waste generated by land uses in the Specific Plan area to accommodate growth for
the next 20 years. The Proposed Project is anticipated to produce substantially less solid waste than the
210 DU permitted with the approved Specific Plan, in consideration that the Proposed Project includes a
single maintenance building and an estimated 20 employees. As a result, impacts are expected to be less
than significant.
14 CalRecyle. 2019. San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill and Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0087/Detail/ and https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36-AA-
0055/, accessed November 2019.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Waterman + Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan 115 I.E. Hub Center Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Utility and Service Systems Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to utilities and service systems. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
analysis is not warranted.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 116 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR concluded that after consultation with the appropriate tribes, two responses were received:
one from Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians,
and one from Daniel McCarthy, Director, Cultural Resources Management Department of the San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians. While both respondents mentioned that the Specific Plan area is within the
traditional tribal territory of their tribe, neither respondent mentioned any specific tribal cultural
resources within or next to the Specific Plan area. Therefore, it was determined that Specific Plan buildout
would not damage a known tribal cultural resource identified during Native American consultation.
Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Impact 5.17-1: with Native American tribal representatives. Specific Plan buildout would not impact
known tribal cultural resources. [Threshold C-5]
Final EIR Threshold:
• C-5 Would 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,
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:
i) 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 Code section
5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18) no further tribal consultation is required, as the
Proposed Project does not require a General Plan Amendment. Furthermore, since the Proposed Project
does not require a new CEQA document (neither a Mitigated Negative Declaration nor an Environmental
Impact Report), the Proposed Project does not require tribal consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52
(AB52).
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 117 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
There are no potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 118 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.18 WILDFIRE
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Section 4.8 Hazardous Materials of the Final EIR briefly analyzed and concluded that the Specific Plan area
is not near hillsides and is not within a fire severity zone. For this reason, the Specific Plan would not result
in significant impacts relative to wildfire risks.
Impact 5.18-1: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Refer to Response 4.8 (g), Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Proposed Project is neither in an Extreme
Fire Hazard Area (EFHA) nor in a Moderate Fire Hazard Area (MFHA).15 The nearest EFHA and MFHA areas
are located approximately three miles west and four miles north from the Project site. The City’s EOP
addresses the City of San Bernardino's planned response to extraordinary emergency situations
associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. It provides
an overview of operational concepts, identifies components of the City's emergency management
organization within the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident
Management System (NIMS). It also describes the overall responsibilities of the federal, state, and county
entities for protecting life and property and assuring the overall well-being of the population. Each
organization identified in the EOP is responsible for, and expected to develop, implement, and test
policies, procedures, instructions, and checklists that reflect cognizance of the emergency management
concepts contained herein. Coordinated response and support roles must be defined by these
organizations to facilitate the ability to respond to any given incident. The Proposed Project would not
impair and adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.18-2: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, wind impact and wildfire impact have the most impact in the City of
San Bernardino north of SR-210 along the foothills.16 The Proposed Project is in the mid portion of the
City, which is not prone to wildland fires nor prone to wind hazards. Thus, in the event of a wildfire, Project
15 General Plan. 2005. Figure S-9, Fire Hazard Areas, Figure S-9, page 10-43. Available at
http://www.sbcity.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26199. Accessed on September 2019.
16 General Plan. 2005. Figure S-8 – Wind Hazards, and Figure S-9 – Fire Hazard Areas, page 10-43. Available at
http://www.sbcity.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26199. Accessed on September 2019.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 119 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
occupants would not be directly exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.18-3: Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
As previously discussed, all Proposed Project components would be within the boundaries of the Project
site, and impacts associated with the development of the Project within this footprint area are analyzed
throughout this document. Additionally, the SBCFD, as part of the City’s process, will review all building
permit plans for adequate fire suppression, fire access, and emergency evacuation. Adherence to standard
City policies eliminate the potential for impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.18-4: Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes.
The Proposed Project is not located in a EFHA and MFHA as identified in the City’s General Plan. There are
also no natural drainage courses located onsite. The Project site is relatively flat and the proposed onsite
detention/infiltration basins would limit the release of stormwater from the site; therefore, the Proposed
project site would not expose people to flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability or drainage changes. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 120 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
There are no potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required.
Overall Wildfire Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to wildfire hazards. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 121 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.19 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Final EIR identified that implementation of the Specific Plan would not impact agricultural and forestry
resources, and as such no impact would occur.
Impact 5.19-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The Specific Plan is in a highly urbanized area. The area contains a wide variety of land uses including
residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Although it contains several notable
concentrations of vacant land, the Specific Plan area is generally developed with buildings, structures, and
other hardscape and landscape improvements. According to the California Department of Conservation’s
(DOC) “California Important Farmland Finder,” the Specific Plan area is not designated Farmland of
Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance.17 Furthermore, the Project
site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
No significant impacts to agricultural resources are identified in the Final EIR. The Proposed Project is
located within the boundaries of the Specific Plan; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures
are required for issues related to agricultural resources.
Impact 5.19-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
The DOC’s Division of Land Resource Protection does not show any land within the Specific Plan area—or
elsewhere in the City of San Bernardino—with an active Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, the City
of San Bernardino zoning map (San Bernardino 2015) does not zone any portion of the Specific Plan area
for agricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur and no mitigation is
necessary.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
17 DOC. 2019. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed on November 2019.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 122 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
Consistent with the findings in the Final EIR, no significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated
from the development of the site. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for
issues related to agricultural resources.
Impact 5.19-3: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g)), and;
Impact 5.19-4: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The Specific Plan area is in a heavily urbanized part of San Bernardino that contains no forests. The City of
San Bernardino does not zone any land for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production (San
Bernardino 2015). Project implementation would have no impact on forestland, and no mitigation is
necessary.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Consistent with the Final EIR findings, the Proposed Project would have no significant impacts to
agricultural resources. The Proposed Project is located within the boundaries of the Specific Plan;
therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to forest resources.
Impact 5.19-5: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.
The Project site is located in a fully developed portion of the City of San Bernardino. Consistent with the
Final EIR findings, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance
is not present in or near the Project site, nor is it present in the Specific Plan area. No farmland would be
converted to non-farmland with the implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, no mitigation is
necessary.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Final EIR.
Conclusion
Consistent with the Final EIR findings, no significant impacts to agricultural or forest resources are
anticipated with the implementation of the Project. The Proposed Project is located within the boundaries
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 123 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
of the Specific Plan; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related
to agricultural or forest resources.
Overall Agricultural and Forest Resources Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to agricultural and forest resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
analysis is not warranted.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 124 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA
Guidelines and provides justification for the City of San Bernardino to make a determination of the
appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project, based on the environmental analysis provided
above.
Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The City of San Bernardino proposes to implement the Proposed Project within the context of the Specific
Plan, as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this
Addendum, no new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was
evaluated in the Final EIR would occur.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
As documented herein, no circumstances associated with the Proposed Project would require major
revisions of the previously approved EIR, and none of the Proposed Project elements would result in new
or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously identified. No major
revisions to the Final EIR are required.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
No new significant environmental effects beyond those addressed in the Final EIR were identified.
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
Significant Project-related effects previously examined would not be substantially more severe than were
disclosed in the Final EIR as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts associated with all environmental
resource areas would be the same as or less than disclosed in the adopted Final EIR. Implementation of
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 125 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the Proposed Project within the context of the Specific Plan would not substantially increase the severity
of previously identified impacts.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
No mitigation measures or alternatives were found infeasible in the certified Final EIR.
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
No other mitigation measures or feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially
reduce significant impacts.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after
adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required
under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a
subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
Subsequent to certification of the Final EIR in November 2016, additional technical analyses were
performed for the Proposed Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this
document, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects nor would
it substantially increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Final EIR. None of the
conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless
further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval
does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions
described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared
by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this
situation, no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the
subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. No
subsequent EIR is required.
Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
As described above, none of the conditions described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 126 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur
as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, an addendum to the certified Final EIR is the appropriate
CEQA document for the Proposed Project.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
This Addendum will be attached to the Final EIR and maintained in the administrative record files at the
City of San Bernardino.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
The City of San Bernardino will consider this Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on
the Proposed Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162
should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the Project,
or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
This document provides substantial evidence for City of San Bernardino records to support the
preparation of this Addendum for the Proposed Project.
Conclusion
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 127 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
6 CONCLUSION
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines to
document the finding that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of a
subsequent EIR, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, exist in connection
with the Proposed Project. No major revisions would be required to the Final EIR prepared for the Specific
Plan as a result of the proposed I.E. Hub Center Project. No new significant environmental impacts have
been identified. Since the certification of the Final EIR, there has been no new information showing that
mitigation measures or alternatives once considered infeasible are now feasible, or showing that there
are feasible new mitigation measures or alternatives substantially different from those analyzed in the
EIR that the City declined to adopt. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent EIR is not required and the
appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project is this Addendum to the Waterman + Baseline
Neighborhood Specific Plan. No additional environmental analysis or review is required for the proposed
I.E. Hub Center Project. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at City of San
Bernardino offices.
References
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 128 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
7 REFERENCES
Kimley-Horn. 2019. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk Assessment Studies.
---.2019. Traffic Impact Analysis.
Jericho Systems. 2019. Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation.
BCR Consulting. 2019. Cultural Resources Assessment.
DTA Finance. 2019. Fiscal Impact Analysis.
CalRecyle. 2019. San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill and Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0087/Detail/ and
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/, accessed November 2019.
PlaceWorks. 2016. Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report.
City of San Bernardino. 2005. General Plan.
---. 2005. Figure S-9, Fire Hazard Areas, Figure S-9, page 10-43. Available at
http://www.sbcity.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26199, accessed on September
2019.
---. 2005. Figure S-8 – Wind Hazards, and Figure S-9 – Fire Hazard Areas, page 10-43. Available at
http://www.sbcity.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26199, accessed on September
2019.
Caltrans. 2019. State Scenic Highway System Lists. Available https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-
landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed November
2019.
DOC. 2019. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed on November 2019.
SCAQMD is in the process of developing an “Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook” to replace the
1993 Handbook. Refer to http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-
analysis-handbook, for updated sections.
BCR Consulting Inc. 2019. Cultural Resources Assessment – Consultation with Western Science Center
for Paleontological Resources Consultation.
USGS. 2019. U.S. Quaternary Faults. Available at
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf
88412fcf, accessed on November 2019.
DTSC. 2019. EnviroStor. Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=city+of+san+bernardino, accessed
November 2019.
References
Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan 129 Truck Parking Facility Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA. 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=turlock%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor,
accessed October 2019.