No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2015 Agenda Packet01/21/2015 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 North “D” Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 Phone: 909.384.5057/5071  Fax: 909.384.5080 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 2015 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on the agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Planning Division Counter on the 3rd Floor of City Hall located at 300 N. “D” Street and at the Feldheym Central Library located at 555 W. 6th Street, during normal business hours. CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL ADMINISTRATION OF OATH CLOSED SESSION (if needed): Recommended Motion: That the Planning Commission recess to closed session for the following: A. Conference with legal counsel – existing litigation – pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). B. Conference with legal counsel – anticipated litigation – significant exposure to litigation – pursuant to subdivision (b) (1); (2); (3) (A-F) of Government Code Section 54956.9. C. Conference with legal counsel – anticipated litigation – initiation of litigation – pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956. Larry Heasley, Chair Vice-Chair – Lance Durr Andrew Machen Amelia S. Lopez Jim Eble Dustin Barnhardt Kent Paxton Casey Dailey Michael Thomas Alt. Scott Wyatt The City of San Bernardino recognizes its obligations to provide equal access to public services to those individuals with disabilities. Please contact Facilities Services (909-384- 5244) 48 hours prior to the meeting with any requests for reasonable accommodation, to include sign interpreters. 01/21/2015 Page 2 of 4 CONSENT AGENDA Consent Items are considered routine in nature and may be enacted in one motion. All public and non-public hearings will be opened at one time. Any item may be discussed separately, upon request of a member of the Planning Commission or member of the public. 1. Minutes of December 17, 2014. Staff recommends approval of these minutes. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-16 - A request to modify an existing 75-foot monopine wireless telecommunications facility by installing additional antennas and equipment. Address: 2939 N. G Street Zone: Residential Suburban (RS) Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA – Section 15301 – Existing Facility Applicant: Spectrum Services, Inc. APN: 0149-032-45-0000 Ward: 2 Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 14-16 based on the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-22 - A request to convert three temporary modular buildings on an existing church property to permanent structures for use as Sunday school classrooms. Address: 4747 N. State Street Zone: Residential Suburban (RS) Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA – Section 15301 – Existing Facility Applicant: David E. Kruse APN: 0266-191-18-0000 Ward: 5 Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 14-22 based on the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS The Planning Commission will first hear a report from staff and then the public hearing will be opened. The applicant will have an opportunity to speak. Next, members of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 4 must be sworn in and also fill out a request to speak form. The forms are located on the table near the door. When your name is called, come forward and speak into the microphone, say and spell your name and give your address for the taped record. After all have spoken, the applicant will be allowed to respond. The public hearing will then be closed and the Planning Commission will begin deliberations and make a decision. All actions except General Plan Amendments and amendments to the Municipal (Development) Code are final action unless an appeal is filed and fee paid within 15 days to the Community Development Department. If you challenge the resultant action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department at, or prior to, the public hearing. 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-18, SONING MAP AMENDMENT 14-16, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19573, AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-P 14-05 - A request to amend the land use district of approximately 19.5 acres from Residential and Industrial to Industrial, amend the zoning map from Residential Medium High (RMH) and Office Industrial Park (OIP) to Industrial Light (IL), merge various parcels into one large parcel and construct a 427,000-square foot warehouse building Address: East side of Waterman Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet North of Mill Street Zone: Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Residential Medium High (RMH) Environmental Determination: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Applicant: RedRock Development APN: 0279-321-14, 24, 44, 47, 48, 59, 63 & 0136-311-24, & 34 Ward: 1 Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common Council: 1) Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program prepared for the project; and 2) Approve General Amendment 14-08, Zoning Amendment 14-16, Tentative Parcel Map 19573 (Subdivision 14-11) and Development Permit-P 14-05, based upon the Findings and Fact contained in this staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None. 01/21/2015 Page 4 of 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS DIRECTOR’S REPORT 1. Status report on Development Code Update Project ADJOURNMENT – The Planning Commission will adjourn to the regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, 300 North “D” Street, San Bernardino, California. 12/17/2014 Page 1 of 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 North “D” Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 Phone: (909) 384-5057/5071  Fax: (909) 384-5080 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2014 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-10 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-19 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-20 Larry Heasley, Chair Vice-Chair – Lance Durr Andrew Machen Amelia S. Lopez Jim Eble Dustin Barnhardt Kent Paxton Casey Dailey Michael Thomas Alt. Scott Wyatt 12/17/2014 Page 2 of 6 Chair Heasley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Machen led the flag salute. Present: Commissioners: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton, and Wyatt. Excused: Thomas. Absent: Dailey and Barnhardt Staff present: Mark Persico, Community Development Director; Henry Empeño, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney; Aron Liang, Senior Planner; Travis Martin, Assistant Planner. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH Senior Planner Aron Liang administered the oath. CONSENT AGENDA: Aron Liang, Senior Planner gave a brief presentation of the consent agenda. 1. Minutes of November 19, 2014. Staff recommends approval of these minutes. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-10 - A request to construct and operate a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 60-foot tall, tower, camouflaged as a palm tree, and associated equipment located within an existing commercial building. Address: 1173 E. Lynwood Drive Zone: Commercial General (CG-1) Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA – 15303 – New Construction of Small Structures Applicant: James Rogers, Smartlink, LLC APN: 0153-293-22 Ward: 7 Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 13-10 based on the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Eble made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Paxton seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton and Wyatt. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: Thomas. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey. PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA No comments. 12/17/2014 Page 3 of 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-19 - A City initiated request to amend Development Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and Structures, Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2), relating to termination of non-conforming status. Address: City Wide Zone: City Wide Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA – 15061 (b)(3) Applicant: City of San Bernardino APN: City Wide Ward: City Wide Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Development Code Amendment 14-19 to the Mayor and Common Council, based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report. Aron Liang, Senior Planner gave a brief presentation of the project. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on the term „legal non-confirming‟ status. Aron Liang, Senior Planner deferred to Henry Empeño for an explanation. Henry Empeño, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney explained that a „legal non-conforming‟ is a structure or use which conformed to applicable laws when constructed or established but does not conform to the provisions of the Development Code. The problem lies with length of time the structure is abandoned or empty, and the use discontinued for some time, that use or entitlement ends. Commissioner Lopez asked about the attachment that was handed out at the start of the meeting that states “…and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this Development Code.” She wanted clarification on who would be doing the removing or altering. Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director explained that it applies to a property owner that had left a building vacant for two years then had a new business owner wanting to open there, they would have to meet the new requirements. The idea behind this, is that you want business owners to get the economic use out of the property, but once that property becomes vacant, or no longer has any economic value, the goal is to get those structures removed and replaced with conforming uses. Commissioner Lopez asked about where the burden would lie for compliance. Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director stated that the burden falls onto the property owner and not the city. Henry Empeño, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney added that the city doesn‟t go looking for 12/17/2014 Page 4 of 6 non-conforming uses. They become noticed when new businesses come in for their Zone Verifications and we become aware of the status of the building. Commissioner Lopez asked about businesses that seem to be out of place for where they are located. She used examples like a 99cent store that used to be bank. Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director explained that the Development Code has a wide variety of permitted uses, so a bank being turned into a store would fall under the permitted uses for that zone. Commissioner Durr asked if this would include any Building Code updates. Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director said yes it would. He also explained that the time frame was initially done as an Economic Development initiative to extend the useful life of buildings. From that, there were some unintended consequences and we believe that the benefits don‟t out way the costs. Commissioner Durr asked about the surrounding cities and what their time frame on non- conforming was. Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director said that 6 to 12 months was the industry standard. He stated that 36 months in an anomaly for our city and it‟s the longest time period he had ever seen for this. Chair Heasley asked if there was a safety issue to look into with non-conforming uses with them not being up to code. He noted that 12 months was an exceptionally long period of time for non-conforming statuses. Henry Empeño, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney stated that it wasn‟t so much of a health and safety issue, or ADA issue, but more of a planning tool so that older buildings and structures can change to be part of a new plan or new zone. Commissioner Paxton made a motion to recommend the approval of Development Code Amendment 14-19 to the Mayor and Common Council, based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report. Commissioner Eble seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton and Wyatt. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: Thomas. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey. 4. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-20 – A City initiated request to amend Titles 5, 12, and 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code to make minor changes among Code sections, relating to permitting requirements for temporary use and special event permits. 12/17/2014 Page 5 of 6 Address: City Wide Zone: City Wide Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA Applicant: City of San Bernardino APN: City Wide Ward: City Wide Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that Development Code Amendment 14- 20 be continued to February 18, 2015. Aron Liang, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation of the project. Commissioner Paxton stated that there needed to be clarification on who the lead agency was on items like these. He also asked how we could get the public informed about this so they knew what to do moving forward with events. Aron Liang, Senior Planner referenced the Staff Report and how the responsibility would fall onto the Community Development Department, and that they were working in a collaborative effort to streamline the process. Commissioner Paxton stated that it was a great idea. Aron Liang, Senior Planner stated that after certain things had come up in the processes it became apparent that the process needed to be updated. Henry Empeño, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney said that events like a parade where it needed to be planned out ahead of time is the goal for this process, but rallies and picketing would be different due to 1st Amendment issues and how fast those come together. Commissioner Paxton asked about the fiscal impacts of this process on the hosts if they request police presence, like the Route 66 event every year. The city can no longer afford to have police out at the event, so would the event host be willing to pick up the costs of that. Aron Liang, Senior Planner explained that there would still be fees that would fall onto the applicant for event, like emergency or security staff. Chair Heasley asked about alcohol consumption in parks. Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director said that they would revisit all the concerns when the item was brought back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lopez made a motion to continue Development Code Amendment 14-20 to February 18, 2015. Commissioner Durr seconded the motion. 12/17/2014 Page 6 of 6 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton and Wyatt. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: Thomas. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Eble announced the Ho Ho Parade. Commissioner Lopez requested to have a Year End Review of projects that had been approved throughout the year. DIRECTOR’S REPORT None. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Paxton made a motion which was unanimously carried, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 6:46 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, 300 North “D” Street, San Bernardino, California. Minutes Adopted by Planning Commissioners: Date Approved: Minutes Prepared by: Stephanie Sanchez _________________________ Stephanie Sanchez Executive Assistant AGENDA ITEM #2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: Conditional Use Permit 14-16 HEARING DATE: January 21, 2015 WARD: 2 OWNER: APPLICANT: Faith Bible Church Tiffany Hackett 2898 N. G Street Spectrum Services, Inc. San Bernardino, CA 92405 4405 E. Airport Drive 909.882.0112 Ontario, CA 91761 909-456-8401 thackett@spectrumse.com REQUEST & LOCATION: A request to modify an existing 75-foot monopine wireless telecommunications facility by installing additional antennas and equipment, located at 2939 N. G Street, in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone. Assessor Parcel Number: 0149-032-64 CONSTRAINTS & OVERLAYS: None ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:  Not Applicable  Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301 – Existing Facilities  No Significant Effects  Negative Declaration  Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Conditions Denial Continuance to: CUP 14-16 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under the authority of Development Code §19.20.030(3)(C)(7) to co-locate on an existing wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 75-foot tower disguised as a pine tree (Attachment B), and install associated equipment within a new 900-square foot enclosure. The project site is located at 2939 N. G Street in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone (Attachment A2). SETTING & SITE CHARACTERISTICS The subject property abuts single family residential property to the south, east and across the street to the west, and the 210 Freeway to the north. Table 1 illustrates surrounding land use characteristics of the subject site and surrounding properties. TABLE 1: LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Site Parking Lot Residential (RS) Residential North Freeway 210 Caltrans Caltrans South Residential Residential (RS) Residential East Vacant Residential (RS) Residential West Parking Lot Residential (RS) Residential BACKGROUND September 16, 2008 – Conditional Use Permit 08-09 was approved by the Planning Commission to construct a 75-foot tall monopine wireless telecommunications facility. June 25, 2014 – Conditional Use Permit 14-16 was submitted to the Planning Division for review. July 24, 2014 – Conditional Use Permit 14-16 was reviewed by the Development/Environmental Review Committee and the item was moved to Planning Commission for consideration. August 20, 2014 – The Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue CUP14-16 to December 21, 2014. January 5, 2015 – The applicant submitted all required items for a complete application processing. January 5, 2015 – A legal advertisement was sent to the San Bernardino Sun Newspaper for publication on January 8, 2015. January 8, 2015 – Notices to the property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property were mailed, providing the nature of the request, location of the property, the date, time, and place of the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2015 for CUP 14-16. CUP 14-16 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Guidelines, which allows for minor alteration of existing facilities. ANALYSIS The proposed co-location is designed to blended in with the existing camouflaged tower in compliance with Section 19.20.030(3) in the Development Code. The total height of the monopine structure, including simulated pine branches that extend above the top of the pole, will be 75-feet maximum. The location of the existing monopine structure is along the eastern edge of a church parking lot. Equipment associated with the co-location will be located within a 900- square foot expansion of the existing equipment enclosure. The proposed co-location on the wireless telecommunications facility is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The following site design analysis illustrates consistency of the project with the Development Code as shown in Table 2: TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY CATEGORY PROPOSAL/EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CODE GENERAL PLAN Permitted Use Wireless telecommunications facility located on residentially designated property developed with a legal non-residential use Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Permit Consistent Height 75 feet 75 feet, unless approved by the Planning Commission Consistent FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within, and would not impair the integrity and character of the subject zone and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed co-location on an existing 75-foot monopine is a conditionally permitted use, pursuant to Development Code §19.20.030(3)(C)(7) when the placement of the monopole on residentially designated property developed with a legal non-residential use. The project site is located in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone and directly abuts residential property to the south, east and west. All equipment associated with the proposed co-location would be located within a 900-square foot expansion of the existing equipment enclosure. The existing tower is camouflaged as a pine tree and is located within an existing grouping of mature live trees. CUP 14-16 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 4 Therefore, the project would not impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district or be detrimental to surrounding properties. January 5, 2015 – A legal advertisement was sent to the San Bernardino Sun Newspaper for publication on January 8, 2015. January 8, 2015 – Notices to the property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property were mailed, providing the nature of the request, location of the property, the date, time, and place of the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2015 for GPA 13-02/ZA14-16/TPM19573 and DP-P14-05. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed co-location is consistent with a number of goals and policies in the General Plan. Policy 9.8.1 in the Utilities Element provides for the continued development and expansion of telecommunications systems. Land Use Goal 2.2 promotes development that integrates with, and minimizes impacts on, surrounding land uses. With the existing monopine camouflage design, located in the vicinity of the mature trees, operation of the wireless facility would not be apparent to nearby residents. Further, the co-location on the existing facility will allow for the expansion of telecommunications systems in the City. Therefore the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the General Plan. 3. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.06.030(6) of the Development Code. The proposed project is exempt from CEQA requirements per Section 15301 for minor alteration of existing facilities. No potentially significant environmental impacts are anticipated. 4. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. The proposed project will not have any significant negative impacts upon environmental quality or natural resources. The project site is developed with a commercial structure and surrounded by urban development. No significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated to result from use of the existing project site. 5. 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. The proposed design is in compliance with the Development Code requirements that are applicable to location, size, and design for wireless telecommunications facilities. The associated monopole is camouflaged as a pine tree in order to blend in with the mature trees on-site. The equipment associated with the wireless telecommunications facility will be housed inside an expansion of the existing equipment enclosure and will therefore be hidden from view from the ATTACHMENT A – AERIAL MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: CUP14-16 LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 1/21/15 NORTH PROJECT SITE ATTACHMENT A – LOCATION/ZONING MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: CUP14-16 LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 1/21/15 NORTH PROJECT SITE ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit 14-16 1. This approval authorizes co-location on an existing wireless telecommunications facility including the installation of 12 additional antennas, installation of associated equipment and construction of a 900-square foot equipment enclosure expansion, located at 2939 N. G Street (APN: 0149-032-64), in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone. All construction shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped “Received June 24, 2014”. 2. Within two years of the Conditional Use 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 Conditional Use 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: January 21, 2017 3. The review authority may grant a time extension, for good cause, not to exceed 12 months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required submittal items, 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. 4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), 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 Conditional Use Permit, this condition shall remain in effect if the Conditional Use Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of applicant. CUP 14-16 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 2 5. Minor modification to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director through the Minor Modification Permit process. Any modification which exceeds 15% of the allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refilling of the original application. 6. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Fire Department, Police Department, Municipal Water Department, Public Services Department and the City Clerk’s Office/Business Registration Division. 7. The project shall comply with the requirements of other outside agencies, as applicable (e.g. State Board of Equalization, Federal Communications Commission, etc.). 8. The applicant shall ensure that the communications tower and related equipment shall be removed within three months after the use is abandoned. 9. The operation of the antenna shall not cause interference with any electrical equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods (e.g., television, radio, telephone, computer, inclusive of the City’s trunked 800MHz public safety radio system, etc.) or with Police or Fire Department communications equipment unless exempted by Federal Regulations. If notified by a City official that the antenna is creating interference with public safety communications, the use of the antenna shall cease immediately and remain out of use until the problem is resolved. 10. The facility operator and property owner shall be responsible for regular maintenance of 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 48 hours of receiving notice and the aesthetic appearance of the faux tree shall be maintained in a condition where it still serves the purpose of disguising the pole. 11. All equipment associated with the monopine tower shall be located inside the existing and proposed equipment enclosures, as indicated on the approved site plan. 12. The existing pole is be a camouflaged as a pine tree and shall maintain heavy-density branch coverage (minimum of 100 branches) that shall extend beyond the antennas for adequate concealment, to the satisfaction of the Director. 13. All antennas shall be painted to match the monopine branches or cladding, as appropriate, and be fitted with socks. 14. A building permit shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division for the construction of the unmanned wireless telecommunications facility. 15. Submitted plans shall conform to the 2013 California Building Codes. This shall include the California Green Building Code. CUP 14-16 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 3 16. Project is located in a 95 mph, Exp. C. Please use the nominal wind speed design. Seismic zone, flood zone and liquefaction requirements to be verified prior to plan check submittal. 17. Plans shall include all necessary engineering calculations for footings, anchorage of all equipment and block walls. Also, plans shall include any plumbing, mechanical, electrical and landscaping items. 18. Please be advised that all landscaping and site work require separate permits from Land Development. Therefore provide a note on plans stating “For Reference Only” when referencing the site work. 19. Provide Fire Department and AQMD approval for the proposed onsite generator prior to permit issuance. 20. Submittal requirements for permit applications with the Building and Safety Division shall include all Conditions of Approval issued with this approval, printed on the plan sheets. 21. All Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements shall be completed prior to final inspection, sign-off, and before antennas can be activated. 22. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or standard requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: a. Land Development Division b. Water Department -End of Conditions of Approval- ATTACHMENT C Land Development Division- Standard Requirements Location: 2939 N. G. Street Case Number: CUP 14-016 1. Drainage and Flood Control a) The Director of Community Development, prior to building plan approval, shall approve an Erosion Control Plan. T he plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. 2. Grading and Landscaping a) The project landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. Submit 5 copies to the Land Development Division for Checking. 3. Utilities a) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. b) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. 4. Street Improvement and Dedications a) Repair current drive approach to meet a modified C ity Standard No. 204, Type II, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach. 5. Required Engineering Permits a) Off-site encroachment permit. b) On-site landscape improvements permit. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-16 Ward No. 2 PROPOSAL: A request to modify an existing 75-foot monopine wireless telecommunications facility by installing additional antennas and equipment, located at 2939 N. G Street, in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone. OWNER: Faith Bible Church APPLICANT: Spectrum Services, Inc. (Tiffany Hackett) ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Exempt from CEQA – Section 15301 – Existing Facilities PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: San Bernardino City Hall 300 North “ D” Street Lobby Floor, “ Council Chambers” San Bernardino, California 92418 HEARING DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. You are receiving this notice because the project site described above is within 500 feet of your property. If you would like further information about this proposal prior to the public hearing, please contact the Planning Division at (909) 384-5057. You are welcome to attend the public hearing and address the Planning Commission with your comments on this proposal, or you may submit written comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal to the Planning Division, City Hall, 300 North “ D” Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418. Decisions of the Planning Commission are final concerning Minor Use Permits, Development Permits, and Tentative Parcel Maps, unless appealed to the Mayor and Council. Appeals to the Mayor and Council must be made in writing, stating the grounds of the appeal and must be submitted to the City Clerk along with the appropriate fee within fifteen days of the decision. Final review and action concerning General Plan Amendments, Development Code Amendments, Specific Plans and Development Agreements will be made by the Mayor and Common Council. If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and Common Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. Individual testimony on agenda items will be strictly limited to three minutes per person. N The City of San Bernardino recognizes its obligation to provide equal access to public services to those individuals with dis abilities. Please contact Facilities Services (384-5244) two working days prior to the meeting with any requests for reasonable accommodation, to include interpreters. Project Site AGENDA ITEM #3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: Conditional Use Permit 14-22 HEARING DATE: January 21, 2015 WARD: 5 OWNER: APPLICANT: First Baptist Church of San Bernardino David E. Kruse 4747 N. State Street P.O. Box 2038 San Bernardino, CA 92407 San Bernardino, CA 92406 909.887.4814 909.520.6083 REQUEST & LOCATION: A request to convert three temporary modular buildings on an existing church property to permanent structures for use as Sunday school classrooms. The project site is located at 4747 N. State Street in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone. Assessor Parcel Number: 0266-191-18 CONSTRAINTS & OVERLAYS: None ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:  Not Applicable  Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301 – Existing Facilities  No Significant Effects  Negative Declaration  Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Conditions Denial Continuance to: CUP 14-22 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under the authority of Development Code §19.06.020 to convert three temporary modular buildings property to permanent structures for use as Sunday school classrooms. The property is currently developed with a legal non-conforming church. The project site is located at 4747 N. State Street in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone (Attachment A2). SETTING & SITE CHARACTERISTICS The project site is approximately 3.6 acres. The subject property abuts single family residential property to the south and east, public facilities to the north, and multi-family property across the street to the west. Table 1 illustrates surrounding land use characteristics of the subject site and surrounding properties. TABLE 1: LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Site Church Residential Suburban (RS) Residential North School Public Facilities (PF) Public/Quasi-Public South Power Station Residential Suburban (RS) Residential East Residential Residential Suburban (RS) Residential West Residential Residential Medium (RM) Residential BACKGROUND February 15, 2008 – Temporary Use Permit 08-01 was issued to allow three temporary modular to be place on the subject property for use as classrooms until February 15, 2009. October 22, 2008 – Conditional Use Permit 08-31 was submitted to the Planning Division to remodel and expand the existing church in four phases. August 6, 2009 – Conditional Use Permit 08-31 was withdrawn pending resubmittal. October 6, 2014 – Conditional Use Permit 14-22 was submitted to the Planning Division for review. December 18, 2014 – Conditional Use Permit 14-22 was reviewed by the Development/Environmental Review Committee and the item was moved to Planning Commission for consideration. January 5, 2015 – A legal advertisement was sent to the San Bernardino Sun Newspaper for publication on January 8, 2015. January 8, 2015 – Notices to the property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property were mailed, providing the nature of the request, location of the property, the date, time, and place of the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2015 for CUP 14-22. CUP 14-22 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Guidelines, which allows for minor alteration of existing facilities. ANALYSIS The proposed project would convert three temporary modular units into approximately 2,850- square feet permanent Sunday school classroom space for an existing church. The church currently on-site is considered legal non-conforming due to the lack of a Conditional Use Permit. The church is currently offering Sunday school services out of existing on-site buildings and the project as proposed would not expand any existing church operations. The following site design analysis illustrates consistency of the project with the Development Code as shown in Table 2: TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY CATEGORY PROPOSAL/EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CODE GENERAL PLAN Permitted Use Church Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Permit Consistent Height 10 feet 30 feet max. N/A Setback - Front - Side - Rear 240 feet approx. 20 feet approx. 50 feet approx. 10 feet min. 10 feet min. 10 feet min. N/A Lot Coverage 10% approx. 50 % max. N/A Parking 81 stalls 69 stalls N/A Parking: Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.24.040, churches require parking spaces at a minimum of 1 space per 35-square feet sanctuary space. The existing church sanctuary is 2,400- square feet in size, requiring 69 parking spaces. The subject site currently provides 81 parking spaces. The establishment of the additional classroom space will not increase the parking demand on the property. Operating Characteristics: The church has been established at 4747 N. State Street for over 30 years. Services are provided on Sundays beginning at 10:45a.m., with Sunday school being offered beginning at 9:30a.m. CUP 14-22 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 4 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within, and would not impair the integrity and character of the subject zone and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed expansion of an existing church is conditionally permitted, pursuant to Development Code §19.06.020 The project site is located in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone and directly abuts residential property to the east and west, a power station to the south and a school to the north. The proposed project would create permanent buildings Sunday school services for an existing church and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code as shown in Table 2, above. Therefore, the project would not impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district or be detrimental to surrounding properties. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed expansion is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Policy 2.2.1 in the Land Use Element requires compatibility between land uses and quality design. The proposed project would improve the site by creating permanent space for existing on-site services, with a long history of compatibility and service to the existing neighborhood. Accessibility upgrades to the modular units and the site would be required as conditions of the project. No expansion of services is proposed as a part of this project. Therefore the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the General Plan. 3. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.06.030(6) of the Development Code. The proposed project is exempt from CEQA requirements per Section 15301 for minor alteration of existing facilities. No potentially significant environmental impacts are anticipated. 4. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. The proposed project will not have any significant negative impacts upon environmental quality or natural resources. The project site is developed with a commercial structure and surrounded by urban development. No significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated to result from use of the existing project site. 5. 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. ATTACHMENT A – AERIAL MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: CUP14-22 LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 1/21/15 NORTH PROJECT SITE ATTACHMENT A – LOCATION/ZONING MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: CUP14-22 LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 1/21/15 NORTH PROJECT SITE ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit 14-22 1. This approval authorizes the conversion of three temporary modular buildings on an existing church property to permanent structures for use as Sunday school classrooms. The subject property is located at 4747 N. State Street (APN: 0266-191-18), in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone. All construction shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped “Received October 6, 2014”. 2. Within two years of the Conditional Use 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 Conditional Use 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: January 21, 2017 3. The review authority may grant a time extension, for good cause, not to exceed 12 months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required submittal items, 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. 4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), 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 appli cant 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 Conditional Use Permit, this condition shall remain in effect if the Conditional Use Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of applicant. CUP 14-22 Meeting Date: January 21, 2015 Page 2 5. Minor modification to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director through the Minor Modification Permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refilling of the original application. 6. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Fire Department, Police Department, Municipal Water Department, Public Services Department and the City Clerk’s Office/Business Registration Division. 7. The property owner(s), facility operator and property management will be responsible for regular maintenance of the site. Vandalism, graffiti, trash and other debris must be removed within 24 hours of being reported. 8. The applicant shall replace the missing gates on the existing trash enclosure. 9. Submitted plans shall conform to the 2013 California Building Codes. 10. Submittal requirements for permit applications with the Building and Safety Division shall include all Conditions of Approval issued with this approval, printed on the plan sheets. 11. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or standard requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: a. Fire Department b. Land Development Division c. Water Department -End of Conditions of Approval- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check. Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (909) 384-5855 for specific detailed requirements. The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage, construction features, and exposure information supplied by the developer and must be available prior to placing combustible materials on site. WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION: The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by: San Bernardino Municipal Water Department - Engineering (909) 384-5391 East Valley Water District - Engineering (909) 888-8966 Other Water purveyor: _________________________________________________ Phone: _________________ PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES: Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for the commercial an multi-residential areas and at intervals not to exceed 500 feet for residential areas. Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas. Minimum fore hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual are required for residential areas. Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall confirm to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor. Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer’s financial responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor’s discretion. Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional information. ACCESS: Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/engress to the property entrance . The routes shall be paved, all weather. Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of or less than 20 feet of unobstructed width. Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of al single story buildings. Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings. Provide “NO PARKING” signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs are to read “FIRE LANE - NO PARKING - M.C. Sec 15.16”. Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround. The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. Case: ______________________ Date: ______________________ Reviewed By: _______________ STANDARD REQUIRMENTS PROJECT SITE: SITE: All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction. Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2 1/2 inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Department. Areas adjacent to fire hydrants shall be designated as a “NO PARKING” zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parking vehicles. Lettering to be in white 6” by 1/2”. CUP 14-22 1-7-14 SP 4747 N. STATE BUILDING: Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage street. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, sin- gle family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves. Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 10B/C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. Apartment houses with 16 or more units, hotels (motels) with 20 or more units, or apartments or hotels (motels) three stories or more in height shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards. All buildings, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days. Submit plans for the fire protection to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system. Permit required. Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction. Permit required. Provide fire alarm (required throughout). Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation. Permits required. Fire Department connection to sprinkler system/standpipe system, shall be required at Fire Department approved location. Fire Code Permit required, at 200 E. 3rd Street (909) 384-5388. Fire Sprinkler monitoring required. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Permit required. Occupant load. Notes: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to Fire Department requirements. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. NOTE: THIS IS NOT APPROVED AS AN E OCCUPANCY BUT AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE A OCCUPANY ONLY. IF BUILDING WILL BE USED AS AN E OCCUPANY, A FIRE ALRM WILL BE REQUIRED. 2. ALL EXITING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CBC. ATTACHMENT C Land Development Division-Standard Requirements Location: 4747 N. State Street Case Number: CUP 14-22 1. Drainage and Flood Control a) The Director of Community Development, prior to building plan approval, shall approve an Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. 2. Grading and Landscaping a) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the erosion control plan and the required drive approaches along State Street. The Erosion Control Plan shall conform to all requirements of Section 8.80 of the Municipal Code. b) 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 to each modular unit, including retrofitting of existing building access points f or accessibility, if applicable. c) An accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public way at State Street to the modular building entrances. All pathways shall be concrete 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. d) Where an accessible path of travel crosses drive aisles, it shall be delineated by textured/colored concrete pavement, unless otherwise approved by the Development Review Committee. 3. Street Improvement and Dedications a) If the existing sidewalk and/or curb & gutter adjacent to the site along State Street are in poor condition, the sidewalk and/or curb & gutter shall be removed and reconstructed to City Standards. Curb & Gutter shall conform to Standard No. 200, Type “B” and sidewalk shall conform to Standard No. 202, Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to curb). Project: 4747 N. State Street Case No. CUP 14-22 Page 2 of 2 C:\Users\martin_tr.CSBLG\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\S685DIEZ\CUP 14-22 4747 N State Street Modular Units.doc 01/13/15 b) Construct Two Driveway Approaches per City Standard No. 204, Type II, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach. c) The pavement on the access road on the site shall be rehabilitated. 4. Required Engineering Plans a) A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:  on-site improvement plans containing the erosion control plan,  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) 5. Required Engineering Permits a) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping. b) Off-site improvement construction permit. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-22 Ward No. 5 PROPOSAL: A request to convert three temporary modular buildings on an existing church property to permanent structures for use as Sunday school classrooms. The project site is located at 4747 N. State Street in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone. OWNER: First Baptist Church of San Bernardino APPLICANT: David E. Kruse ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Exempt from CEQA – Section 15301 – Existing Facilities PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: San Bernardino City Hall 300 North “ D” Street Lobby Floor, “ Council Chambers” San Bernardino, California 92418 HEARING DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. You are receiving this notice because the project site described above is within 500 feet of your property. If you would like further information about this proposal prior to the public hearing, please contact the Planning Division at (909) 384-5057. You are welcome to attend the public hearing and address the Planning Commission with your comments on this proposal, or you may submit written comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal to the Planning Division, City Hall, 300 North “ D” Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418. Decisions of the Planning Commission are final concerning Minor Use Permits, Development Permits, and Tentative Parcel Maps, unless appealed to the Mayor and Council. Appeals to the Mayor and Council must be made in writing, stating the grounds of the appeal and must be submitted to the City Clerk along with the appropriate fee within fifteen days of the decision. Final review and action concerning General Plan Amendments, Development Code Amendments, Specific Plans and Development Agreements will be made by the Mayor and Common Council. If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and Common Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. Individual testimony on agenda items will be strictly limited to three minutes per person. N The City of San Bernardino recognizes its obligation to provide equal access to public services to those individuals with disabilities. Please contact Facilities Services (384-5244) two working days prior to the meeting with any requests for reasonable accommodation, to include interpreters. Project Site Agenda Item: #4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: General Plan Amendment 14-08, Zoning Amendment 14-16, Tentative Parcel Map 19573 (Subdivision 14-11) and Development Permit-P 14-05 HEARING DATE: January 21, 2015 WARD: 1 OWNERS APPLICANT Cassie Chance Claudia Chance Michael Morris 2290 Serrano Road Chance Family Trust Red Rock Development, Inc. San Bernardino, CA 92405 P.O. Box 1435 4340 Von Karman Avenue No. 110 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.478.1450 Brain Press Nancy K. Rosebaum 24777 6th Street 2730 Muscupiabe Drive San Bernardino, CA 92410 San Bernardino, CA 92346 REQUEST/LOCATION: A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map for a 19.65-acre project site from Industrial and Residential to Industrial, to amend the site’s zoning from Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Residential Medium High (RMH) to Industrial Light (IL), merge nine (9) parcels into one parcel, and construct a 427,000-square foot warehouse building. The project site is located at on the east side of Waterman Avenue, 1000 feet north of Mill Street. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 0279-321-14, 24, 44, 47, 48, 59, 63 & 0136-311-24, & 34 CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS: Liquefaction Zone ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332 – Infill Development No Significant Effect Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Environmental Impact Report with Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Conditions Denial Recommend to Mayor and Common Council PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of the following: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 14-08 under the authority of Development Code § 19.50.030 to change the land use designation of approximately 19.65 acres from Commercial and Residential to Industrial; Zoning Amendment (ZA) 14-16 under the authority of Development Code § 19.74.030 to change the zoning district of approximately 19.65 acres from Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Residential Medium High (RMH) to Industrial Light (IL); Tentative Parcel Map 19573 (Subdivision 14-11) under the authority Development Code §19.30.060 to merge various parcels into one large parcel; and Development Permit-P 14-05 under the authority of Development Code § 19.44.010 to construct a 427,000-square foot warehouse building. The applicant proposes to develop the subject site to accommodate a 427,000-square foot single tenant industrial warehouse building, with related on-site improvements to include landscaping, parking, loading, handicap accessibility, and refuse enclosure on approximately 19.65 acres. Two entrances are proposed on Waterman Avenue to provide convenient access to the site (Attachment B). SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS The project site consists of nine parcels of approximately 19.65 acres and is partially occupied by five structures under existing conditions: a commercial building occupied by a bail bonds business adja cent to South Waterman Avenue; a vacant commercial building and associated outbuilding adjacent to South Waterman Avenue; an industrial building occupied by a truck repair business located in the site’s northeastern corner; and a detached, single-family residence located in the eastern portion of the site. Past uses of the property included sporadic agricultural, residential, and commercial land uses. The property also contained a former segment of the Pacific Electric railroad. GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 3 Table 1: SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES LOCATION LAND USE ZONE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Site Industrial Warehouse. Office Industrial Park (OIP) Commercial North Industrial and Residential Uses Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Residential Medium High (RMH) Industrial and Residential South Auto Dealership Office Industrial Park (OIP) Industrial East Twin Creek Channel Public Flood Control (PFC) Public/Quasi-Public West Vacant Property Office Industrial Park (OIP) Industrial BACKGROUND  August 18, 2014 – Formal application GPA14-08, ZA14-16, TPM19573 and DP-P14-05 was submitted.  September 23, 2014 – 90-day consultation letters and 45-day comment period letters were mailed to the Indian tribes potentially affected by the project, per SB18.  December 4, 2014 - The Development/Environmental Review Committee (D/ERC) reviewed the application and recommended that the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration be released for public review and that the project be moved on to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council.  January 5, 2015 – A legal advertisement was sent to the San Bernardino Sun Newspaper for publication on January 8, 2015.  January 8, 2015 – Notices to the property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property were mailed, providing the nature of the request, location of the property, the date, time, and place of the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2015 for GPA 13-02/ZA14-16/TPM19573 and DP-P14-05. ANALYSIS The applicant is pursuing the proposed development on a speculative basis, meaning that the building’s future tenant(s) is not yet identified. The proposal would involve construction of a 427,000-square foot industrial warehouse building. The structure will be a concrete, tile-up structure, painted in shades of various mild, earth-toned colors, including shades of beige and white, with blue glazing on the windows facing Waterman Avenue. The single -story building will primarily be 45 feet tall, above finished grade, with 49-foot tall tower elements located at the corners of the building to provide vertical articulation. The building will be architecturally retreated on all sides. The landscaping will be oriented towards Waterman Avenue, where it will have the most visual impact and best shade the parking lot where employees and visitors will park (Attachment A). GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 4 The site is located within two land use districts: Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Residential Medium High (RMH). The applicant is processing GPA14-08 and ZA14-16 to change the CO and RMH to IL. As noted above, TPM 19573 (Subdivision 14-11) is proposed to merge nine parcels into one, 19.65-acre parcel. The applicant proposes to develop a 427,000-square foot industrial warehouse in the center of the site, per DP-P14-05. The following design analysis demonstrates the project’s compatibility with the Development Code: TABLE 2: PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD DEVELOPMENT CODE PROJECT PLANS Building Coverage 75% maximum 49% Parking 362 stalls 362 stalls Landscaping 15% 25% (31,871 square feet) Building Height 50 feet 49 feet TABLE 3: GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT CODE GENERAL PLAN Permitted Use Parcel Map Subdivision Consistent Consistent Lot Area 19.65 acres 20,000 sq. ft. minimum Yes Landscaping The majority of the landscape, including the planting of 91 trees to meet the requirements of Development Code §19.24.060 (6) (B) will be located along the front (west) side of the site, adjacent to Waterman Avenue, where the majority of the visitor and employee parking spaces will be located. Parking The project site provides adequate space for required parking and on-site circulation and complies with the IL land use regulations and development standards of the Development Code, as indicated in Table 2, above. Neighborhood Impact Public hearing notices were sent to property owners and occupants withi n 500 feet of the subject site, as required by §19.52.020 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code (Attachment E). This area is within the Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Residential Medium High (RMH) zones and proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone, there are residences within a 1,000-foot radius of GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 5 the proposed project. Although there are no Development Code requirements that govern required distances of industrial warehouse building from these potentially sensitive uses, staff took these uses within the extended vicinity into consideration. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study (available on the City’s web site at www.sbcity.org) was prepared by T&B Planning Inc. and circulated for a 30-day public review period from December 9, 2014 to January 8, 2015, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Additionally, a Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was advertised in the newspaper. To date, 3 comm ent letters have been received on the MND: 1) South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2) California Department of Fish & Wildlife, and 3) San Bernardino County – Department of Public Works, Flood Control Division. Based on the letters, no substantive comments were received that would warrant revisions to the MND document. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(b), if substantial revisions are not necessary, then the MND will be finalized and forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for review as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed Project. Additionally, several mitigation measures were included for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hydrology and Water Quality. The mitigation measures pertain to construction activities. Mitigation measures are summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MM/RP) in Attachment E and are incorporated by reference in the Conditions of Approval. Please note the proposed final MND and the MM/RP documents are unfortunately not available at the time of this staff report was prepared; however, both documents will be available and posted on the City’s web site on January 20, 2015, for review and presented at the Planning Commission Hearing on January 21, 2015. FINDINGS OF FACT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan The proposed amendment will result in removing the existing Commercial and Residential land use designations/zoning districts from the site, resulting in the entire site having the Industrial Light (IL) land use designation/zoning district. The IL is intended to retain enhance, and provide for the new development of lighter industrial uses along major vehicular, rail, and air transportation routes serving the City. The change in land use/zoning would provide a single land use/zoning district over the entire 19.65-acre parcel and would allow the development of an industrial warehouse, which is consistent with the light industrial uses in the project vicinity, located to the south and east of the project site. The project is also consistent with the following General Plan policies: GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 6 Policy 2.5.6, which requires that new development be designed to complement and not devalue the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment, including consideration of the site’ s natural topography and vegetation, surrounding exemplary architectural style with tower elements along with complimentary earth-toned color s, including shades of beige and white with blue glazing on the windows fronting Waterman Avenue and Policy 5.7.6, which encourages architectural detailing, which includes richly articulated surfaces and varied façade treatment, rather than plain or blank walls. The project site is flat and has been disturbed in the past, and therefore, contains no natural vegetation. The site is surrounded to the east by light industrial and industrial-serving (i.e., wholesale) commercial businesses. The proposed project will result in the construction of a 427,000-square foot warehouse with ancillary parking and landscaping. The concrete tilt-up building will be articulated on all sides through the use of varying parapet heights, corner tower elements and the use of color and varying materials to break up the mass of the building walls. The rooftop equipment will be screened, and extensive landscaping will be provided along the project’ s Waterman Avenue frontage, consistent with these policies. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that amendment from CO and RMH to IL will facilitate the development of a warehouse facility on a parcel that is partially developed with commercial and industrial buildings in need of rehabilitation. The project site has direct access from Waterman Avenue, will be fully served by utility providers, will be construction in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations, will not result in the need for the excessive provision of services. 3. The proposed amendment maintains the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The proposed amendment from CO and RMH to IL would affect 19.65 acres of land that are partially developed with commer cial and industrial buildings. The proposed amendment maintains an appropriate balance of land uses by providing for the re-use of an existing industrial property. The proposed amendment will not change the balance of land uses in the City. 4. The subject parcel(s) is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested land use designation(s)and anticipated land use development(s). The project site is currently consists of nine parcels that are proposed to be merged into one, 19.65-acre parcel. The parcel will be generally flat with direct access at two locations along Waterman Avenue. Utilities are available directly from Waterman Avenue. A 427,000-square foot warehouse is proposed on the site. As shown in the Table 3, above, the site is sufficient in GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 7 size to meet parking, loading and landscaping requirements. There are no physical constraints on the site, such as steep slopes or watercourses. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable Specif ic Plans. The site is not located within a Specific Plan area and as discussed in GPA Finding 1, above, will be consistent with the San Bernardino General Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable development standards of the Gen eral Plan. The parcel created will meet the lot size, lot coverage, and development standards as described in Table 3, above. General Plan Policy 2.7.5 requires that development be contingent upon the ability of public infrastructure to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate its demands, and the proposed project will provide connections to City water and sewer services, roads, storm drains, and public utilities, in addition to payment of applicable Development Impact Fees. 2. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and all the applicable Specific Plans. The site is not located within a Specific Plan area and as discussed in GPA Finding 1, above. The design of the proposed parcel map is consistent with applicable Development Code standards and General Plan Goal 2.2, which promotes development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on surrounding land uses. The proposed project is compatible and similar with industrial development to the south, and east of the project site. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development. As discussed in Table 3, above, the proposed map conforms to the Development Code subdivision design standards for minimum lot area, lot standards and access. The proposed lot of 19.65 acres will have sufficient buildable area and will have access to dedicated public roads. Connecting to the existing infrastructure in the vicinity will provide water, sewer, and utility services adequate to serve the facility, as proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development, and provides adequate access, parking, loading areas, storage areas, screening, and landscaping. The consolidation of land is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, the General Plan, the Development Code, and the proposed parcel will be compatible with the surrounding industrial development to the east and south of the project site. 5. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish of wildlife or their habitat. GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 8 The design of the subdivision will not have any significant negative impacts to wildlife or their habitat. The project site is an existing developed industrial site and surrounded by urban development. No significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated to result from re-use of the existing site already developed with commercial and industrial uses. 6. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the proposed subdivision meets all of the applicable Development Code requirements and will not result in any serious public health problems. The proposed parcel will have access to existing public streets. Existing utilities and public services are available to serve the project site and ensure the maintenance of public health and safety. 7. The design of the subdivision and related improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public or private easements. All documentation relating to easements and dedications will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map. Existing easements will be reserved in place or relocated, as necessary. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1. The proposed development is permitted in the subject zoning district and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, including prescribed site development standards and any/all applicable design guidelines. The proposed development of a 427,000-square foot warehouse facility and intended land uses will be compatible with existing development that is located in the surrounding area as discussed in TPM 19753 Finding 3, above. The proposed project complies with the development standards contained in the Development Code as shown in Tables 2 and 3. The Land Use Element (Table LU-2) lists the intended uses for the IL, Industrial Light land use district, and includes a variety of activities that are conducted indoors, such as light manufacturing, assembly, warehouse and distribution, administrative offices, and similar uses. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. Table LU-2 of the General Plan describes the Industrial Light (IL) land use district as a district intended for “(a) variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing/distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, mini-storage, and repair facilities conducted within enclosed structures…” Construction of the proposed structure would promote the following General Plan goal and policy: Policy 2.5.4: “Require that all new structures achieve a high level of architectural design and provide careful attention to details.” GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 9 Goal 4.1: “Encourage economic activity that capitalizes on the transportation and locational strengths of San Bernardino.” The proposed project will expand job opportunities within the City. The proposed project has been designed with contemporary unifying architectural design elements and will be compatible with other industrial warehouse buildings to the south and east of the project site. 3. The proposed development would be harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the land use district and general area, as well as with the land uses presently on the subject property. Development of the project site as proposed will bring a new, state-of-the-art facility at the subject site. The proposed use will be similar to numerous existing distribution facilities to the south and east of the project site. Therefore, it will be compatible with the existing uses. Warehouse/Distribution facilities are typical uses permitted in the IL land use district, so future land uses in the area will likely be compatible with the subject project. 4. Approval of the Development Permit for the proposed development is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code. Approval of the Development Permit is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Development Code §19.20.030(6) pertaining to environmental resources and constraints. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and did not identify any potentially significant effects on the environment that could not be mitigated. The D/ERC has recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment D) be adopted for this project. 5. There will be no potential significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. The proposed project is not likely to cause significant adverse impacts on environmental quality and natural resources. An environmental review was completed according to the CEQA Guidelines to determine the presence and extent of any environmental impacts, as discussed in the MND. This project will be subject to the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment D) to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. The Development/Environmental Review Committee and the Planning Commission independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/MND and MM/RP, and exercised independent judgment in consideration of the proposed project. 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed. The site has an appropriate size and location for industrial businesses. All future uses must comply with IL development standards, like the proposed project. Improvements to infrastructure and utilities will provide the necessary services to the site. The proposal meets the GPA14-08, ZA 14-16, TPM 19573 & DP-P14-05 PC Hearing Date: 1-21-15 Page 10 standards for setbacks, access, parking, loading, lot coverage, landscaping, and drainage, and the proposed density/intensity of industrial uses can be accommodated. 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. The project site takes direct access off Waterman Avenue and since it is partially developed with commercial and industrial uses, it is currently served by water, sanitation and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed warehouse will not be detrimental to public health and safety. 8. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The proposed warehouse will be will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, in that the project site has direct access from Waterman Avenue, will be fully served by utility providers, will be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations, will not result in the need for the excessive provision of services. The proposed project would be permitted in the IL zone and must comply with the operating standards in the Municipal Code and Development Code. The proposed project would allow the proposed development to provide a distribution facility with updated infrastructure and improve the appearance on Waterman Avenue. CONCLUSION The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The application satisfies all Findings of Fact required for approval of General Plan Amendment 14- 08, Zoning Amendment 14-16, Tentative Parcel Map 19573 (Subdivision 14-11) and Development Permit-D 14-05. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common Council: 1) Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program prepared for the project; and 2) Approve General Amendment 14-08, Zoning Amendment 14-16, Tentative Parcel Map 19573 (Subdivision 14-11) and Development Permit-P 14-05, based upon the Findings and Fact contained in this staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment C). ATTACHMENT A PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: GPA14-08/ZA14-16/TPM19573 & DP-P14-05 LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 1/21/2015 NORTH Project Site ATTACHMENT A PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: GPA14-08/ZA14-16/TPM19573 & DP-P14-05 LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 11/19/2014 NORTH Mill Street Rialto Avenue Project Site SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD DD PC BID CD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SITE PLAN DR CF 00000.00 A1-1P WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER 287 WATERMAN AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 14041-00-A1-1P 14041.00 HILLWOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 901 VIA PIEMONTE SUITE 175 ONTARIO, CA 91764 909-382-0033 PH 909-382-0073 FAX 07/23/2014 SCHEMATIC DESIGNS=0.005SLOPE FLOOR1028.74 FF 1028.24 PAD 1030.94 FF 1030.44 PAD 1030.32 FF 1029.82 PAD 1031.28 FF 1030.78 PAD 1028.40 FF 1027.90 PAD 1028.74FF1028.24PAD1026.90 FS/GB1026.90 FS/GB 1026.90 FS/GB 1026.90 FS/GB 1026.90 FS/GB 1026.90 FS/GB 1026.90 FS/GB 1026.90 FS/GB 1026.90 FS/GB 1026.90 FS/GB R=1.84%R=1.50%R=0.50% R=0.50% 1021.87 TC 1020.87 FL 1023.10 TC 1022.10 FL 1021.87TC1020.87FL1026.18 FL/TG 1026.18 FL/TG 1026.18 FL/TG 1026.18 FL/TG 1026.18 FL/TG 1026.18 FL/TGR=2.50%1028.26FS/GB1028.50 FS/GB 1024.70 FS/GB 1024.46FS/GB1.0%1.0%1028.74FF1028.24PAD1028.74FF1028.24PAD1028.74FF1028.24PAD1023.88 FS/GB1023.88 FS/GB 1024.70 FS/GB1028.74FF1028.24PAD1.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%1.5%1030.46 FF 1029.96 PAD 1030.08 FF 1029.58 PAD 1029.71 FF 1029.21 PAD 1029.17 FF 1028.67 PAD 1028.74 FF 1028.24 PAD 1030.94 FF 1030.44 PAD 1.5% 1.5% 0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%1.5%1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PADR=8.07%1.2%0.5%0. 7 % 0.7%1.2%0. 7 %0.5%0.7%1.2%0. 7 %0.5%0.7%1.2%0. 7 %0.5%1.2%0.7% 0. 7 %0.5%0.7%1.2%2.5%2.5%1028.50FS/GB1.5%0.5%0.5%1.5%2.5%R=1.93%R=1. 6 5 %2.5% 1029.60 FF 1029.10 PAD 0.5%1025.47FS/GB1024.86TC1024.36FL2.5 %1026.28FS/GB1025.65TC1025.15FLR=0.67%1.5%0.5%R=0.50%1.1%R=2.50%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%1024.10 FS/GB 1024.10 FS/GB R = 1 . 5 1 %1023.25FS/GB1.0%0.3%0.7%1029.20TC1028.20FS1029.95 TC 1028.95 FS 1029.61 TC 1028.61 FS 1027.84 TC 1026.84 FL 1.5%1028.39TC1027.39FS1028.51TC1027.51FL1.5%0.5%1.5%2.2%2.2%1029.27FS/GB1031.42 TC 1030.92 FS 1031.42 TC 1030.92 FS 1029.77 TC 1029.27 FS1029.27FS/GB1029.27FS/GB1029.27FS/GB1.5%1031.42TC1030.92FS2.5%R=2.48% 1.5%0.5%1.4% 0.5%0.4%1.5% 0.5%1.4%1.0% R = 1 . 3 3 % 1027.56 FS/GB 1025.79FS/GB1028.03FS/GB1028.45 FS/GB 1028.03FS/GB1028.03FS/GB1028.45 FS/GB 1028.03FS/GB1029.44 TC 1028.44 FS 1023.48 FS/GB1023.27FL/TG1023.61FL1024.03FL1025.07TC1024.57FS1024.97TC1024.47FS1025.61TC1025.11FS1025.51TC1025.01FS1025.98TC1025.48FS1025.87TC1025.37FS1024.94FL1026.36TC1025.86FS1026.26TC1025.76FS1025.33FL1026.83TC1026.33FS1026.72TC1026.22FS1025.79FL1026.15FL/HP1027.20TC1026.70FS1027.08TC1026.58FS3.0%1031.28 FF 1030.78 PAD DEEPEN PANEL= 4.75' 1028.40 FF 1027.90 PAD DEEPEN PANEL= 4.30'1024.20TC1023.70FSDEEPEN PANEL= 4.60' (8) 6 7/8" RISERS (8) 6 7/8" RISERS DEEPEN PANEL= 4.60' DEEPEN PANEL= 4.60' (8) 6 7/8" RISERS (8) 6 7/8" RISERS DEEPEN PANEL= 4.60' DEEPEN PANEL= 4.60' (8) 6 7/8" RISERS DEEPEN PANEL= 4.61' (8) 6 15/16" RISERS 1030.94FF1030.44PAD1030.94FF1030.44PADDEEPEN PANEL= 4.04' DEEPEN PANEL= 4.03' 1030.69 FF 1030.19 PAD DEEPEN PANEL= 3.91' (7) 6 11/16" RISERS (7) 6 15/16" RISERS DEEPEN PANEL= 4.13' (8) 6 3/16" RISERS DEEPEN PANEL= 4.29' (8) 6 7/16" RISERS 1024.10 FS/GB 1.0%1023.28TC1022.78FL0.8% 1022.83 TC 1022.33 FL PROTECT EXISTING STREET LIGHT IN PLACE PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY VAULT IN PLACE REMOVE EXIST. DRIVEWAY REPLACE WITH C&G AND SIDEWALK PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY VAULT IN PLACE REMOVE EXIST. DRIVEWAY REPLACE WITH C&G AND SIDEWALK REMOVE EXIST. DRIVEWAY REPLACE WITH C&G AND SIDEWALK PROTECT EXISTING STREET LIGHT IN PLACE RELOCATE EXISTING STREET LIGHT CONST 40' DRWY (1022.47 TC) (1021.80 FL) (1023.20 TC) (1022.53 FL) (1025.56 TC) (1024.89 FL) (1025.28 TC) (1024.61 FL)1027.10TC1026.60FS1026.151027.09FL/LP1027.68TC1027.18FS1.5%1026.97FS/GBR=1.00%R=1.19%0.5%1024.57FL1.5% 1.5%1024.64TC1024.14FS1023.21 TC 1022.71 FL 1023.58 TC 1023.08 FS 1023.81 TC 1023.31 FS 1022.68 TC 1021.68 FL R=2.50%1022.89TC1022.39FL1023.86TC1023.36FL2. 5 %0.5%2.5 % 1026.10 TC 1025.60 FL 1027.58 TC 1026.58 FL 1. 5 %1026.90FS/GB1028.45FS/GB1026.60 FL/HP 1026.60 FL/HP1030.89TC1028.39FS1028.08 FS/GB1.5%PROP 5' SIDEWALK CONST 40' DRWY REMOVE EXIST. DRIVEWAY REPLACE WITH C&G AND SIDEWALK PROTECT EXIST CATCH BASIN IN PLACE PROTECT EXIST WATER METER IN PLACE PROTECT EXIST WATER METER IN PLACE REMOVE EXIST. DRIVEWAY REPLACE WITH C&G AND SIDEWALK PROTECT EXIST ELEC PULL BOX IN PLACE CONST. 664.71' L.F. RET. WALL-SHORING WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WALL SEE PROFILE ON SHEET 3 HEIGHT VARIES 4.67' TO 11.33'SHORING WILL BE REQUIREDHEIGHT VARIES 4.00' TO 11.33'WATER QUALITY BASIN 1017.36 BTM ELEV. 3:1 SLOPE MAX. 3:1 SLOPE MAX.2:1 SLOPE MAX.PROP. 3' STREET DEDICATIONCONST. 113.69' L.F. RET. WALLALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WALLSEE PROFILE ON SHEET 3STA. 10+40.791031.34 TW1026.67 TFSTA. 12+40.801034.67 TW1026.67 TFSTA. 15+90.751038.01 TW1026.67 TFREMOVE EXIST C&G/DRIVEWAYREMOVE EXIST C&G/DRIVEWAY55' 43'12' 3' 55' 43'12' 3' 1023 1023 1023 1022 1024 1023 1024 1022 1024 1023 1022 1023 1022 1023 1023 1022 10241024 1024 10241025102510261027 1028 1028 1027 1028 1027 1028 1027 102810281028 1027 1028 1027 102810281028 1027 1028 1029 10291029 1030103010281027 10281027102 71026 1026102510241 0 2 3 1031 1030 1030 1030 1030 1029102910292.5%2.5%993'440'130'184'40'W A T E R M A N A V E N U ERAMPRAMPBASIN OFFICE OFFICE 0'10'20'100'50' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. THERE ARE RECORDED ROAD EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. 2. NO HILLY TERRIN OR DRAINAGE PROBLEMS EXIST. 3. NO PROTECTED OR ENDANGERED TREES EXIST. 4. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WILL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 5. TRUCK COURT GATES ARE TO RECEIVE A KNOX BOX WITH ALARM PER COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. 6. CONTOUR LINES SHOWN ON DRAWING GRADES ONSITE AS EXISTS TODAY PER ALTA SURVEY. E. MILL STREET TIPPECANOE AVENUE215 215 VICINITY MAP: SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY E. 3RD. STREET 10 10 HILLWOOD PROPERTY DEL ROSA DRIVESLENA ROADSLENA ROADSOUTH WATERMAN AVENUETWIN CREEK CHANNEL E. RAILTO AVE. PROJECT SUMMARY: LAND USE PLANNING AREA: EXISTING ALLOWABLE LAND USES: PROPOSED ZONING : EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: APPLICANT: HILLWOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 268 WEST HOSPITALIITY LANE, SUITE 105 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 CONTACT: JOHN SCHAEFER T: 909-380-7292 F: 909-382-0073 OWNER: RGA ARCHITECTS 15231 ALTON PARKWAY, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92618 CONTACT: MIKE GILL T: 949-341-0920 F: 949-341-0922 PROJECT DATA: ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: SITE LEGEND: PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED LIGHT POLE LOCATIONS PROPOSED WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS EXISTING STREET LIGHT OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK ("OIP") MULTI FAMILY (MFR) COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ("IL") INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL VACANT LOT VACANT LOT VACANT LOT VACANT LOT 2- RESIDENTIAL LOTS EXISTING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT EXISTING RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 1. NEW DOCK-HIGH CONCRETE TILT-UP 36' CLEAR BUILDING. SEE FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS. 2. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY / CURB CUT PER CITY STANDARDS. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR EXISTING DRIVEWAYS TO BE REMOVED. 3. FULLY IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA BOUNDED BY 6" CONCRETE CURB - SEE CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN. TO BE PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED WITH AUTOMATED SPRINKLER SYSTEM. 4. DASHED LINE INDICATES : NEW 5'-0" WIDE SURFACE WALK ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM PUBLIC SIDEWALK & PARKING STALLS TO PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE - CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK. MAX SLOPE OF SURFACE WALK IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 4.9%. MAX CROSS SLOPE 2%. 5. TYPICAL PARKING STALL - 9' X 19'. MAY BE REDUCED TO 9' X 16'-6" W/ 2'-6" OVERHANG. STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS. 6. 12' X 55' TRUCK TRAILER PARKING AREA. 7. TRUCK YARD W/ DOCK HIGH AND GRADE LEVEL TRUCK DOORS. 8. PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE W/ DECORATIVE CONCRETE ENTRY WALK. 9. PROPOSED LOCATION FOR TRASH COMPACTOR / AUTO BAILER . 10. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT -UP TRUCK COURT SCREENWALL, SEE PLAN FOR HEIGHT. 11. PROPERTY LINES. 12. PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION. TRANSFORMERS ARE TO BE SCREENED W/ SHRUBBERY. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. 13. NEW ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS. 9' X 19'-0". 14. MAIN BUILDING ENTRY ADJACENT TO HANDICAP PARKING STALLS. 15. BLACK ROLLING WROUGHT IRON 8'-0" HIGH GATE AT TRUCK COURT ENTRIES WITH APPROVED FIRE DEPT. KNOX BOX 16. EXISTING 5'-0" WIDE PUBLIC SIDEWALK PER CITY STANDARD PLATE. MODIFY FOR DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES. SEE CIVIL PLAN. 17. NEW 8'-0" HT. CHAINLINK FENCE. ( PROPOSED BLACK VINYL FENCING). 18. NEW RETAINING WALL W/ 8'-0" HT. CHAIN LINK FENCE. ( PROPOSED BLACK VINYL FENCING). 19. NEW 8'-0" HT. WROUGHT IRON FENCE. NOTE PROVIDE 4' HT. FENCING AROUND PERIMETER OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL BASIN. 20. INDICATES EXISTING PUBLIC HYDRANT. 21. PROPOSED LOCATION FOR DOMESTIC WATER METER AND 2" SUPPLY LINE INTO BUILDING. 22. PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL FROM EXISTING EASEMENT INTO NEW BUILDING. 23. BIKE RACK TO ACCOMODATE 3 BICYCLES. + 3 LONG TERM BICYCLE STALL LOCATED INSIDE OF BUILDING. 24. PROPOSED ONSITE FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS. 25. PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORAGE BMP TREATMENT. 26. PROPOSED ELECTRICAL ROOM AND ROOF ACCESS LADDER FOR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 27. PROPOSED RETENTION BASIN. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 28. PROPOSED LOCATION FOR FUTURE 12" W X 6' L X 4' HT. CONCRETE TILT UP MONUMENT SIGN. KEYNOTES:00 PROJECT DATA 2- RESIDENTIAL LOTS 90ATTEMP90 ATTE M P 90ATTEMP 90ATTEMP 90ATTEMP 90ATTEMP90 ATTEMP 90ATTEMP90ATTEMP ATTEMP ATTEMPTYPICAL LOADING SPACETYPICAL LOADING SPACE BUILDING AREA: 426,858 SF AA A1-1 8' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCING 661.6' 189 ' RETAINING WALL W/ CHAIN LINK FENCING 23' 169'229.3' 8' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCING8' HIGH TUBE STEEL FENCING 8 ' H IGH CHA INL INK F ENC ING 653.7' 8' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCING 165.2' 8' HIGH TUBE STEEL FENCING 113.7'8' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCING AT PROPERTY LINE CONDITION APN 0279-321-24, 0279-321-47, O279-321-48 APN 0279-321-14, 44,59 AND 63 APN 0136-311-24, 0136-311-34 1 2 110'40'19.9'35'9'8'9'9'5'9'9'TYP. 9' STALL40'24.5'9'8'9'9'5'9'9'9'9'9'TYP. 9' STD. STALL110'135'35'27'CONC. A/CA/C CONC.CONC. A/C13.7'19'26'19'18'19'26'19'9'15'12'55'TYP. 12' WIDE TRUCK PARKING STALLS 28.7'9'TYP. 9' STD. STALLGROSS SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA: COVERAGE: PARKING REQUIRED: WAREHOUSE / < 10% OFFICE INCIDENTAL USE: 0 - 3000 SF @ 1/300 SF 3000 - 5000 SF @ 1/500 SF 5000 - 10000 SF @ 1/750 SF 10000 - 50000 SF @ 1/1000 SF 376,000 @ 1/1250 SF TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED: WAREHOUSE / OFFICE PARKING STALLS: HANDICAP STALLS: CARPOOL/ VAN POOL (CALGREEN 10% OF TOTAL MOTORIZED VEHICLE) TOTAL STALLS PROVIDE AT THIS TIME: FUTURE STALLS TOTAL STALLS BICYCLE PARKING: BICYCLE STALLS (SHORT TERM) 5% OF TOTAL MOTORIZED VEHICLES BICYCLE STALLS (LONG TERM) 5% OF TOTAL MOTORIZED VEHICLES LOADING DOCKS TRALER STALLS 12' X 55' LANDSCAPE REQD: 15% AUTO PARKING AREA AUTO PARKING AREA LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PROVIDED 855,969 SF / 19.65 AC 426,858 SF 49.87 % 10 STALLS 4 STALLS 7 STALLS 40 STALLS 301 STALLS 362 STALLS 97 STALLS 8 STALLS 12 STALLS 117 STALLS 245 STALLS 362 STALLS 6 STALLS 6 STALLS 103 DOCKS 117 STALLS 20,577 SF 3,087 SF 31,871 SF / 14 % W 2 3 CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP CP/VP 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 TRASH COMPACTOR AUTO BAILER TRASH COMPACTOR AUTO BAILER 9 9 10 10 10 10 6 11 11 11 11 12 13 14 14 15 15 15 SECTION "A-A" THROUGH WATER QUALITY BASIN PL.19 BEYOND 17 BEYOND 1027 3:1 MAX SLOPE AA 9REMOVED FOR CLARIFICATION SCALE 1" = 20'-0" W A T E R M A N A V E. 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 NO CHAIN LINK FENCE REQ. 19 19 21 22 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD DD PC BID CD CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SEALS RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 FLOOR PLAN DR CF 00000.00 A2-1P WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER 14041-00-A2-1P 14041.00 HILLWOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 901 VIA PIEMONTE SUITE 175 ONTARIO, CA 91764 909-382-0033 PH 909-382-0073 FAX 07/23/2014 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 287 WATERMAN AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CA FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 0'10'20'100'50' SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 101'-5"891'-7" 993'-0" 8'-0"41'-0"52'-5"51'-7"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"60'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 440'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"40'-0"40'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"B C D E F G H J K 576'-0"A 993'-0" PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: 426,859 SF 1 2'-6"65'-6"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"40'-0"40'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"65'-6"2'-6"B C D E F G H J K L 49'-0"52'-5"51'-7"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"52'-0"60'-0" 1. PROPOSED NEW CONCRETE TILT-UP 32' CLEAR DOCK HIGH WAREHOUSE BUILDING. BUILDING TO BE FULLY SPRINKLERED FOR FUTURE HIGH PILE STORAGE. 2. PRIMARY ACCESSIBLE BUILDING ENTRANCE. 3. PAINTED 12' WIDE X 14' HIGH GRADE LEVEL VERTICAL LIFT ACCESS DOOR. 4. PAINTED 9' WIDE X 10' HIGH DOCK HIGH LEVEL VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR. 5. 3' X 7' PAINTED METAL MAN DOOR. 6. 4' x 10' WALL AIR LOUVER ASSEMBLY. 7. STOREFRONT GLAZING. SEE FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 8. ELECTRICAL ROOM. 9. 42" HIGH PAINTED TILT-UP GUARDRAIL AT FORKLIFT RAMP. 10. 14'-0" HIGH PAINTED CONCRETE SCREEN WALL W/ 8'-0" HT. ROLLING WROUGHT IRON FENCE. 11. CONCRETE TILT UP STAIRS AND PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP 42" HT. GUARDRAIL . 12. INDICATES STRUCTURAL ROOF COLUMN. KEYNOTES:00 RAMP UPRAMP UP3 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 10 10 11 12 13. PROPOSED LOCATION FOR ROOF TOP ACCESS LADDER. 2 2 13 CONSULTANT RGA Office of Architectural Design 15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 T 949-341-0920 FX 949-341-0922 SHEET: SHEET TITLE RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COPYRIGHT CHK'D BY: DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: OWNER PROJECT NO: RGA PROJECT NO: MARK DESCRIPTIONDATE SD DD PC BID CD PROFESSIONAL SEALS WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER HILLWOOD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 901 VIA PIEMONTE SUITE 175 ONTARIO, CA 91764 909-382-0033 PH 909-382-0073 FAX ELEVATIONS DR CF 00000.00 A3-1P 14041-00-A3-1P 14041.00 07/23/2014 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 287 WATERMAN AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CA SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" WEST ELEVATION - WATERMAN AVENUE SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION KEYNOTES 000 1. PRIMARY ACCESSIBLE BUILDING ENTRY 2. BLUE GLAZING IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT. 3. PAINTED 9' x 10' VERTICAL LIFT DOCK HIGH TRUCK LOADING DOOR. 4. PAINTED 12' x 14' VERTICAL LIFT GRADE LEVEL TRUCK LOADING DOOR. 5. 3' X 7' PAINTED METAL MAN DOOR. 6. PAINTED 14'-0" HT. CONCRETE SCREEN WALL WITH STONE CLAD PILASTERS PER MERIDIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES. 7. DOWNSPOUTS ON NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS SHALL BE EXTERNAL. 8. INTERIOR ROOF DRAINS AND OVERFLOW DRAINS SHALL BE INTERNAL. 9. 42" HIGH CONCRETE RAMP WALL. 10. APPROXIMATE FINISH GRADE. 11. PANEL JOINT. 12. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL CONSTRUCTION. 13. 2" WIDE X 3/4" DEEP HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL REVEAL. 14. 4 x 10 PAINTED LOUVER TO MATCH THE BUILDING. SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" EAST ELEVATION 1. FIELD COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7014 ELDER WHITE 2. FIELD COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7015 REPOSE GRAY 3. ACCENT COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7016 MINDFUL GRAY 4. BASE FIELD ACCENT COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7018 DOVETAIL 6. GLAZING: MONOLITHIC 1/4" MONOLITHIC 1/4" PPG SOLARCOOL PACIFICA REFLECTIVE #2 IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE REFLECTANCE OF GLASS SHALL BE 25%. FINISH SCHEDULE TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHTPROPERTY LINE LINE OF SI G HT SCALE 1" =30'-0" NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE 1 FINISH FLOOR PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT EXIST'G PARAPET EXIST'G. TILT-UP BLDG 6'CL. OF WATERMAN AVE. 47'T.O.P. 26' DRIVE AISLE 16.5' 2.5' OVERHANG 20'55' TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHTPROPERTY LINE LINE O F SI G H T SCALE 1" =30'-0" NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE 2 FINISH FLOOR PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT EXIST'G PARAPET EXIST'G. TILT-UP BLDG 6'CL. OF WATERMAN AVE. 49'T.O.P. 26' DRIVE AISLE 16.5' 2.5' OVERHANG 20'55' 1234567891011121314151617181920 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 K J H G F E D C B K J H G FE D C A B L 45'-0"49'-0"1 A3-1 2 A3-1 47'-0"1 A3-1 2 A3-1 1 1 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 78 8 9 9 10 10 10 5 5 112 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 131313 SeedHydro-seeded TurfTall Fescue 'Rebel'Brisbane BoxTristania confertaNOTES:1. ALL TREES WITHIN 5' OF HARDSCAPE SHALL BE IN A SHAWTOWN OR EQUAL2. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL CONCRETE MOW CURB BETWEEN PLANTERS AND 3. ALL PLANTER AREAS TO RECEIVE A 2" LAYER OF MEDIUM WALK ON BARKToyon Heteromeles arbutifoliaROOTBARRIER.TURF AREAS. SEE PLANTING DETAIL SHEET.(3/4" -1/2") .2 LBS/AC MUHLENBERGIA MIRCOSPERMA5 LBS/AC VULPIA MICROSTACHYS2 LBS/AC MELICA IMPERFECTA3 LBS/AC HORDEUM DEPRESSUM.5 LBS/AC MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS5 LBS/AC NASSELLA CERNUA4 LBS/AC AGROSTIS PALLENSSWALE MIX: AVAILABLE FROM SANDERS HYDROSEEDING, INC.6' O.C.1 Gal24" O.C.1 GalLantana montevidensisAcacia redolens 'Low Boy'AcaciaPurple and White LantanaACCENTSGROUNDCOVER30" O.C.1 GalRosmarinus o. 'Prostratus'California Wild Rose5 GalStrawberry TreeArbutus unedoL24" O.C.1 GalBaccharis pilularisCoyote BushTREES5 GalBaja Fairy DusterCalliandra californicaL5 GalFeathery CassiaSenna artemisioidesL24" O.C.1 GalLeymus c. 'Canyon Prince'California Rye GrassLL1 GalLavenderLavendula 'Goodwin Creek Grey'5 GalNew Zealand Tea TreeLeptospermum s. 'Ruby Glow'L5 GalRhamnus californicaL36" BoxAfrican SumacRhus lancea19LCoffeeberryRosemary5 GalRosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue'LAutumn Sage5 GalSalvia greggiiL5 GalCoast RosemaryWestingia fruticosaLLLLL5 GalTexas RangerLeucophyllum f. 'Green Cloud'LRCRTSGWLSIZESYMBOL SHRUBSBOTANICAL/COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL/COMMON NAMESYMBOL PLANTING LEGENDWUCOLSSIZEQTYREMARKSWUCOLSSIZESYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAMEWUCOLSSPACINGSIZESYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAMEWUCOLSCCAULSSASMLProstrate RosemaryRosa californica2 Gal30" O.C.LFL43L615 GalLSambucus mexicanaMexican Elderberry5 GalH5 GalPurple Fountain GrassPennisetum s. 'Cupreum'5 GalKangaroo PawAnigozanthos flavidusLLLDasylerion wheeleriDesert Spoon15 GalLHesperaloe parvifloraRed Yucca15 GalLAgave villmorinianaAgave15 GalAVAFHPPCDWTHE ROOTBALL OF ANY PLANT SHALL NOT BE PLANTED ANCLOSER THAN 2' FROM ANY HARDSCAPE, BUILDING OR WALL.MMuhlenbergia rigensDeergrass5 GalMRHydro-SeedCarex praegracilisCluster Field SedgeLSeed24" BoxBlue Palo VerdeCercidium 'Desert Museum'L848" BoxChilean MesquiteProsopis chilensisL448" BoxChitalpaChitalpa tashkentensisL2024" BoxSan Bernardino, California14-02708.12.14Hillwood Investments PropertiesWaterman Logistics Center010'20'40'711 FEE ANA STREET714.986.2400 FAX 714.986.2408PLACENTIA, CA 92870N ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map 19573 (Subdivision 14-11) and Development Permit-P 14-05 1. This approval authorizes to merge nine parcels into one parcel and construct a 427,000- square foot warehouse building. The project site is located at on the east side of Waterman Avenue, 1000 feet north of Mill Street. All development shall be in substantial conformance to submitted plans date stamped August 18, 2014. 2. Within two years of 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: January 21, 2017 3. Within two years of the original approval date, the filing of the final map with the Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed without first processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the final map or tentative map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk. The date the final map shall be deemed filed with the Council is the date on which the City Clerk receives the map. Expiration Date: January 21, 2017 4. The review authority may, upon an application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant a time extension, not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all Development Code regulations. 5. 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. Conditions of Approval TPM 19573 and DP-P 14-05 PC Hearing Date: January 21, 2014 Page 2 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. 6. Prior to occupancy, the project shall remove the existing abandon railroad bridge at the rear of the property. 7. The project landscape plans shall be prepared in accordance with Development Code Section 19.28.120, Water Efficient Landscaping Standards. 8. Prior to occupancy of any building, a bond shall be posted to guarantee maintenance and survival of project landscaping for a period of one year pursuant to Section 19.30.230. 9. The applicant shall construct a concrete 14-foot tall tilt-up screen walls, complete with 8- foot tall black rolling wrought iron access gates for the north and south sides of the building, fronting Waterman Avenue, to screen the loading bays and truck parking areas from public view. 10. The applicant shall construct an eight (8)-foot tall tube steel fencing approximately 169 feet in length for the northwest corner of the site adjacent the automobile parking area. 11. The applicant shall construct an eight (8)-foot tall tube steel fencing approximately 165 feet in length for the southwest corner of the site adjacent the basin area. 12. The applicant shall construct a four (4)-foot wrought iron fencing around the perimeter of the detention basin. 13. The applicant shall construct an eight (8)-foot tall solid masonry wall approximately 661 feet in length for the portion of the project’s northeastern boundary that abuts residential land uses to screen industrial activities. 14. The applicant shall remove the existing bridge located at the southeast corner of the site. 15. The property owner(s), facility operator and property management shall be responsible for regular maintenance of the site. Vandalism, graffiti, trash and other debris shall be removed within 24 hours. 16. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Prior to establishing signs, the applicant shall submit an application for approval by the Planning Division. 17. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient with the option to lower or reduce usage when the facility is closed. Conditions of Approval TPM 19573 and DP-P 14-05 PC Hearing Date: January 21, 2014 Page 3 18. Development of the project shall be subject to the attached mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MM/RP), incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval. 19. No final Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until all conditions of approval and mitigation measures have been completed. 20. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or standard requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: a. Building and Safety Division b. Land Development Division ATTACHMENT C Land Development Division- Standard Requirements Location: East side of Waterman Avenue, approx. 1000 feet north of Mill Street Case Number: GPA 14-08, ZMA 14-16, PM 19573 (SUB 14-11) and DP-P 14-05 1. Drainage and Flood Control a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to requirements of the Land Development Division, which will be based in part on the recommendations from the San Bernardino County Department of Flood Control and the California Department of Fish and Wild Life. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood control. b) The applicant must obtain pertinent permit(s), and Agreement(s) from the San Bernardino County Department of Flood Control District, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and any other required agencies if any work is to be done within the Flood Control District's Twin Creek Channel area. c) Prior to issuance of a grading permit a Hydrology Study must be submitted and approved by the Land Development Division. All 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. d) The proposed detention basin shall be designed in accordance with the “Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County”. The proposed underground infiltration chambers shall not be constructed within the Flood Zone A area. e) A majority of the projects site is largely located within Flood Zone X with the exception of a small designated area at the most south easterly tip of the property that is located in Zone A (floodway) on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps with Map number 06071C8682H dated August 28, 2008. f) All drainage from the project 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. g) All approved site drainage from the project site that is to be outletted onto the public street, shall be conveyed through a parkway culvert constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 400. Conveyance of site drainage through the Driveway approaches will not be permitted. Project: Waterman Logistics Center Case No. PM 19573 and DP-P-14-05 Page 2 of 5 S:\PLANNING\PC Staff Reports\2015\01.21.15\GPA14-08 ZMA14-16 TPM19573 DP-P14-05\Att C2 - LD.doc 01/13/15 h) The Final Full-Categorical Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by Land Development prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The overall project scope for the site will disturb more than an acre of land; therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required to be submitted and accepted by the Land Development Division prior to issuance of Grading Permits. The applicant shall also file a "Notice of Intent (NOI)" with the State Water Resources Control Board, and submit a SWPPP which will be approved by the State. The issued WDID number shall be placed on the grading plan prior to Grading permits. i) The applicant shall submit to the Land Development Division an Erosion Control Plan prior to grading plan approval. The Erosion Control plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. 2. Grading and Landscaping a) The applicant shall submit to the Land Development Division a grading and on- site improvement plan for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. The plans shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). b) The grading plan indicates 108,469 cubic yards (C.Y.) of cut/fill therefore a grading bond will be required prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. A grading bond shall be submitted to the Land Development Division for review and approval. c) 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. d) A Demolition Permit is required for the demolition of the existing structures on the project site. A record of the square-footage for each of the structures shall be recorded for credit towards the Impact Fees. e) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a liquefaction evaluation is required to be submitted to Land development for review and approval. Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan. f) All fencing shall be shown and detailed on the on-site improvement plan. Project: Waterman Logistics Center Case No. PM 19573 and DP-P-14-05 Page 3 of 5 S:\PLANNING\PC Staff Reports\2015\01.21.15\GPA14-08 ZMA14-16 TPM19573 DP-P14-05\Att C2 - LD.doc 01/13/15 g) The project on-site improvement plan shall include details of the on-site lighting, including the light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design, and conduit location, material and size including a Photometric plot shall be provided which show that the proposed on-site lighting design will provide: 1 foot-candle of illumination uniformly distributed over the surface of the parking lot during hours of operation, and 0.25 foot-candles security lighting during all other hours. h) Where an accessible path of travel crosses a drive aisle, it shall be delineated by textured/colored concrete pavement, unless otherwise approved by the Development Review Committee. i) The applicant shall submit five copies of Landscape Plans to the Land Development Division for review and approval prior to building occupancy. 3. Utilities a) The project Engineer shall 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, and sewer. b) The development is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. c) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. d) A street cut permit, issued by the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets. The required method shall include a slurry coat along the frontage of the project site to centerline. If trenching crosses to both sides of the street, then both lanes shall have a slurry coat and shall be striped along the frontage of the project site. e) All existing utilities which interfere with the construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense per Development Code Section 19.20.030. 4. Mapping a) The applicant„s engineer shall submit a Parcel Map with supporting documents for review and approval to Land Development prior to building occupancy. Project: Waterman Logistics Center Case No. PM 19573 and DP-P-14-05 Page 4 of 5 S:\PLANNING\PC Staff Reports\2015\01.21.15\GPA14-08 ZMA14-16 TPM19573 DP-P14-05\Att C2 - LD.doc 01/13/15 5. Street Improvement and Dedications a) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows: Street Name Right of Way(ft.) Curb Line(ft) Waterman Avenue 55 feet 43 feet b) If the existing sidewalk and/or curb & gutter adjacent to the site on Waterman Avenue are in poor condition, the sidewalk and/or curb & gutter shall be removed and reconstructed to City Standards. Curb & Gutter shall conform to Standard No. 200, Type “B” and sidewalk shall conform to Standard No. 202, Case "A". c) The applicant shall construct accessible curb ramps in accordance with Standard Plans for Public Works Construction to comply with current ADA accessibility requirements. The applicant shall also construct ramps at the corners of the radius driveway to accommodate ADA accessibility to the project site. d) Two radius type Driveway Approaches are proposed in lieu of the standard drive approach, therefore the throat of the driveway shall be paved in colored textured concrete. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of the approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter and sidewalk. e) The pavement on existing streets adjoining the site shall be rehabilitated to centerline using a strategy approved by the City Engineer. 6. Required Engineering Plans a) A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:  street improvement plans,  sewer plans (Private sewers may be shown on on-site improvement plan; public sewers must be on a separate plan with profile),  signing and striping plan (may be on sheets included in street improvement plan),  lighting (on-site lighting may be included in on-site improvement plan or may be on a separate stand-alone plan), Project: Waterman Logistics Center Case No. PM 19573 and DP-P-14-05 Page 5 of 5 S:\PLANNING\PC Staff Reports\2015\01.21.15\GPA14-08 ZMA14-16 TPM19573 DP-P14-05\Att C2 - LD.doc 01/13/15  grading (may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan),  on-site landscaping and irrigation, and  other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of plans for the same project will not be allowed.  All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations) b) 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 7. Traffic Requirements a) The City of San Bernardino ultimate plans is to have a landscape median dividing the north bound and south bound traffic between Mill Street and 5th Street. Only breaks in medians with Traffic Signals shall have left turn access onto Waterman Avenue. 8. Required Engineering Permits a) Grading permit and On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping. b) Off-site improvement construction permit. 9. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Logistics Center San Bernardino, California Lead Agency City of San Bernardino 300 North “D” Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Date: January 19, 2015 Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Logistics Center San Bernardino, California Lead Agency City of San Bernardino 300 North “D” Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Applicant Hillwood Investment Properties 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 CEQA Consultant T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Lead Agency Discretionary Permits General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-08), Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 14-16), Tentative Parcel Map No. 19573 (SUB 14-11), Development Permit (DP-D14-05) Date: January 19, 2015 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page F. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration ........................................................................................ F-1 F.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. F-1 F.2 Corrections and Additions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................. F-1 F.3 No Recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Required ............................................ F-6 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Document Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 History of the Proposed Project Site .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ........................................................................ 1-2 2.0 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Project Setting ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Existing Site and Area Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Planning Context ...................................................................................................................... 2-11 3.0 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Proposed Discretionary Approvals ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Project Construction and Operational Characteristics ............................................................. 3-12 3.3 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval ............................................................... 3-16 3.4 Summary of Requested actions ................................................................................................ 3-16 4.0 Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Checklist 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program T&B Planning, Inc. Page i WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LIST OF FIGURES Figure Name and Number Page Figure 2-1 Regional Map ..................................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Surrounding Land Uses and Development ........................................................................ 2-4 Figure 2-4 Aerial Photograph .............................................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 2-5 USGS Topographic Map .................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-6 Existing Vegetation Map ................................................................................................. 2-10 Figure 2-7 SCAG Regional Goods Movement System ..................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-8 Existing General Plan Designations ................................................................................. 2-15 Figure 2-9 Existing Zoning Designations .......................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 3-1 General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-08) ............................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2 Development Code Amendment (DCA 14-16) .................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-3 Tentative Parcel Map No. 19573 ....................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4 Conceptual Utility Plan ...................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-5 Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-6 Development Permit/Site Plan (DP-D14-05) ................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-7 Conceptual Elevations ...................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-8 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................. 3-13 LIST OF TABLES Table Name and Number Page Table F-1 Errata Table of Corrections and Additions ........................................................................... F-1 Table 3-1 Construction Equipment Assumptions ................................................................................. 3-15 Table 3-2 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits ................................................................................... 3-17 T&B Planning, Inc. Page ii WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES Appendix Document Title A Air Quality Impact Analysis B Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment C Biological Technical Report D Cultural Resources Assessment E Geotechnical Report F Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report G Hydrology Report H Water Quality Management Plan I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment J Noise Report K Traffic Impact Analysis L Written Correspondence M Burrowing Owl Burrow Survey T&B Planning, Inc. Page iii WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos containing materials ADT average daily traffic AMSL above mean sea level AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMPs Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDC California Department of Conservation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CWA Clean Water Act c.y. cubic yards dBA Leq equivalent-level decibels DCA Development Code Amendment DP Development Permit DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control E+A+P Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Conditions E+A+P+C Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Conditions plus Cumulative Conditions E+P Existing plus Project Conditions EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAR Floor area ratio FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FTA Federal Transit Administration T&B Planning, Inc. Page iv WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GHG Greenhouse Gas GPA General Plan Amendment gpd gallons per day HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan HPLV High Pressure Low Volume I-10 Interstate 10 I-215 Interstate 215 IE Industrial Extractive IL Industrial Light IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ITE Industrial Extractive JPA Joint Powers Authority kWh kilowatt-hours kBTU/yr thousand British thermal units per year LBP lead based paint MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEIR maximally exposed individual receptor MEISC maximally exposed individual school child MEIW maximally exposed individual worker MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission ND Negative Declaration NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOD Notice of Determination NOI Notice of Intent NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O3 Ozone OIP Office Industrial Park PCE passenger car equivalent PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter T&B Planning, Inc. Page v WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ppm parts per million RMH Residential Medium High RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board § section SB Senate Bill SBMWD San Bernardino Municipal Water Department SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District s.f. square feet SR State Route SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TPM Tentative Parcel Map VdB vibration decibels VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WQMP Water Quality Management Plan T&B Planning, Inc. Page vi F. FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION T&B Planning, Inc. Page F‐1 F. FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION F.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 1500 et seq.). It acknowledges comments received by the Lead Agency (City of San Bernardino) on the Draft MND that was circulated for public review. The content contained herein represents the Lead Agency’s independent judgment. F.2 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Substantive changes made to the text, tables, and/or exhibits of the MND in response to written comments received by the City of San Bernardino on the Draft MND are itemized in Table F-1, Errata Table of Corrections and Additions. Additions to the MND shown in Table F-1 as underlined text and deletions from the MND are shown as stricken text. (Note: Additions and deletions are shown as underlined or stricken text, respectively, in Table F-1 only; the body of the MND has been revised accordingly.) No corrections or additions made to the Draft MND are considered substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section (§) 15073.5 Table F‐1 Errata Table of Corrections and Additions Section Page(s) Corrections and Additions 4.0, Initial Study (Air Quality) 5.0, MMRP 19 5-2 Although the mitigation measures included in the Draft MND were sufficient to reduce the Project’s construction emissions of NOX to less-than-significant levels, sub-items “d),” “e),” and “f” were added to Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2 at the request of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to further reduce near-term NOX emissions: d) Temporary signs shall be placed on the construction site at equipment staging areas indicating that heavy duty trucks and diesel powered construction equipment are prohibited from idling for more than five (5) minutes. The signs shall be installed before construction activities commence and remain in place during the duration of construction activities at all equipment staging areas. e) The construction contractor shall provide temporary traffic controls in conformance with the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to facilitate traffic flow along Waterman Avenue. f) The construction contractor shall assure that all delivery trucks utilize the most direct route between the Project site and Interstate 10 via Waterman Avenue and/or Interstate 215 via Mill Street to Waterman Avenue. WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section Page(s) Corrections and Additions 4.0, Initial Study (Air Quality) 5.0, MMRP 19-20 5-3 – 5-4 Although the Project’s construction emissions of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would be less than significant, Mitigation Measures MM AQ-4 and MM AQ-5 were added at the request of SCAQMD to further reduce construction particulate matter emissions: MM AQ-3 The Project shall comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementation of best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads. Prior to grading permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the following notes are specified on the grading plan. Project construction contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) All clearing, grading, earth-moving, and excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. b) During grading and ground-disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that all unpaved roads, active soil stockpiles, and areas undergoing active ground disturbance within the Project site are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas by water truck, sprinkler system, or other comparable means, shall occur in the mid- morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. c) Temporary signs shall be installed on the construction site along all unpaved roads indicating a maximum speed limit of 15 miles per hour (MPH). The signs shall be installed before construction activities commence and remain in place for the duration of construction activities that include vehicle activities on unpaved roads. d) The cargo area of all vehicles hauling soil, sand, or other loose earth materials shall be covered. MM AQ-4 The Project shall comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers” by complying with the following requirements. To ensure and T&B Planning, Inc. Page F-2 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section Page(s) Corrections and Additions enforce compliance with these requirements and reduce the release of criteria pollutant emissions into the atmosphere during construction, prior to grading and building permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the following notes are included on the grading and building plans. Project construction contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff or its designee to confirm compliance. The notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) If visible dirt or accumulated dust is carried onto paved roads during construction, the contractor shall remove such dirt and dust at the end of each work day by street cleaning. b) Street sweepers shall be certified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as meeting the Rule 1186 sweeper certification procedures and requirements for PM10-efficient sweepers. All street sweepers having a gross vehicle weight of 14,000 pounds or more shall be powered with alternative (non- diesel) fuel or otherwise comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186.1. 4.0, Initial Study (Air Quality) 5.0, MMRP 21-22 5-5 Although the Project’s long-term operational emissions of NOX would be less than significant, Mitigation Measures MM AQ-5, MM AQ-6, and MM AQ-7 were added at the request of SCAQMD to further reduce long-term NOX emissions: MM AQ-5 Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading areas, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place. MM AQ-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the parking lot striping and security gating plan allows for adequate truck stacking at gates to prevent queuing of trucks outside the property. MM AQ-7 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that a sign has been installed T&B Planning, Inc. Page F-3 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section Page(s) Corrections and Additions at each exit driveway, providing directional information to the City’s truck route. Text on the sign shall read “To Truck Route” with a directional arrow. 4.0, Initial Study (Biological Resources) 27 The analysis under Issue IV.(a) was clarified in response to a comment received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to provide additional specificity regarding the potential of the burrowing owl to inhabit the Project site. The conclusion of Issue IV.(a) does not change as a result of the clarifying information: No special-status species plant or animal species were observed on the Project site during a field survey conducted by RBF on July 24, 2014. Because of historic (dating to approximately 1901) and on-going development and disturbance on the Project site, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for sensitive biological resources and has a low potential to support any sensitive plant or animal species known to occur within the general area, including the burrowing owl (RBF, 2014, pp. 16- 19; RBF, 2015, n.p.). Refer to Threshold IVd. (below) for further discussion of potential impacts to the burrowing owl. Accordingly, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. 4.0, Initial Study (Biological Resources) 29 The analysis under Issue IV.(d) was expanded to reflect a burrowing owl burrow survey report prepared by RBF Consulting (which has been added to the MND as Technical Appendix M). The burrowing owl burrow report was prepared in response to a comment from CDFW. The conclusion of Issue IV.(d) does not change as a result of the clarifying information: The proposed Project would, however, result in the removal of vegetation (i.e., trees and shrubs) on a portion of the Project site with the potential to support nesting migratory birds that, including the burrowing owl. Impacts to such species are prohibitedprotected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. The Project’s potential to impact nesting migratory birds is a significant direct impact for which mitigation is required. RBF did not observe the burrowing owl on the Project site during a site survey on July 24, 2014 (RBF, 2014, p. 14). RBF also did not observe any burrowing owl burrows or signs of burrowing owl use of the property (i.e., direct observation, aural detection, pellets, white wash, feathers, or prey remains) during T&B Planning, Inc. Page F-4 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section Page(s) Corrections and Additions a site survey conducted on January 8, 2015. Because of on- going human activities on the Project site (including operation of commercial and industrial businesses, a residence, and routine disking of undeveloped areas), the burrowing owl is presumed absent from the Project site (RBF, 2015, n.p). Regardless, out of an abundance of caution, this MND recommends mitigation to preclude potential impacts to the burrowing owl and ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. 4.0, Initial Study (Biological Resources) 5.0, MMRP 29 5-3 Sub-item “b)” under Mitigation Measure MM BI-2 was revised to incorporate the recommendations of the CDFW. The revision achieves the same objective and end result as the original wording: b) In the event that the pre-construction survey indicates the Project’s proposed impact footprint is occupied by burrowing owl, then prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the property, a qualified biologist shall develop a mitigation strategy in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (dated March 7, 2012), which may include passively or actively relocationrelocate of any burrowing owls. Passive relocation, including the required use of one-way doors to exclude owls from the site and the collapsing of burrows, will occur if the biologist determines that the proximity and availability of alternate habitat is suitable for successful passive relocation. Passive relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol and shall only occur between September 15 and February 1. If proximate alternate habitat is not present as determined by the biologist, active relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol. The biologist shall confirm in writing that the species has fledged the site or been relocated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. T&B Planning, Inc. Page F-5 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section Page(s) Corrections and Additions 4.0, Initial Study (Biological Resources) 5.0, MMRP 29 5-3 Mitigation Measure MM BI-3 was revised to incorporate the recommendation of CDFW. The revision achieves the same objective and end result as the original wording: MM BI-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a nesting migratory bird survey shall be As a condition of approval for all grading permits, vegetation clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 through September 15), unless a migratory bird nesting survey is completed in accordance with the following requirements: (Note: The wording for sub-items “a)” and “b)” did not change.) F.3 NO RECIRCULATION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REQUIRED CEQA Guidelines §15073.5 describes the conditions under which a Draft MND that was circulated for public review is required to be recirculated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines §15073.5 states that new information added to a Draft MND is not considered a “substantial revision” requiring recirculation unless a new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificance, or the lead agency determines that proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Examples of “minor” revisions that do not require recirculation include: a. Replacement of mitigation measures with equal or more effective measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15074.1; b. Revisions in response to written or verbal comments on the projects effects which are not new avoidable significant effects; c. Measures or conditions of project approval that are added after public review which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects, and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and d. New information that merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Negative Declaration. CEQA Guidelines §15074.1 states that the substitution of mitigation measures following the close of the public review process does not require the recirculation of a Draft MND if: 1) the City determines the replacement mitigation measures are equivalent or more effective; 2) the City holds a public hearing on the matter; and 3) the City adopts a written finding that the new measures are equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it in itself will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. T&B Planning, Inc. Page F-6 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Since the Draft MND was circulated for public review, there were no changes to the Project that would result in a new, avoidable significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of any significant effect previously disclosed in the Draft MND. Furthermore, as described in summarized in Table F-1, there were no public comments or “substantial revisions” to the Draft MND that would warrant recirculation of the document. Although new and revised mitigation measures were added to the Draft MND following the close of the public review period (refer to Table F-1), these replacement measures were discussed in public hearings before the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission and City Council, and the City will adopt written findings as to the effectiveness of proposed mitigation (in conformance with CEQA Guidelines §15074.1). Additionally, the Draft MND was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions within the Draft MND were supported by evidence provided within the Draft MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Furthermore, public comment letters on the Draft MND did not include any substantive evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant impact on the environment or identify any alternatives to the mitigation measures or the proposed Project considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft MND that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the Draft MND is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in §15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. T&B Planning, Inc. Page F-7 1.0 INTRODUCTION WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE This document is a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). This MND is an informational document intended for use by the City of San Bernardino, Trustee and Responsible agencies, and members of the general public in evaluating the physical environmental effects of the proposed Waterman Logistics Center project (hereafter referred to as “the Project” and as further described in Section 3.0). This MND was compiled by the City of San Bernardino, serving as the Lead Agency for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Section (§) 21067 and CEQA Guidelines Article 4 and §15367. “Lead Agency” refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. This Introduction provides general information regarding: 1) a summary of the location and history of the Project site; 2) a summary of Initial Study findings supporting the City of San Bernardino’s decision to prepare a MND for the proposed Project; 3) standards of adequacy for a MND under CEQA; 4) a description of the format and content of this MND; and 5) the governmental processing requirements to consider the proposed Project for approval. 1.2 HISTORY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE The Project site consists of 19.65 acres of partially developed land in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site is located south of Rialto Avenue, north of Mill Street, east of South Waterman Avenue, and west of the Twin Creek Channel. The site contains five (5) structures under existing conditions: a commercial building occupied by a bail bonds business adjacent to South Waterman Avenue; a vacant commercial building and associated outbuilding adjacent to South Waterman Avenue; an industrial building occupied by a truck repair business located in the site’s northeastern corner; and a detached, single-family residence located in the eastern portion of the site. Past uses of the property included sporadic agricultural, residential, and commercial land uses. The property also contained a former segment of the Pacific Electric railroad. 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed Project consists of applications for General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-08), Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 14-16), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 19573 (SUB 14-11), and a Development Permit (DP-D14-05). GPA 14-08 and ZMA 14-16 propose to amend the City’s General Plan land use and Zoning designations as they pertain to the Project site from “Office Industrial Park (OIP)” and “Residential Medium High (RMH)” to “Industrial Light (IL),” which would allow for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing/distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, and research and development. TPM No. 19573 (SUB 14-11) proposes to consolidate the existing nine (9) parcels that comprise the 19.65-acre property into one (1) parcel. DP-D14-05 proposes to develop the subject property with a 426,858 square foot (s.f.) logistics warehouse building and associated improvements including, but not limited to, surface parking areas, drive aisles, utility infrastructure, landscaping, exterior lighting, T&B Planning, Inc. Page 1-1 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION signage, and walls/fencing. Refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, for a comprehensive description of the proposed Project. 1.4 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1.4.1 CEQA Objectives CEQA (Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the project’s potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment. The principal objectives of CEQA are to: 1) inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities; 2) identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; 3) prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and 4) disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. 1.4.2 CEQA Requirements for Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions CEQA Guidelines §15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as “…the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced....” (CEQA Guidelines §15125[a]). In the case of the proposed Project, the Initial Study determined that a MND is the appropriate form of CEQA compliance document, which does not require a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (refer to 1.4.4, Initial Study Findings). Thus, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is the approximate date that the Project’s environmental analysis commenced. The Project Applicant submitted applications for the proposed Project to the City of San Bernardino in August 2014, at which time the environmental analysis commenced. Accordingly, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is defined as the physical environmental conditions on the Project site and in the vicinity of the Project site as they existed in August 2014. 1.4.3 CEQA Requirements for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) A MND is a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the reasons why a proposed project, which is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (CEQA Guidelines §15371). The CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of a MND if the Initial Study prepared for a project identifies potentially significant effects, but: 1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed MND and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and 2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If the potentially significant effects associated with a project cannot be mitigated to a level below significance, then an EIR must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines §15070[b]) T&B Planning, Inc. Page 1-2 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1.4.4 Initial Study Findings Section 4.0 of this document contains the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA and City of San Bernardino requirements. The Initial Study determined that implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any significant environmental effects under the impact areas of: Aesthetics, Agriculture, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Circulation, and Utilities. The Initial Study determined that the proposed Project would result in potentially significant effects to the following issue areas, but the Project Applicant has agreed to incorporate mitigation measures that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hydrology and Water Quality. The Initial Study determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency (City of San Bernardino), that the Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, and based on the findings of the Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino determined that a MND shall be prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15070(b). 1.4.5 Format and Content of Mitigated Negative Declaration The following components comprise the MND in its entirety: 1) This document, including all sections. Section 4.0 comprises the completed Initial Study Checklist (“Initial Study”) and its associated analyses which document the reasons to support the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study. Section 5.0 comprises the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which includes all mitigation measures imposed on the proposed Project to ensure that effects to the environment are reduced to less-than-significant levels. The MMRP also indicates the required timing for the implementation of each mitigation measure and identifies the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measure. 2) Twelve technical reports that evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Project are attached as Technical Appendices A-M. Written correspondence pertinent to the analysis is included as Technical Appendix L. Each of the appendices listed below are available for review at the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 300 N. “D” Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, CA, and are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. Appendix A “Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis” prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated September 22, 2014 (revised January 13, 2015). Appendix B “Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment” prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated September 22, 2014. Appendix C “Waterman Logistics Center Habitat Assessment” prepared by RBF Consulting and dated September 2014. Appendix D “Cultural Resource Assessment Waterman Logistics Center Project” prepared by BCR Consulting LLC and dated September 23, 2014. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 1-3 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Appendix E “Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation, Proposed Waterman Logistics Center” prepared by Southern California Geotechnical and dated June 5, 2014. Appendix F “Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Greenhouse Gas Analysis” prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated September 22, 2014. Appendix G “Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Waterman Logistics Center” prepared by Thienes Engineering and dated August 1, 2014. Appendix H “Water Quality Management Plan for Waterman Logistics Center” prepared by Thienes Engineering and dated August 7, 2014. Appendix I “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 225, 237, and 291 S. Waterman Avenue” prepared by CHJ Consultants and dated May 30, 2014. Appendix J “Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis” prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated October 17, 2014. Appendix K “Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Traffic Impact Analysis” prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated September 5, 2014 (revised January 8, 2015). Appendix L Written Correspondence Appendix M “Results of a Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrow Survey for the Waterman Logistics Center Located in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California” prepared by RBF Consulting and dated January 9, 2015. 3) All plans, policies, regulatory requirements, and other documentation that is incorporated by reference in this document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. 1.4.6 Mitigated Negative Declaration Processing The City of San Bernardino Community Development Department, Planning Division directed and supervised the preparation of this MND. Although prepared with the assistance of the consulting firm T&B Planning, Inc., the content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this MND reflect the sole independent judgment of the City of San Bernardino. This MND and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND will be distributed to the following entities for a 30-day public review period: 1) organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of San Bernardino; 2) owners of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; 3) responsible and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed Project); 4) the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, for review by State Agencies; and 5) the San Bernardino County Clerk. The NOI identifies the location(s) where the MND, Initial Study, MMRP, and associated Technical Appendices are available for public review. The NOI also establishes a 30-day public review period during which comments on the adequacy of the MND document may be submitted to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department, Planning Division. Following the 30-day public review period, the City of San Bernardino will review any comment letters received and determine whether any substantive comments were provided that may warrant revisions to T&B Planning, Inc. Page 1-4 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION the MND document. If substantial revisions are not necessary (as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(b)), then the MND will be finalized and forwarded to the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission and City Council for review as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed Project. The San Bernardino Planning Commission has the authority to recommend, conditionally recommend, or not recommend the Project for approval. The San Bernardino City Council has exclusive authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Project. Accordingly, public hearings will be held before the San Bernardino Planning Commission and City Council to consider the proposed Project and the adequacy of this MND. Public comments will be heard and considered at the hearings. At the conclusion of the public hearing process, the City Council will take action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Project. If approved, the City Council will adopt findings relative to the Project’s environmental effects as disclosed in the MND and a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 1-5 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 PROJECT SETTING 2.1.1 Project Location Figure 2-1, Regional Map, and Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map¸ depict the location of the Project site. The Project site is located in western San Bernardino County, in the City of San Bernardino, immediately east of South Waterman Avenue, immediately west of the Twin Creek Channel, approximately 0.1-mile south of Rialto Avenue, and approximately 0.3-mile north of Mill Street. Addresses associated with the Project site are 225, 237, and 291 South Waterman Avenue. The Project site includes San Bernardino County Assessor Parcels 0279-321-14, -24, -44, -47, -48, -59, and -63, 0136-311-24 and 0136-311-32 and is located within Section 11, Township 1 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. 2.1.2 Surrounding Land Uses and Development Figure 2-3, Surrounding Land Uses and Development, depicts the existing land uses immediately surrounding the Project site. As shown, existing surrounding land uses include commercial and residential land uses to the north of the site, industrial land uses to the east (across the Twin Creek Channel); commercial developments to the south, and single-family residential land uses and undeveloped land to the west (across South Waterman Avenue). The H. Frank Dominguez Elementary School is located approximately 0.06-mile to the northwest of the Project site (or 320 feet, as measured from the Project site to the school site perimeter). 2.2 EXISTING SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15125, the physical environmental condition for purposes of establishing the setting of an MND is the environment as it existed at the time the Lead Agency commenced the environmental analysis for the project. The Project’s applications were filed with the City of San Bernardino in August 2014, and the environmental analysis for the Project commenced at that time. As such, the environmental baseline for the Project is established as August 2014 and the following subsections provide a description of the Project site’s physical environmental condition as of that approximate date. Topics are presented in no particular order of importance. 2.2.1 Land Use The earliest available records (aerial photograph from 1930) indicate that the site has been developed with sporadic agricultural, residential, and commercial land uses. The property also contained a former segment of the Pacific Electric railroad. The railway traversed the Project site from the southeast corner of the property, extending to the north, which was used for freight service into the 1970s (BCR Consulting, 2014, p. 8). The developments on-site from the 1930s to present day include a variety of commercial and residential uses, including a building materials business, a market, and a used car sales lot. Figure 2-4, Aerial Photograph, depicts the existing conditions of the Project site. The site contains five (5) structures under existing conditions: a commercial building occupied by a bail bonds business adjacent to South Waterman Avenue; a vacant commercial building and associated outbuilding adjacent to South Waterman Avenue; an industrial building occupied by a truck repair business located in the site’s northeastern corner; and a detached, single-family residence located in the eastern portion of the site. Past uses of the property include sporadic agricultural, residential, and commercial land uses. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 2-1 REGIONAL MAPPage 2-2 Figure 2-1Source(s): Firm ^_#PROJECT SITE R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y o o Rialto MunicipalAirport San BernardinoInternational Airport SANSAN BERNARDINOBERNARDINO HIGHLANDHIGHLAND REDLANDSREDLANDS LOMALOMA LINDALINDA RIALTORIALTO FONTANAFONTANA JURUPAJURUPA VALLEYVALLEY RIVERSIDERIVERSIDE MORENO VALLEYMORENO VALLEY GRANDGRAND TERRACETERRACE LAKELAKEARROWHEADARROWHEAD SSaannttaa AAnnaa RR ii vv ee rrLL yyttllee CCrreeeekk SAN BERNARDINONATIONAL FOREST BOX SPRINGSMOUNTAIN PARK DE ANZACYCLE PARK %&'(215 %&'(15 %&'(10 ·|}þ330 ·|}þ210 ·|}þ60 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ259·|}þ210 L O SA N G E L E S %&'(10 %&'(215 %&'(605 %&'(405 %&'(210 %&'(710 ·|}þ74 ·|}þ330 ·|}þ62 ·|}þ243 ·|}þ71 ·|}þ73 ·|}þ1 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ210 ·|}þ241 ·|}þ133 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ261 ·|}þ74 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ60 ·|}þ60·|}þ60 ·|}þ110 ·|}þ79 ·|}þ79 ·|}þ79 %&'(215 ·|}þ74 %&'(10 %&'(15 %&'(5 %&'(15 ·|}þ57 S A N B E R N A R D I N OC O U N T Y R I V E R S I D EO R A N G E KEY MAP ^_ 0 1.5 30.75 Miles Source(s): ESRI, RCTLMA (2014), SB County (2014) o Flabob Airport %&'(215%&'(215 T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D VICINITY MAPPage 2-3 Figure 2-2Source(s): Firm #PROJECTBOUNDARY SANSAN BERNARDINOBERNARDINO LOMA LINDALOMA LINDA HIGHLANDHIGHLAND COLTONCOLTON %&'(215 %&'(10E ST5TH ST MILL ST 3RD ST TIPPECANOE AVE2ND ST WATERMAN AVEREDLANDS BLVDDEL ROSA DRBASELINE ST RIALTO AVE INLAND CENTER DRSAN BERNARDINO AVE %&'(215 %&'(10 ·|}þ210 ·|}þ71 %&'(10 %&'(215 ·|}þ330 ·|}þ243 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ210 ·|}þ261 ·|}þ60 ·|}þ60 ·|}þ79 %&'(215 ·|}þ74 %&'(15 %&'(15 S A N B E R N A R D I N OC O U N T Y R I V E R S I D E KEY MAP ^_ 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet Source(s): SANBAG (2013), SB County (2014) T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D Twin Creek Channel SURROUNDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT Page 2-4 Figure 2-3Source(s): Firm PROJECT SITE SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD VALLEY ST EAST RIALTO AVE KING ST 2ND ST ALLEN STEAST MILL ST BERRY ST DOOLITTLE DRTwin Creek ChannelVACANTVACANT RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL LIGHTLIGHTINDUSTRIALINDUSTRIAL LIGHTLIGHTINDUSTRIALINDUSTRIAL COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL OFFICEOFFICEINDUSTRIALINDUSTRIAL VACANTVACANT PUBLICPUBLICFACILITYFACILITY PUBLICPUBLICFACILITYFACILITY PUBLICPUBLICFACILITYFACILITY RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL 0 250 500125 Feet Source(s): Eagle Aerial (2013), SB County (2014) T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D ELEMENTARYELEMENTARYSCHOOLSCHOOL INDUSTRIALINDUSTRIAL COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Page 2-5 Figure 2-4Source(s): Firm PROJECT SITE SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD Twin Creek Channel0 150 30075 Feet Source(s): ESRI, Eagle Aerial (2013), SB County (2014) T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.2.2 Site Access The Project site abuts South Waterman Avenue, which is a north-south oriented roadway, and is located approximately 0.3-mile north of Mill Street and 0.15-mile south of Rialto Avenue, which are east-west oriented roadways. The Project site receives access from and provides access to South Waterman Avenue via seven (7) existing driveways. The Project site is located approximately 1.3 miles east of Interstate 215 (I-215), a north-south oriented facility, and approximately 2.2 miles north of Interstate 10 (I-10), an east-west oriented facility. Both I-215 and I-10 are part of the state highway system operated by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 2.2.3 Utilities and Service Systems The Project site is located within the service area of the San Bernardino Municipal Water District (SBMWD) for domestic water and sewer treatment services. The City of San Bernardino conveys wastewater from the Project site to SBMWD treatment facilities. Under existing conditions, the Project site receives water and wastewater service via existing facilities installed beneath South Waterman Avenue. In addition, two (2) existing above ground Southern California Edison power lines are located in the northern portion of the Project site. 2.2.4 Aesthetics and Topographic Features The Project site is relatively flat, with the exception of a small, raised dirt berm in the eastern portion of the property. The existing development on-site is scattered and the aesthetic character of the site is comprised of isolated structures with substantial disturbed/undeveloped land. The topographic high point on the property occurs in the northeast portion of the site, at approximately 1,035 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The topographic low point occurs along the southern property boundary at approximately 1,020 feet amsl. The Project site generally slopes from the north and east to the west and south. Overall topographic relief across the Project site is approximately 15 feet. No unique or scenic features are present. Figure 2-5, USGS Topographic Map, illustrates to topographic character of the Project site. 2.2.5 Geology The Project site is located at the northern edge of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, within the San Bernardino Valley. The San Bernardino Valley is part of a structurally down-dropped block of crystalline bedrock material overlain by approximately 300 to 400 feet of alluvium and bordered to the north and east by the northwest- to southeast-trending San Andreas Fault and San Bernardino Mountains. The valley is bordered by the Perris block to the south and by the northwest- to southeast trending San Jacinto fault zone to the southwest. (CHJ, 2014, p. 14) There are no known active or potentially active earthquake faults on the Project site or in the immediate area, and the Project site is not located within an “Alquist-Priolo” Special Studies Zone. The main trace of the San Jacinto fault is mapped approximately 2.0 miles southwest of the site. (CHJ, 2014, p. 13) Similar to other properties throughout Southern California, the Project site is located within a seismically active region and is subject to ground shaking during seismic events. Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface investigations conducted on the Project site in 2014 (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, p. 7). T&B Planning, Inc. Page 2-6 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Page 2-7 Figure 2-5Source(s): Firm #PROJECT SITE 0 500 1,000250 Feet Source(s): ESRI, USGS T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.2.6 Soils The Project site features a thin veneer of undocumented fill at its surface and is underlain by alluvial soils at depth. The undocumented fill soils generally consist of loose to medium silty fine sands with occasional debris, such as asphalt and plastic fragments. The undocumented fill varies between depths of 2.5 to 7.5 feet below ground surface at the Project site. Beneath the undocumented fill layer are alluvial soils, which extend to at least 50 feet below the existing ground surface. The alluvial soils in the upper six (6) to 12 feet generally consist of loose to medium dense fine sands and silty fine sands and occasional loose fine sandy silts. The alluvial soils at greater depths generally consist of medium dense to dense fine to coarse sands with varying gravel content, medium dense silty sands and fine sandy silts, and occasional stiff fine grained strata including clayey silts and silty clays. (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, pp. 6-7) 2.2.7 Hydrology The Project site is located in the Santa Ana River watershed, which drains an approximately 2,650 square- mile area and is the principal surface flow water body within the region. The Santa Ana River starts in the San Bernardino Mountains, approximately eight (8) miles northeast of the Project site, and flows southwesterly for approximately 96 miles across San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange counties before spilling into the Pacific Ocean. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06071C8682H (dated August 28, 2008), a majority of the Project site is located within “Flood Zone X (unshaded),” which corresponds with areas of minimal flood hazard (less than 0.2-percent annual chance of flood). A small area along the eastern Project boundary, adjacent to the Twin Creek Channel, is designated “Zone A,” which corresponds to areas subject to inundation under 100-year flood conditions. Under existing conditions, the northern and western portions of the Project site drain from east to west as sheet flow, ultimately discharging to South Waterman Avenue. Storm water runoff flows discharged to South Waterman Avenue are captured by an existing storm drain system within South Waterman Avenue and conveyed to Twin Creek downstream of the Project site. The remaining, southeastern portion of the Project site drains to the southeast, discharging directly to the Twin Creek Channel. (Thienes, 2014b, n.p.) 2.2.8 Noise The primary source of noise in the Project vicinity includes vehicle noise along South Waterman Avenue. To determine the existing acoustical setting of the Project area, 24-hour noise measurements were taken at five (5) receptor locations in the Project vicinity by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on August 6, 2014. Measured hourly noise levels ranged from 50.7 equivalent level decibels (Leq dBA) to 66.7 Leq dBA, which correlates with a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) ranging from 58.5 to 72.5 dBA CNEL. (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, p. 22) 2.2.9 Vegetation Based on aerial photography dating back to 1901, the Project site has been sporadically used for agriculture, residential, and commercial land uses, often with a combination of concurrent uses. Under existing conditions the entirety of the site is either developed with commercial, industrial, or residential structures or heavily disturbed by routine maintenance (i.e., discing for fire fuel management). Due to T&B Planning, Inc. Page 2-8 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION historic and on-going human disturbances, the Project site no longer supports native vegetation or native plant communities. (RBF, 2014, p. ES-1) Three (3) plant communities were identified on the Project site by the Project biologist (RBF Consulting). The location and extent of these vegetation communities are illustrated on Figure 2-6, Existing Vegetation Map, and summarized below. o Ruderal: The center of the Project site supports a ruderal plant community dominated by non- native grasses and early successional plant species. This plant community extends south from the central portion of the Project site along the abandoned railroad alignment. The ruderal plant community is not subject to routine mowing/discing activit ies. Dominant plant species observed within this plant community include tumbleweed (Salsola tragus) and ripgut (Bromus diandrus). Other plant species observed within this plant community include Mediterranean grass (Schismus sp.), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), red brome (Bromus madritensis), wild oat (Avena sp.), and London rocket (Sisymbrium irio). (RBF, 2014, p. 11) o Disturbed: A disturbed plant community is found on the northwest, southwest, and southeast portions of the Project site. These areas have been subject to heavy disturbances associated with mowing/discing activities and commercial land uses. The disturbed areas on the northwest corner and southwest portion of the Project site are characterized by bare ground with sparse tumbleweed. The disturbed area on the southeast corner of the Project site is dominated by tumbleweed and non-native grasses that are routinely mowed/disced. This disturbed area has several small debris piles and an old semi-truck trailer. (RBF, 2014, pp. 11-13) o Developed: The developed areas are found on the northeastern corner of the Project site and along the western edge of the project site adjacent to South Waterman Avenue. These areas are generally devoid of vegetation; however, some weedy plant species and ornamentals have established/been planted. The building materials site is bordered by a series of Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta) and the truck repair facility is bordered by a row of eucalyptus trees (Eucalpytus sp.). (RBF, 2014, p. 13) No special-status plant species were observed on the Project site during surveys conducted by RBF Consulting. The long history of disturbance, continued maintenance of the site (i.e., discing), existing development, and the lack of natural vegetation have eliminated suitable habitat for all of the sensitive plant species that have the potential to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. (RBF, 2014, p. 16) 2.2.10 Wildlife No special-status wildlife species were observed on the Project site by RBF Consulting. Based on an analysis of the existing conditions on the Project site, it was determined that there is the potential for three (3) special-status/sensitive wildlife species to occur on the site: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus); and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). The Project biologist determined that due to a lack of suitable habitat, all other special-status/sensitive wildlife species were presumed to be absent from the Project site. (RBF, 2014, p. ES-1) T&B Planning, Inc. Page 2-9 EXISTING VEGETATION MAP Page 2-10 Figure 2-6Source(s): Firm 0 200 400100 Feet Source(s): Eagle Aerial (2013), RBF (09-14) PROJECT SITE Legend Vegetation Type Project Boundary Developed (6.13 Acres) Disturbed (11.09 Acres) Ruderal (2.5 Acres)SOUTH WATERMAN AVETwin Creek ChannelT&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.2.11 Air Quality and Climate The Project site is located in the 6,745-square-mile South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the San Diego County Line to the south. The SCAB is within the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the agency charged with bringing air quality in the SCAB into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. The climate of the SCAB is characterized as semi-arid and more than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. During the dry season, which also coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, characterized by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. The SCAB is not currently in attainment of state and/or federal standards established for Ozone (O3) one- hour and eight-hour, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Local air quality in the vicinity of the Project site has exceeded air quality standards for O3 one-hour and eight-hour and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), as recorded at the nearest air monitoring station to the Project site (Central San Bernardino Valley 2), within the last three years. Refer to Table 2-3 in the Project’s air quality report (refer to Technical Appendix A) for a summary of the number of days that local air quality exceeded applicable air quality standards. Air pollutants contribute to human health concerns. The SCAQMD conducted an in-depth analysis of the toxic air contaminants and their resulting health risks for all of Southern California. This study, titled “Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES III,” shows that the region around the Project site has an ambient cancer risk of 1,058 in one million persons, which is slightly below the average cancer risk of 1,200 in one million persons across the SCAB (Urban Crossroads, 2014c, p. 32). Information about specific air pollutants and their specific effects on human health are contained in the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment reports contained as Technical Appendix A and Technical Appendix B, respectively. 2.3 PLANNING CONTEXT Provided in this subsection is a description of the Project site’s context to SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan Goods Movement Strategy and the Project site’s land use designations, as applied by planning documents adopted by the City of San Bernardino. 2.3.1 Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under California state law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans including sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations and other plans for the region (SCAG, n.d.). T&B Planning, Inc. Page 2-11 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION As a MPO and public agency, SCAG develops transportation and housing plans that transcend jurisdictional boundaries that affect the quality of life for Southern Californian as a whole. SCAG’s 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) includes a chapter titled “Goods Movement” that is applicable to the proposed Project. It states that the SCAG region hosts one of the largest clusters of logistics activity in North America. Logistics activities, and the jobs that go with them, depend on a network of warehousing and distribution facilities, highway and rail connections, and intermodal rail yards. As illustrated by Figure 2-7, SCAG Regional Goods Movement System, the location of the Project site is identified as being within a warehouse cluster in the City of San Bernardino. The Goods Movement section of the RTP/SCS sets forth regional strategies to achieve an efficient movement of goods. It states: “Goods movement and freight transportation are essential to supporting the SCAG regional economy and quality of life. The goods movement system in the SCAG region is a multimodal, coordinated network that includes deep water marine ports, international border crossings, Class I rail lines, interstate highways, state routes and local roads, air cargo facilities, intermodal facilities, and regional distribution and warehousing clusters. In 2010, over 1.15 billion tons of cargo valued at almost $2 trillion moved across the region’s transportation system. Whether carrying imported goods from the San Pedro Bay Ports to regional distribution centers, supplying materials for local manufacturers, or delivering consumer goods to SCAG residents, the movement of freight provides the goods and services needed to sustain regional industries and consumers on a daily basis.” (SCAG, 2013, p. 1). According to SCAG’s Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy, the SCAG region is forecasted to have a demand for over one billion square feet of warehousing space by the year 2035, including a demand for 943 million square feet of non-port warehouse space. The demand for non-port warehouse space is projected to increase by approximately 59 percent between the years 2008 and 2035 – from approximately 591 million square feet to approximately 943 million square feet. (SCAG, 2013, pp. 4-39 and 4-40) However, SCAG projects that the region will run out of suitably zoned vacant land designated for warehouse facilities in about the year 2028. Unless other land not currently zoned for warehousing becomes available, SCAG forecasts that by year 2035, a projected shortfall of approximately 227 million square feet of warehouse space will occur between the years 2028 and 2035 (both port and non-port warehouse space). (SCAG, 2013, p. 4-39) As the availability of vacant locations for industrial/warehousing facilities near the ports reach capacity, the demand will shift inland to regions that have the vacant land and infrastructure to accommodate such land uses, primarily the Inland Empire. Assuming no other land, such as agricultural lands, is converted to industrial use, based on available land that is zoned industrial, the SCAG region could hold another 186.2 million square feet of warehousing and distribution buildings. Within the SCAG region, San Bernardino County contains the second largest share of undeveloped space suitable for industrial warehouse development (57.5 million square feet, 30.9%), of which the vast majority (74.9%) is located in outlying desert areas. (SCAG, 2013 p. 3-34) 2.3.2 General Plan Land Use Designations The prevailing planning document for the Project site and its surrounding area is the City of San Bernardino General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element designates the Project site for “Office Industrial Park (OIP)” and “Residential Medium High (RMH)” land uses. Refer to Figure 2-8, Existing T&B Planning, Inc. Page 2-12 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION General Plan Designations. If the Project site were built out in accordance with its existing, underlying land use designations, a maximum of 675,616 square feet of office industrial park land uses and a maximum of 99 residential units could be constructed on the subject property. 2.3.3 Development Code Designations The Project site is zoned for “Office Industrial Park (OIP)” and “Residential Medium High (RMH)” land uses (refer to Figure 2-9, Existing Zoning Designations). The Office Industrial Park zoning is intended to allow for development of properties with employee-intensive employment uses in a park-like setting, including research & development, technology centers, research and development, corporate offices, “clean” industry and light manufacturing, and supporting retail. The Residential Medium High zoning designation allows for multi-family dwellings including apartments and condominiums with a maximum density of 24 units per acre. (San Bernardino, 2005a, Table LU-1) T&B Planning, Inc. Page 2-13 SCALENOTTO SCAG REGIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT SYSTEM Figure 2-7 Page 2-14 Source(s): SCAG RTP: Goods Movement (April 2012) M�������� N������� D���������� W������� L�������� C����� C��� �� S�� B��������� T�B P�������, I��. 3 EXHIBIT 1 E xisting SCAG Regional Goods Movement System EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Page 2-15 Figure 2-8Source(s): Firm PROJECT SITE EAST RIALTO AVE VALLEY ST SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD TWIN CREEK CHANNEL0 150 30075 Feet Source(s): SANBAG (2013), SB County (2014), City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005) T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D Legend General Plan Land Use Designations Project Boundary COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG-1) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK (OIP) PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL (PFC) RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU-1) CG-1RU OIP OIPOIP OIP OIPCH CG-1 RMH RMH IL IL PFPFC PFC EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS Page 2-16 Figure 2-9Source(s): FirmSource(s): SANBAG (2013), SB County (2014), City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005) T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D PROJECT SITE EAST RIALTO AVE VALLEY ST SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD TWIN CREEK CHANNELCG-1RU OIP OIPOIP OIP OIPCH CG-1 RMH RMH IL IL PFPFC PFC Source(s): SANBAG (2013), SB County (2014), City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005) 0 150 30075 Feet Legend Zoning Designations Project Boundary COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG-1) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK (OIP) PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL (PFC) RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU-1) 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project evaluated by this MND is located within the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. The proposed Project consists of applications for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-08), Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 14-16), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 19573, SUB 14-11) and a Development Permit/Site Plan (DP-P14-05). Copies of the entitlement applications for the proposed Project are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150 and are available for review at the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department, located at 300 N. D Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, CA. A detailed description of the proposed Project is provided in the following subsections. Additional discretionary and administrative actions that would be necessary to implement the proposed Project are listed in Table 3-2, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits, at the end of this section. 3.1 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS 3.1.1 General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-08) Under existing conditions, the 19.65-acre site is designated by the City of San Bernardino General Plan for “Office Industrial Park (OIP)” and “Residential Medium High (RMH)” land uses. The OIP land use designation allows for employee intensive employment uses including technology centers, research and development, corporate offices, “clean” industry and light manufacturing, and supporting retail. The RMH land use designation allows for multi-family dwellings, including apartments and condominiums, at a maximum density of 20 dwellings units per acre (San Bernardino, 2005, Table LU-2). If the Project site were built out in accordance with its existing, underlying land use designations, a maximum of 675,616 square feet of office industrial park land uses and a maximum of 99 residential units could be constructed on the subject property. GPA 14-08 proposes to amend the City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Element as it pertains to the site from “OIP” and “RMH” to “Industrial Light (IL),” which would allow for a variety of light industrial uses, including: warehousing/distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, mini storage, and repair facilities conducted within enclosed structures, as well as supporting retail and personal uses (San Bernardino, 2005, Table LU-2). Figure 3-1, General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-08), depicts the site’s existing and proposed General Plan land use designations. 3.1.2 Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 14-16) Under existing conditions, the 19.65-acre site is zoned for “Office Industrial Park (OIP)” and “Residential Medium High (RMH).” The OIP zoning designation allows for the establishment of distinctive office industrial parks and corporate centers serving City and regional needs, while the RMH zone allows development of multi-family townhomes, condominiums, and apartments at a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre (San Bernardino, 2013). ZMA 14-16 proposes to change the zoning designation of the site to “Industrial Light (IL)”which is intended to retain, enhance, and intensify existing and provide for the new development of lighter industrial uses along major vehicular, rail, and air transportation routes serving the City (San Bernardino, 2013). Developments within the IL zone are permitted to have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75. Figure 3-2, Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 14-16), depicts the site’s existing and proposed zoning designations. The proposed IL zoning designation would be consistent with and would implement the site’s proposed General Plan land use designation of IL. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 14-08) Page 3-2 Figure 3-1 PROPOSEDEXISTING T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D Source(s): SANBAG (2013), SB County (2014), City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005)Source(s): SANBAG (2013), SB County (2014), City of San Bernardino General Plan (2005) PROJECT SITE EAST RIALTO AVE VALLEY ST SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD TWIN CREEK CHANNELPROJECT SITE EAST RIALTO AVE VALLEY ST SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD TWIN CREEK CHANNELLegend General Plan Land Use Designations Project Boundary COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG-1) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK (OIP) PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL (PFC) RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU-1) CG-1RU OIP OIPOIP OIP OIPCH CG-1 RMH RMH IL IL PFPFC PFC Legend General Plan Land Use Designations Project Boundary COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG-1) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK (OIP) PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL (PFC) RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU-1) CG-1RU OIP OIP OIP OIPCH CG-1 RMH IL IL PFPFC PFC IL IL 0 300 600150 Feet EXISTING PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZMA 14-16) Page 3-3 Figure 3-2 T&B Planning, Inc. S ATERMAN OGISTICS ENTERITY OF AN ERNARDINOWCL CB ITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATIONM N D PROJECT SITE EAST RIALTO AVE VALLEY ST SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD TWIN CREEK CHANNELPROJECT SITE EAST RIALTO AVE VALLEY ST SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD TWIN CREEK CHANNELCG-1RU OIP OIPOIP OIP OIPCH CG-1 RMH RMH IL IL PFPFC PFC CG-1RU OIP OIP OIP OIPCH CG-1 RMH IL IL PFPFC PFC IL IL 0 300 600150 Feet Legend Zoning Designations Project Boundary COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG-1) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK (OIP) PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL (PFC) RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU-1) Legend Zoning Designations Project Boundary COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG-1) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK (OIP) PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL (PFC) RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU-1) WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.1.3 Tentative Parcel Map No. 19573 (SUB 14-11) A. General Description Tentative Parcel Map No. 19573 (TPM No. 19573) proposes to consolidate the Project site’s nine parcels into one legal parcel of approximately 19.65 acres, as depicted on Figure 3-3, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19573. As part of this action, the right-of-way for a former alignment of the Pacific Electric railroad that crosses the Project site would be acquired by the Project Applicant (all tracks have been previously removed from the subject property). In addition, TPM No. 19573 identifies the size and location of needed water, sewer, drainage and utility infrastructure in addition to existing roadway infrastructure. B. Public Roadway Improvements The existing public street network servicing and abutting the Project site consists of South Waterman Avenue to the west. Under existing conditions, South Waterman Avenue features six (6) vehicular travel lanes, a painted median, landscaping, and partially developed sidewalks along the Project site frontage. As part of the proposed Project, additional public right-of-way would be dedicated to the City to accommodate a parkway adjacent to South Waterman Avenue. The right-of-way dedication would vary between three (3) to five (5) feet in width along the Project’s frontage. The Project would construct the parkway along its frontage with South Waterman Avenue, which would include a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk and landscaping. In addition, the Project would remove the subject property’s seven (7) existing driveways to South Waterman Avenue and would construct two (2) new 40-foot-wide driveways to provide access to the site from South Waterman Avenue. C. Water Infrastructure Water service would be provided to the Project site by the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD). Under pre-development conditions, water service is available to the Project site via a 12-inch water main installed beneath South Waterman Avenue. As depicted in Figure 3-4, Conceptual Utility Plan, the Project proposes to make four connections to the existing water line. Two existing water meters would be utilized, if possible, to provide water to the site. The construction contractor would verify in the field if the existing water meters can be retained. If the existing water mains cannot be retained, the Project would construct two new water meters to provide water to the Project site. In addition, two proposed 10-inch water lines would connect to an existing 12-inch water line within South Waterman Avenue for fire service use. All proposed water facilities would be designed in accordance with SBMWD standards and would require approval by SBMWD prior to installation. D. Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater conveyance services are provided to the Project site by the City of San Bernardino and wastewater treatment services are provided by the SBMWD. Under pre-development conditions, wastewater service is available to the Project site via 8-inch and 48-inch sewer mains installed beneath South Waterman Avenue, and 18-inch and 21-inch sewer lines traverse the Project site. As depicted in Figure 3-4, the Project proposes to construct an 8-inch sewer line within South Waterman Avenue between the southern terminus of the Project site and an existing sewer line located approximately 335 feet south of the Project site. From this proposed 8-inch sewer line, a 6-inch lateral line would be constructed providing wastewater service to the site. The 6-inch lateral sewer line would run from west to east, beneath the site’s southernmost driveway, connecting to the proposed building beneath the office T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-4 SCALENOTTO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19573 Figure 3-3 Page 3-5 Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (09-03-14) M�������� N������� D���������� W������� L�������� C����� C��� �� S�� B��������� T�B P�������, I��. SCALENOTTO CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN Figure 3-4 Page 3-6 Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (08-13-14) M�������� N������� D���������� W������� L�������� C����� C��� �� S�� B��������� T�B P�������, I��. 48” 24” 8” 18” (Abandoned) 21” 8” 6” 6” 6” Proposed 8” Sewer Connection to Existing Line 33” 12” 10” 10” 2” Proposed 6” Sewer Connection to Existing Line Proposed Storm Drain Connection to Existing Line Proposed Storm Drain Connection to Existing Line Proposed 10” Fire Service Connection to Existing Line Proposed 10” Fire Service Connection to Existing Line LEGEND Existing Water Line Proposed Water Line Existing Sewer Line Proposed Sewer Line Existing Storm Drain Proposed Storm Drain Existing Electrical Line Existing Gas Line WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION area at the south of the site. In addition, another 6-inch lateral sewer line would be constructed south of the site’s northern-most driveway, providing a connection between the existing 8-inch sewer line within South Waterman Avenue and the office portion of the building located on the northern side of the building. All proposed wastewater facilities would be designed in accordance with City and SBMWD standards and would require approval by the City and SBMWD prior to installation. The existing 18-inch and 21-inch sewer lines that traverse the Project site would be retained in place if their alignment does not conflict with the proposed retaining wall (see Section E, Earthwork and Grading, below). The construction contractor would verify in the field during construction if the sewer lines can be retained in their existing alignment. If the existing sewer lines would conflict with the design of the proposed retaining wall, then the sewer lines would be re-located on-site to the south. E. Drainage Plan The drainage system proposed to serve the proposed Project also is depicted in Figure 3-4. The proposed Project’s drainage system would consist of underground storm drain pipes and six (6) Storm-Tech SC- 740 Underground Infiltration Chamber systems, as well as one (1) on-site water quality/detention basin. The system is designed to collect, treat, and store stormwater runoff before discharging treated flows. Flows would be discharged at two (2) locations: into an existing 36-inch storm drain installed beneath South Waterman Avenue and 2) into the Twin Creek Channel located to the east of the Project site. A majority of the stormwater flows generated on-site would be captured and routed to an underground infiltration chamber system located beneath the site. Five (5) underground chambers are proposed, including three (3) chambers located beneath a proposed access road on the northern side of the proposed warehouse building and two (2) chambers located beneath the proposed truck parking stalls on the south side of the proposed building. The proposed Storm-Tech system would provide runoff storage and filtration to maximize on-site infiltration and minimize off-site water discharge. From each of these five (5) chamber systems, flows would be routed off-site into the Twin Creek Channel located along the eastern boundary of the Project site. The Twin Creek Channel is fully improved and has more capacity for runoff than the existing facilities within South Waterman Avenue (Thienes, 2014b). Stormwater flows from the western portions of the Project would be discharged into the existing 36-inch storm drain installed beneath South Waterman Avenue. Flows from the southwestern portion of the Project site would be routed into a proposed on-site water quality/detention basin. Flows from the northwestern portion of the Project site would be routed to a proposed underground infiltration chamber located beneath a proposed employee/guest automobile parking lot. Flows collected within both of these areas would be routed via two (2) 24-inch storm drains to the storm drain line in South Waterman Avenue. F. Earthwork and Grading As shown on Figure 3-5, Conceptual Grading Plan, earthwork and grading would occur over the entire 19.65-acre Project site. No area of the site would be left undisturbed. Proposed earthwork and grading activities would occur in one phase and would result in approximately 108,469 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 108,469 c.y. of fill. Earthwork activities on-site would balance and no additional import of export of material would be required. When grading is complete, the Project site would have a slight, north-to- T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-7 SCALENOTTO CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN Figure 3-5 Page 3-8 Source(s): Thienes Engineering, Inc. (08-13-14) M�������� N������� D���������� W������� L�������� C����� C��� �� S�� B��������� T�B P�������, I��. 1030 1030 1029 1029 1029 10281028 10281028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1027102710271027102710271027102710271027 1027 1030 1028 1028 1028102810271027 1027 10261030 1030 1030 1030 1029 1029 1029 10251025102410241024102410241024 1023 1023 1023 1023 1023 1023 1023 1022 1022 1022 1022 102310 2 3 1028 102510241025102610271026 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION south gradient; the highest point of the site would be approximately 1,030 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the northern portion of the site and would slope downward to an elevation of approximately 1,022 amsl in the southern portion of the site. The Project site is relatively flat and proposed grading would not create manufactured slopes except around the proposed water/quality detention basin in the southwestern corner of the site, where proposed slopes would have a maximum incline of 3:1, and in the northeastern corner of the site, adjacent to the Twin Creek Channel, where proposed slopes would have a maximum incline of 2:1, bordered by a retaining wall comprised of black vinyl fencing with a height between approximately 4.5 and 11.5 feet. 3.1.4 Development Permit/Site Plan (DP-D14-05) As shown on Figure 3-6, Development Permit/Site Plan (DP-D14-05), the Project Applicant proposes to construct one (1) logistics warehouse building on the subject property. The proposed building would contain 426,856 square feet (s.f.) of building area. The office spaces would be located in the northwest and southwest corners of the building. At the time this MND was prepared, the future tenant(s) of the proposed Project’s building is unknown. The building is designed to accommodate a warehouse distribution, e-logistics, fulfillment center, or light-industrial operator(s). Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided by two (2) proposed driveways connecting to South Waterman Avenue. These driveways would provide direct access to automobile parking areas, loading areas, and truck parking areas. Proposed truck check-in points and driveways are positioned interior to the Project site to create interior queuing to minimize the potential for trucks to stack onto public streets when entering the Project site. Traffic exiting from each of the two (2) access points would be able to make both left and right-hand turns onto South Waterman Avenue. A. Architecture, Walls, and Fences Figure 3-7, Conceptual Elevations, depicts the conceptual architecture elevations proposed by the Project. The proposed industrial warehouse building would be constructed to a height of approximately 45 feet above finished grade, with architectural projections reaching up to 49 feet. The building would be constructed with painted concrete tilt-up panels and blue-glazed glass. Articulated building elements are proposed to be provided as decorative elements. The exterior color palette for the proposed building is comprised of various mild, earth-toned colors, including shades of beige and white. Painted concrete 14-foot tall tilt-up screen walls, complete with 8-foot tall black rolling wrought iron access gates, would be provided on the north and south sides of the building, facing South Waterman Avenue, to screen the loading bays and truck parking areas from public view. Eight (8)-foot tall tube steel fencing is proposed for the southwestern corner of site, adjacent to the detention basin, and for the northwestern corner of the site, adjacent the automobile parking area. In addition, 4-foot tall wrought iron fencing would be provided around the perimeter of the detention basin. The portion of the Project’s northeastern boundary that abuts off-site residential land uses would be screened by an eight (8)-foot tall solid masonry wall. Eight (8)-foot high chain-link fencing is proposed along the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the site. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-9 SCALENOTTO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/SITE PLAN (DP-D14-05) Figure 3-6 Page 3-10 Source(s): RGA (07-23-14) M�������� N������� D���������� W������� L�������� C����� C��� �� S�� B��������� T�B P�������, I��. SCALENOTTO CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS Figure 3-7 Page 3-11 Source(s): RGA (07-23-14) M�������� N������� D���������� W������� L�������� C����� C��� �� S�� B��������� T�B P�������, I��. WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION B. Parking and Loading Figure 3-6 depicts the number and location of parking spaces (including passenger car and truck trailer parking) and loading bays for the structure. The Project would include 234 total parking spaces: 97 automobile spaces, eight (8) handicap-accessible spaces, 12 carpool/vanpool spaces, and 117 truck trailer spaces. The Project provides six (6) short term bicycle stalls and six (6) long term bicycle stalls in compliance with the City of San Bernardino Development Code Section 19.20.030(26.A), which requires bicycle parking to be provided at a minimum rate of one (1) per thirty (30) parking spaces. An additional 245 automobile parking stalls may be provided in the future, if required by the tenant(s) that would eventually occupy the structure. As part of the proposed Project, 103 loading docks would be used for the loading, unloading, and short- term parking of trucks. The loading docks are designed to be distributed at the exterior of the structure as follows: 58 docks on the north side of the building and 45 docks on the south side of the building. At a warehouse building, loading docks (also called “bays”) are used for the receiving of goods and the shipment of goods. Quite often, these docks are on different sides of the building. The proposed Project’s building has been designed in this manner, with one side of the building primarily for the receiving of goods and the other side primarily for the shipment of goods. Although all of the loading bays are rarely used simultaneously, most warehouse tenants like to have as many bays as possible to facilitate operations inside the structure, where goods are sorted and stored. When trucks have the option to dock close to the area where their cargo is sorted and stored inside the structure, workers inside the building have a shorter distance to cover when moving goods from the truck to the inside storage area and vice versa. C. Conceptual Landscape Plan The conceptual landscape plan prepared for the Project is depicted in Figure 3-8, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would feature trees, shrubs, and drought- tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. The landscape plan indicates that trees and groundcover are proposed along the site’s frontage with South Waterman Avenue (including landscaping within the public right-of-way). Trees would be planted at regular intervals adjacent to the right-of-way with overlapping canopies. At building entries and driveways a variety of trees and groundcover would be used to partially shade the structure and parking areas. The water quality detention basin on the southwestern corner of the site would be landscaped with trees and groundcover, with the bottom surface hydroseeded with a swale mix. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed industrial warehouse building, construction documents pertaining to the planting and irrigation of the Project site would be required to be submitted to the City of San Bernardino for review and approval. The planting and irrigation plans would be required to comply with Development Code Section 19.28 which establishes requirements for landscape design, automatic irrigation system design, and water-use efficiency. 3.2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 Construction Characteristics The proposed Project would be constructed over the course of approximately nine (9) months. Construction activities would commence with site preparation and the demolition of the existing T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-12 SCALENOTTO M�������� N������� D���������� W������� L�������� C����� C��� �� S�� B��������� CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Figure 3-8 Page 3-13T�B P�������, I��. Source(s): Hunter Landscape (08-12-14) WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION structures. It is expected that approximately 4,900 tons of demolition debris would be generated on-site, of which approximately 90% (approximately 4,400 tons) would be recycled. (Camacho, Joe, 2014) After demolition, the property would be mass-graded and underground infrastructure would be installed. As part of construction of Project site infrastructure, two (2) existing above ground Southern California Edison power lines located in the northern portion of the Project site would be either undergrounded or removed. Next, surface materials would be poured and the building would be erected, connected to the underground utility system, and painted. Lastly, landscaping, fencing/walls and other site improvements would be installed and fine grading would occur. Construction equipment is expected to operate on the Project site eight (8) hours per day, five (5) days per week during the construction phase. The types and numbers of heavy equipment expected to be used during construction activities are listed in Table 3-1, Construction Equipment Assumptions. For purposes of evaluation in this MND, it is assumed that the building would be operational in the Year 2015. Off-site construction activities would be limited to the removal of an obsolete railroad bridge over the Twin Creek Channel. To remove the bridge, the wood deck would be manually removed with hand- operated power tools. Once the wood framing has been removed, a boom lift would access the underside of the bridge and torch cut any fastening points. The bridge beams spanning the channel would then be rigged and hoisted from one side of the bank outside of the Channel and placed in a staging area to await removal off-site. The concrete abutment that is an integral part of the of the Channel would remain in place. 3.2.2 Operational Characteristics At the time this MND was prepared, the future tenant(s) of the proposed Project’s building is unknown. The Project Applicant expects that the building would be primarily occupied by a warehouse distribution, e-logistics, fulfillment center, or light-industrial operator(s). For the purpose of analysis in this document, the future tenant types are assumed to be any of those uses permitted by the City of San Bernardino Development Code’s “Industrial Light” designation as described in City of San Bernardino Development Code Chapter 19.08. Furthermore, this MND assumes the proposed building would be operational 24 hours per day, with exterior areas lit at night. Lighting would be subject to compliance with Development Code Chapter 19.20.030.14, which states that exterior lighting shall be energy-efficient, shielded or recessed, and directed downward and away from adjoining properties. The building is designed such that business operations would be conducted within the enclosed building, with the exception of traffic movement, parking, and the loading and unloading of tractor trailers at designated loading bays. Based on calculations utilized in the Project’s traffic impact analysis (Technical Appendix K to this MND), the Project would generate 575 passenger car trips and 148 truck trips on a daily basis (Urban Crossroads, 2014d, p. 27). Because the building’s tenant is not yet known, the number of jobs that the Project would generate cannot be precisely determined; therefore, for purposes of analysis within this MND, employment estimates have been calculated using the Project Applicant’s understanding and experience from projects that are of comparable size and intended usage (Schaefer, 2014). Using an employment generation rate of 1 employee per 2,000 s.f. of building area, the proposed Project is expected to create approximately 213 new, recurring jobs. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-14 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Based on calculations utilized in the Project’s greenhouse gas analysis (Technical Appendix F to this MND), the Project is expected to result in a demand for approximately 305 acre-feet of potable water per year (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Appendix 3.1). The Project is also estimated to result in an average daily demand of 19,650 gallons per day of wastewater treatment capacity (based on the City of San Bernardino’s wastewater generation factor of 1,000 gallons per day per acre for light industrial land uses) (Psomas, 2002, Table 4-3). Energy use is estimated at approximately 1,616,312 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, and natural gas usage is estimated at approximately 769,700 thousand British thermal units per year (kBTU/yr) (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Appendix 3.1). Table 3-1 Construction Equipment Assumptions Activity Equipment Number Hours Per Day Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 1 8 Excavators 2 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 Site Preparation Water Trucks 2 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 Excavators 4 8 Grading Water Trucks 3 8 Scrapers 6 8 Graders 4 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 Excavator 1 8 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Forklifts 3 8 Generator Sets 2 8 Cranes 1 8 Welders 2 8 Architectural Coatings Air Compressors 4 8 Paving Pavers 2 8 Paving Equipment 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Table 3-3) T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-15 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.3 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Permit/Site Plan and their technical aspects have been reviewed in detail by the City of San Bernardino. Various City departments and divisions are responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with City codes and regulations. These departments and divisions also were responsible for reviewing this MND for technical accuracy and compliance with CEQA. The City of San Bernardino departments and divisions responsible for technical review include: o City Attorney’s Office o Community Development Department, Planning Division o Community Development Department, Land Development Division o Fire Department o Public Works Department, Engineering Division Review of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Permit/Site Plan will result in the production of a comprehensive set of draft Conditions of Approval that will be available for public review prior to consideration of the proposed Project for approval by the City of San Bernardino. These conditions will be considered by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council in conjunction with their deliberations on and consideration of the Project. If approved, the Project would be required to comply with all imposed Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval and other applicable regulations, codes, and requirements that the Project is required to comply with and that result in the reduction or avoidance of an environmental impact are specified throughout the analysis presented in this MND. 3.4 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTIONS The City of San Bernardino has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City is serving as the Lead Agency for this MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15050. The City’s Planning Commission will consider the Project’s requested discretionary permit applications and make advisory recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will have authority over approval, approval with changes, or denial of the requested actions that are within the City’s jurisdiction. The City will consider the information contained in this MND and this MND’s Administrative Record in its decision-making processes. Upon approval of the Project and certification of this MND, the City would conduct administrative reviews and grant ministerial permits and approvals to implement the Project. A list of the primary actions under City jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of other agencies is provided in Table 3-2, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits. This MND covers all federal, state, local government and quasi-government approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed in Table 3-2, or elsewhere in this MND (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(d)). T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-16 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 3-2 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits Public Agency Approvals and Decisions City of San Bernardino Development/Environmental Review Committee (D/ERC) • Provide recommendations to the San Bernardino Planning Commission whether to approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 14-08, Zoning Map Amendment No. ZMA 14-16, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19573 (SUB 14-11) and Development Permit/Site Plan No. DP-D14-05. • Provide recommendation to the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission regarding approval of this MND. Planning Commission • Provide recommendations to the San Bernardino City Council whether to approve the following: General Plan Amendment No. GPA 14-08, Zoning Map Amendment No. ZMA 14-16, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19573 (SUB 14-11) and Development Permit/Site Plan No. DP-D14-05. • Provide recommendation to the City of San Bernardino City Council regarding approval of this MND. City Council • Approve, conditionally approve, or deny General Plan Amendment No. GPA 14-08, Zoning Map Amendment No. ZMA 14-16, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19573 (SUB 14-11) and Development Permit/Site Plan No. DP-D14-05. • Reject or approve this MND along with appropriate CEQA Findings. Subsequent City of San Bernardino Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals City of San Bernardino Subsequent Implementing Approvals • Approve final maps, parcel mergers, lot line adjustments, or parcel consolidations, as may be appropriate. • Approvals for water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure. • Issue grading permits. • Issue building permits. • Approve road improvement plans. • Issue encroachment permits. • Accept public right-of-way dedications. Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issue a Construction Activity General Construction Permit. • Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Southern California Edison • Approve the undergounding or removal of existing above ground power lines. San Bernardino County Flood Control District • Issue a permit to tie on-site storm drain directly into sidewall of the Twin Creek Channel. • Issue a permit to remove railroad bridge from over the Twin Creek Channel. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 3-17 4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INITIAL STUDY WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER Project Description and Location: The proposed Project involves the redevelopment of 19.65-acre property located east of South Waterman Avenue, west of the Twin Creek Channel, north of East Mill Street, and south of East Rialto Avenue in the south-central portion of the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. The Project proposes to construct and operate one (1) logistics warehouse building having 426,858 square feet of interior building space and 103 loading bays. The Project Applicant is pursuing the Project on a speculative basis, meaning that the building’s future tenant(s) is not yet identified. Under existing conditions, the Project site is occupied by three (3) commercial buildings, one (1) industrial building, and one (1) residence, with a large portion of the site left undeveloped. Off-site improvements include the removal of an abandoned railroad bridge over the Twin Creek Channel adjacent to the site. Mailing addresses associated with the subject property are 225, 237, and 291 South Waterman Avenue. The Project site includes San Bernardino County Assessor Parcels 0279-321-14, -24, -44, - 47, -48, -59, and -63, 0136-311-24 and 0136-311-32. December 10, 2014 CEQA LEAD AGENCY: City of San Bernardino Community Development Department, Planning Division 300 North “D” Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 PROJECT APPLICANT: Hillwood Investment Properties 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 CEQA CONSULTANT: T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 REVIEWED BY: Independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised judgment in making the determination, by the City of San Bernardino Development/Environmental Review Committee on December 4, 2014, pursuant to Section 21082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a Project must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine the most appropriate CEQA compliance document for the proposed action, either a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND/MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). If a previous EIR has been prepared for a project, then an Initial Study can be used to determine if an Addendum to the previous ND/MND or EIR can be prepared, or whether a more extensive Supplemental or Subsequent EIR must be prepared. 1. Project Title: Waterman Logistics Center 2. Lead Agency Name: City of San Bernardino Address: 300 North “D” Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418 Contact Person: Aron Liang City of San Bernardino Planning Division 3. Phone Number: 909-384-5057 4. Project Location (Address/Nearest cross-streets): The Project site is located in San Bernardino County, in the City of San Bernardino, east of South Waterman Avenue, west of the Twin Creek Channel, north of East Mill Street, and south of East Rialto Avenue. The Project site comprises San Bernardino County Assessor Parcels 0279-321-14, -24, -44, -47, -48, -59, and -63, 0136-311-24 and 0136-311-32 and site addresses associated with the subject property are 225, 237, and 291 South Waterman Avenue. 5. Project Sponsor: Hillwood Investment Properties 6. Sponsor Address: Hillwood Investment Properties: 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175, Ontario, CA 91764 7. General Plan Designation: Office Industrial Park (OIP), Residential Medium High (RMH) 8. Zoning Designation: Office Industrial Park (OIP) 9. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site feature necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary): The proposed Project consists of applications for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-08), Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 14-16), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 19573, SUB 14-11) and a Development Permit/Site Plan (DP-P14-05). A detailed description of the proposed Project is provided in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, finance approval, or participation agreement): • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (approval of Construction Activity General Construction Permit; NPDES Permit) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) • Southern California Edison (approval to underground or remove existing above ground power lines) • San Bernardino County Flood Control District (Permits to tie storm drain directly into sidewall of Twin Creek Channel and to remove railroad bridge) Waterman Logistics Center Page 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY I. AESTHETICS – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime view of the area? Impact Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005b, Chapter 5.1; San Bernardino, 2005a, Chapter 12; On-site Inspection (2014)) Under existing conditions the Project site is entirely disturbed/developed, containing a single-story commercial development (operational bail bonds business), a vacant commercial building with an associated vacant outbuilding, a detached single-family residence, a commercial building (operational truck repair business), billboards, and sparse vegetation; the Project site does not contain any scenic qualities that contribute to a scenic vista. The surrounding area is comprised of similarly developed urban land that does not contribute to the City’s scenic vistas. Site photos illustrating the existing conditions of the Project site are provided in Figure 2, Site Photos 1 & 2 and Figure 3, Site Photos 3 & 4 with the locations of the photos mapped on Figure 1, Site Photo Key and described below: Site Photo 1 (Figure 2): This photograph was taken from the Project site’s northwestern corner, looking southeast across the property. The right-hand side of the photograph displays South Waterman Avenue, looking to the south. Although partially obscured by smog and intervening development, in the background of the right-hand portion of the photograph, the Box Spring Mountains/Reche Canyon area is visible. The left-hand side of the photograph shows the commercial development to the north of the Project site, extending east. Above the trees in the midground of the left-hand side of the photograph, the portion of the San Bernardino Mountains located to east of the Project site is slightly visible through the smog and on-site vegetation. Site Photo 2 (Figure 2): This photograph was taken along the Project site’s frontage with South Waterman Avenue, approximately 330 feet to the south of the property’s northern boundary, looking east across the Project site. The right-hand side of the photograph shows South Waterman Avenue Waterman Logistics Center Page 4 SITE PHOTO KEY MAP Page 5 Figure 1Source(s): Firm Waterman Logistics Center Source(s): ESRI, RCTLMA (2014), SB County (2014) 4 3 2 1 PROJECT SITE SOUTH WATERMAN AVESAN FELIPE RD P. E . R R Twin Creek ChannelVALLEY ST EAST RIALTO AVE 0 300 600150 Feet CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOPLANNING DIVISIONINITIAL STUDY SCALENOTTO SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 1 & 2 Figure 2 Page 6Waterman Logistics Center CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Site Photo 1: Northwest corner of Project site, looking southeast Site Photo 2: Western edge of Project site boundary, looking east North North South South SCALENOTTO SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 3 & 4 Figure 3 Page 7Waterman Logistics Center CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Site Photo 3: Western Project site boundary, looking east Site Photo 4: Southwest corner of Project site, looking northeast North North South South CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY extending to the south with distant views of the Box Spring Mountains in the distance. Views of the Box Springs Mountains across the Project site to the south are not available due to the intervening commercial building, billboards, and trees that abut South Waterman Avenue. The left-hand side of the photograph shows South Waterman Avenue extending to the north, with the San Bernardino Mountains visible above the exiting development. The views of the San Bernardino Mountains extend from the left-hand side of the photograph to the center, although partially obscured by trees and smog. Site Photo 3 (Figure 3): This photograph was taken along the Project site’s frontage with South Waterman Avenue, approximately 290 feet north of the Project’s southern boundary, looking east across the Project site. The right-hand side of the photograph looks south, along the site’s frontage with South Waterman Avenue. From this vantage point, the Box Spring Mountains are mostly obscured by smog, with a small portion visible looking off-site. Billboards, trees, and existing development completely obscure all views of the Box Spring Mountains across the Project site. The left-hand side of the photograph shows South Waterman Avenue extending to the north, affording views of the San Bernardino Mountains in the distance. Views of the San Bernardino Mountains looking northeast across the Project site are obscured by the existing development on-site. From this vantage point, the vacant commercial building in the center of the photograph blocks all views of the horizon. Site Photo 4 (Figure 3): This photograph was taken at the property’s southwestern corner, looking northeast across the Project site. The right-hand side of the photograph looks east along the site’s southern boundary. The tops of the San Bernardino Mountains to the east of the Project site are visible through smog above the existing development on the site. The views of the San Bernardino Mountains above the existing development and trees on-site extend across the photograph to the left-hand side, which shows South Waterman Avenue looking to the north. The City of San Bernardino lies within a relatively flat valley floor that is bounded to the north, south, and east by rugged hills and mountains. Scenic resources within the City of San Bernardino are defined by the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and east, Box Springs Mountains to the south, and Reche Canyon to the south (San Bernardino, 2005b pp. 5.1-7 - 5.1-8). The San Bernardino Mountains are located approximately 7.0- miles north and 11.5-miles east of the Project site, and Box Spring Mountains are located approximately 5.8- miles south of the Project site. Additionally, the City of San Bernardino General Plan identifies East Twin Creeks Wash as a visual resource. (San Bernardino, 2005a, p. 12-22) The portion of the Twin Creek Channel that abuts the Project site’s eastern boundary is concrete lined, and does not contain any features that would qualify it as a scenic resource. The proposed Project would redevelop the property with a logistics warehouse building. Scenic vistas available to the public to the north and the south would not be affected by this proposed development due to the orientation of South Waterman Avenue. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a minor obstruction of public views of the San Bernardino Mountains to the east. As discussed above, under existing conditions the development and vegetation on-site partially obscure the views of the mountains from the public viewing locations along South Waterman Avenue. The proposed logistics warehouse building would similarly and partially obscure the mountains, representing a negligible alteration of the scenic vista. Due to the distance from the mountains (approximately 11.5-miles looking east) and the prominence of the mountain features, views of the scenic resources would still be afforded above the proposed development. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less- than-significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 8 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: No Impact Source: (Caltrans, 2013; San Bernardino, 2005a; San Bernardino, 2005b; Google Earth, 2014; On-site Inspection, 2014) The Project site is not located within or adjacent to a scenic highway corridor and does not contain scenic resources, such as trees of scenic value, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Although the Project site does contain several buildings under existing conditions, none of these buildings qualify as a historic resource (refer to response to Item V(a), below). Furthermore, there are no State-designated scenic highways within the City of San Bernardino, or in the vicinity of the Project site, under existing conditions (Caltrans, 2013). The nearest State-eligible scenic highways are State Route (SR) 30 (located approximately 4.3 miles east of the Project site) and SR 38 (located approximately 5.75 miles to the southeast of the Project site) (Caltrans, 2013). The Project’s proposed physical features (one logistics warehouse building with loading bays, screen walls, parking lots, truck yards, landscaping, etc.) would not be visible from either highway due to intervening development and distance. Because the Project site is not visible from a state scenic highway and contains no scenic resources under existing conditions, the proposed Project would not adversely impact the viewshed within a scenic highway corridor and would not damage important scenic resources within a scenic highway corridor, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. No impact would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Google Earth, 2014; On-site Inspection, 2014) The Project site and the surrounding area consist entirely of developed and disturbed land. The area immediately to the west of the Project site contains a large, disturbed but undeveloped, field with a nonconforming detached single family residence. To the northwest of the Project site, there is an elementary school, an auto repair business, a bail bonds business and an additional detached single family residence. To the southwest of the Project site is a construction equipment rental business and a large storage yard. Immediately to the south of the Project site is a used car sales lot, with additional commercial land uses to the south, including another storage lot. To the southeast of the site, is a large distribution warehouse, similar in character to the proposed Project. East of the Project site, across the Twin Creek Channel is an auto parts distribution/sales building, with additional commercial development in the vicinity. To the north of the Project site, abutting South Waterman Avenue, there is a commercial development. Also to the north of the Project site, there is a combination of detached single family residences and apartment/condominium developments. Based on the existing conditions on-site and the surrounding land uses, the visual character of the site and its surroundings would be described primarily as commercial and developed lands, with portions of highly- disturbed lands that are undeveloped. Under existing conditions, the residential land uses in the vicinity of the Project site are located adjacent to, or in the close vicinity of, commercial/industrial land uses. Implementation of the proposed Project would develop the site with a logistics warehouse building very similar in character to the existing development located to the southeast of the Project site. The Project site is entirely disturbed or developed, and the construction/operation of a logistics warehouse building would transfer the character of the underutilized property to one uniform, contemporary development. The demolition and construction portion of Waterman Logistics Center Page 9 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY the Project would be conducted over approximately nine (9) months. All Project-related construction activities would be temporary in nature and all construction equipment would be removed from the Project site following completion of the Project’s construction activities. Project-related changes to local visual character would be less than significant during near-term construction activities because construction activity is common in the City and would be temporary in nature. At the completion of construction, the logistics warehouse building would contain visual features that would ensure a high-quality visual character for the site from public viewing areas based on the Project’s architecture and landscape plans. Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to the on-site visual character. The portion of the City of San Bernardino in the vicinity of the Project site consists primarily of commercial development, with pockets of residential land uses. The development proposed by the Project is similar in nature to the distribution warehouses and commercial land uses to the south and to the east of the Project site. Furthermore, under existing conditions, the residential land uses surrounding the Project site are located adjacent to, or in the close vicinity of, commercial and/or industrial developments. The Project would be similar in character to other buildings in the area. Therefore, while the proposed Project would alter the visual character of the site and its surroundings, due to its likeness to the existing character of other large buildings in the surrounding area, such an alteration would not represent a substantial degradation. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime view of the area? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2013, Section 19.20.030; Project Application Materials) The Project would include the installation of exterior lighting, which would be subject to all applicable provisions of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, specifically Section 19.20.030 which includes the following standards for lighting: Exterior lighting shall be energy-efficient and shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel, and shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. No lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. All lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in scale, intensity, and height to the use it is serving. Security lighting shall be provided at all entrances/exits. The Project is designed to adhere to City of San Bernardino Development Code Section 19.20.030, and future implementing projects (i.e., building permits) would be required to demonstrate compliance with these standards. Compliance with Development Code Section 19.20.030 would ensure that the proposed Project does not produce substantial amounts of light or glare that could result in off-site light spillage or affect nighttime views in the area. With respect to daytime glare impacts that could result from reflective building materials, the proposed Project would involve the construction and operation of one logistics warehouse building. The majority of the exterior building surfaces would consist of tilt-up concrete construction that does not include any properties that would Waterman Logistics Center Page 10 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY produce substantial amounts of glare. The northeast and northwest corners of the proposed building, as well as five (5) windows at the approximate midpoint of the building’s frontage with South Waterman Avenue, contain blue, low-reflective-glazed glass. While glazing has a potential to result in glare effects, such effects would not adversely affect the daytime views of any surrounding properties, including motorists along South Waterman Avenue because the glass would not be mirrored and would have a maximum allowable reflectance of 25%, which would not produce substantial glare. Additionally, such glazing would be partially screened from public view by the landscaping proposed along the Project’s perimeter. Accordingly, a less-than-significant daytime glare impact would occur. There is no potential for the Project to result in nighttime glare because a proposed perimeter wall and landscaping would shield vehicle headlights from cars using South Waterman Avenue from shining onto any of the proposed warehouse building’s windows. No other proposed building surfaces would have reflective properties. In conclusion, the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare and would not adversely affect daytime or nighttime views of the area. Impacts would be less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 11 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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 a non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (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))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) 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? Impact Analysis a) 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 a non-agricultural use? Finding: No Impact Source: (CDC, 2011) According to mapping information available from the California Department of Conservation, the Project site contains lands classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” The Project site does not contain any soils mapped by the Department of Conservation as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” As such, the Project would not convert important farmland to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 12 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? Finding: No Impact Source: (CDC, 2013; San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure LU-2; San Bernardino, 2005b, Volume II, Appendix A) Under existing conditions, the subject property is zoned by the City of San Bernardino for “Office Industrial Park” and “Residential Medium High” land uses. There are no properties zoned for agricultural land uses in the Project vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the Project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. No impact would occur. As disclosed in the City of San Bernardino General Plan EIR (and supported by mapping information from the California Department of Conservation), no land within the City is under a Williamson Act Contract (CDC, 2013). As such, the Project has no potential to conflict with a Williamson Act contract because none exist on the Project site or in the vicinity of the site. No impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (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))? Finding: No Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a) No portion of the proposed Project site or surrounding area is zoned for forest land or timberland. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to conflict with, or cause rezoning of, forest land. No impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No Impact Source: (RBF, 2014) Based on a biological survey conducted on the proposed Project site by RBF Consulting, three (3) distinct vegetation/land use types are present on the Project site, including ruderal, disturbed, and developed – none of which are forest land. Furthermore, the biological survey did not identify any forest land adjacent to the Project site. (RBF, 2014, pp. 11-13) Because forest land is not present on the property or in the Project site’s immediate vicinity, the Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land or a non-forest use. No impact would occur. e) 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? Finding: No Impact Source: (CDC, 2011; San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure LU-2; RBF, 2014; Project Application Materials) “Farmland” is defined in Section II (a) of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines to mean “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” As described above in the response to Waterman Logistics Center Page 13 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Item II(a), implementation of the Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Additionally, as for the reasons noted above under the responses for to Items II(c) and II(d), the Project has no potential to result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 14 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY III. AIR QUALITY – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Impact Analysis a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (SCAQMD, 2013; Urban Crossroads, 2014a; San Bernardino, 2005a) The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or “Basin”). The SCAB encompasses approximately 6,745 square miles and includes Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, respectively; and the San Diego County line to the south. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the Basin. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The current AQMP was adopted by SCAQMD in December 2012. The 2012 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The proposed Project’s consistency with the 2012 AQMP is discussed as follows: Waterman Logistics Center Page 15 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The Project’s consistency with these criteria is discussed below. Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As evaluated under Issues III(b), (c), and (d), below, the Project would not exceed regional or localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant during construction or during long-term operation with the application of mandatory regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures. Accordingly, the Project’s regional and localized emissions would not contribute substantially to an existing or potential future air quality violation or delay the attainment of air quality standards. Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of project build‐out phase. The growth forecasts used in the AQMP to project future emissions levels are based on the projections of the Regional Transportation Model utilized by SCAG, which incorporates land use data provided by lead agency general plan documents, as well as assumptions regarding population number, location of population growth, and a regional housing needs assessment. The City of San Bernardino General Plan designates the Project site for the ultimate development of up to 675,615 square feet of “Office Industrial Park (OIP)” land uses and up 99 attached dwelling units, which would generate approximately 3,384 vehicle trips per day based the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ traffic generation rates of 195.11 daily trips per acre for office park land uses and 6.65 daily trips for an attached dwelling unit. The Project proposes to develop the subject property with a 426,858 square-foot logistics warehouse building and associated site improvements, which would generate 722 vehicle trips per day (actual vehicles, refer to Technical Appendix K). Because the Project would substantially reduce building area on the Project site (thereby shortening the construction phase) and would substantially reduce daily vehicle traffic trips to/from the site (vehicle traffic trips are the primary source of air pollutant emissions in the SCAB), as compared to the land uses planned by the General Plan and anticipated by the AQMP, the Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Furthermore, the Project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. As such, the Project would be consistent with the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 16 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing projected air quality violation? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (SCAQMD, 2013; Urban Crossroads, 2014a; Urban Crossroads, 2014b) As with any new development project, the proposed Project has the potential to generate substantial pollutant concentrations during both construction activities and long-term operation. The following provides an analysis based on the applicable significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD and Federal and State air quality standards. This analysis assumes that the proposed Project would comply with applicable, mandatory regional air quality standards, including: SCAQMD Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust;” SCAQMD Rule 431.2, “Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels;” SCAQMD Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings;” SCAQMD Rule 1186, “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations;” SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers,” and Title 13, Chapter 10, Section 2485, Division 3 of the California Code of Regulations “Airborne Toxic Control Measure.” For a detailed description of the health effects of air pollutants refer to Section 2.6 of the Project’s Air Quality Report (Technical Appendix A). Impact Analysis for Construction Emissions For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that construction of the Project would occur from January 2015 to September 2015. If construction activities actually occur at a later date than assumed in this analysis, emissions associated with construction vehicle exhaust would be less than disclosed below due to the application of more restrictive regulatory requirements for construction equipment and the ongoing replacement of older construction fleet equipment with newer, less-polluting equipment by construction contractors, as contained in the CalEEMod model. The Project’s construction characteristics and construction equipment fleet assumptions used in the analysis were previously described in Section 3.0, Project Description. The calculated maximum daily emissions associated with the construction of the Project are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Construction-Related Emissions Note: Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix A) for the CalEEMod™ output files and additional hand calculations for the estimated emissions. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Table 3-4) As shown in Table 1, the Project-related construction emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Accordingly, the Project would not emit substantial concentrations of these pollutants during construction and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, on a direct or cumulatively considerable basis. Waterman Logistics Center Page 17 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Impacts associated with construction‐related emissions of CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project is projected to exceed the SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant threshold for emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) during construction. The SCAB does not attain the State standard for NOX concentrations. Furthermore, both VOCs and NOX are precursors for ozone, a pollutant for which the SCAB does not attain Federal or State standards. Accordingly, the Project’s emissions of VOCs and NOX during construction would violate the SCAQMD regional threshold for these pollutants and would result in a considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is in nonattainment. This impact is significant and mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2 would reduce Project emissions of NOX and VOCs during construction by requiring the usage of Zero-Volatile Organic Compound paints and/or the application of paints with “High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV)” applications, as well as placing limitations on the construction/grading activities that can take place on the Project site. As shown in Table 2, Summary of Construction-Related Emissions (With Mitigation), implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project’s construction-related VOC and NOX emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Accordingly, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2, the Project would not violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and construction‐related impacts associated with VOCs and NOX emissions would be reduced to less than significant. Table 2 Summary of Construction-Related Emissions (With Mitigation) Note: Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix A) for the CalEEMod™ output files and additional hand calculations for the estimated emissions. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Table 3-5) Mitigation for Construction-Related Emissions MM AQ-1 Prior to building permit issuance, the City shall verify that the following note is specified on all building plans. Project contractors shall be required to comply with these notes and maintain written records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of San Bernardino upon request. This note shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) All surface coatings shall consist of Zero-Volatile Organic Compound paints (no more than 150 gram/liter of VOC) and/or be applied with High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113. MM AQ-2 Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City shall verify that the following notes are specified on all grading and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to comply Waterman Logistics Center Page 18 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff to confirm compliance. These notes shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) The construction contractor shall utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment (greater than or equal to 150 horsepower) certified California Air Resources Board Tier 3 or better. b) The construction contractor shall assure that no more than 10 acres (surface area) of land or topsoil is actively disturbed on any given day. c) During grading activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of diesel powered construction equipment used on-site, including type/engine year of equipment, number of equipment, and equipment horsepower. The construction contractor shall also maintain a log of the daily operating hours of each piece of diesel-powered equipment during the grading phase by horsepower-hours. The construction contractor shall assure that the usage of diesel powered construction equipment does not exceed 34,360 horsepower-hours per day during grading activities. d) Temporary signs shall be placed on the construction site at equipment staging areas indicating that heavy duty trucks and diesel powered construction equipment are prohibited from idling for more than five (5) minutes. The signs shall be installed before construction activities commence and remain in place during the duration of construction activities at all loading, unloading, and equipment staging areas. e) The construction contractor shall provide temporary traffic controls in conformance with the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to facilitate traffic flow along Waterman Avenue. f) The construction contractor shall assure that all delivery trucks utilize the most direct route between the Project site and Interstate 10 via Waterman Avenue and/or Interstate 215 via Mill Street to Waterman Avenue. Although the Project’s construction emissions of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would be less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended to further reduce the Project’s less-than- significant impact. MM AQ-3 The Project shall comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementation of best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads. Prior to grading permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the following notes are specified on the grading plan. Project construction contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) All clearing, grading, earth-moving, and excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. b) During grading and ground-disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that all unpaved roads, active soil stockpiles, and areas undergoing active Waterman Logistics Center Page 19 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY ground disturbance within the Project site are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas by water truck, sprinkler system, or other comparable means, shall occur in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. c) Temporary signs shall be installed on the construction site along all unpaved roads indicating a maximum speed limit of 15 miles per hour (MPH). The signs shall be installed before construction activities commence and remain in place for the duration of construction activities that include vehicle activities on unpaved roads. d) The cargo area of all vehicles hauling soil, sand, or other loose earth materials shall be covered. MM AQ-4 The Project shall comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers” by complying with the following requirements. To ensure and enforce compliance with these requirements and reduce the release of criteria pollutant emissions into the atmosphere during construction, prior to grading and building permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the following notes are included on the grading and building plans. Project construction contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff or its designee to confirm compliance. The notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) If visible dirt or accumulated dust is carried onto paved roads during construction, the contractor shall remove such dirt and dust at the end of each work day by street cleaning. b) Street sweepers shall be certified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as meeting the Rule 1186 sweeper certification procedures and requirements for PM10-efficient sweepers. All street sweepers having a gross vehicle weight of 14,000 pounds or more shall be powered with alternative (non-diesel) fuel or otherwise comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186.1. Impact Analysis for Operational Emissions The proposed Project would be operated as a logistics warehouse facility. Operational activities at logistics centers generate air pollutant emissions from vehicular travel, usage of cargo handling equipment, landscape maintenance, application of architectural coatings, and the use of electricity and natural gas. Long term operational emissions associated with the Project are presented in Table 3, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions. As summarized in Table 3, Project‐related operational emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Accordingly, the Project would not emit substantial concentrations of these pollutants during long‐term operation and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts associated with long‐term emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Waterman Logistics Center Page 20 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Table 3 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Table 3-6) Mitigation for Operational-Related Emissions Although the Project’s construction emissions of NOX would be less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended to further reduce the Project’s less-than-significant impact. MM AQ-5 Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading areas, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place. MM AQ-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the parking lot striping and security gating plan allows for adequate truck stacking at gates to prevent queuing of trucks outside the property. MM AQ-7 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that a sign has been installed at each exit driveway, providing directional information to the City’s truck route. Text on the sign shall read “To Truck Route” with a directional arrow. Waterman Logistics Center Page 21 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (SCAQMD, 2013; Urban Crossroads, 2014a; Urban Crossroads, 2014b) The Project area is located in the SCAB, which is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM10 and PM2.5. The evaluation of Project‐specific air pollutant emissions presented in the preceding analysis under Issue III(b) demonstrates that the Project would not exceed any applicable thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards, with the application of required mitigation measures. Furthermore, as described under the response to Issue III(b), the Project would comply with the mandatory requirements of SCAQMD’s Rule 403 (fugitive dust control) during construction, as well as all other adopted AQMP emissions control measures. The Project also would be required to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, and specifically its Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025, “Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles” and its Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485, “Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.” Compliance with all these measures, which are imposed on all development projects in the SCAB, would minimize emissions of ozone precursors and PM10 and PM2.5. SCAQMD considers all individual project air pollutant emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds to also be cumulatively considerable. Conversely, if a project does not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds, then SCAQMD considers that project’s air pollutant emissions to be less than cumulatively considerable. As described above under the response to Issue III(b), the Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for any criteria pollutant, including air pollutants for which the Project region is in non- attainment of applicable Federal and State standards (i.e., ozone and its precursors, PM10 and PM2.5), after the application of required mitigation. Therefore, the Project’s operational air emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 shall apply. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (SCAQMD, 2013; Urban Crossroads, 2014a; Urban Crossroads, 2014b; Urban Crossroads, 2014c)) The following provides an analysis of the Project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction and long-term operation. For a detailed description of the health effects of air pollutants refer to Section 2.6 of the Project’s Air Quality Report (Technical Appendix A). The following analysis is based on the applicable significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. This analysis assumes that the proposed Project would comply with applicable, mandatory regional air quality standards, including: SCAQMD Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust;” SCAQMD Rule 431.2, “Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels;” SCAQMD Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings;” SCAQMD Rule 1186, “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations;” Waterman Logistics Center Page 22 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers,” and Title 13, Chapter 10, Section 2485, Division 3 of the California Code of Regulations “Airborne Toxic Control Measure.” Impacts Analysis for Construction Localized Emissions Sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, including but not limited to the residential land use located immediately to the north of the Project site, would be exposed to localized emissions (e.g. construction tailpipe emissions, dust) during Project construction. The most intensive construction activities on- site would occur during site preparation and grading. Table 4 and Table 6 summarize the estimated localized air pollutant emission concentrations associated with proposed preparation and grading of the Project site, respectively. As summarized in Table 4, the Project would exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significant threshold for PM10 emissions during the site preparation phase of construction, but site preparation activities would not exceed the applicable localized significance thresholds for NOX, CO, or PM2.5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 would reduce localized emissions of PM10 during site preparation construction activities to less-than-significant levels (refer to Table 5, Localized Emissions for Site Preparation (With Mitigation)). As summarized in Table 6, the Project’s emissions of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds during the grading phase of construction. Accordingly, proposed construction of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation for Construction Localized Emissions Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 shall apply. Waterman Logistics Center Page 23 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Table 4 Localized Emissions for Site Preparation Note: Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix A) for the CalEEMod™ output files and additional hand calculations for the estimated emissions. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Table 3-8) Table 5 Localized Emissions for Site Preparation (With Mitigation) Note: Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix A) for the CalEEMod™ output files and additional hand calculations for the estimated emissions. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Table 3-10) Table 6 Localized Emissions for Grading Note: Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix A) for the CalEEMod™ output files and additional hand calculations for the estimated emissions. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Table 3-9) Waterman Logistics Center Page 24 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Impact Analysis for Operational Localized Emissions The Project’s estimated operational localized emissions are presented in Table 7, Summary of Operational Localized Emissions. As shown, estimated Project-related long-term operational emissions would not exceed the localized thresholds established by the SCAMQD. Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not result in the exposure of any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Table 7 Summary of Operational Localized Emissions Note: Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix A) for the CalEEMod™ output files and additional hand calculations for the estimated emissions. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, Table 3-12) CO “Hot Spot” Localized areas where ambient CO concentrations exceed the CAAQS and/or NAAQS are termed CO “hot spots.” Emissions of CO are produced in greatest quantities from motor vehicle combustion and are usually concentrated at or near ground level because they do not readily disperse into the atmosphere, particularly under cool, stable (i.e., low or no wind) atmospheric conditions. Consequently, the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersection locations. Carbon monoxide decreased dramatically in the SCAB with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No CO concentrations in excess of the CAAQS and/or NAAQS have been recorded at monitoring stations in the SCAB for at least the last three (3) years and the SCAB is currently designated as a CO attainment area for both the CAAQS and NAAQS. Table 2-3 of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix A) indicates that the maximum CO levels over the last three (3) years are 4.8 parts per million (ppm) (1-hour average) and 1.7 ppm (8-hour average) as compared to the CAAQS threshold of 20 ppm (1-hour average) and 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) and the NAAQS threshold of 35 ppm (1-hour average) and 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, p. 14). Based on the Project’s estimated CO emission levels during construction activities and long-term operation, CO levels at intersections that would receive Project-related traffic would not rise to such a degree so as to exceed the CAAQS and/or NAAQS thresholds. Regardless, for purposes of providing a conservative, worst‐case impact analysis, the potential for the proposed Project to cause or contribute to CO hotspots was evaluated by comparing the study area intersections that would receive Project traffic (both intersection geometry and traffic volumes) with prior studies conducted by the SCAQMD in support of their AQMPs. In the 2003 AQMP, the SCAQMD evaluated CO concentrations at four (4) busy intersections in the City of Los Angeles that were determined to be the most congested intersections in the SCAB. Each of the evaluated intersections were primary thoroughfares, some of which were located near major freeway on/off ramps, and experienced traffic volumes of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The SCAQMD’s hot spot analysis at these busy intersections did not predict any violation of CO Waterman Logistics Center Page 25 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY standards. Based on an analysis of the intersections in the Project’s study area, Urban Crossroads determined that none of the intersections in the Project’s study area would be subject to the extreme traffic volumes and vehicle congestion of the intersections modeled by the SCAQMD in the 2003 AQMP (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, p. 44). Furthermore, a study prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) determined that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO “Hot Spot” impact. The proposed Project would only generate 722 total vehicle trips over an entire day (976 Passenger Car Equivalent trips) and would not remotely approach the volume of hourly traffic required to generate a CO “Hot Spot” (Urban Crossroads, 2014a, p. 44). Therefore, Project-related vehicular emissions would not create a CO “hot spot” and would not substantially contribute to an existing or projected CO “hot spot”. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Diesel Particulate Emissions The Project’s operational activities would generate/attract diesel-fueled trucks. Diesel trucks produce diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is known to be associated with health hazards, including cancer. To evaluate the Project’s potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of DPM during long-term operation, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project (Technical Appendix B). Project-related DPM health risks were evaluated under three (3) receptor scenarios, which are described below. Detailed air dispersion model outputs and risk calculations are presented in Appendices 5.1 and 5.2, respectively, of Technical Appendix B. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR) (the residential land use immediately to the north of the Project site), the maximum cancer risk attributable to the proposed Project’s DPM emissions is calculated to be 1.51 in one million (assuming that the resident(s) at this property would stay at their home 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week, 365 days per year, for 70 years). A cancer risk of 1.51 in one million would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2014c, p. 7). At this same location, the non-cancer health risk index attributable to the proposed Project would be 0.001, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index of 1.0 (Urban Crossroads, 2014c, p. 7). Accordingly, long- term operations at the Project site would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively considerable manner to the exposure of residential receptors to substantial DPM emissions. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts and no mitigation is required. At the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), modeled at the intersection of Mill Street and South Waterman Avenue 0.25-mile to the southwest of the Project site, the maximum cancer risk attributable to the proposed Project’s DPM emissions is calculated to be 0.32 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2014c, p. 7). The MEIW analysis assumes the employees would work in the Project area for 40 years. At this same location, the non-cancer health risk index attributable to the proposed Project would be 0.001, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non- cancer health risk index of 1.0 (Urban Crossroads, 2014c, pp. 7-8). Accordingly, long-term operations at the Project site would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively considerable manner to the exposure of nearby workers to substantial DPM emissions. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts and no mitigation is required. Waterman Logistics Center Page 26 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY At the maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC), the maximum cancer risk attributable to the proposed Project’s DPM emissions is calculated to be 0.139 in one million and the non-cancer health risk index attributable to the proposed Project’s DPM emissions would be 0.00069 (Urban Crossroads, 2014c, p. 8). Both the estimated cancer risk and non-cancer health risk index would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance (10 in one million and 1.0, respectively). Accordingly, long-term operations at the Project site would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively considerable manner to the exposure of nearby school child receptors to substantial DPM emissions. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts and no mitigation is required. Conclusion As indicated in the above analysis, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial localized emissions during construction of operation. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014a) The Project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural coatings; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Project site would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction, and short-term impacts would be less than significant. During long-term operation, the proposed Project would include warehouse distribution land uses, which are not typically associated with objectionable odors. The temporary storage of refuse associated with the proposed Project’s long-term operational use could be a potential source of odor; however, Project-generated refuse is required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations, thereby precluding any significant odor impact. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance, during long-term operation. As such, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Waterman Logistics Center Page 27 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (RBF, 2014; RBF 2015) Waterman Logistics Center Page 28 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY No special-status species plant or animal species were observed on the Project site during a field survey conducted by RBF on July 24, 2014. Because of historic (dating to approximately 1901) and on-going development and disturbance on the Project site, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for sensitive biological resources and has a low potential to support sensitive plant or animal species known to occur within the general area, including the burrowing owl (RBF, 2014, pp. 16-19; RBF, 2015, n.p.). Refer to Threshold IVd. (below) for further discussion of potential impacts to the burrowing owl. Accordingly, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (RBF, 2014) RBF observed three (3) distinct vegetative/habitat types on the Project site during a field survey conducted on July 24, 2014: Ruderal, Disturbed, and Developed (RBF, 2014, p. 11). None of the observed on-site vegetation types are considered riparian habitats, nor are any of the habitats on the Project site identified as sensitive natural communities in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Project would construct an off-site storm drain outlet within the Twin Creek Channel. The Twin Creek Channel qualifies as both “Waters of the U.S.” and “Waters of the State,” and, therefore, falls under the jurisdictional authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the CDFW. The storm drain outlet would be installed above the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Channel and, therefore, would be exempt from having to obtain regulatory approvals from the Corps and RWQCB. However, the storm drain outlet would be installed within an area under the jurisdictional authority of the CDFW and would require CDFW approval of a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to State law. The Project’s mandatory compliance with the Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would ensure that construction of the proposed storm drain outlet would not result in a substantial, adverse effect to the Channel or its downstream areas. Furthermore, the proposed storm drain outlet would only receive water during rain events and is not expected to result in any appreciable increase in discharge into the downstream Santa Ana River that could adversely affect downstream natural habitats (RBF, 2014, pp. 15-16). No temporary or permanent impacts to the Twin Creek Channel would occur from the proposed removal of a railroad bridge that spans the channel because no physical disturbance would occur to the Channel associated with bridge removal. The majority of the bridge removal work would be performed from the bridge deck spanning the Channel. The deck is proposed to be removed working from one side of the bridge back toward the other side to allow for the bridge deck to serve as a working platform. Once the wood framing has been removed, fastening points would be cut and the bridge beams spanning the Channel would be rigged and hoisted to a staging area alongside the Channel to await transport off-site. The concrete abutment that is an integral part of the Channel will remain in place and there would be no affect to any riparian habitat. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CFFW or USFWS. The Project would result in a less-than-significant impact. Waterman Logistics Center Page 29 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Mitigation Although the Project’s impacts to sensitive communities protected by CDFW policies and regulations would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure MM BI-1 is recommended to ensure that compliance with applicable regulations occurs prior to construction. MM BI-1 The Project Applicant shall obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the installation of a drainage outlet within the Twin Creek Channel. Prior to the issuance of permits for improvements within the Twin Creek Channel, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department that a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement has been issued for the Project. c) 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? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (RBF, 2014) The Project site does not contain any federally protected aquatic resources, including marshes, vernal pools, or coast line (RBF, 2014, pp. 11-13). The Project would construct an off-site storm drain outlet within the Twin Creek Channel, which meets the criteria for “Waters of the U.S.” and, therefore, falls under the jurisdictional authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). However, the storm drain outlet would be installed above the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Channel and, therefore, would be exempt from having to obtain regulatory approvals from the Corps. Furthermore, the proposed storm drain outlet would only receive water during rain events and is not expected to result in any appreciable increase in discharge into the downstream Santa Ana River that could adversely affect downstream natural habitats. (RBF, 2014, pp. 15-16) No temporary or permanent impacts to the Twin Creek Channel would occur from the proposed removal of a railroad bridge that spans the channel because no physical disturbance would occur to the Channel associated with bridge removal. The concrete abutment that is an integral part of the Channel will remain in place and there would be no affect to any federally protected wetlands. Accordingly, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (RBF, 2014; RBF 2015) The Project site is highly disturbed, is partially developed under existing conditions, and does not support a diversity of native vegetation or wildlife. Developed areas surrounding the Project site block any terrestrial wildlife movement from the north, south, east or west. The Twin Creek Channel is located adjacent to the Project’s eastern/southeastern boundary; however, the Channel is completely improved under existing conditions (i.e., concrete-lined) and does not support natural habitat or serve as a wildlife movement corridor. Accordingly, the Project would not disrupt wildlife movement in the Project area. Waterman Logistics Center Page 30 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY The proposed Project would result in the removal of vegetation (i.e., trees and shrubs) on a portion of the Project site with the potential to support nesting migratory birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. The Project’s potential to impact nesting migratory birds is a significant direct impact for which mitigation is required. RBF did not observe the burrowing owl on the Project site during a site survey on July 24, 2014 (RBF, 2014, p. 14). RBF also did not observe any burrowing owl burrows or signs of burrowing owl use of the property (i.e., direct observation, aural detection, pellets, white wash, feathers, or prey remains) during a site survey conducted on January 8, 2015. Because of on-going human activities on the Project site (including operation of commercial and industrial businesses, a residence, and routine disking of undeveloped areas), the burrowing owl is presumed absent from the Project site (RBF, 2015, n.p). Regardless, out of an abundance of caution, this MND recommends mitigation to preclude potential impacts to the burrowing owl and ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Mitigation MM BI-2 No sooner than 30 days prior to and no later than 14 days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of the Project’s proposed impact footprint and make a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing owl. A second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbing activities. The determination shall be documented in a report and shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted by the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit and subject to the following provisions: a) In the event that the pre-construction survey identifies no burrowing owls in the impact area, a grading permit may be issued without restriction. b) In the event that the pre-construction survey indicates the Project’s proposed impact footprint is occupied by burrowing owl, then prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the property, a qualified biologist shall develop a mitigation strategy in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (dated March 7, 2012), which may include passive or active relocation of burrowing owls. Passive relocation, including the required use of one-way doors to exclude owls from the site and the collapsing of burrows, will occur if the biologist determines that the proximity and availability of alternate habitat is suitable for successful passive relocation. Passive relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol and shall only occur between September 15 and February 1. If proximate alternate habitat is not present as determined by the biologist, active relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol. The biologist shall confirm in writing that the species has fledged the site or been relocated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. MM BI-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a nesting migratory bird survey shall be completed in accordance with the following requirements: a) A migratory nesting bird survey of the Project’s impact footprint shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance. Waterman Logistics Center Page 31 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY b) A copy of the migratory nesting bird survey results report shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department. If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the qualified biologist shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of maps showing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department and shall be no less than a 300-foot radius around the nest for non-raptors and a 500-foot radius around the nest for raptors. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist verifies that the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2009; RBF, 2014) City of San Bernardino Ordinance MC-1027 and MC-682 (Municipal Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.34) prohibits the removal and/or destruction of more than five (5) trees from a development site within a 36-month period without first being issued a tree removal permit by the City. Per the Municipal Code, a written application must be filed with the City prior to the destruction or removal of the trees and the City will issue a permit to allow the removal of the trees if the City can make findings that the trees can be removed without detriment to the environment and welfare of the community. The Project site contains ornamental landscaping associated with the existing commercial, industrial, and residential uses on the site, including more than five (5) trees. Prior to removal of these trees from the site, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.34 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code. Mandatory compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code would ensure the Project would not conflict with the City of San Bernardino’s ordinances regarding tree removal. As such, a less than significant impact would occur. The City of San Bernardino Municipal Code also contains hillside development management provisions to ensure that development does not adversely affect the natural and topographic character of existing hillsides and also preserves native plant materials and natural hydrology (Municipal Code, Title 19, Chapter 19.17). The Project site is relatively flat and located in a low-lying portion of the City. The Project site is not located on or near any hillside or ridgeline and is not located within the City’s Hillside Management Overlay District. Accordingly, implementation of the Project has no potential to conflict with the City of San Bernardino’s ordinances and policies related to hillside development Waterman Logistics Center Page 32 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No Impact Source: (RBF, 2014) The Project site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 33 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? Impact Analysis a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (BCR Consulting, 2014) Based on a review of aerial photography, the Project site has been sporadically used for agriculture, residential, and commercial land uses, often with a combination of concurrent uses, since 1901. The Project site also contains a portion of the former alignment of the Pacific Electric railroad (although all tracks have been removed from the subject property). The use of the property prior to 1901 is not known. Under existing conditions, the Project site contains a vacant commercial building and storage area (formerly operated by a building materials supply company), a commercial building and storage yard occupied by an active truck repair business, a commercial building occupied by an active bail bond business, and one residence. The remainder of the Project site is undeveloped and subject to routine disturbance as part of maintenance activities (i.e., discing). The Project’s off-site improvement area features a bridge structure that was historically utilized by the Pacific Electric railroad. A cultural resources assessment of the Project site was conducted by BCR Consulting in September 2014. Based on the site assessment, BCR Consulting determined that three (3) historic-period resources are present on the Project site and the Project’s off-site impact area: the historic segment of the Pacific Electric Railway (including the off-site bridge structure), the commercial building at 237 South Waterman Avenue, and the residential building at 225 South Waterman Avenue. However, BCR concluded that the all of the observed historic features on the Project site and off-site improvement area are not eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources because: 1) they are not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2) they are not associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; 3) they do not embody the distinctive characteristics of Waterman Logistics Center Page 34 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY a type, period, region or method of construction or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values; and 4) they have not yielded, nor do they have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. As such, there are no structures or features present that could be considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a). (BCR Consulting, 2014, pp. 11- 12) Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to historic resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) and mitigation is not required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (BCR Consulting, 2014) Based on the results of a field survey and records search conducted by BCR Consulting, the Project site does not contain any recorded or known archaeological resources (BCR Consulting, 2014, p. 9). Furthermore, due to the Project site’s partially developed condition and the past and on-going disturbances on the undeveloped portions of the site (i.e., discing for weed abatement), the potential for subsurface archaeological deposits to be present at the Project site is considered low (BCR Consulting, 2014, p. 13). Regardless, there is a remote potential to uncover archaeological resources during excavation and/or grading activities on the Project site. If significant resources as defined in California Code of Regulations §15064.5 are unearthed, they could be significantly impacted if not appropriately treated. The Project’s potential to impact previously undiscovered prehistoric archaeological resources, which could result in an adverse change in the significance of the resources pursuant to California Code of Regulations § 15064.5, is a significant impact for which mitigation is required. Implementation of MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 would ensure that an archaeological monitoring program is implemented during ground disturbing activities, and would ensure that any archaeological resources that may be uncovered are appropriately treated as recommended by a qualified archaeologist. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impact to archaeological resources would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible and would be less than significant. Mitigation MM CR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department that the construction site supervisors and crew members involved with grading and trenching operations are trained to recognize archaeological resources should such resources be unearthed during ground-disturbing construction activities. If a suspected archaeological resource is identified on the property, the construction supervisor shall be required by his contract to immediately halt and redirect grading operations in a 100-foot radius around the find and seek identification and evaluation of the suspected resource by a professional archaeologist. This requirement shall be noted on all grading plans and the construction contractor shall be obligated to comply with the note. The archaeologist shall evaluate the suspected resource and make a determination of significance pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 shall apply. MM CR-2 If a significant archaeological resource(s) is discovered on the property, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended 100 feet around the resource(s). The archaeological monitor and a Waterman Logistics Center Page 35 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY representative of the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), the Project Applicant, and the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department shall confer regarding mitigation of the discovered resource(s). A treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the archaeologist to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department and the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (BCR Consulting, 2014) The Project site does not contain any known unique geologic features, and no paleontological resources or sites were observed by the Project archaeologist during field investigations (BCR Consulting, 2014, p. 9), However, the Project site may be underlain at depth (i.e., 10 feet or more beneath the existing ground surface) with Pleistocene-age alluvium soils, which are documented as having a high potential to contain significant non- renewable paleontologic resources, depending upon its lithology and depositional context. It cannot be determined from available geologic mapping at what depths such Pleistocene-era sediments might be encountered, if present beneath the Project site; however, Pleistocene-era sediments have been encountered on other properties in the Project vicinity at depths of 10 feet below the ground surface. (BCR Consulting, 2014, Appendix B) In the event that Pleistocene-age alluvium soils are present below the ground surface within the Project impact footprint and in the event that excavations associated with the Project disturb Pleistocene-age soils, the Project could result in impacts to paleontological resources that may exist below the ground surface if they are unearthed and not properly treated. The Project’s potential to directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources buried beneath the ground surface is therefore a significant impact and mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures MM CR-3 and MM CR-4 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CR-3 and MM CR-4, the Project’s potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be reduced to less-than- significant. Mitigation MM CR-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department that the construction site supervisors and crew members involved with grading and trenching operations are trained to recognize paleontological resources (fossils) should such resources be unearthed during ground-disturbing construction activities. If a suspected paleontological resource is identified, the construction supervisor shall be required by his contract to immediately halt and redirect grading operations in a 100-foot radius around the find and seek identification and evaluation of the suspected resource by a qualified paleontologist meeting the definition of a qualified vertebrate paleontologist given in the County of San Bernardino Development Code Section 82.20.040. This requirement shall be noted on all grading plans and the construction contractor shall be obligated to comply with the note. The significance of the discovered Waterman Logistics Center Page 36 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY resources shall be determined by the paleontologist. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure MM-CR-4 shall apply. MM CR-4 If a significant paleontological resource is discovered on the property, discovered fossils or samples of such fossils shall be collected and identified by a qualified paleontologist meeting the definition of a qualified vertebrate paleontologist given in the County of San Bernardino Development Code Section 82.20.040. Significant specimens recovered shall be properly recorded, treated, and donated to the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, or other repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of San Bernardino that itemizes any fossils recovered, with maps to accurately record the original location of recovered fossils, and contains evidence that the resources were curated by an established museum repository. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (BCR Consulting, 2014) The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Project site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the site. (BCR Consulting, 2014, p. 9) Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction. If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American descent, would be reduced to less than significant and mitigation is not required. Waterman Logistics Center Page 37 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to 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 based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Waterman Logistics Center Page 38 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Impact Analysis a)(i) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Finding: No Impact Source: (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a) The Project site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known faults underlie the site (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, p. 10). Because there are no known faults located on the Project site, there is no potential for the Project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. No impact would occur. a)(ii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (CBC, 2013; San Bernardino, 2009, Title 15; Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a) The Project site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to construct the proposed warehouse building in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), also known as California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (Part 2), and the City of San Bernardino Building Code, which is based on the CBSC with local amendments. The CBSC and City of San Bernardino Building Code provide standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, and have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) and the City of San Bernardino Building Code (Title 15) require development projects to prepare geologic engineering reports to identify site-specific geologic and seismic conditions and provide site-specific recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, selection of appropriate structural systems. The Project has prepared such a report, which is included at Technical Appendix E to this Initial Study, and the City would condition the Project to comply with the site-specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in this report. With mandatory compliance with these standard and site-specific design and construction measures, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. As such, the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less-than-significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 39 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY a)(iii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure S-5; San Bernardino, 2005b, Figure 5.5-6; Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a) Liquefaction and seismically induced settlement typically occur in loose granular and low-plastic silt and clay soils with groundwater near the ground surface. The City of San Bernardino General Plan (Figure S-5) and General Plan EIR (Figure 5.5-6) identify the Project site as being located within an area with a “high” susceptibility for liquefaction. Southern California Geotechnical conducted a site-specific liquefaction analysis of the Project site and determined that the Project site contains potentially liquefiable soils at various depths ranging between 8 and 47 feet below the ground surface (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, p. 12). Laboratory testing conducted on Project site soils determined that liquefaction could cause up to 3.5 inches of settlement on the subject property, which is within the structural tolerances of a typical building constructed to the specifications of the Project (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, p. 13). Regardless, as noted above under the response to Item VI(a)(2), the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC and City of San Bernardino Building Code. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the site-specific grading and construction recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical report (Technical Appendix E), which the City would impose as conditions of Project approval, to further reduce the risk of seismic-related ground failure due to liquefaction. As such, implementation of the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. a)(iv) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides? Finding: No Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure S-7; San Bernardino, 2005b, Figure 5.5-2; Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a) The Project site is relatively flat, as is the surrounding area. There are no hillsides or steep slopes on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. According to the City of San Bernardino General Plan (Figure S-7) and the General Plan EIR (Figure 5.5-2), the Project site is located within an area of the City with no potential for landslides. Overall topographic relief on the site is approximately 16 feet, or less than two percent (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, p. 5). The Project would not result in the creation of any new slopes on-site, with exception of the approximately 5-foot tall manufactured slopes around the perimeter of the proposed water quality/detention basin with a maximum slope gradient of 3:1, which would be engineered to maximize stability so as to not pose a threat to future site workers or the proposed warehouse building. Additionally, the Project would construct a retaining wall along a portion of the northern property boundary, which would be designed to accommodate projected loads, to maximize the stability of site soils and preclude landslides. No potential landside risk to the Twin Creek Channel would occur from the proposed removal of a railroad bridge that spans the channel because the channel is concrete lined. Accordingly, development on the subject property would not Waterman Logistics Center Page 40 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY be exposed landslide risks, and the Project would not pose a landslide risk to surrounding properties. No impact would occur. b) Result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (SCAQMD, 2005; Thienes, 2014a; Thienes, 2014b) Implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in soil erosion. The analysis below summarizes the likelihood of the Project to result in substantial soil erosion during temporary construction activities and/or long-term operation. Impact Analysis for Temporary Construction-Related Activities Under existing conditions, the Project site is partially developed with a detached single family home, a truck repair business, a bail bonds business, and a vacant commercial building with an associated outbuilding. The undeveloped portions have been subject to routine maintenance activities (i.e., discing) and other activities (i.e., vehicle traffic to the developments in the interior of the site) which regularly disturbs on-site soils and subjects them to erosion. Proposed demolition, grading, and construction activities would expose underlying soils beneath the developed portions of the site and would continue to temporarily expose underlying soils on the undeveloped portions of the Project site. Exposed soils would be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities, including proposed grading. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. The City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES Permit requires the Project Applicant to prepare and submit to the City for approval a Project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would identify a combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges during construction. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which would reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air and minimize the potential for wind erosion. With mandatory compliance to the requirements noted in the Project’s SWPPP, as well as applicable regulatory requirements, the potential for water and/or wind erosion impacts during Project construction would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Long-Term Operational Activities Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces and drainage would be controlled through a storm drain system. Implementation of the Project would result in less long-term erosion and loss of topsoil than occurs under the site’s existing conditions. The City’s MS4 NPDES Permit requires the Project Applicant to prepare and submit to the City for approval a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP identifies an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to Waterman Logistics Center Page 41 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges. The WQMP for the Project prepared by Thienes Engineering (included as Technical Appendix H to this Initial Study) incorporates a water quality/detention basin and underground infiltration chambers. These design features would be effective at removing silt and sediment from stormwater runoff, and the WQMP requires post-construction maintenance and operational measures to ensure on-going erosion protection. Compliance with the WQMP would be required as a condition of Project approval and long-term maintenance of on-site water quality features is required. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion or loss of top soil during long-term operation. The Project’s impact would be less than significant. c) 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? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure S-7; Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a) The Project site is relatively flat and contains no substantial natural or man-made slopes. There is no evidence of landslides on or near the Project site, nor are there any exposed boulders that could result in rock fall hazards (San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure S-7). The proposed Project would not result in the creation of any new slopes on-site, with exception of the 5-foot tall slopes around the perimeter of the water quality/detention basin. The Project also would construct a retaining wall along a portion of the northern property boundary. Both the proposed manufactured slopes and the proposed retaining wall would be engineered for long-term stability and would be required to be constructed in accordance with the site-specific recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical report prepared by Southern California Geotechnical (Technical Appendix E). Accordingly, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with landslides and rock fall hazards. Based on laboratory testing of subsurface soils from the Project site, Southern California Geotechnical determined that near surface soils at the Project site have potential for shrinkage/subsidence and collapse (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, pp. 13-14). However, the Project’s geotechnical report (Technical Appendix E) indicates that the site’s shrinkage/subsidence and settlement potential would be attenuated through the proposed removal of near surface soils down to competent materials and replacement with properly compacted fill, which is included as a recommendation in the Project’s geotechnical report (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, pp. 15-17). Through standard conditions of approval, the proposed Project would be required by the City to incorporate the recommendations contained within the Project geotechnical report into the grading plan for the Project. As such, implementation of the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse. Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. As noted above under the response to Item VI(a)(iii), the potential for liquefaction at the Project site would be low following the implementation of standard building requirements and the site-specific grading and construction recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical report. Accordingly, with mandatory compliance with standard building requirements and the site-specific grading and construction recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical report (Technical Appendix E), impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 42 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a) Southern California Geotechnical conducted laboratory testing to evaluate the expansive characteristics of on- site soils. As described in the Project’s geotechnical report, Southern California Geotechnical determined that on-site soils have a “very low” expansion potential (Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a, p. 14). Accordingly, the Project would not create substantial risks to life or property from exposure to expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Finding: No Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. The Project would install domestic sewer infrastructure and connect to the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) existing sewer conveyance and treatment system. Accordingly, no impact associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water systems would occur with implementation of the Project. Waterman Logistics Center Page 43 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact Analysis In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. To reach that goal, AB 32 directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. Because AB 32 is the primary plan, policy or regulation adopted in California to reduce GHG emissions, the proposed Project would have a significant impact if it does not comply with the regulations developed under AB 32. A numerical threshold for determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions in the SCAB has not been established by the SCAQMD for projects where it is not the lead agency. Likewise, the City of San Bernardino has not adopted a threshold of significance for GHG emissions. As such, a screening threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year for industrial land uses is utilized by City of San Bernardino to determine if an industrial project has the potential to generate substantial GHG emissions. This threshold is a widely accepted screening threshold used by the City and numerous jurisdictions in the SCAB, and is based on SCAQMD’s proposed GHG screening thresholds for industrial projects (Urban Crossroads, 2014b, p. 28). Based on guidance from the SCAQMD, if an industrial project would emit less than 10,000 MTCO2e of GHGs per year, the project would not be considered a substantial GHG emitter, and no mitigation or additional analysis would be required. On the other hand, if an industrial project’s GHG emissions would exceed 10,000 MTCO2e per year, the project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions and further quantitative analysis is required to analyze the project’s GHG impacts. (Urban Crossroads, 2014b, p. 30) Because global climate change is the result of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by innumerable sources worldwide, the proposed Project would not result in a direct impact to global climate change; rather, Project- related impacts to global climate change only could be significant on a cumulative basis. Therefore, the analysis below focuses on the Project’s potential to contribute to global climate change in a cumulatively considerable way. Waterman Logistics Center Page 44 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014b) GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be primarily associated with vehicular traffic during long-term operation. In addition, Project’s construction activities, energy consumption, water consumption, solid waste generation, and equipment usage during long-term operation also would contribute to the Project’s overall generation of GHG emissions. The Project’s annual GHG emissions, including amortized construction emissions, are summarized in Table 8, Total Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The methodology used to calculate the Project’s GHG emissions is described in detail in Technical Appendix F. Table 8 Total Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014b, Table 3-1) As shown in Table 8, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 3,537.94 MTCO2e annually, which is less than the screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e. As such, the Project would not generate substantial GHG emissions – either directly or indirectly – that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable and no mitigation is required. Waterman Logistics Center Page 45 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014b) AB 32 is the State of California’s primary GHG emissions regulation. The SCAQMD GHG screening threshold was designed to ensure compliance with AB 32 emissions reductions requirements in the SCAB. Therefore, if a proposed project emits below the screening threshold, it can be assumed to comply with AB 32 within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. Because the proposed Project would emit less than 10,000 MTCO2e per year, the Project would not conflict with the State’s ability to achieve the reduction targets defined in AB 32 (refer to response to Issue VII(a), above). The Project also would comply with a number of regulations that would further reduce GHG emissions, including the following regulations that are particularly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of GHG emissions:  Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32)  Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375)  Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles.  Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction.  Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances.  Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020.  California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes.  Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions.  Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. There are no other plans, policies, or regulations that have been adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs that are applicable to the proposed Project. As such, and because the Project would emit less than 10,000 MTCO2e per year, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and impacts would be less-than-significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 46 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) 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 it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Waterman Logistics Center Page 47 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Impact Analysis a) Create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2009; CHJ, 2014; Project Application Materials) Impact Analysis for Existing Site Conditions A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the Project site by CHJ Consultants in 2014 (included as Technical Appendix I to this Initial Study). Based on a review of aerial photography, the Project site has been sporadically used for agriculture, residential, and commercial land uses, often with a combination of concurrent uses, since 1901. The Project site also contains a portion of the former alignment Pacific Electric railroad (although all tracks have been removed). The use of the property prior to 1901 is not known. (CHJ, 2014, pp. 1, 20-21) Under existing conditions, the Project site contains a vacant commercial building and storage area (formerly operated by a building materials supply company), a commercial building and storage yard occupied by an active truck repair business, a commercial building occupied by an active bail bond business, and one residence. The remainder of the Project site is undeveloped. Based on a review of historic regulatory agency hazardous materials databases, historic site aerial photographs, interviews with current property owners, and a reconnaissance of the Project site, CHJ determined that the Project site does not contain any recognized environmental conditions. (CHJ, 2014, p. 28) A recognized environmental condition is defined as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a materials threat of a future release to the environment” (CHJ, 2014, p. 2). All agricultural activities ceased on the Project site by the early 1940s – prior to the use of pesticides with high persistence, like DDT – therefore pesticide residue is not a substantial risk on the Project site (CHJ, 2014, p. 21). The Project site formerly contained stockpiles of construction materials/debris and two (2) underground storage tanks; however, all such stockpiles have been removed from the subject property and the underground storage tanks also were removed in 2002 under the oversight of the County of San Bernardino Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division (CHJ, 2014, pp. 12-13, 24). Above-ground storage tanks, partially filled drums of waste oil and grease/lubricant, and small quantities of other chemicals were observed at the active truck repair operation and at the vacant commercial building on-site in 2014; however, these substances were not stored in an unsafe manner and would be required to be disposed of in accordance with applicable local hazardous materials regulations to preclude potential health and safety standards. Therefore, the presence of these substances on the Project site does not pose a substantial safety hazard. (CHJ, 2014, pp. 22-23) Stained pavement and soils were observed at the active truck repair operation and at the vacant commercial building on-site (leakage of automotive fluids); however, the stains were minor and not considered a substantial hazard (CHJ, 2014, pp. 23-24). Regardless, all stained soils would be required to be removed from the site, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable local regulations to preclude potential public health and safety hazards. Based upon information provided by existing property owners and tenants, it is not anticipated that asbestos- containing materials or other hazardous materials are present in the existing structures on-site; however, the Project site contains multiple structures that were constructed between the 1950s-1970s (CHJ, 2014, p. 21). The use of asbestos containing materials (ACM, a known carcinogen) and lead paint (a known toxic) was common in Waterman Logistics Center Page 48 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY building construction prior to 1978. Accordingly, there is the potential of ACMs to be present in one or more of the on‐site structures that would be demolished as part of the Project, thereby potentially exposing construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to a substantial safety hazard during the Project’s construction process. Asbestos is a carcinogen and is categorized as a hazardous air pollutant by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal asbestos requirements are found in National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart M, and are enforced in the Project area by the SCAQMD. In conformance with the NESHAP, SCAQMD Rule 1403 establishes survey requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. In the event that ACMs are present in the existing structures located on the property, then Rule 1403 requires notification of the SCAQMD prior to commencing any demolition or renovation activities. Rule 1403 also sets forth specific procedures for the removal of asbestos, and requires that an onsite representative trained in the requirements of Rule 1403 be present during the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of ACM. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction‐related grading, clearing and demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACMs. Because the Project would be required to comply with AQMD Rule 1403 during demolition activities, impacts due to the potential presence of asbestos would be less than significant. One or more of the existing on-site structures also could contain lead based paint (LBP). Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8: Accreditation, Certification and Work Practices for Lead‐ Based Paint and Lead Hazards, defines and regulates lead‐based paint. Any detectable amount of lead is regulated. During demolition of the existing buildings, there is a potential for exposing construction workers to health hazards associated with lead. The Project would be required to comply with Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities. Mandatory compliance with these mandatory requirements would ensure that construction workers are not exposed to significant LBP health hazards during demolition, and would reduce impacts to a level below significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project site’s existing conditions would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. A less-than- significant impact would occur. Impact Analysis for Temporary Construction‐Related Activities Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the subject property during construction of the Project. This heavy equipment would likely be fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which is considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), South Coast Air Quality Waterman Logistics Center Page 49 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Management District (SCAQMD), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. A less-than-significant impact would occur. Impact Analysis for Long‐Term Operational Activities The future tenant(s) that would occupy the Project site are not yet identified. Future uses on-site are assumed to be any of those uses permitted by the City of San Bernardino’s “Industrial Light” zoning designation. It is anticipated that the Project would be utilized as an industrial warehouse/distribution center. Uses permitted in the “Industrial Light” zoning designation include a wide variety of industrial and manufacturing services and commercial uses. A complete list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses can be found in Chapter 19.08 of the City of San Bernardino’s Municipal Code (San Bernardino, 2009, Section 19.08-3). Based on the list of permitted uses contained in the City’s “Industrial Light” zone, it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the course of a future tenant’s daily operations. State and Federal Community- Right-to-Know laws allow the public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that require businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies a building on the Project site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) will require a permit from the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the County of San Bernardino Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. In addition, any business handling at any one time, greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under Assembly Bill 2185 (AB 2185), to file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). A HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. The intent of the HMBEP is to satisfy federal and state Community Right-To-Know laws and to provide detailed information for use by emergency responders. If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the Project, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances (as described above). With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with City of San Bernardino Municipal Code §19.20.12, which establishes development and performance standards, as well as reporting and permitting requirements for the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials. With mandatory regulatory compliance, along with mandatory compliance with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project are regarded as less than significant and mitigation is not required. Waterman Logistics Center Page 50 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2009; Project Application Materials) Accidents involving hazardous materials that could pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be highly unlikely during the construction and long-term operation of the Project and are not reasonably foreseeable. As discussed above under Issue VIII (a), the transport, use and handling of hazardous materials on the Project site during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for upset and accidents than would occur on any other similar construction site. Upon buildout, the Project site would operate as an industrial warehouse/distribution center facility, under the City’s “Industrial Light” land use designation. Based on the list of permitted uses contained in the City’s “Industrial Light” zone, it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the course of a future tenant’s daily operations (San Bernardino, 2009, Section 19.08-3). However, as discussed above under Issue VIII(a), the Project would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and National regulations related to the transport, handling, and usage of hazardous material. Accordingly, impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant during both construction and long-term operation of the Project and mitigation would not be required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2009; On-site Inspection, 2014) The H. Frank Dominguez Elementary School is located approximately 0.06-mile to the northwest of the Project site (or 320 feet, as measured from the Project site to the school site perimeter). No other schools are located within 0.25-mile of the Project site. The potential for the Project to emit or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials is addressed above under the response to Issue VIII (a). As noted, existing site conditions do not pose a substantial risk to public health and safety and all hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would be removed from the site during construction in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Also, although there is the potential for hazardous materials to be stored on the Project site during temporary construction activities, the construction contractor would be required to comply with all applicable hazardous materials regulations to ensure that no hazardous materials are released into the environment. Further, any business that occupies the Project site and handles hazardous materials would be required to comply with all local, state and federal regulations, including but not limited to, obtaining a permit from San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division, reporting procedures as outlined by California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, and preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan as required by Assembly Bill 2185 (AB 2185). Mandatory compliance with all applicable regulations relating to hazardous materials ensures that the Project’s potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. Refer to Issue III(d) for a detailed analysis of health risks to school children related to DPM emissions, which is calculated to be less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 51 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY d) 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 it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: No Impact Source: (CalEPA, 2012; SWRCB, 2014; CDTSC, 2014; CHJ, 2014) The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (CDTSC, 2014) (CalEPA, 2012) (CHJ, 2014, pp. 5-13). Accordingly, no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: Less-Than-Significant Impact Source: (Caltrans, 2011; Google Earth, 2014) The Project site is located approximately 1.19 miles northwest of the San Bernardino International Airport (formerly Norton Air Force Base). No airport land use compatibility plan has been prepared for the San Bernardino International Airport. According to Caltrans’ “Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,” the largest number of accidents related to airport operations “occur along the extended runway centerline” (Caltrans, 2011, p. xi). The Airport’s runways are oriented southwest to northeast, whereas the Project site is located to the northwest of the airport and is not located within the approach or take-off areas at either end of the runway. Additionally, the warehouse building proposed by the Project would be less than 49 feet tall and does not include an air travel component (e.g., runway, helipad) and, therefore, would not interfere with flight operations at the San Bernardino International Airport. Because the Project is not located within an area with the highest risk of airport safety hazards (i.e., at either end of the runway) and would not interfere with San Bernardino International Airport operations, the Project would not result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No Impact Source: (Google Earth, 2014) There are no private airfields or airstrips in the vicinity of the Project site. As such, implementation of the Project would not expose on-site workers to safety hazards associated with private airfields or airstrips. No impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 52 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: No Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a) The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route, so there is no potential for the Project to adversely affect an emergency response or evacuation plan (San Bernardino, 2005a, Chapter 10). During construction and at Project buildout, the proposed Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. As part of the City’s discretionary review process, the City of San Bernardino reviewed the Project to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the proposed warehouse building for public safety, and determined that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure S-9; RBF, 2014; Google Earth, 2014; On-site Inspection, 2014) Pursuant to Figure S-9, Fire Hazard Areas, of the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the proposed Project is not located within a high wildfire hazard area (San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure S-9). The closest wildland fire hazard area is located approximately four (4) miles north of the Project site. The Project site is buffered from this wildland fire hazard area by substantial urban development, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The entire Project site has been heavily disturbed and/or is developed under existing conditions and does not support substantial vegetation that would be subject to risks associated with wildland fires. (RBF, 2014, pp. 11-13) The Project site is bordered on the east and southeast by the Twin Creek Channel, which is constructed on concrete and does not contain vegetation, and therefore would not facilitate wildfire movement. The surrounding area is comprised of developed urban land and does not contain substantial vegetation that would provide adequate fuel to sustain a wildland fire. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Waterman Logistics Center Page 53 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course or a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- site or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Hazard Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Waterman Logistics Center Page 54 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i) 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? j) Expose people or property to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Impact Analysis a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (SARWQCB, 2011; SAWPA, 2014; Thienes, 2014a) The California Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 (“Water Quality”) et seq., of the California Water Code), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA)) require that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Water quality information for the Santa Ana River is contained in the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (updated June 2011) and the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the Santa Ana River Watershed (also referred to as “One Water One Watershed,” dated February 4, 2014), prepared by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. These documents are herein incorporated by reference and are available for public review at the Santa Ana RWQCB office located at 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92501. The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of their water resources to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the CWA. The Project site is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Receiving waters for the property’s drainage are the Twin Creek Channel, the Prado Dam, and Santa Ana River Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which discharge into the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Ana River Reach 4 is 303(d) impaired by pathogens, Reach 3 is impaired by copper, pathogens, and lead, and Reach 2 is impaired by indicator bacteria. Twin Creek Channel, Prado Dam, Santa Ana River Reaches 1 and 5, and the Pacific Ocean do not have 303(d) listed impairments. (Thienes, 2014a, p. 3-3) A specific provision of the CWA applicable to the proposed Project is CWA Section 402, which authorizes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that covers point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program also requires operators of construction sites one acre or larger to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit. Waterman Logistics Center Page 55 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Temporary Construction-Related Activities Construction of the proposed Project would involve demolition, clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and landscaping activities, as well as the removal of an off-site abandoned railroad bridge that spans the Twin Creek Channel. Construction activities would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints, and solvents, and other chemicals with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and the City of San Bernardino, the Project would be required to obtain a NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities, including grading. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the proposed Project does violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Post Development Water Quality Impacts Storm water pollutants commonly associated with the land uses proposed by the Project (i.e., light industrial warehouse) include pathogens (bacterial/virus), phosphorous, nitrogen, sediment, metals, oils and grease, trash/debris, pesticides/herbicides, and organic compounds (Thienes, 2014a, p. 2-2). Based on current receiving water impairments (pursuant to the CWA’s Section 303(d) list), the Project’s pollutants of concern are pathogens (bacterial/virus), nitrogen, and metals. To address potential pollutants, the Project would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), pursuant to the requirements of the City’s NPDES permit. The WQMP is a post-construction management program that ensures the on‐going protection of the watershed basin by requiring development projects to implement structural and programmatic water quality controls. The Project’s WQMP is included as Technical Appendix H. The WQMP identifies structural controls (including water quality/detention basins, underground infiltration chambers, and storm drain filter inserts) and programmatic controls (including, but not limited to, educational materials for future tenants, and operational and maintenance best management practices) that would be implemented by the Project to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat storm water runoff flows before they are discharged from the site. Mandatory compliance with the WQMP would ensure that the Project does violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long‐term operation. In addition to the WQMP, the NDPES program also requires certain land uses (e.g., industrial uses) to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program, unless an exemption has been granted. On April 1, 2014, the California State Water Resources Control Board adopted an updated new NPDES permit for storm water discharge associated with industrial activities (referred to as the “Industrial General Permit”). The new Industrial General Permit, which is more stringent than the existing Industrial General Permit, becomes effective on July 1, 2015. Once the new NPDES Industrial General Waterman Logistics Center Page 56 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Permit becomes effective on July 1, 2015, the Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program or receive an exemption. The Project’s mandatory compliance with the pending Industrial General Permit would further reduce potential water quality impacts during long-term operation. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long-term operation. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005b; Project Application Materials) No potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Project; therefore, the Project would not deplete groundwater supplies. The City relies on groundwater from the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, specifically from the Bunker Hill sub-basin, as a primary source. Development of Project would increase impervious surface coverage on the vacant portions of the site, which would in turn reduce the amount of direct infiltration of runoff into the ground. However, and as noted in the City’s General Plan EIR, conversion of undeveloped areas in the City to impervious surfaces would result in minimal, non-significant impacts to groundwater recharge (San Bernardino, 2005b, p. 5.7-19). A majority of the groundwater recharge in the Bunker Hill sub-basin occurs within the Santa Ana River and percolation basins established by the City of San Bernardino along its northern boundary. The Project would not physically impact any of these major groundwater recharge features within the City and would therefore not adversely affect local groundwater levels. Further, the Project proposes six (6) underground infiltration chambers to maximize the percolation of on-site stormwater runoff into the groundwater basin. Thus, buildout of the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. For the reasons stated above, the Project would neither substantially deplete groundwater supplies nor interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course or a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- site or off-site? Finding: Less-Than-Significant Impact Source: (Thienes, 2014a; Thienes, 2014b) Under existing conditions, the northern and western portions of the Project site drain from east to west as sheet flow, ultimately discharging to South Waterman Avenue. Storm water runoff flows discharged to South Waterman Avenue are captured by an existing storm drain system installed within South Waterman Avenue and conveyed to Twin Creek downstream of the Project site. The remaining, southeastern portion of the Project site drains to the southeast, discharging directly to the concrete-lined Twin Creek Channel. (Thienes, 2014b, n.p.) Waterman Logistics Center Page 57 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY The Project would demolish the existing structures on-site, mass grade the entire property, and construct one warehouse building and associated improvements, which would change the site’s existing ground contours, thereby altering the site’s existing drainage patterns. Upon buildout of the Project, the western and southwestern portions of the Project site would drain to existing storm drain facilities within South Waterman Avenue. Storm water runoff flows that would be directed to South Waterman Avenue under post-development conditions represent a small percentage of the Project’s runoff flows (approximately 14%). The remaining portions of the Project site, representing a majority of the site’s post-development runoff (approximately 86%), would discharge directly into the Twin Creek Channel via a new storm drain outlet. Although the Project would alter the subject property’s internal drainage patterns, such changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Under post-development conditions, a majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces and, therefore, the amount of exposed soils on the Project site would be minimal. Also, as discussed under Issue IX(a), the Project would construct an integrated storm drain system on-site with BMPs to minimize the amount of water-borne pollutants carried from the Project site. The BMPs proposed by the Project, including a water quality/detention basin, six (6) underground infiltration chambers, and storm drain inlet filters, are highly effective at removing sediment from storm water runoff flows (Thienes, 2014a, Attachment E); therefore, storm water runoff flows leaving the Project site would not carry substantial amounts of sediment. Once storm water runoff leaves the Project site, it would be discharged to either South Waterman Avenue or the Twin Creek Channel. Under existing conditions, South Waterman Avenue is developed at the Project’s discharge points and completely covered with impervious surfaces and does not contain exposed soils. Similarly, the Twin Creek Channel is fully lined with concrete at the Project’s discharge point and does not contain any exposed soils. Because there are no exposed soils within either South Waterman Avenue or the Twin Creek Channel at the Project’s discharge points, there is no potential for the Project’s storm water runoff to result in erosion. Accordingly, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- site or off-site, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Thienes, 2014b) As described above under Item VIII(c), proposed grading and earthwork activities on the Project site would alter the existing drainage patterns of the site. Under existing conditions, peak stormwater runoff flows on the subject property are 55.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 100-year storm event. Under long-term development conditions, the Project would discharge approximately 69.7 cfs of stormwater runoff from the site during the 100-year storm event, an increase of 14.3 cfs as compared to existing conditions (Thienes, 2014b, pp. 4-5). The majority of the stormwater runoff discharged from the site (60.0 cfs) would be conveyed to the southeast corner of the site and then discharged directly into the Twin Creek Channel. The remaining stormwater (9.7 cfs) would be conveyed to the existing storm drain installed beneath South Waterman Avenue, which ultimately discharges downstream into the Twin Creek Channel (Thienes, 2014b, p. 6). Under long-term development conditions, the Project would not be required to attenuate peak on-site runoff flow volumes to pre-development levels due to the proximity of the subject property to the Twin Creek Channel. The detention basin proposed in the southwestern corner of the Waterman Logistics Center Page 58 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Project site only collects runoff that would be tabled to the existing storm drain installed beneath South Waterman Avenue, and does not delay discharge to the Twin Creek Channel. Additional detention basins that would collect runoff which would otherwise be directed to the Twin Creek Channel would delay the ultimate discharge of stormwater flows into the Twin Creek Channel during peak storm events, which is not desirable because if detention were proposed, stormwater flows would be discharged into the Twin Creek Channel closer to its peak flow rate, thereby potentially exposing areas on the Project site and properties downstream to an increased risk of flooding. Accordingly, the design of the proposed Project would minimize the risk of on- and off-site flooding during long-term development conditions, and alterations to the drainage characteristics of the Project site (i.e., drainage pattern and flow rate) are less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Thienes, 2014a; Thienes, 2014b) On-site stormwater runoff associated with the Project is engineered to be conveyed through a proposed on-site storm drain system that would include six (6) infiltration basins and one (1) detention basins, before discharging off-site. Approximately 86% of the Project’s stormwater would be discharged directly to the Twin Creek Channel and the other 14% would be discharged to the existing storm drain system installed beneath South Waterman Avenue, which would ultimately be discharged to the Twin Creek Channel downstream (Thienes, 2014b, p. 6). The Project site is tabled to South Waterman Avenue per the County’s Master Plan of Drainage. Under existing conditions, the site would discharge approximately 30.5 cfs of stormwater runoff to storm drains installed beneath South Waterman Avenue during the 100-year storm event. With implementation of the proposed Project, the site would discharge approximately 9.7 cfs of stormwater runoff to storm drains installed beneath South Waterman Avenue during the 100-year storm event. (Thienes, 2014b, pp. 5-6) Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would represent a reduction in runoff tabled to South Waterman Avenue compared to both existing conditions and the County’s Master Plan of Drainage. The remainder of the storm water runoff would discharge to the Twin Creek Channel, a fully improved, concrete lined flood control channel that has the capacity to accommodate 100-year peak flows. Because the Twin Creek Channel would receive the majority of the site’s runoff water (approximately 86%), and it has the capacity to accommodate the runoff, implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant. As discussed under the analysis of Issue IX(a), the proposed Project would be required to comply with a future SWPPP and the Project’s WQMP (Technical Appendix H), which would identify BMPs to be incorporated into the Project to ensure that near-term construction activities and long-term post-development activities of the proposed Project would not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Therefore, with mandatory compliance with the Project’s SWPPP and WQMP, the proposed Project would not create or contribute substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 59 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (Project Application Materials) The Project proposes to remove an abandoned railroad bridge that spans the Twin Creek Channel adjacent to the Project site. The majority of the bridge removal work is proposed to be performed from the bridge deck spanning the Channel. The wood deck would be removed manually with hand operated power tools by working from one side of the bridge back toward the other side to allow for the bridge deck to serve as a working platform. Once the wood framing has been removed leaving only the steel beams in place, a boom lift would access the underside of the bridge to allow for the cutting of fastening points. The bridge beams spanning the channel would then be rigged and hoisted to one side of the Channel and placed in a staging area awaiting transport off-site. During the bridge removal process, there is a potential that construction debris could fall into the Twin Creek Channel and have an adverse effect on water quality if the debris is not promptly removed. The impact is potentially significant and mitigation would be required. Mitigation for Bridge Removal MM WQ-1 Prior to the issuance of permits to allow for the removal of the railroad bridge, the City shall verify that the following notes are specified on construction documents. Project contractors shall be required to comply with these notes and maintain written records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of San Bernardino upon request. This note shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) Bridge removal activities shall occur on days that are forecast to have 0% chance of rain. b) Prior to the start of bridge removal, polyethylene sheeting or other comparable material shall be attached to the underside of the bridge or within the Twin Creek Channel to collect any falling debris. Debris that falls onto the sheeting shall be removed at the end of each work day and placed into a disposal container. Debris shall not be allowed to accumulate on the sheeting or within the Channel. c) If any debris falls into the Twin Creek Channel, the contractor shall immediately collect the debris, remove it from the Channel, and place it into a disposal container. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Hazard Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Finding: No Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) The proposed Project does not include housing. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur as a result of the Project. Waterman Logistics Center Page 60 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: No Impact Source: (FEMA, 2008; Thienes, 2014b) According to FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8682H, the portions of the Project site located immediately adjacent to the Twin Creek Channel are located within FEMA “Flood Zone A,” which corresponds to areas subject to inundation under 100-year flood conditions. The Project does not propose to construct any structures within the portions of the subject property that are located within a 100-year flood hazard area (a drive aisle is proposed). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not place structures within a 100- year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur. i) 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? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a; San Bernardino, 2005b) There are no levees in the vicinity of the Project site; however, according to the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the Project site is located within the inundation area of the Seven Oaks Dam, which is located approximately 10.4 miles to the east of the site (San Bernardino, 2005a, p. 10-15). Accordingly, the Project site has the potential to be exposed to flooding as a result of the failure of the Seven Oaks Dam (associated with the Santa Ana River upstream), but this hazard risk would be no different than the risk posed to nearby properties and the site under existing conditions. Furthermore, the City of San Bernardino General Plan EIR concludes that the development of industrial land uses within the dam inundation area (like those proposed by the Project) would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to flooding as a result of a failure of the Seven Oaks Dam because the Dam is designed to withstand a catastrophic seismic event (an earthquake measuring up to 8.0 on the Richter scale) and industrial land uses would not introduce a substantial number of people within the potential inundation area (San Bernardino, 2005b, pp. 5-7.21). Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. j) Expose people or property to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: No Impact Source: (On-site Inspection, 2014; Google Earth, 2014; Project Application Materials) The Pacific Ocean is located more than 50 miles from the Project site; consequently, there is no potential for tsunamis to impact the Project. In addition, no steep hillsides subject to mudflow are located on or near the Project site. The nearest large body of surface water to the site is Lake Arrowhead, located approximately 11.3 miles northeast of the Project site. (Google Earth, 2014) Due to the distance of Lake Arrowhead from the Project site, a seiche in Lake Arrowhead would have no potential to impact on the Project site. Although the Twin Creek Channel borders the Project site, it is not an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin that would be conducive to reverberation and creation of a seiche. Therefore, the Project site would not be subject to inundation by a seiche, mudflow, and/or tsunami. No impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 61 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Impact Analysis a) Physically divide an established community? Finding: No Impact Source: (On-site Inspection, 2014; Google Earth, 2014; Project Application Materials) The Project site is partially developed under conditions with a bail bond business along the site’s frontage with South Waterman Avenue, a vacant commercial building along the site’s frontage with South Waterman Avenue, a truck repair business located in the site’s northeastern corner, and one residence in the eastern portion of the site. The remaining portions of the Project site are vacant and undeveloped. The sparse development on-site does not constitute an established community. To the west of the Project site is South Waterman Avenue, beyond which are several single-family detached homes, two light industrial businesses, and vacant, undeveloped land. Areas to the immediate west of the Project do not constitute an established community, and are already physically separated from the Project site under existing conditions by South Waterman Avenue. To the east of the Project site is industrial development and vacant, undeveloped land; however, under existing conditions, the Project site is physically separated from areas to the east by the Twin Creek Channel. To the south and southwest of the Project is a mix of industrial and commercial development. The Project would serve, effectively, as an extension of existing development patterns to the south and southwest and would not divide an established community located south of the subject property. Scattered residential development (single-family residences and multi-family housing) is located north of the Project site under existing conditions and an elementary school is located approximately 320 feet northwest of the Project site (as measured from the Project site to the school site perimeter), across South Waterman Avenue. However, the Project site does not provide access to the residential areas or the elementary school, and implementation of the Project would not divide or isolate these existing residential uses from Waterman Logistics Center Page 62 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY neighboring communities. Based on the foregoing, the Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (SCAG, 2008; SCAG, 2012; SCAQMD, 2013; San Bernardino, 2009) Under existing conditions the Project site is designated for “Office Industrial Park” and “Residential Medium High” land uses by the City’s General Plan Land Use Plan and Zoning Map. The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the subject property’s General Plan land use and Zoning designations to “Industrial Light” to accommodate the development of an industrial warehouse building. Although the Project would be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land use and Zoning designations, such an inconsistency would only be significant if it were to result in significant, adverse physical effects to the environment. As disclosed in this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed Project would develop the subject property with a different land use than envisioned by the existing General Plan and allowed by the existing Zoning Ordinance. The City of San Bernardino General Plan designates the Project site for the ultimate development of up to 675,615 square feet of “Office Industrial Park (OIP)” land uses and up 99 attached dwelling units, while the proposed Project would develop the site with a 426,858 s.f. logistics warehouse building and associated site improvements. Accordingly, the proposed Project would develop the site at a lesser intensity that what is approved under the existing General Plan and zoning designations. In all instances where significant impacts have been identified, mitigation is provided to reduce each impact to less‐than‐significant levels. Therefore, because the Project is processing a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to modify the site’s underlying land use regulations to be consistent with those proposed by the Project and because implementation of the Project would not result in significant impacts to the environment, the Project’s inconsistency with the site’s existing underlying General Plan land use and Zoning designations represents a less-than-significant impact. The Project would otherwise not conflict with any applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the SCAQMD AQMP, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCC), and SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan. The RTP/SCS notes that the SCAG region is forecasted to have a demand for over one billion square feet of warehousing space by the year 2035, including a demand for 943 million square feet of non-port warehouse space. The demand for non-port warehouse space is projected to increase by approximately 59 percent between the years 2008 and 2035 – from approximately 591 million square feet to approximately 943 million square feet. (SCAG, 2013, pp. 4-39 and 4-40) However, SCAG projects that the region will run out of suitably zoned vacant land designated for warehouse facilities in about the year 2028. Unless other land not currently zoned for warehousing becomes available, SCAG forecasts that by year 2035, a projected shortfall of approximately 227 million square feet of warehouse space will occur between the years 2028 and 2035 (both port and non-port warehouse space). (SCAG, 2013, p. 4-39) As the availability of vacant locations for industrial/warehousing facilities near the ports reach capacity, the demand will shift inland to regions that have the vacant land and infrastructure to accommodate such land uses, primarily the Inland Empire. Therefore, the Project’s proposed industrial/warehouse uses are consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS Goods Movement Chapter. Waterman Logistics Center Page 63 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY In conclusion, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating adverse environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: No Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005b, Chapter 5.3, Biological Resources; RBF, 2014) The Project site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 64 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Impact Analysis a) Result in the loss of availability of known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (CDC, 1995; CDC, 2008; San Bernardino, 2005a; San Bernardino, 2005b) The Project site is located within an area designated by the California Department of Conservation as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) – defined as an area mapped as containing significant mineral deposits – for Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)-grade aggregate minerals (CDC, 2008). As such, the proposed development of the Project site would hinder access to the potential mineral resources contained beneath the Project site. It is important to note that the mineral resource zone classifications assigned by the California Department of Conservation focus solely on geologic factors and the potential value and marketability of a mineral resource, without regard to existing land use and ownership or the compatibility of surrounding land uses. As part of the General Plan Update process in 2005, the City of San Bernardino determined that there were areas of the City with the potential to contain important mineral resources, as mapped by the Department of Conservation, where mining activities were not suitable because of incompatible surrounding land uses. Areas in the City where mining activities are considered appropriate received the “Industrial Extractive” land use designation, and all other areas in the City were deemed inappropriate for mining activities. Under existing conditions, the Project site is located within an area determined by the City to be unsuitable for mineral resource extraction land uses and was, therefore, applied General Plan land use designations that prohibited mining activities (i.e., “Office Industrial Park” and “Residential Medium High”) (San Bernardino, 2005a, pp. 2-17 and 2-19). The Zoning designations applied to the subject property also prohibit mining land uses (San Bernardino, 2013, Chapters 19.04 and 19.08). Because mining of the Project site is already precluded by the City’s General Plan and Development Code under existing conditions, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is able to be extracted. Furthermore, the use of the Project site for non-mining land uses was previously addressed by the City as part of the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2004111132), which found that development of non-mining land uses in all areas of the City not designated for “Industrial Extractive” land uses would not result in a significant effect related to the loss of mineral resources of value to the region or state (San Bernardino, 2005b, p. 5.9-8). There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in new or more Waterman Logistics Center Page 65 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY severe impacts associated with the loss of mineral resources beyond the levels that were previously evaluated and disclosed as part of the City’s General Plan EIR. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in the loss of locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Finding: No Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a; San Bernardino, 2013) The City of San Bernardino General Plan does not identify the Project site as an important mineral resource recovery site (San Bernardino, 2005a, p. 12-15). Furthermore, neither the City’s General Plan nor Development Code designate the Project site for Industrial Extractive (IE) land uses, which is the only land use category within the City where mining activities are permitted (San Bernardino, 2005a, p. 2-19; San Bernardino, 2013, II- 19.08-4). Accordingly, the Project site is not delineated on any local plan as a locally important mineral resources recovery site. No impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 66 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan or Development Code, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise level in the project vicinity above existing without the project? d) A substantial or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Analysis a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan or Development Code, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a, Chapter 14, Noise; San Bernardino, 2009; Urban Crossroads, 2014e; Project Application Materials) Noise generated at the Project site under existing conditions is limited to activities associated with the on-going commercial land use (bail bonds business), industrial land use (truck repair business), and residential use (one single-family home) on the subject property. Routine maintenance activities on the Project site (i.e., discing) Waterman Logistics Center Page 67 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY also produce sporadic noise. No known unusual or loud noises occur on the Project site on a regular basis. Primary noise sources near the site include vehicular noise on South Waterman Avenue and operational noise from industrial land uses located east of the Project site, (east of the Twin Creek Channel). For more information about the existing noise environment surrounding the Project site, refer to Technical Appendix J. Development of the Project site as a logistics warehouse building has the potential to expose persons to or result in elevated noise levels during both near-term construction activities and under long-term operational conditions. Near-term (i.e., temporary) and long-term (i.e., permanent) noise level increases that would be associated with the Project are described below. Impact Analysis for Near-Term Construction Noise The City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.54) includes a provision that exempts construction activities from any maximum noise level standard, provided that construction activities occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, p. 14). The Project is required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, so implementation of the Project would not expose persons to or generate near-term noise levels in excess of standards adopted by the City. Regardless of the Project’s consistency with the City’s Noise Ordinance as described above, construction activities on the Project site, especially those activities involving heavy equipment, would create intermittent, temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. The projected noise levels used for analysis assume the worst-case noise environment with all construction equipment operating simultaneously, at full power, at the same location on the Project site. In reality, noise levels would vary day-to-day and vary throughout the day, as it is highly unlikely that all pieces of construction equipment would operate simultaneously at the same time and location on the Project site. As shown on Table 9, Construction Noise Level Summary, Project-related construction activities are estimated to reach a maximum noise levels between 62.8 and 84.1 equivalent-level decibels (dBA Leq) when measured at nearby sensitive receptors. Table 9 Construction Noise Level Summary 1Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4. 2Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, Table 10-7) Waterman Logistics Center Page 68 Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis nearest noise-sensitive receiver to the Project site. Long-term measurement location L4 is used to describe the existing ambient noise conditions at this location. EXHIBIT 8-A: NOISE RECEIVER LOCATIONS 09178-14 Noise Study 42 SCALENOTTO NOISE RECEIVER LOCATIONS Figure 4 Page 69Waterman Logistics Center Source(s): Urban Crossraods (09-12-14) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY As shown in Table 9, the highest noise levels would occur in the vicinity of Noise Receptors R7 and R8 (refer to Figure 4 for noise receptor locations). During the construction phase, the Project would construct a solid, masonry wall along the Project site property boundary adjacent to Receptors R7 and R8 (refer to Section 3.0, Project Description). Solid masonry walls serve as a noise barrier and can reduce noise levels by up to 15.0 dBA (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, p. 8). The noise values presented in Table 9 do not account for the solid masonry wall that the Project would install during the construction phase; therefore, it is likely that peak construction noise levels at Receptors R7 and R8 would be lower than the levels reported in Table 9. As described above, noise generated during near-term Project construction activities would cause an elevated temporary increase in ambient noise levels and would affect off-site receptors, particularly when construction equipment is operating in close proximity to the northeastern Project site boundary, north of which are single- family homes. Although near-term Project construction activities on the Project site would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant, the Project Applicant has proposed the following best practices that would be implemented during the Project’s construction phase to minimize the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to temporary increases in ambient noise levels. a) Construction contractors will equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. b) Construction contractors will place all stationary construction equipment and equipment staging areas so that all emitted noise is directed toward the center of the Project site and away from the property boundaries. c) Construction contractors will locate equipment staging in areas on the Project site that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. The City of San Bernardino would include those best practices as part of the Project’s conditions of approval. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact Analysis for Long-Term Operational Noise To ensure that off-site residents are protected from excessive noise, the City of San Bernardino General Plan Noise Element provides guidelines to evaluate the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure. These guidelines are based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and are used to assess the community noise exposure on land uses. According to the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure guidelines, noise sensitive land uses such as single family residences and schools that experience exterior noise levels below 60 dBA community noise level equivalent level (CNEL) fall within a “normally acceptable” noise range and noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA CNEL are “conditionally acceptable.” For office and commercial land uses, exterior noise levels below 70 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable and noise levels of less than 80 are considered conditionally acceptable. Industrial and manufacturing land uses are considered normally acceptable with noise levels below 75 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels of less than 80 dBA CNEL. (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, p. 12) The City’s Development Code (Section 19.20.030.15) identifies a maximum allowable exterior noise level of 65 dBA Leq for new residential developments (i.e., noise sensitive receptors). While the Development Code specifically identifies a noise level limit for noise sensitive land uses, neither the City’s Development Code nor Noise Ordinance maintain noise standards for non-noise sensitive land uses such as office, retail, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, and warehousing. The policies contained in the Development Code and Noise Ordinance Waterman Logistics Center Page 70 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY are designed to protect sensitive receptors such as residential homes from the negative effects of “spillover” or nuisance noise. To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Project site, stationary source noise such as idling trucks, delivery truck activities, parking, and backup alarms are typically evaluated against the applicable policies adopted in the City’s Development Code and/or Noise Ordinance. However, when such noises accompany a lawful business in an area zoned for that use, the City’s Noise Ordinance exempts those noise producing activities from the controls listed in the Noise Ordinance. (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, p. 14) While the City’s General Plan, Noise Ordinance, and Development Code provide background on noise fundamentals and establish noise compatibility standards for noise-sensitive land uses, they do not include any standards or criteria to assess the impacts associated with cumulative traffic (mobile) noise source impacts. Therefore, for purposes of evaluating long-term operational transportation-related noise impacts within the City, the analysis in this Initial Study relies on the recommendations of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). Pursuant to the FICON recommendations, the significance of cumulative transportation noise impacts varies depending on the condition of the environment and the Project-related noise level increases. For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet and the new noise source greatly increase the noise levels, an impact may occur even though the noise criteria might not be exceeded. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, when the ambient noise environment is less than 60 dBA CNEL, a 5 dBA or more increase (i.e., “readily perceptible”) resulting from Project-related traffic is considered cumulatively considerable when nearby noise sensitive receptors are affected. In areas where the without-Project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL, a 3 dBA or more increase (i.e., “barely perceptible”) resulting from Project-related traffic is considered cumulatively considerable when nearby noise sensitive receptors are affected. In areas where the without- Project noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, a 1.5 dBA or more increase resulting from Project-related traffic is considered cumulatively considerable when nearby noise sensitive receptors are affected. (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, pp. 17-18) Stationary Noise Impacts Stationary noise sources associated with operation of the Project would include but not be limited to idling trucks, delivery truck activities, parking, backup alarms, and HVAC equipment. The reference noise levels describe the worst-case noise condition with full 24-hour daytime and nighttime distribution activities. In reality, operational noise levels would vary throughout the day and would not be constant, so the analysis likely overstates the Project’s impacts. To estimate Project-related off-site operational noise levels, reference noise level measurements were collected from the existing operations of Veg Fresh Farms and the FedEx distribution facility located at 500 East Orangethorpe Avenue in the City of Anaheim. From a noise standpoint, a warehouse facility’s operational characteristics are the primary factors that affect operational noise levels; the geographic location of the facility does not substantially influence operational noise levels. The noise level measurements collected from the Veg Fresh Farms and FedEx warehouse facilities in Anaheim, California are representative of stationary noise levels expected at the Project site because these facilities have 24-hour operational activities that are comparable to those proposed at the Project site. The reference noise level measurements include the daytime and nighttime noise levels associated with idling trucks, delivery truck activities, parking, backup alarms and refrigerated containers or reefers. Although a tenant requiring refrigeration is not expected to occupy the Project site, the inclusion of refrigeration activities as part of the reference noise level allows analysis of a higher intensity operation than a non-refrigeration operation that would likely occupy the Project site. The reference noise level Waterman Logistics Center Page 71 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY measurements were collected on Tuesday, January 22, 2013, and represent the typical 24-hour operations expected at the Project site. Based on the reference noise levels, as described above, the Project’s operational noise levels were modeled at nearby sensitive receptors. As summarized in Table 10, Operational Noise Levels, the Project’s operational noise levels would not exceed 52.4 dBA Leq at any nearby sensitive receptor (refer to Technical Appendix J for a detailed description of nearby sensitive receptors). When the Project’s operational noise is added to ambient noise levels, no sensitive receptors would be exposed to noise levels that exceed 65 dBA Leq during daytime or nighttime hours (see Table 11 and Table 12 below). Therefore, operation of the Project would not cause or contribute to any nearby sensitive receptors being exposed to noise levels in excess of applicable City standards. The Project's stationary noise impact during long-term operation would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Table 10 Operational Noise Levels 1Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4. 2City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU-2. 3City of San Bernardino Development Code, Section 19.20.030.15(A). 4Estimated Project stationary source noise levels as shown on Technical Appendix J, Table 9-1. 5Do the estimated Project stationary source noise levels meet the City of San Bernardino Development Code standard? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, Table 9-2). Waterman Logistics Center Page 72 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Table 11 Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Operational Noise Level Impacts (dBA Leq) 1Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4. 2Estimated Project stationary source noise levels as shown on Technical Appendix J, Table 9-1. 3Reference noise level measurements as shown on Technical Appendix J, Exhibit 5-A. 4Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Technical Appendix J, Table 5-1. 5Represents the combined reference ambient noise levels plus Project operational noise level. 6The noise level increase expected with the addition of the Project. 7As defined on Pages 66-67 of this Initial Study Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e Table 9-3). Table 12 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Operational Noise Level Impacts (dBA Leq) 1Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4. 2Estimated Project stationary source noise levels as shown on Technical Appendix J, Table 9-1. 3Reference noise level measurements as shown on Technical Appendix J, Exhibit 5-A. 4Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Technical Appendix J, Table 5-1. 5Represents the combined reference ambient noise levels plus Project operational noise level. 6The noise level increase expected with the addition of the Project. 7As defined on Pages 66-67 of this Initial Study Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e Table 9-4) Waterman Logistics Center Page 73 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Traffic-Related Noise Impacts To evaluate off-site noise increases that could result from Project-related traffic, noise levels were modeled for the following three traffic scenarios: • Existing: This scenario refers to the existing traffic noise conditions without and with the proposed Project. • Project Opening Year (2015): This scenario refers to the background noise conditions at Project opening (2015) without and with the Project. • Horizon Year (2035): This scenario refers to the background noise conditions at Year 2035 without and with the proposed Project. Traffic noise contours and noise levels were established based on existing and projected future traffic conditions on off-site roadway segments within the Project’s study area, and do not take into account the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. Refer to Technical Appendix J for a detailed description of the methodology used to evaluate the Project’s traffic-related noise effects. Table 13, Existing Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts, presents a comparison of the existing noise conditions along Project study area roadway segments and the noise levels that would result with addition of Project-related traffic. Noise levels along roadway segments within the Project study area would increase from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL with development of the proposed Project. As shown in Table 13, all roadway segments in the Project study area would exceed 65 dBA CNEL with and without Project-related traffic. However, the Project would not directly cause any roadway segment to exceed 65 dBA CNEL and the Project’s noise contributions would not be considered substantial based on the existing ambient noise levels (i.e., an increase of less than 1.5 dBA). Under existing conditions, there is an elementary school located approximately 370 feet northwest of the Project site (which is not adjacent to roadway segment), and two non-conforming residential land uses west of South Waterman Avenue. Each of these sensitive receptors are exposed to noise that exceeds 65 dBA CNEL under existing conditions. The Project’s noise contributions would not be considered substantial based on the existing ambient noise levels (i.e., an increase of less than 1.5 dBA). Accordingly, the Project would neither expose off-site sensitive receptors to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards nor result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Therefore, the Project’s off-site traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant under existing plus Project conditions. Table 13 Existing Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts 1City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU-2. 2As defined on Pages 66-67 of this Initial Study Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, Table 7-7) Waterman Logistics Center Page 74 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Table 14, Year 2015 Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts, presents a comparison of estimated Year 2015 noise conditions along Project study area roadway segments and the noise levels that would result with addition of Project-related traffic. Noise levels along roadway segments within the Project study area would increase from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL with development of the proposed Project. As shown in Table 14, all roadway segments in the Project study area would exceed 65 dBA CNEL with and without Project-related traffic. However, the Project would not directly cause any roadway segment (including roads adjacent to/in the vicinity of the nearby off-site elementary school and residential land uses) to exceed 65 dBA CNEL and the Project’s noise contributions would not be considered substantial based on the existing ambient noise levels (i.e., an increase of less than 1.5 dBA). Accordingly, the Project would neither expose off-site sensitive receptors to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards nor result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Therefore, the Project’s off-site traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant under Year 2015 conditions. Table 14 Year 2015 Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts 1City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU-2. 2As defined on Pages 66-67 f this Initial Study Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, Table 7-8) Table 15, Horizon Year (2035) Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts, presents a comparison of estimated Year 2035 noise conditions along Project study area roadway segments and the noise levels that would result with addition of Project-related traffic. Noise levels along roadway segments within the Project study area would increase from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL with development of the proposed Project. As shown in Table 15, all roadway segments in the Project study area would exceed 65 dBA CNEL with and without Project- related traffic. However, the Project would not directly cause any roadway segment (including roads adjacent to/in the vicinity of the nearby off-site elementary school and residential land uses) to exceed 65 dBA CNEL and the Project’s noise contributions would not be considered substantial based on the existing ambient noise levels (i.e., less than 1.5 dBA). Furthermore, there are no sensitive receptors located adjacent to any Project study area roadway segment. Therefore, the Project’s off-site traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant under Horizon Year (2035) conditions. Accordingly, the Project would neither expose off-site sensitive receptors to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards nor result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. In summary, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in off-site traffic-related noise levels, nor would Project-related traffic cause or contribute to the exposure of sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of applicable standards. The Project’s traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Waterman Logistics Center Page 75 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Table 15 Horizon Year (2035) Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts 1City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU-2. 2As defined on Pages 66-67 of this Initial Study Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, Table 7-9). Conclusion Based on the preceding analysis, no component of the Project’s near-term construction or long-term operation (including on-site operational activities and off-site traffic) would expose sensitive receptors to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e) Impact Analysis for Near-Term Construction Vibration Construction activities that would occur within the Project site are expected to include grading, excavation, and heavy construction equipment activities that have the potential to generate low levels of intermittent, localized ground-borne vibration. There is no groundborne vibration potential associated with the proposed off-site bridge removal because the removal would be conducted mostly with hand operated tools. The City of San Bernardino does not have an adopted vibration standard, so the Project’s construction-related vibration levels were estimated and evaluated using methodology published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, p. 30). Refer to Technical Appendix J for a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate construction vibration levels. Vibration levels anticipated to result from Project-related construction activities were calculated at each of the eight (8) receiver locations identified on Figure 4. The results of the vibration analysis for Project-related construction activities are summarized in Table 16, Construction Vibration Levels. As shown in Table 16, Project-related construction activities would not expose any nearby receptor to peak vibration levels in excess of 70.0 vibration decibels (VdB), which is less than the FTA’s maximum acceptable vibration standard (i.e., 80.0 VdB). Because the Project would not exceed the FTA’s acceptable vibration standard, near-term construction activities would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with construction vibration. Waterman Logistics Center Page 76 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Table 16 Construction Vibration Levels 1Receiver locations are shown on Figure 4. 2Based on vibration source levels listed in (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, Table 6-7). 3Do vibration levels exceed the FTA maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, Table 10-9) Impact Analysis for Long-Term Operational Noise Under long-term conditions, operational activities of the proposed Project would not include nor require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration. Trucks would travel to-and-from the Project site during long-term operation; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at low-to-normal speeds on smooth, paved surfaces – as is expected on the Project site and along surrounding roadways – are typically below the human threshold of perception (65 VdB, (Urban Crossroads, 2014e, p. 50)). Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise during near-term construction or long-term operation. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise level in the project vicinity above existing without the project? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e) As discussed above under Issue XII(a), the Project would not result in a substantial, permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels without the Project. Refer the analysis under Issue XII(a) for more information. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Waterman Logistics Center Page 77 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY d) A substantial or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing without the project? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014e) The analysis presented under Issue XII(a) concluded that the Project would result in elevated noise levels during Project construction and operation, but noise level increases would be less than significant. Refer to the analysis under Issue XII(a). Construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and the Project Applicant has proposed best management practices that will occur on-site during the construction process to minimize periodic increases in noise. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005b, Chapter 5.10, Noise; Google Earth, 2014; Project Application Materials) The Project site is located within two miles of the San Bernardino International Airport. The Project site is subject to aircraft-related noise, but such noise is not regarded as excessive (City of San Bernardino, 2005b, Chapter 5.10, Noise). The areas with highest exposure to airport-related noise occur along the extended runway centerline as aircraft ascend/descend for takeoffs and landings. The San Bernardino International Airport’s runways are oriented southwest to northeast, whereas the Project site is located to the northwest of the airport and is not located within the approach or take-off areas at either end of the runway. As such, the Project would not be exposed to substantial noise from the San Bernardino International Airport. Accordingly, workers and visitors to the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from nearby airport operations and impacts would be less than significant. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact Source: (Google Earth, 2014) There are no private airfields or airstrips in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people to excessive noise levels associated with operations at a private airstrip and no impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 78 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Analysis a) Induce substantial 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)? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a Chapter 2, Land Use; San Bernardino, 2005b Chapter 5.11, Population and Housing) If the Project site were developed in accordance with its existing, underlying General Plan land use designations, up to 675,615 square feet of “Office Industrial Park” land uses and up to 99 attached dwelling units could be constructed on the subject property. In comparison, the Project would develop the subject property with a 426,858 square-foot logistics warehouse building and associated site improvements. Accordingly, the Project would develop the site with less-intense land uses than those planned by the existing General Plan, and would not result in growth that was not already anticipated by the City of San Bernardino General Plan and evaluated in the City of San Bernardino General Plan EIR. The Project site is served by existing public roadways and utility infrastructure is already installed beneath public rights of way that abut the property. The Project would install an off-site sewer pipe segment beneath South Waterman Avenue; however, the sewer pipe would merely extend an existing sewer main to provide service to the Project site and would not contain sufficient, excess capacity to support substantial growth. As such, implementation of the Project would not result in direct or indirect growth in the area, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Project Application Materials; On-Site Inspection (2014)) The Project site contains one (1) occupied residential structure under existing conditions. Although the Project would remove this home from the subject property, the demolition of one home would not necessitate the Waterman Logistics Center Page 79 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY construction of replacement housing elsewhere as the elimination of one home does not comprise a substantial number of existing homes. The Project would result in a less-than-significant impact. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Project Application Materials; On-Site Inspection (2014)) As described above under the response to Issue XIII(b), the Project would demolish one (1) occupied residential structure and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 80 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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 rations, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? 1) Fire protection? 2) Police protection? 3) Schools? 4) Parks? 5) Other public services? Impact Analysis a)(1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a Chapter 7, Public Facilities and Services; San Bernardino, 2005b Chapter 5.12, Public Services; San Bernardino, 2009, Chapter3.27, Development Impact Fees) The City of San Bernardino Fire Department provides fire protection service to the Project site under existing conditions and would provide service to the proposed Project. The proposed Project would be primarily served by Station 221, an existing station located at 200 East 3rd Street (approximately 0.7 roadway mile northwest of the Project site). Based on the Project’s proximity to this existing fire station, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no new or expanded facilities would be required. The proposed Project also would be required to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including type of building construction, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system and paved access to the Waterman Logistics Center Page 81 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Project site. Furthermore, the proposed Project is required to comply with the provisions of the City of San Bernardino’s Development Impact Fee (refer to City Municipal Code Chapter 3.27), which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of public facilities, including fire suppression facilities, vehicles and equipment. Mandatory compliance with the Development Impact Fee would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would receive adequate fire protection service, and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts to fire protection facilities would be, therefore, less than significant and no mitigation is required. a)(2) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Police Protection? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a Chapter 7, Public Facilities and Services; San Bernardino, 2005b Chapter 5.12, Public Services; San Bernardino, 2009, Chapter3.27, Development Impact Fees) The San Bernardino Police Department provides police protection services to the Project site under existing conditions and would provide service to the Project via their headquarters at 710 North “D” Street, in the City of San Bernardino. Redevelopment of the subject property with one warehouse building would introduce a new structure and employees to the Project site. This would result in an incremental increase in demand for law enforcement services, but is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new or physically altered law enforcement facilities. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant is required to comply with the provisions of the City of San Bernardino’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance (refer to City Municipal Code Chapter 3.27), which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of public facilities, including law enforcement facilities, vehicles, and equipment. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would receive adequate police protection service, and would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts to police protection facilities would be therefore less than significant with no mitigation required. a)(3) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Schools? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005b Chapter 5.8, Land Use and Planning; CA SB 50) The Project would not create a direct demand for public school services, as the land use proposed by the Project (i.e., logistics warehouse building) would not generate any school-aged children requiring public education. The addition of employment uses on the Project site would assist in the achievement of the City’s goal to provide a better jobs/housing balance within the City and the larger San Bernardino County region. Thus, the Project is Waterman Logistics Center Page 82 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY not expected to draw new residents to the region and would therefore not indirectly generate additional school- aged students requiring public education. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the proposed Project would not result in the need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a demand for additional public school services, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute development impact fees to the San Bernardino Unified School District, in compliance with California Senate Bill 50 (Greene). Mandatory payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Project-related impacts to public schools would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. a)(4) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) As discussed below under the responses to Issues XV(a) and XV(b), the proposed Project would not create a demand for public park facilities and would not result in the need to modify existing or construct new park facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect any park facility and impacts are regarded as less than significant. a)(5) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Other public facilities? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a Chapter 14, Noise; San Bernardino, 2009) The proposed Project is not expected to result in a demand for other public facilities/services, including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, public health facilities, and animal shelters. As such, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect other public facilities or require the construction of new or modified facilities. Impacts are less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 83 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY XV. RECREATION – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Analysis a) 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? Finding: No Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) The Project would redevelop the subject property with one industrial warehouse building. The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities in the vicinity. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park and no impact would occur. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: No Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) The proposed Project would redevelop the subject property with one warehouse building. The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreation facilities. The Project would not expand any existing off- site recreational facilities. Therefore, adverse environmental impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur with implementation of the Project. Waterman Logistics Center Page 84 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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? b) 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 roadways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to design feature (e.g., sharp curves of dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) supporting alternative transportation? Waterman Logistics Center Page 85 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Impact Analysis a) 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? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014d) For purposes of analyzing the Project’s potential impacts to traffic, the City of San Bernardino identified a traffic impact study area in conformance with their Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (dated September 24, 2004). Based on the Guidelines, the minimum area to be studied includes any intersection at which a proposed project would add 50 or more peak hour trips. For the proposed Project, the traffic study impact area includes three (3) existing and future intersections: 1) South Waterman Avenue/Project Driveway 1; 2) South Waterman Avenue/Project Driveway 2; and 3) South Waterman Avenue/Mill Street. Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads for more information about the analysis methodologies employed in the evaluation of the Project’s potential traffic-related impacts (Technical Appendix K). In accordance with the scoping agreement for the Project approved by City of San Bernardino staff (refer to Appendix 1.1 of Technical Appendix K), the Project would result in a substantial adverse effect to the performance of the circulation system if any of the following situations would occur (Urban Crossroads, 2014d, p. 12): • If an intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS “D” or better) without the Project and the addition of Project traffic, as measured by 50 or more peak hour trips, is expected to cause the intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (i.e., LOS “E” or worse), the Project’s impact is considered a significant direct impact. • If an intersection is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service (i.e., LOS “E” or “F”) without the Project, and the Project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips, the Project’s impact is considered cumulatively considerable. Under existing conditions, the Project site is partially developed and generates minimal traffic. Existing traffic counts in the study area were collected on August 19, 2014. This day was representative of typical weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area, as no observations were made in the field by Urban Crossroads that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on this date. (Urban Crossroads, 2014d, p. 18) Based on the collected traffic counts, the only existing intersection in the Project study area, South Waterman Avenue/Mill Street intersection, operates at acceptable LOS (Urban Crossroads, 2014d, p. 22). Refer to Technical Appendix K for more information about existing traffic conditions in the Project’s study area. Project Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted to and produced by a development project. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses proposed for a given development. Based on vehicle trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the Project is estimated to generate approximately 722 daily vehicle trips, including 47 trips during the AM peak hour and 52 Waterman Logistics Center Page 86 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY trips during the PM peak hour. Of the Project’s estimated 722 daily vehicle trips, 148 trips would be from trucks with a size of two axles or greater. In conformance with standard traffic engineering practices in Southern California, the Project’s daily vehicle trips were converted to a passenger car equivalent (PCE). PCE factors allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit (i.e., the passenger car), for purposes of capacity and LOS analyses. A PCE factor of 1.5 was applied to two-axle truck trips, a factor of 2.0 was applied to three-axle truck trips, and a factor of 3.0 was applied to four plus-axle truck trips. After converting Project trips to PCE, the Project is estimated to produce an estimated 976 PCE daily vehicle trips, including 64 PCE trips during the AM Peak Hour and 70 PCE trips during the PM Peak Hour. The Project’s PCE vehicle trips were used for purposes of determining the Project’s potential effect to the circulation system. (Urban Crossroads, 2014d, pp. 25-27). For more information about the Project’s trip generation, refer to Technical Appendix K. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes that would be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the routes where Project traffic would distribute. The trip distribution for the proposed Project was developed based on anticipated passenger car and truck travel patterns to-and-from the Project site. The total volume on each roadway was divided by the Project’s total traffic generation to indicate the percentage of Project traffic that would use each component of the roadway system in each relevant direction. The Project’s trip distribution patterns are graphically depicted on Figure 5, Project Truck Distribution, and Figure 6, Project Car Trip Distribution. The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based on the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, PCE factored Project average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the weekday are shown on Figure 7, Project Average Daily Traffic. Analysis Scenarios For the purposes of the proposed Project’s traffic impact analysis, potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions: • Near-Term Construction (1 scenario) • Existing (2014) plus Project (1 scenario) • Opening Year (2015) with Project and Opening Year (2015) with Project and cumulative development projects (2 scenarios) • Horizon Year (2035), without and with Project (2 scenarios) The Near-Term Construction conditions analysis determines the potential for Project construction-related traffic to result in an adverse effect to the local roadway system. Types of traffic anticipated during construction include employees traveling to/from the Project site as well as deliveries of construction materials to the Project site. The Existing (2014) plus Project (E+P) analysis determines direct Project-related traffic impacts that would occur on the existing roadway system in the theoretical scenario of the Project being placed upon existing conditions. Existing conditions (2014) represents the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time the Waterman Logistics Center Page 87 SCALENOTTO PROJECT TRUCK DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 Page 88Waterman Logistics Center Source(s): Urban Crossraods (09-12-14) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY SCALENOTTO PROJECT CAR DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 Page 89 Source(s): Urban Crossroads (09-12-14) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Waterman Logistics Center SCALENOTTO PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Figure 7 Page 90 Source(s): Urban Crossroads (09-12-14) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Waterman Logistics Center CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Project’s applications were submitted to the City of San Bernardino. Because the Project is not expected to be fully built and occupied until at least 2015, the E+P scenario is presented to disclose direct impacts as required by CEQA. The Opening Year (2015) analysis includes an evaluation the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (E+A+P) traffic conditions. The E+A+P analysis is intended to identify the direct impacts associated solely with the development of the proposed Project based on the expected background growth within the study area. The Opening Year (2015) analysis also includes an evaluation of Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative Development (E+A+P+C) conditions to identify the Project’s potential cumulative contribution to traffic impacts within the study area. The Horizon Year (2035) conditions analysis is utilized to determine if improvements funded through local and regional transportation mitigation fee programs, such as the City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee program or other approved funding mechanisms, can accommodate the cumulative traffic at the target level of service identified in the City of San Bernardino General Plan. If the planned and funded improvements can provide the necessary improvements, then the Project’s payment into applicable, established fee programs (as required by the Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project by the City) would be considered adequate mitigation for cumulatively considerable impacts. If other improvements are needed beyond the “funded” improvements (such as localized improvements to non-funded facilities), they are identified as such. Refer to Technical Appendix K for a detailed discussion of the methodologies and assumptions for each analysis scenario, and a list of cumulative development projects considered in the analysis. Impact Analysis for Near-term Construction Traffic Conditions During the construction phase of the Project, traffic to-and-from the subject property would be generated by activities such as construction employee trips, delivery of construction materials, and use of heavy equipment. Vehicular traffic associated with construction employees would be less than daily and peak hour traffic volumes generated during Project operational activities, and is not expected to result in a substantial adverse effect to the local roadway system. Deliveries of construction materials to the Project site would also have a nominal effect to the local roadway network. Construction materials would be delivered to the site throughout the construction phase based on need and would not occur on an everyday basis. Heavy equipment would be utilized on the Project site during the construction phase. As most heavy equipment is not authorized to be driven on a public roadway, most equipment would be delivered and removed from the site via flatbed trucks. As with the delivery of construction materials, the delivery of heavy equipment to the Project site would not occur on a daily basis, but would occur periodically throughout the construction phase based on need. As previously described, all existing intersections in the Project’s study area operate at acceptable LOS under Existing (2014) conditions. The addition of temporary, Project-related construction traffic to these transportation facilities would not degrade LOS to a deficient level. Accordingly, traffic generated by the Project’s construction phase would not result in a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Impacts during the Project’s construction phase would be less than significant. Impact Analysis for Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions For purposes of information disclosure, this subsection presents an analysis of existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed Project (Existing plus Project, or E+P). The reason this particular analysis scenario is provided is to disclose the potential for direct impacts to the existing environment as required by Waterman Logistics Center Page 91 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY CEQA. The E+P scenario rarely materializes as an actual scenario in the real world. The time period between the environmental baseline date and the date project buildout occurs can often be a period of several years or more. In the case of the proposed Project, the time period estimated between existing conditions (2014) and estimated Project buildout (2015) is one (1) year. During this time period, conditions are not static. Other projects are being constructed, the transportation network is evolving, and traffic patterns are changing. Therefore, the E+P scenario is very unlikely to materialize in real world conditions and thus does not accurately describe the environment that exists when a particular project is constructed and becomes operational. Regardless, the E+P scenario is evaluated to satisfy CEQA requirements to identify the Project’s impacts to the existing environment. Intersection levels of service for E+P conditions are summarized in Table 17, Existing (2014) plus Project Conditions Intersections Analysis. As shown in Table 17, under E+P traffic conditions, all Project study area intersections would operate at acceptable LOS during peak hours. Accordingly, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the local roadway network under E+P traffic conditions. Table 17 Existing (2014) plus Project Conditions Intersections Analysis Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014d Table 5-1) Impact Analysis for Opening Year (2015) Traffic Conditions The Opening Year (2015) conditions analysis identifies the specific impacts associated solely with the development of the proposed Project based on the expected background growth within the study area (Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project, or E+A+P). Cumulative development projects within the Project study area are not included within the E+A+P evaluation. As shown in Table 18, Opening Year (2015) Intersections Analysis, all intersections in the Project study area are projected to operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours under E+A+P traffic conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to study area intersections under E+A+P conditions. Waterman Logistics Center Page 92 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Table 18 Opening Year (2015) Intersections Analysis Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014d Table 6-1) Impact Analysis for Opening Year (2015) plus Cumulative Conditions Traffic within the Project study area from development projects that are approved and not yet constructed, along with developments that are currently in the process of entitlement, have been added to the Opening Year (2015, E+A+P) traffic volumes to represent Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative Development conditions (E+A+P+C). The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the Project in conjunction with nearby development projects has the potential to result in traffic impacts that are individually less than significant but considerable on a cumulative basis. As shown in Table 19, Opening Year (2015) plus Cumulative Conditions Intersection Analysis, all intersections in the Project study area are projected to operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours under E+A+P+C traffic conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to study area intersections under E+A+P+C conditions. Table 19 Opening Year (2015) plus Cumulative Conditions Intersection Analysis Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014d Table 7-1) Waterman Logistics Center Page 93 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Impact Analysis for Horizon Year (2035) Conditions The Horizon Year (2035) conditions analysis is utilized to determine if improvements anticipated in long-term planning documents, such as the City of San Bernardino General Plan, are adequate to accommodate long term cumulative traffic conditions at the target LOS, or if additional improvements area necessary. As shown in Table 20, Horizon Year (2035) Intersection Analysis, all intersections in the Project study area are projected to operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours under Horizon Year (2035) traffic conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to study area intersections under Horizon Year (2035). Table 20 Horizon Year (2035) Intersection Analysis Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2014d Table 8-1) Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system during projected near- or long-term development conditions. The Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the local circulation system and no mitigation would be required. b) 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 roadways? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (SANBAG, 2007; Urban Crossroads, 2014d) The San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan is applicable to the Project because three roadways in the vicinity of the Project site – South Waterman Avenue, I-215, and I-10 – are designated as part of the CMP Roadway System. As described above under the response to Issue XV(a), the Project would not result in substantial, adverse effects to South Waterman Avenue during any traffic analysis scenario (i.e., near-term construction, E+P, E+A+P, E+A+P+C, Horizon Year). The Project would contribute fewer than 50 two-way peak hour trips to I-215 and I-10, which would not exceed Caltrans’ screening threshold for requiring an analysis of potential impacts to freeway mainline segments (Urban Crossroads, 2014d, p. 31). The contribution of less than 50 peak hour two-way trips to freeway mainlines are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Accordingly, the Project would not contribute substantial traffic to I-215 or I-10 and impacts to these freeway facilities would be less than significant. The Project would not conflict with the applicable CMP Waterman Logistics Center Page 94 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY related to arterial roadways, including LOS standards, and impacts to CMP intersections and freeway mainline segments would be less than significant c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial risks? Finding: No Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) Although the Project site is located approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the San Bernardino International Airport, the proposed warehouse building would have a height of approximately 45 feet with allowed architectural projections to 49 feet and would not interfere with flight operations at the San Bernardino International Airport. Furthermore, the Project does not include an air travel component (e.g., runway, helipad, etc.) that could affect air traffic patterns. Accordingly, the Project would not have the potential to affect air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels or a change in flight path location that results in substantial safety risks. No impact would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to design feature (e.g., sharp curves of dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Project Application Materials; Google Earth) The light industrial land use proposed Project would be compatible in transportation design with the existing commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in the surrounding area and, therefore, the Project would not create a transportation hazard as a result of an incompatible use. The Project’s two proposed driveways would connect directly to South Waterman Avenue and the Project does not propose any changes to public roads other than frontage improvements at South Waterman Avenue. All improvements planned as part of the Project would be in conformance with applicable City of San Bernardino standards, and would not result in any hazards due to a design feature. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) The Project would result in the construction of one warehouse building on the Project site, which would require the need for emergency access to-and-from the site. During the course of the City of Bernardino’s review of the proposed Project, the Project’s design was reviewed to ensure that adequate access to-and-from the site is provided for emergency vehicles. The City of San Bernardino also will require the Project to provide adequate paved access to-and-from the site as a condition of Project approval. The Project’s two proposed driveways would connect directly to South Waterman Avenue and the Project does not propose any changes to public roads other than frontage improvements at South Waterman Avenue. Furthermore, the City of San Bernardino will review all future Project construction drawings to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained along South Waterman Avenue during temporary construction activities. With required adherence to City requirements for emergency vehicle access, impacts would be less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 95 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) supporting alternative transportation? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (San Bernardino, 2005a, Figure PRT-2) The proposed Project is a logistics warehouse building, which is a land use that is not likely to attract large volumes of pedestrian, bicycle or transit traffic. Regardless, the Project is designed to comply with all applicable City of San Bernardino transportation policies. According to the City of San Bernardino General Plan, South Waterman Avenue is designated as a bicycle route along its frontage with the Project site. The Project does not include any element that would preclude the use of South Waterman As a bicycle route. The two (2) Project driveways would be stop-sign controlled and sight distance at each Project driveway is required to be reviewed by the City of San Bernardino at the time future improvement plans are submitted to ensure that sight distance meets applicable City standards and provides for safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation. OMNITRANS Route 5 runs along South Waterman Avenue. Under existing conditions, no bus stops are located along the site’s frontage with South Waterman Avenue. The nearest bus stop for Route 5 is located approximately 0.3-mile to the south at the intersection of South Waterman Avenue and Mill Street. Accordingly, the Project could not conflict with local public transit service. As demonstrated by the foregoing analysis, the Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs related to alternative transportation, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. Waterman Logistics Center Page 96 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY XVI. UTILITIES – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Waterman Logistics Center Page 97 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Impact Analysis a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) Wastewater collection services would be provided to the Project site by the City of San Bernardino; wastewater treatment services would be provided to the Project site by the SBMWD. Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be treated at the Margaret Chandler WRP, which is owned and operated by SBMWD, and the RIX Tertiary Treatment Facility, which is jointly owned by SBMWD and the City of Colton and operated by SBMWD. SBMWD is required to operate Margaret Chandler WRP and the RIX Tertiary Treatment Facility in accordance with the waste treatment and discharge standards and requirements set forth by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, the Project’s contribution of wastewater to the Margaret Chandler WRP would not have any potential to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Further, the Project does not propose to install or utilize septic systems or alternative wastewater treatment systems; therefore, the Project would have no potential to exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements established by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Accordingly, a less-than- significant impact would occur. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Project Application Materials) (Refer to Issue XVI(e) for a discussion of the existing capacities of wastewater treatment facilities) The proposed Project would construct an on-site network of water and sewer pipes, which would connect to existing water and sewer lines beneath South Waterman Avenue. The installation of water and sewer lines as proposed by the Project would result in physical impacts to the surface and subsurface of infrastructure alignments. These impacts are considered to be part of the Project’s construction phase and are evaluated throughout this Initial Study accordingly. In instances where significant impacts have been identified for the Project’s construction phase, mitigation measures are recommended in each applicable subsection of this Initial Study to reduce impacts to less‐than‐significant levels. The construction of water and sewer lines as necessary to serve the proposed Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this Initial Study. Accordingly, additional mitigation measures beyond those identified throughout this Initial Study would not be required. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Thienes, 2014b; Project Application Materials) The proposed Project would construct an on‐site network of storm drains, infiltration devices, and one water quality/detention basin to convey and treat storm water flows. As previously noted in the response to Issue Waterman Logistics Center Page 98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY IX(e), implementation of the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts resulting from increased peak runoff flows; the Project would connect to existing storm drain lines beneath South Waterman Avenue, and also would construct an outlet directly into the Twin Creek Channel. The Twin Creek Channel is a fully improved concrete lined drainage channel that abuts the site’s eastern boundary. Therefore, the Project would convey storm water flows to the existing storm water infrastructure and the proposed Project would not require the expansion of any offsite existing storm water drainage facilities. (As discussed under Issue IV(b), because the Project would install a new drainage outlet into the Twin Creek Channel, the Project would be required to obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW). The construction of storm drain lines, infiltration devices the detention/water quality basin, and outlet into the Twin Creek Channel as proposed by the Project would result in physical impacts to the surface and subsurface of the Project site and at one off-site outlet point. These impacts are considered to be part of the Project’s construction phase and are evaluated throughout this Initial Study accordingly. In instances where significant impacts have been identified for the Project’s construction phase, mitigation measures are recommended in each applicable subsection of this Initial Study to reduce impacts to less‐than‐significant levels. The construction of storm drain infrastructure on‐site as necessary to serve the proposed Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this Initial Study. Accordingly, additional mitigation measures beyond those identified throughout this Initial Study would not be required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2012) SBMWD is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project site and the region. According to the SBMWD Standards for Design and Construction, the Project site’s existing land use designations of “Office Industrial Park (OIP)” and “Residential Medium High (RMH)”, create an average water demand of 1.95 and 3.78 gallons per minute per acre (SBMWD, 2006, p. 2-3). Based on the approximately 15.51 acres of OIP- designated land on the Project site, and the approximately 4.14 acres of RMH-designated land on the Project site, under currently planned conditions the Project site would demand an average of 45.89 gallons per minute, or approximately 74 acre-feet per year. The Project’s prosed “Industrial Light” land use averages 1.42 gallons per minute (SBMWD, 2006, p. 2-3). Application of the rate for the IL designation to the entirety of the 19.65- acre Project site would result in an average demand of 27.9 gallons per minute, or approximately 45 acre-feet per year. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a reduced demand for water compared to the conditions previously anticipated by the SBMWD based upon existing land use designations. As discussed in the 2010 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Amended Draft), which applies to and was adopted by the SBMWD, adequate water supplies are projected to be available to meet the SBMWD’s estimated water demand in all types of climate conditions, including normal, dry, and multiply dry-weather years (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2012, pp.10-42 - 10-46 ). SBMWD forecasts for projected water demand are based on the population projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within SBMWD’s service area (i.e., City of San Bernardino General Plan and County of San Bernardino General Plan) (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2012, pp. 10-1 - 10-2). Accordingly, because the Waterman Logistics Center Page 99 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Project’s land use would represent a reduction in demand from the land uses assumed for the Project and analyzed in the 2010 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, no new or expanded entitlements are needed and impacts are less than significant. e) Result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (Psomas, 2002; SARWQCB, 2013, Attachment F, p.3; San Bernardino, n.d.) Wastewater generated by the Project would be treated by the SBMWD, which operates the Margaret Chandler Water Reclamation Plant and the Colton/San Bernardino Rapid Infiltration and Extraction Tertiary Treatment Facility. Based upon the City of San Bernardino’s wastewater generation rate of 1,000 gallons per day (gpd) per acre for industrial light land uses, the proposed Project would generate approximately 19,650 gallons of wastewater per day. The wastewater flows generated by the Project would be conveyed via the SBMWD sewer line network to the Margaret Chandler WRP for treatment, and then to the RIX Tertiary Treatment Facility for additional treatment. Under existing conditions, the Margaret Chandler WRP has an excess treatment capacity of approximately 5 MGD, while the RIX Tertiary Treatment Facility has an excess treatment capacity of approximately 12.1 MDG (San Bernardino, n.d.; SARWQCB, 2013, Attachment F, p. F-3). Implementation of the proposed Project would utilize approximately 0.3% of the available, excess treatment capacity at the Margaret Chandler WRP and approximately 0.1% of the available, excess treatment capacity at the RIX Tertiary Treatment Facility, respectively. Accordingly, both the Margaret Chandler WRP and the RIX Tertiary Treatment Facility have sufficient capacity to treat wastewater generated by the Project in addition to existing commitments. With the exception of new on-site sewer conveyance lines, the Project would not create the need for any new or expanded wastewater facility (such as conveyance lines, treatment facilities, or lift stations). Because there is adequate capacity at existing treatment facilities to serve the Project’s projected sewer demand, impacts would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (U.S. EPA, 2009; Camacho, Joe, 2014; RCWMD, 2014) Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in the generation of solid waste requiring disposal at a landfill. Under existing conditions, solid waste from the Project site would be disposed of at the Badlands Landfill, the Lamb Canyon Landfill, or the El Sobrante Landfill. Existing capacities at each of these landfills is discussed below: The Badlands Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day. The Badlands Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2024; however, future landfill expansion opportunities exist at this site. During the first quarter of 2014, which is the most recent time period for which reporting data is available, the Badlands Landfill accepted approximately 179,491.69 tons of waste (approximately 1,994.4 tons per day), which corresponds to approximately 50-percent of its permitted daily disposal volume (RCWMD, 2014). Waterman Logistics Center Page 100 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY The Lamb Canyon Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day. The landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest, in the year 2021; however, future landfill expansion opportunities exist at this site. During the first quarter of 2014, the Lamb Canyon Landfill accepted approximately 147,092.02 tons of waste (approximately 1,634.4 tons per day), which corresponds to approximately 33-percent of its permitted daily disposal volume (RCWMD, 2014). The El Sobrante Landfill is has a permitted disposal capacity of 70,000 tons per week. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2045; however, future landfill expansion opportunities exist at this site. During the first quarter of 2014, the El Sobrante Landfill accepted approximately 550,371.56 tons of waste (approximately 42,336.3 tons per week), which corresponds to approximately 60- percent of its permitted daily disposal volume (RCWMD, 2014). Demolition and Construction Impact Analysis Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing development on the Project site. According to the Project contractor, the demolition of these structures would result in the generation of approximately 4,900 tons of demolition debris (Camacho, Joe, 2014). In addition to the on-site structures, the Project would also remove and dispose of the abandoned railroad bridge to the southeast of the Project site, extending over the Twin Creek Channel. Waste also would be generated by the construction process, primarily consisting of discarded materials and packaging. Based on the building square footage of 426,858 s.f., and the US EPA’s construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds per s.f., approximately 926 tons of waste would be generated (U.S. EPA, 2009). Therefore, the total demolition and construction debris (5,326 tons), averaged over the estimated nine-month (187 working days) construction period would result in approximately 28.5 tons per day. Non-recyclable demolition debris and construction waste generated by the Project would be disposed at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill, the El Sobrante Landfill, and/or the Lamb Canyon Landfill. These landfills all receive well below their maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, demolition and construction waste generated by the Project is not anticipated to cause these landfills to exceed their maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Furthermore, none of these regional landfill facilities are expected to reach their total maximum permitted disposal capacities during the Project’s construction period. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill, the El Sobrante Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill would have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the Project’s construction phase; therefore, impacts to landfill capacity associated with the Project’s near-term construction activities would be less than significant. Operational Impact Analysis Based on a daily waste generation factor of 1.42 pounds of waste per 100 square feet of building area obtained from CalRecycle, long-term, on-going operation of the proposed 426,858 square foot light industrial warehouse building would generate approximately 3.0 tons of waste per day (CalRecycle, 2013). At least 50% is required to be recycled. Non-recyclable solid waste generated during long-term operation of the Project would be disposed at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill, the El Sobrante Landfill, and/or the Lamb Canyon Landfill. During long-term operation, solid waste generated by the Project would represent approximately 0.2% of the daily disposal capacity at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill, approximately 0.07% of the daily disposal capacity at the El Sobrante Landfill, and approximately 0.09% of the daily disposal capacity at the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Waterman Logistics Center Page 101 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Landfill, respectively. These landfills all receive well below their maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, solid waste generated by the Project would not cause any of these landfills to exceed their maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Because the Project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacities at receiving landfills, impacts to regional landfill facilities during the Project’s long-term operational activities would be less than significant. g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact Source: (California Assembly Bill 939; SB County Public Works, 2007; California Assembly Bill 341) The California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 939), signed into law in 1989, established an integrated waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. In addition, the bill established a 50% waste reduction requirement for cities and counties by the year 2000, along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste that could not be diverted. Per the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors adopted the County of San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP), which outlines the goals, policies, and programs the County and its cities implement to create an integrated and cost effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its diversion mandates. In order to assist the City of San Bernardino and the County of San Bernardino in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Project’s building tenant(s) would be required to work with future refuse haulers to develop and implement feasible waste reduction programs, including source reduction, recycling, and composting. Additionally, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code § 42911), the Project is required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. Additionally, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program), the future tenant of the proposed Project would be required to arrange for recycling services, if the tenant generates four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week. The implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant. Waterman Logistics Center Page 102 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Impact Analysis a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (Staff Review; Project Application Materials) All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre- historical resources were evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Throughout this Initial Study, where impacts were determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, with incorporation of the mitigation measures imposed throughout this Waterman Logistics Center Page 103 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Initial Study, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment and impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (Staff Review; Project Application Materials) As discussed throughout this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in effects to the environment that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, including impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hydrology and Water Quality. In all instances where the Project has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce potential effects to less-than-significant levels. As such, with incorporation of the mitigation measures imposed throughout this Initial Study, the Project would not contribute to environmental effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: (Staff Review; Project Application Materials) The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Initial Study. In instances where the Project has potential to result in direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings (air quality and associated effects on human health from air pollutants), mitigation measures have been applied to ensure impacts to not rise above a level of significance. With required implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve any activities that would result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Waterman Logistics Center Page 104 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY PERSONS CONTRIBUTING TO INITIAL STUDY PREPARATION City of San Bernardino (Lead Agency) Aron Liang, Senior Planner; Community Development Department, Planning Division T&B Planning, Inc. (Primary CEQA Consultant) Tracy Zinn, AICP, Principal David Ornelas, Project Manger Eric Horowitz, GISP, Senior Graphics/GIS Manager John LaMar, Environmental Analyst REFERENCES Cited As Reference BCR Consulting, 2014 BCR Consulting LLC. Cultural Resources Assessment, Waterman Logistics Center Project. Dated September 23, 2014(Technical Appendix D) CalEPA, 2012 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortest List Data Resources. Updated February 16, 2012. (Website). Accessed October 17, 2014. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm CalRecycle, 2013 CalRecycle. Industrial Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Updated January 16, 2013. (Website). Accessed October 10, 2014. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/Industrial.htm Caltrans, 2011 California Department of Transportation. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. October 2011. Accessed October 17, 2014. Available On-line at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/alucp/AirportLandUse PlanningHandbook.pdf Caltrans, 2013 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Program, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Updated October 14, 2013. (Website). Accessed September 09, 2014. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm Camacho, Joe, 2014 Email Correspondence to David Ornelas. October 7, 2014, CBSC, 2013 California Building Standards Commission. Title 24, California Code of Regulations. 2013. Available On-line at: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/Current2013Codes.aspx Waterman Logistics Center Page 105 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Cited As Reference CDC, 1995 California Department of Conservation. Mineral Land Classification of a Part of Southwestern San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California East. 1995. Available On-line at: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/smaramaps.htm CDC, 2008 California Department of Conservation. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption P-C Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Available On-line at: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/smaramaps.htm CDC, 2011 California Department of Conservation. San Bernardino County Important Farmland 2010, Sheet 2 of 2. Dated December 2011. Available On-line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/sbd10_so.pdf CDC, 2013 California Department of Conservation. San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013 Sheet 2 of 2. Dated 2013. Available On-line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/sanbernardino_so_12_13_WA.pdf CDTSC, 2014 California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Envirostor Database. (Website). https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed October 20, 2014. CHJ, 2014 CHJ Consultants. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 225, 237, and 291 S. Waterman Ave. Dated May 30, 2014. (Technical Appendix I) FEMA, 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06071C86824. Revised August 28, 2008. Available On-line at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal Google Earth, 2014 Google. Google Earth. Vers. 7.1.2.2041. Computer Software. Google, 2012. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2012 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 2010 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Dated September 2012. Available On-line: https://www.ci.san- bernardino.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=14232 On-site Inspection, 2014 John LaMar. On-site Inspection and site photographs, September 4, 2014. Psomas, 2002 Psomas. City of San Bernardino Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Dated 2002. Available On-line: http://www.sbcity.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=7152 RBF, 2014 RBF Consulting. Waterman Logistics Center Habitat Assessment. Dated September 2014. (Technical Appendix C) Waterman Logistics Center Page 106 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Cited As Reference RBF, 2015 RBF Consulting. Results of a Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrow Survey for the Waterman Logistics Center Located in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. Dated January 9, 2015. (Technical Appendix M) RCWMD, 2014 Riverside County Waste Management District. Countywide Disposal Tonnage Tracking System Disposal Reports – 1st Quarter 2014 (January 1, 2014 – March 31, 2014). Dated July 9, 2014. Available On-line: http://www.rivcowm.org/opencms/ab939/pdf/DisposalReportsPDFs/2014- 1QTR-RCDisposalReports.pdf San Bernardino, 2005a. City of San Bernardino. City of San Bernardino General Plan. Dated November 1, 2005. Available On-line: https://www.ci.san- bernardino.ca.us/pdf/DevSvcs/General%20Plan%20Document.pdf San Bernardino, 2005b City of San Bernardino. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR. Dated July 25, 2005. Available On-line: https://www.ci.san- bernardino.ca.us/cityhall/community_development/planning/planning_docume nts.asp San Bernardino, 2009 City of San Bernardino. Municipal Code. Revised November 2, 2009. Available On-line: https://www.ci.san- bernardino.ca.us/residents/municipal_code.asp San Bernardino, 2013 City of San Bernardino. Development Code. Revised January 2013. Available On-line: https://www.ci.san- bernardino.ca.us/cityhall/community_development/development_code.asp San Bernardino, n.d. City of San Bernardino Water Reclamation Division. Environmental Control. (Website). http://www.sbcity.org/water/divisions/water_reclamation/environmental_contr ol/default.asp. Accessed October 20, 2014. SANBAG, 2007 San Bernardino Associated Governments. San Bernardino Congestion Management Plan. Dated December 2007. Available On-line: http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/planning2/congestion-mgmt.html. SARWQCB, 2011 Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Board. Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Dated February 2008. Available On-line: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ind ex.shtml Waterman Logistics Center Page 107 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Cited As Reference SARWQCB. 2013 Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Board. Order No. R8-2013- 0032: Waste Discharge Requirements for the Colton/San Bernardino Regional Tertiary Treatment and Water Reclamation Authority Regional Tertiary Treatment Rapid Infiltration and Extraction Facility. Dated July 19, 2013. Available On-line: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/board_decisions/adopted_orders/order s/2013/13_032_Coton-San_Bernardino_RTT_Water_Reclam_Auth.pdf SAWPA, 2014 Santa Ana Watershed Project. One Water, One Watershed Plan 2.0. Dated February 4, 2014. Available On-line: http://www.sawpa.org/owow-2-0-plan-2/ SB County Public Works, 2007 San Bernardino County Public Works. San Bernardino County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. Dated December 2007. Available On- line: http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/solidwaste/PDFs/20080729_dpw_swmd_ciwmb _2007_5_year_review_optimized_20080723.pdf SBMWD, 2006 San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. Standards for Design and Construction for Water System Improvements. Dated August 2006. Available On-line: http://www.ci.san- bernardino.ca.us/water/divisions/water_utility/engineering/capital_improveme nt_projects/standards_for_design_and_construction.asp SCAG, n.d. Southern California Association of Government. About SCAG (Website). http://www.scag.ca.gov/about/Pages/Home.aspx. Accessed October 21, 2014. SCAG, 2008 Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Comprehensive Plan. Dated 2008. Available On-line: http://www.scag.ca.gov/NewsAndMedia/Pages/RegionalComprehensivePlan.a spx SCAG, 2012 Southern California Association of Governments. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Dated April 2012. Available On-line: http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/2012-2035-RTP-SCS.aspx SCAG, 2013 Southern California Association of Governments. Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. Dated February 2013. Available On-line: http://www.freightworks.org/Pages/Studies-and- Programs.aspx SCAQMD, 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. Dated June 3, 2005. Available On-line: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 Waterman Logistics Center Page 108 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY Cited As Reference SCAQMD, 2013 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Dated February 2013. Available On-line: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final- 2012-air-quality-management-plan Schaefer, John, 2014 E-mail to David Ornelas of T&B Planning, Inc. October 22, 2014. Southern California Geotechnical, 2014a Southern California Geotechnical. Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Waterman Logistics Center. Dated June 5, 2014. (Technical Appendix E) SWRCB, 2014 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker Database (Website). Dated 2014. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed October 7, 2014. Thienes, 2014a Thienes Engineering, Inc. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for Waterman Logistics Center. Dated August 7, 2014 (Technical Appendix H). Thienes, 2014b Thienes Engineering, Inc. Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Waterman Logistics Center. Dated August 1, 2014 (Technical Appendix G) U.S. EPA, 2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating 2003 Building- Related Construction and Demolition Amounts. Dated March 2009. Available On-line: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/imr/cdm/pubs/cd-meas.pdf Urban Crossroads, 2014a Urban Crossroad. Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis. Dated September 22, 2014. (Revised January 13, 2015) (Technical Appendix A) Urban Crossroads, 2014b Urban Crossroads. Waterman Avenue Greenhouse Gas Analysis. Dated September 22, 2014. (Technical Appendix F) Urban Crossroads, 2014c Urban Crossroads. Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. Dated September 22, 2014. (Technical Appendix B) Urban Crossroads, 2014d Urban Crossroads. Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Traffic Impact Analysis. Dated September 15, 2014 (Revised January 8). (Technical Appendix K) Urban Crossroads, 2014e Urban Crossroads. Waterman Avenue High Cube Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis. Dated October 17, 2014. (Technical Appendix J) Waterman Logistics Center Page 109 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance Air Quality Threshold III(b): The Project would exceed the SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant threshold for emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) during construction. MM AQ-1: Prior to building permit issuance, the City shall verify that the following note is specified on all building plans. Project contractors shall be required to comply with these notes and maintain written records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of San Bernardino upon request. This note shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) All surface coatings shall consist of Zero- Volatile Organic Compound paints (no more than 150 gram/liter of VOC) and/or be applied with High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Project Applicant, Project Construction Manager City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) Prior to building permit issuance. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-2: Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance, the City shall verify that the following notes are specified on all grading and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to comply with these notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff to confirm compliance. These notes shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) The construction contractor shall utilize off- road diesel-powered construction equipment (greater than or equal to 150 horsepower) certified California Air Resources Board Tier 3 or better. b) The construction contractor shall assure that no more than 10 acres (surface area) of land or topsoil is actively disturbed on any given day. c) During grading activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of diesel powered construction equipment used on-site, including type/engine year of equipment, number of Project Applicant, Project Construction Manager City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) Prior to grading permit and building permit issuance. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-1 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance equipment, and equipment horsepower. The construction contractor shall also maintain a log of the daily operating hours of each piece of diesel- powered equipment during the grading phase by horsepower-hours. The construction contractor shall assure that the usage of diesel powered construction equipment does not exceed 34,360 horsepower- hours per day during grading activities. d) Temporary signs shall be placed on the construction site at equipment staging areas indicating that heavy duty trucks and diesel powered construction equipment are prohibited from idling for more than five (5) minutes. The signs shall be installed before construction activities commence and remain in place during the duration of construction activities at all equipment staging areas. e) The construction contractor shall provide temporary traffic controls in conformance with the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to facilitate traffic flow along Waterman Avenue. f) The construction contractor shall assure that all delivery trucks utilize the most direct route between the Project site and Interstate 10 via Waterman Avenue and/or Interstate 215 via Mill Street to Waterman Avenue. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-2 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance Threshold III(b) (continued): Although the Project’s construction emissions of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would be less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended to further reduce the Project’s less-than- significant impact. MM AQ-3: The Project shall comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementation of best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads. Prior to grading permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the following notes are specified on the grading plan. Project construction contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) All clearing, grading, earth-moving, and excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. b) During grading and ground-disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that all unpaved roads, active soil stockpiles, and areas undergoing active ground disturbance within the Project site are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas by water truck, sprinkler system, or other comparable means, shall occur in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. c) Temporary signs shall be installed on the construction site along all unpaved roads indicating a maximum speed limit of 15 miles per hour (MPH). The signs shall be installed before construction activities commence and remain in place for the duration of construction activities that include vehicle activities on unpaved roads. d) The cargo area of all vehicles hauling soil, sand, or other loose earth materials shall be covered. Project Applicant, Project Construction Manager City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) Prior to issuance of grading and building permits Less than Significant T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-3 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance MM AQ-4: The Project shall comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers” by complying with the following requirements. To ensure and enforce compliance with these requirements and reduce the release of criteria pollutant emissions into the atmosphere during construction, prior to grading and building permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the following notes are included on the grading and building plans. Project construction contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of San Bernardino staff or its designee to confirm compliance. The notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) If visible dirt or accumulated dust is carried onto paved roads during construction, the contractor shall remove such dirt and dust at the end of each work day by street cleaning. b) Street sweepers shall be certified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as meeting the Rule 1186 sweeper certification procedures and requirements for PM10-efficient sweepers. All street sweepers having a gross vehicle weight of 14,000 pounds or more shall be powered with alternative (non-diesel) fuel or otherwise comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186.1. Project Applicant, Project Construction Manager City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) Prior to issuance of grading and building permits T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-4 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance Threshold III(b) (continued): Although the Project’s construction emissions of NOX would be less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended to further reduce the Project’s less-than- significant impact. MM AQ-5: Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading areas, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the City of San Bernardino shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place. Project Applicant City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) Prior to issuance of occupancy permit Less than Significant MM AQ-6: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that the parking lot striping and security gating plan allows for adequate truck stacking at gates to prevent queuing of trucks outside the property. Project Applicant City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) Prior to issuance of building permit MM AQ-7: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of San Bernardino shall verify that a sign has been installed at each exit driveway, providing directional information to the City’s truck route. Text on the sign shall read “To Truck Route” with a directional arrow. Project Applicant City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) Prior to issuance of building permit Threshold III(c): The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non- attainment. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall apply. Refer to MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 Refer to MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 Refer to MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Threshold III(d): The Project would exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significant threshold for PM10 emissions during the site preparation phase of construction. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall apply. Refer to MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 Refer to MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 Refer to MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Biological Resources Threshold IV(b): Although the Project’s impacts to sensitive communities protected by CDFW policies and regulations would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure MM B1-1: The Project Applicant shall obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the installation of a drainage outlet within the Twin Creek Channel. Prior to the Project Applicant City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Planning Division, Building and Prior to the issuance of permits for improvements within the Twin Creek Channel. Less than Significant T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-5 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance MM BI-1 is recommended to ensure compliance with applicable regulations prior to construction. issuance of permits for improvements within the Twin Creek Channel, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department that a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement has been issued for the Project. Safety Division) Threshold IV(d): The proposed Project would result in the removal of vegetation (i.e., trees and shrubs) from the Project site with the potential to support nesting migratory birds, including the burrowing owl; thereby resulting in a potential impact to nesting migratory birds. MM BI-2: No sooner than 30 days prior to and no later than 14 days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of the Project’s proposed impact footprint and make a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing owl. A second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbing activities. The determination shall be documented in a report and shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted by the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit and subject to the following provisions: a) In the event that the pre-construction survey identifies no burrowing owls in the impact area, a grading permit may be issued without restriction. b) In the event that the pre-construction survey indicates the Project’s proposed impact footprint is occupied by burrowing owl, then prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the property, a qualified biologist shall develop a mitigation strategy in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (dated March 7, 2012), which may include passive or active relocation of burrowing owls. Passive relocation, including the required use of one-way doors to exclude owls from the site and the collapsing of burrows, will occur if the biologist determines that the proximity and availability of alternate habitat is suitable for successful passive relocation. Passive relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol and shall only occur between September 15 and February 1. Project Biologist City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Planning Division, Building and Safety Division) No sooner than 30 days prior to and no later than 14 days prior to grading activities. A second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbing activities. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-6 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance If proximate alternate habitat is not present as determined by the biologist, active relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol. The biologist shall confirm in writing that the species has fledged the site or been relocated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. MM BI-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a nesting migratory bird survey shall be completed in accordance with the following requirements: a) A migratory nesting bird survey of the Project’s impact footprint shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance. b) A copy of the migratory nesting bird survey results report shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department. If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the qualified biologist shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of maps showing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department and shall be no less than a 300-foot radius around the nest for non-raptors and a 500-foot radius around the nest for raptors. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist verifies that the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Project Biologist City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Planning Division, Building and Safety Division) Prior to the issuance of all grading permits. Nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbance. Cultural Resources Threshold V(b): The Project has the potential to uncover and affect previously undiscovered prehistoric MM CR-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of San Project Applicant/ Project Construction Manager, Project City of San Bernardino Community Development Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-7 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance archaeological resources during excavation and/or grading activities. Bernardino Community Development Department that the construction site supervisors and crew members involved with grading and trenching operations are trained to recognize archaeological resources should such resources be unearthed during ground-disturbing construction activities. If a suspected archaeological resource is identified on the property, the construction supervisor shall be required by his contract to immediately halt and redirect grading operations in a 100-foot radius around the find and seek identification and evaluation of the suspected resource by a professional archaeologist. This requirement shall be noted on all grading plans and the construction contractor shall be obligated to comply with the note. The archaeologist shall evaluate the suspected resource and make a determination of significance pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 shall apply. Archaeologist Department (Building and Safety Division) MM CR-2: If a significant archaeological resource(s) is discovered on the property, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended 100 feet around the resource(s). The archaeological monitor and a representative of the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), the Project Applicant, and the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department shall confer regarding mitigation of the discovered resource(s). A treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the archaeologist to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department and the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. Project Applicant/ Project Construction Manager, Project Archaeologist City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Planning Division, Building and Safety Division) Concurrent with grading activities Threshold III(c): The Project has the potential to uncover and affect previously unknown paleontological resources during construction activities. MM CR-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino Community Development Department that the construction site supervisors and crew Project Applicant/ Project Construction Manager City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-8 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance members involved with grading and trenching operations are trained to recognize paleontological resources (fossils) should such resources be unearthed during ground-disturbing construction activities. If a suspected paleontological resource is identified, the construction supervisor shall be required by his contract to immediately halt and redirect grading operations in a 100-foot radius around the find and seek identification and evaluation of the suspected resource by a qualified paleontologist meeting the definition of a qualified vertebrate paleontologist given in the County of San Bernardino Development Code Section 82.20.040. This requirement shall be noted on all grading plans and the construction contractor shall be obligated to comply with the note. The significance of the discovered resources shall be determined by the paleontologist. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure MM CR-4 shall apply. MM CR-4: If a significant paleontological resource is discovered on the property, discovered fossils or samples of such fossils shall be collected and identified by a qualified paleontologist meeting the definition of a qualified vertebrate paleontologist given in the County of San Bernardino Development Code Section 82.20.040. Significant specimens recovered shall be properly recorded, treated, and donated to the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, or other repository with permanent retrievable paleontological storage. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of San Bernardino that itemizes any fossils recovered, with maps to accurately record the original location of recovered fossils, and contains evidence that the resources were curated by an established museum repository. Project Applicant/ Project Construction Manager, Project Paleontologist City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Planning Division, Building and Safety Division) Concurrent with grading activities. Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold IX(f): The Project would remove an abandoned railroad bridge that spans the Twin Creek Channel. During demolition of the bridge, there MM WQ-1: Prior to the issuance of permits to allow for the removal of the railroad bridge, the City shall verify that the following notes are specified on construction documents. Project contractors shall be Project Construction Manager City of San Bernardino Community Development Department (Building Prior to the issuance of permits to remove the railroad bridge. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-9 WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance is the potential that debris could fall into the Channel and adversely affect water quality. required to comply with these notes and maintain written records of such compliance that can be inspected by the City of San Bernardino upon request. This note shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) Bridge removal activities shall occur on days that are forecast to have 0% chance of rain. b) Prior to the start of bridge removal, polyethylene sheeting or other comparable material shall be attached to the underside of the bridge or within the Twin Creek Channel to collect any falling debris. Debris that falls onto the sheeting shall be removed at the end of each work day and placed into a disposal container. Debris shall not be allowed to accumulate on the sheeting or within the Channel. c) If any debris falls into the Twin Creek Channel, the contractor shall immediately collect the debris, remove it from the Channel, and place it into a disposal container. and Safety Division) T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-10 JN 941-003 MEMORANDUM To: Aron Liang, City of San Bernardino From: Tracy Zinn, Principal Re: WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS Date: January 19, 2015 At the request of the City, T&B Planning, Inc., serving as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance consultant for the Waterman Logistics Center project, prepared the following responses to the three comment letters received by the City related to the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Responses to the substantive points of each letter are provided below. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) January 6, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter discusses concerns related to potential impacts to the burrowing owl and nesting migratory birds, as well as potential impacts to resources regulated by the CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. With respect to potential impacts to burrowing owls, CDFW claims the Project site contains suitable habitat for the burrowing owl and suggests that mitigation for impacts to the burrowing owl be imposed in accordance with the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Regarding potential impacts to nesting migratory birds, CDFW suggests that a pre-construction survey for nesting birds be conducted prior to the issuance of grading permits regardless of the time of year and not only during the nesting season. CDFW also requests that the MND disclose all potential Project activities that may affect river or stream resources. Response The Draft MND contains an analysis of the Project’s potential to impact the burrowing owl under the heading “Biological Resources” on Pages 28-33. As disclosed in the Draft MND and the in Project’s Biological Technical Report (Appendix C to the MND) prepared by RBF Consulting, the burrowing owl was not observed on the Project site during a field survey of the property conducted by RBF. RBF also reported in Appendix C that the site contains low quality habitat for the species, and the species is not likely to occupy the Project site due to historic and on- going development activities on the site. Regardless, the Draft MND included mitigation to avoid significant impacts to the burrowing owl in the low likelihood that the species is found to occupy the Project site prior to the initiation of construction activities (Mitigation Measure (MM) BI-2). In response to this CDFW comment, biologists at the firm RBF Consulting (Michael Baker Corporation) conducted a burrowing owl burrow survey of the property on January 8, 2015, to determine if the Project site contained habitat/burrows suitable for use by the burrowing owl. No burrowing owl burrows or sign of burrowing owl use of the property (i.e., direct observation, aural detection, pellets, white wash, feathers, or prey remains) were observed on January 8, 2015, which is consistent with the findings reported in the Draft MND and Appendix C of the MND. The January 8, 2015, survey also confirmed that the property contains low quality habitat for the burrowing owl and is not likely to support the species. These findings also affirm the conclusions of the information disclosed in the WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS January 19, 2015 Page 2 of 3 Draft MND and the Project’s Biological Technical Report. The Final MND is revised to incorporate the findings of the burrowing owl burrow survey report (which is added as Appendix M to the Final MND). Also, the wording of MM BI-2 in the Final MND has been refined at the suggestion of the CDFW. The addition of Appendix M and the refinement of MM BI-2 provide additional clarity to the document. These changes do not represent new information or a substantial modification to the MND, and do not require the MND to be recirculated. The Draft MND included Mitigation Measure MM BI-3 to preclude impacts to nesting migratory birds, should nesting birds be present on the property at the time of Project construction. As disclosed in the Draft MND, MM BI-3 prohibits clearing activities during the migratory bird nesting season unless a pre-construction nesting bird survey is conducted on the subject property. At the request of CDFW, MM BI-3 has been revised in the Final MND to require a pre-construction nesting bird survey regardless of the time of year. The revision to MM BI-3 achieves the same objective and end result as the original wording. This change does not represent new information or a substantial modification to the MND and does not require the MND to be recirculated. The Draft MND included a detailed description and analysis of the Project’s potential physical impacts to the Twin Creek Channel (i.e., construction of a new storm drain outlet and demolition of an abandoned railroad bridge that spans the Channel). The Twin Creek Channel is the only resource that would be physically impacted by the Project that is regulated by the CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Program and those impacts are thoroughly analyzed. There are no other aspects of the Project that could affect river or stream resources; therefore, no revisions to the MND are warranted. San Bernardino County Department of Public Works January 8, 2015 Summary of Comments This letter acknowledges that the information disclosed in the MND adequately addresses the concerns of the various divisions of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works. This letter also makes several requests regarding the processing of future improvement permits. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the MND are warranted. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) January 8, 2015 Summary of Comments This letter addresses the impacts of the Project’s air quality emissions from Project construction and operation. The SCAQMD questions the assumptions and methodologies used by Urban Crossroads to calculate air quality impacts from truck traffic, including emissions of diesel particulate matter. The letter also requests that the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A to the Draft MND) be revised to be consistent with the construction demolition assumptions described in the MND. Lastly, this comment letter also recommends that the City apply additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s near- and long-term emissions of various air pollutants. Response The Draft MND contained a detailed analysis of the Project’s potential air quality impacts on Pages 15-27, supported by a technical Air Quality Impact Analysis attached as Appendix A to the Draft MND prepared by Urban Crossroads. The assumptions and methodologies used to calculate the Project’s expected mobile source air emissions are consistent with recent practice in the City of San Bernardino, and the vehicle fleet mix, daily truck trip rate, and WATERMAN LOGISTICS CENTER MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS January 19, 2015 Page 3 of 3 truck trip length assumptions are all appropriate because they are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, and the Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study which reflects typical operating characteristics of warehouse uses in the local area. The air pollutant emissions from mobile sources disclosed in the Draft MND accurately describe the Project’s expected air emissions; therefore, revisions to the MND are not warranted. The methodology used to quantify potential health risks to surrounding receptors associated with diesel particulate matter emissions yields results that describe the Project’s maximum potential effect on surrounding residential, worker, and school child receptors. The impact analysis is presented in the Draft MND and the Project’s Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B to the MND), which conclude that impacts would be less than significant. It should also be noted that the calculations overstate the Project’s potential health risk impact in several regards. Most particularly, the calculations disclosed in the MND and Appendix B to the MND rely on the now- outdated California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2011 EMFAC computer model, and not the updated EMFAC released by the CARB in December 2014. EMFAC is a statewide computer model that is used to produce vehicle emission factors based on emission regulations that apply in California. EMFAC 2014 takes into consideration current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB regulations and standards such as the 2014 Truck and Bus Rule and Advanced Clean Car regulations, which require the use of cleaner fuel and more efficient and less polluting engines in motor vehicles. The 2011 EMFAC does not take new regulations and standards into consideration, and thus overstates air pollutant emissions reported in the MND. Therefore, no revisions have been made to the MND. Per the request of the SCAQMD, the technical Air Quality Impact Analysis was revised to be consistent with the construction demolition assumptions described in the MND, and the updated report is included as Appendix A to the Final MND. As a result of the revisions, the number of truck trips required to haul demolition waste from the Project site was increased from 110 trips to 485 trips. Despite the correction made in the number truck trips during the demolition phase of construction, emissions generated during demolition phase would remain less than the peak daily emissions for Project construction (which occur during the site preparation and grading phases of construction) and less than the peak daily construction emissions disclosed in the MND. Because the Draft MND correctly disclosed Project’s “worst-case” construction emissions, no revision to the MND is warranted. Many of the mitigation measures recommended by SCAQMD are duplicitous to design features proposed by the Project, mitigation measures already included in the Draft MND, or energy efficiency requirements of State law (e.g., California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24 (CalGreen)). Additionally, many of SCAQMD’s recommended mitigation measures regarding energy-source emissions do not have a proportional nexus to the Project’s mobile source emission impacts, or relate to the control of tailpipe emissions that are enforced by State and federal agencies and are not feasible for the Applicant to implement and/or feasible for the City of San Bernardino to enforce. Although the mitigation measures included in the Draft MND are already sufficient to reduce the Project’s air quality impacts to less-than-significant levels, several mitigation measures have been revised and/or added to the Final MND to further reduce the Project’s air pollutant emissions. The revised and added mitigation measures achieve the same objective and end result as the original mitigation measures presented in the Draft MND. As such, these changes do not represent new information or a substantial modification to the MND, and do not require the MND to be recirculated CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-18, ZONING MAP AMENDMNET 14-16, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19573 AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-P 14-05 Ward No. 1 PROPOSAL: A request to amend the land use district of approximately 19.5 acres from Residential and Commercial to Industrial, amend the zoning map from Residential Medium High (RMH) and Commercial Office (CO) to Industrial Light (IL), merge various parcels into one large parcel and construct a 427,000-square foot warehouse building. The project site is located on the east side of Waterman Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north of Mill Street, in the CO and RMH zones. OWNER: Various Owners APPLICANT: RedRock Development Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: San Bernardino City Hall 300 North “ D” Street Lobby Floor, “ Council Chambers” San Bernardino, California 92418 HEARING DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. You are receiving this notice because the project site described above is within 500 feet of your property. If you would like further information about this proposal prior to the public hearing, please contact the Planning Division at (909) 384-5057. You are welcome to attend the public hearing and address the Planning Commission with your comments on this proposal, or you may submit written comments in favor of or in opposition to the proposal to the Planning Division, City Hall, 300 North “ D” Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418. Decisions of the Planning Commission are final concerning Minor Use Permits, Development Permits, and Tentative Parcel Maps, unless appealed to the Mayor and Council. Appeals to the Mayor and Council must be made in writing, stating the grounds of the appeal and must be submitted to the City Clerk along with the appropriate fee within fifteen days of the decision. Final review and action concerning General Plan Amendments, Development Code Amendments, Specific Plans and Development Agreements will be made by the Mayor and Common Council. If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and Common Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. Individual testimony on agenda items will be strictly limited to three minutes per person. W A T E R M A N A V E N U E Project Site MILL STREET The City of San Bernardino recognizes its obligation to provide equal access to public services to those individuals with disabilities. Please contact Facilities Services (384-5244) two working days prior to the meeting with any requests for reasonable accommodation, to include interpreters.