HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-Planning
J
]
-
CITY OF ~N BERtOlDI NO - REQUEST lOR COUNCIL ACTION
,
From:
Brad L. Kilger
Director of Planning
Subject: General Plan Adoption
Dept:
Date:
Planning
Mayor and Council Meeting of
May 24, 1989
May 19, 1989
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council continue the public hearing on
the Draft General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to
May 31, 1989 and adjourn the meeting of the Mayor and Common
Council to May 31, 1989 at 9:00 a.m.
~L.~ It!<.
Signature
Brad L. Kilger
Contact person:
Brad L. Kilger
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data atteched:
Ward:
City-wide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item No
J.l
JIIlI
CITY OF SAN BER~DINO - REQUEST POll COUNCIL ACTION
. .
STAFF REPORT
Subject: General Plan Adoption
Mayor and Council Meeting of May 24, 1989
General Plan Adoption
a. Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses
Draft Findings
Draft Statement of Overriding Considerations
Draft Mitigation/Monitoring Program
b. Other Comments on the Chapters and Subsections of the
Draft General Plan.
c. General Comments on the Draft General Plan.
d. Continued Items.
75-0264
NUM
o
SPEAKER
B-42 Ernest
Riffenburg
B-43 Hal Heywood
B-44 Mary Montrenec
B-45 Dana Pankey
B-46 Frank Tracadas
B-47
B-48
Edward Locke
Michael
Schneider
LOCA'rION .
a) I215 Freeway
at university Pkwy
b) NW of Stater Bros e?I
~~
1906 block of "E" st.
o
,
!'..~.
-;..r....t./.(
-sA 'iF ')
MCC ACTION
REOUEST
RL to CG
RU to RMH
RMH ~G-.0~4'" '7't /
6/.?b
West Side of Macy RS t~&td' /.5>s)1F;1
North of Highland Ave.
East side of "0" st. RM tG>ad /t:> S;(,;d
from 15th to 16th ~~ yo 7
South side of Highland RS ~~~7 s-I y
wer;;t of~ediPal, Cen~~!!r ~.;z
Or1ve ~ ~ ~a'~ ~~
AfA./ uI~. ,j'
southeast ~rner of CG-1 ~"
Blood Bank Rd & "E" st. ~
RU tECCG-1.) (k..L /t'" ~
Kendall Dr. southerly
of Palm Avenue
B-49 John Edwins North of Ostrems Way.
adjacent to I215 FWy
. ;:J~ /. If. cX~~ - wW
~ ..#?WU1L4eJi.>i:f. ~ ~7 w/~.
B-50 Charles Garner South de 5th st.
B-51
Mel Harrison
B-52 Richard Bristow
do?u... w / .8 - 3S"
B-~3 Jerry La~~
1(}/11-/~ A~'
B-5!E
13-5'1
B-55
B-56
Ernest Ramirez
..s::tw<- a..o~
Albert Cohen
~.~
Charles Schultz
~
~
a) 60 acres at Cable ;
Lakes westerly of Palmi
b) 5 acres westerly of\ RL/to CN
Little Leaque next \<~/
to pet cemetary .
c) Concur with 25 feet
setback in Verdemont area
a)S;w Lbrtua~' y-
S-.J..h
Southeast corner of
Ohio and Palm
741 E. Baseline
(entire block)
10th & "E" st.
Laurelwood, west of
Tippecanoe
Northeast corner of
6th & Sterling
b.) ~J @ 111-+4... D..
N/L ~
To allow hotel tJua! /9
uses in CG-1 ~y
and increase
H mit
CG-1 (?a,d o2OsA~
ad 02 / s/o./Y
CG-1 & RM to (?Uf:7" 9 sic($-
CG-1
Used car sales
and auto-related
on N. "E" st.
Auto repair (! ~ .;Z.;L
uses in CR-3 -~
Retain RMH-15
/
;
,
I RLtoRM
&d ~ s"'
~
1- tC/
.~
~.A
~ ~ IZ#
0!-)~(YJ
&d' ,;;J 'I
o
mm
SPEAKER
B-57 Mary Ann
Caldwell
1t' B-58 will Sturn
B-59
Kevin Mitchell
-11-60 Ernest Fisher
,.;B-61 Jay Gordon
~-62 Harold Anderson
B-63 a) Ernest
Riffenburg
b) James wirth
B-64 Joyce Jacobs
B-65 Staff
B-66 Staff
B-67 Staff
B-68 Staff
B-69 Staff
jf?
B-70 Staff
B-71 Letter-Resident
Petition
, ,
LOCATION
2078 N. waterman
Foothill areas, east
of Hemlock,west of
willow Dr.
a) Northwest corner
Belmont & Little
League Dr.
b) Baseline st.
at Lassen
1500 N. Stoddard
East of California
north of 19th st.
Northwest corner
Kendall & Mountain
2730 N. "E" St.
2730 N. "E" st.
Northwest corner
Western & Trenton
Tippecanoe south of
Central
~. california'Cbf SR-30
sierra Way at 27th
South side of 40th
east of Kendall
Waterman Ave. north
of Highland
City Creek north
Highland
1490
LynWOO~
o
REOUEST
MCC ACTION
dud c-Jj.v?1"
ri"y (~
'-'z/)-
RE designation (]ud 'If>
IlJII tJj M7~","/ /~
Small rest.
or office
in converted
residence
RL .~ RE..- C~
Concur with IL
RMH to CG-l ~
RS to RM 'f
Concur with PC u
CG-l
~J ,;l ~
RS
PFtG)
RS€)
eM! 3 J
~3r
(latd ~D
(kcl 'II
OMd~
-Iy(O ~
C6-/
RMt
2000
RS~!:~) /If u~
10 0 ap C(it.101 I
(Jatd tj c;
RM to RS /I I 'I..s'
12m (JI.Aa
on
PFC to RL
CHMOD)
6-(09 .9. b-- / ~ ~ 9 (pr-/:;
~- M~~ ~7~-~3~ ~
c). ~ ~ ,eVL-~tiAJ l/3
"1F
.
mm
B-72
B-73
B-74
B-75
B-76
B-77
B-78
B-79
B-80
B-81
B-82
B-83
B-84
B-85
B-86
SPEAKER
Letter-
Bill Nessel
Letter-
Daniel Salter
Letter-
Harvey Olsan
Letter-
Jim Brickly
Letter-
Ronald A.
Brandt
Letter-
Martin Rohr
Letter-
Russell Merwin
.. -
o
LOCATION
North "E" st.
Central City south
overlay area near
Inland Center
Central city south
overlay area near
Inland Center
o
REOUEST
MCC ACTION
RMH t~ 6:ud' ?!
.:y"?3
CG-1 \
IL to CG-1 )
/
IL to
5"/3/
North side of Baseline CM-type /l _/ ~;7
on 1215 Fwy d1LlLD7? I!r?J designation Lu...wv...._ _ /
~ (~~.. 94 ~dtUUi:J c/dHn .o7#:Cf
North of Walnut Remain~ t!/ Ccqc/ ~r
Btwn Muscott & Artesian ~~
~ rn /7>'t"jO
vo/'r a.o ~
~.~
d~~~
r';-S~
f1Mcls~
400 S. Allen
888 Medical Center Dr.
Letter- North side of Bryant,
Ludwig Eng. east of Lugo
Su p~ alL?l? /. 7.02-/
Hi~h and at Rt.33(l
~h: ,.e 1/tv' a-u tV
v..<-o' ,e 5 "
Letter-
Cal Trans
councilman
Reilly
Councilman
Reilly
Councilman
Reilly
Councilman
Reilly
councilman
Reilly
councilman
Reilly
1300 N. "0" st.
1200 Block of Stoddard
Baseline,east of
Tippecanoe
South side of 9th
st. near Del Rosa
1300 block of
N. "0" st.
21st Street @
crestview
CH to allow
steel fabri-
cation
RM to CG-1
CO-lor T for
rear parcel to
allow parking
conce~ed h
RS to CG
desiq ion
See B-1 ~6.? ~
See Audit Trail ~.
II - 107 Area 3 r
See B-38
48 Area 7
See Audit Trail
II
r
See B-33
~b~?
See B-28, B-40
~ tJ. t/. - /;~~
"vK.l ~ar
0
REOUEST MCC ACTION
RS to RU
RS to RU
RS to RU
RS to RU
RS to RU
RS to RU
Fe~ RIi To U-I
LOCATION
1076 spruce
1045 Spruce
948 8th st.
1258 Vine st.
1261 8th st.
1240 Massachusetts
13-91
rft; ~.
~7?t.. Sj-'
9Jid<5 70 -71'
7A~ 3'7yr
(~/ ;oP ~
~~ I' '"f7.P- 0-
rJJP
/)?tar ~ OJ
p~~
6- 9::'/ k~-
~ r- E...
//
I'll f!/.' - d-...
"_no, ______"
{Ja,c/
6/
L/~~~
~
.
QUE SPEAKER
JIIj
UI
-
o
o
(i-b~'
, n s/~ '-1/,10
MCC
ACTION
------------- --------------- -------------------------------- --------
LOCATION
REQUEST
A-I J~~ES wIRTH
A-2 DAVID
MLYNARSKI
A-3 COURTNEY BUSE
A-4 DAVID
SCHULTZE
A-4a
HIGHLUiD TO
5TH, 1-215 TO
SIERRA wAY
ADD POLICY TO GP TEXT FOR 5% (wARD2)
VAR.TO LOTS IN TARGET AR~\ (SEE
ATTACHMENT A)
CITYWIDE
a) 'UNITS PER GR.ACRE'OR MIN,LOT
SIZE b)DELETE CUSTOM FROM RL IN
1.1.3b.
VARIOUS TOPICS - SEE ATTACHMENT
B
CITYwIDE
a)AGREE WI POLICY 1,25,10
b)POLICY 1.30.10 .\DD
RETAIL , SERVICE & OFFICE USES
c)CONCERN ABOUT CENTR\L CITY
SOUTH d)PROVIDE 'GR\NNY FL\TS'
A-5 JOHN CITYWIDE
STUBBLEFIELD
INADEQUACIES OF GENER\L PLAN
(SEE ATTACHMENT C)
A-6 KEN MILLER
N/O ORANGE SHOw ADDITIONS TO TEXT:OBJECTIVE 1.18 (wARD 3)
RD. E/O 1-215 & POL.l.18.10 & 1.18.32 (SEE
ATTACHMENT D)
A-7 DON TO"1\SEND a)MT. VERNON N/O a) MU DESIGNATION TO ALLOw IL
BASELINE USES & NO MULTI-FAMILY b)CG-l
b)BASELINE W/O
1-215
A-8 JA}(ES wIRTH
A-9 BCD ROBERTS
A-tO JOHN EDwINS
A-II TED SIRKEN
CITYWIDE
SAME COMMENTS AS A-I,
CITYwIDE
CHANGE RL FROM 3du/ac TO 4du/ac
VERDE~lONT
Ca~~GE RL DENSITY OR ADD
RS-IO.800
(wARD 5)
CITYHDE
EXPAND LOCATIONS FOR CG-2
~
L
.L
4-
o
o
QUE SPEAKER
LOCATION
REQUEST
~CC
ACTION
------------- --------------- -------------------------------- --------
B-[
LOIS WILLIS
1300 BLOCK OF D CHANGE FROM RS & RU TO CG OR
STREET CO. (SEE ATTACHMENT E); PETITION
SUBMITTED ~ g-:33
" g,S-
<!AR~ 2)
~6'>
~~
B-2
DENNIS
H.~ENSLEY
KENDALL .W.
UNIVERSITY
PWKY.
WIO CHANGE FROM RU TO CG-3 & ~~.
(SEE ATTACHMENT F); Ow~ER
KENDALL FEED STORE
(WARD 5)
B-3 TED SIRKEN FOOTHILL BLVD. CH.~NGE FROM RM TO CG-2
DALU.S TO XACY
(WARD 3)
B-4 DIANA 5TH & R.~10NA CHANGE FROM RU TO CN
WILLI.<\.~S
(WARD I)
B-5 LINDEN ~~LKI a)9TH FROM D TO a)CHANGE TO CG-I b)CH.~NGE TO
1-215 b)F FROM CG-I (SEE ATTACHMENT G)
6TH TO 10TH
efin/~ ~
(WARDS I
& 2)
B-6 DAVID
ML \~ARSKI
OLIVE. PINE & CH.~NGE RL TO RS
WALNUT NIS OF
OHIO
(WARD 5)
B-7 J~IES ROE VARIOUS CH.~NGES AS FOLLOWS;
LOCATIONS
B-7a AT II SITE #51 RM TO CG d4N ~() O.ARD 2)
B-7b AT II SITE #52 RM TO CG (WARD 2)
B-7c AT II SITE #53 RM TO CG (WARD I)
B-7d AT II SITE #54 RM TO CG (WARD I)
B-7e AT II SITE :55 RM TO CG (WARD I)
B-7f AT II SITE #56 RH TO CG (WARD 1l
B-8 CHET ANDERSON VALENCI.-\ CHANGE FROM RS TO RE (SEE (WARD 7)
BET'''EEN A IT ACHMENT H)
MARSHALL &
AVERY
B-9 CH.~RLES GOODE SIO 39TH ON CHANGE FROM RS TO RMH (WARD 4)
FERN DALE
B-IO BVD ROBERTS
a)SEC OLIVE & a) CHANGE FROM R~ TO RS
IRv~GTN. b)SWC b)CHANGE FROM RL TO RS
(WARD 5)
QUE SPEAKER
-
o
o
LOCATION
REQUEST
MCC
ACTION
------------- --------------- -------------------------------- --------
PINE &. IRVNGTN.
B-11 NORRIS SEC HH &. CHANGE FROM CO-l TO CG (SEE ~tl'D~
GREGORY SIERRA WAY ATTACHMENT I)
B-12 EVERETT KENDALL &. CHANGE FROM RU TO CG-3 (WARD 5)
MCGREW FLD.C~TL.
CHAN:-iEL
8-13 ~RK OSTOICH MILL &. SIERRA PERMIT OFFICE TJSES IN CH
,",'Yo
(WARD 1)
B-l~ JOHN WAL~uT &. PICO Ca~NGE FROM RU TO IL
LIGHTBURN
(WARD 3)
B-15 ROY ROBERTSON a)BR'~~NT E/O
ALLE~;
bHlAGNOLIA &. H
a) Ca~NGE FROM RM TO RMH
b)CHANGE FROM RM TO RMH (SEE
ATTACHMENT J)
(WARD 1
&. 2)
B-16 DAVID
SCHULTZE
B-17 J.~~ES ~IRTH
B-18 D.IU''-LEY &.
H.BICKLER
B-19 LEO LYONS
CITYWIDE
ELIMINATE MINIMUM LOT SIZES
(SEE ATTACHMENT K)
SIERRA WAY N/O WANTS VARIANCE ON LOT SIZES
16TH
(WARD 2)
N/O S!L'\~DIN
HILLS GOLF
COURSE
C!L~NGE MH TO RL &. EXCLUDE FROM (WARD 5) _L
MH STANDARDS (SEE ATTACIL.'1ENT U ~?,,z 5)'z'?'
KENDALL BETWEEN (SEE ATTACHMENT M)
F &. H
(~ARD 5)
C-G- - / 6eI~ 7~ 5P3
8-20 TED ~~SHIMURA PAL~ N/O
KENDALL
ca'\NGE FRml RL T~
ATTACHMENT N) ~
<C:^/~~ ~
/1.aQ~ sA'!
aud, .3
(WARD 2~.1
6u/~ -9'~
B-21 GEORGE
SWITZER
8-22 D.~~A PANKEY
B-23 PAUL ~IELER
ARROwliE.AD AT
20TH
CHANGE FROM RU TO CO-2 (SEE
ATTACHMENT 0)
a)NEC 5TH &.
MT.VIEW b)9TH
H
a)C!L<\NGE FROM CO-l TO CR-2 (WARD 1) /
&. b)Cj4NGE FROM RM TO CG-l (SEE ~ ?v S'/~~
ATTACHMENl t'r ~
NWC 13TH &.
;ht,'rdU/'
CHANGE FROM RM TO CO-l
6n/"'..j,D 1)
QUE SPEAKER
-
o
o
LOCATION
REQUEST
MCC
ACTION
------------- --------------- -------------------------------- --------
MT.VIEW
B-24 BILL SIKES
B-25 MARK KIM
B-26 PAT GREEl'
"'-~r/
CG- I (WARD 2
CO (~ ~)7t>
CG-- /.c- 71'
a)l571 N. 'E' alCHANGE FROM RMH TO
ST. bJ1956 b)CHfu~GE FROM RMH TO
N. 'E' ST. ATTACHMENT Q)
1J'72 y
....,~~
CHANGE FROM RM TO CG-l
A TTACIDIENT R)
(SEE
<2!J}J
,b1
40TH & H
N/O CO~IERCIAL~a~~GE FROM CR-3 TO IL
BET.Hl'!-iTS &
WATERMAN
(WARD 3)
@'14' ~I
B-27 ERNEST FISHER 1554 STODDARD CHANGE FROM R~H TO CG-I (SEE
ATTACIDIENT S)
bt:wI/Jv
(WARD 2)
B-28 DENNIS KELLY CRESTVIEW &
21ST
CHANGE FROM RS TO CO-I (SEE
ATTACHMENT TJ
(WARD 2)
FOISY & CENTRAL
(SUBMITTED MAP WITH .ry"'" a; (WARD 6)
RECCOMENDATIONS) ~~-Y' ..;
cP"" 5/....,""~. ~ 9,n;",.n.,_'f~"./
(du~~ S/so
CHANGE FROM TO CG-l (WARD I )W&
B-29 DON TOw~SEND ~V RDA AR~~
B-31 J~NE SALOMON 10TH & WESTERN
4/. <9.1 uJ~
(J //+11_ '1-#1 ~
B-32 GENEVA WOODS CITYWIDE SUBMITTED LETTER FROM LEAGUE OF X ~~ ~ ~~
+ ~ ~, ~ WO'" VOTERS 'SEE ATTACIIlIENT V) "
8-33 ALDOF~~;: 1300 BLOCK OF D CHANGE FRml RS TO RM (SEE L' / ..Lw'ARD 2)
STREET ATTACHMENT W) -,.>
B-34 ROD McDONALD TRI-CITY AR~~ a)ALLOW STAFF TO INT. FAR ~~(~~~
/W~./c..- ~ b)DRIVE THRUS IN TRI-CITY,,~ (!eUd7~
,Ow. Cb:u.. ..dt tJ~ - c )ALLOW ) 4 STORIES S/.;l4'
~. &cf9Isj~~
BASELINE & LA CHANGE FROM RM TO CG::~ .. / (WARD 2)
JUNTA ~ C6-~ ~a:bK- ahJ.# ~ ~~tL ~ a
~ a./ .3001"_: ktw.__ ~ t7 or- ='o/~ on ~ ~ ot- ~
, t:lrvA D?I d1IL uJ. W/;Wne~ d<l4t... ~aXiJJ(. .ePJ
240i"'LEROY CHANGE FRO RMH ( (WARD 2) ~J.
t1ud.. /0 y-7'd.,/
B-30 ANTONIO
ATILANO
B-35 RICa~RD
\BRISTOW
" i.U/ 13 -S~
B-36 MO. GHIASSI
ca"NGE FRf R~~~~( SEE
ATTACHMEN U J
(WARD 6)'
&..,.( s 11 s;4..s
L
, .
.
o
o
MCC
QUE SPEAKER LOCATION REQUEST ACTION
'-3' ~~~~:::~~:--- ~;;~~~-~-~;;-- ~~~-;~~6-~~=~-------~-- ~-~~
B-38 RON MORAN 1411 BASELINE Ca\NGE FROM CG-2 T~EE (WARD 2)
.~ w/..'U/- ~z: ...t~ ATTACHMENT X) ~. du.:(. /.;1. ~
&'j-'rJ MJ/~~k ~i ~~;: f4-/~~""~~_6~) ~~y
8-39 FRANK KENDALL S/O' CHANGE FR~G-1 ( EE (WAilD 5)
TRACADAS PALM ATTACHMEN~- - Cz.,c(. /3'11>7
.s:J.<'I
B-41 HELEN
KOPCZYNSKI
CITYWIDE
tJ) IL<\NGE FROM RS TO CG-1' (WARDS 7
CHANGE FROM RS TO CO-1" & 2)
tJO-I, ~ aid.. .y ~dy ~ ('~ l'
~~ 029',.y, '!;> /'
~c:dt.
VARIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT GENE~\L/.~~d~
PL~N & EIR. I ?v~
a-;.::;~~cL ./;~ ~
B-40 H.CISNEROS
a )WATER~1AN &
29TH
b)CRESTVIEW &.
21ST
~
II w,
C I T~ 0 F SAN BE R N A R ~
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8905-2313
N 0
TO:
Mayor Wilcox, City
planning commission
Council Members and City
FROM: Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT
DATE: May 19, 1989
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attached are the Responses to comments on
mental Impact Report. These comments
comments will be included in the Final EIR
the Draft Environ-
and responses to
(FEIR).
There were a total of 22 persons or agencies who commented on
the Draft EIR during the 45 day public review period. Each
of these comments have been assigned a letter from A thru V.
This letter appears in the top right corner of each comment
letter. Each comment within the letter is numbered. At the
end of each of the comments are the responses. The responses
have the assigned letter (i.e. A thru V) as well as the
number of the comment for ease in coordinating the comments
and responses.
The majority of the comments received were from city
Departments including extensive comments from Planning
Department. This was necessary because we were not given an
opportunity to review the Draft EIR before publication.
Therefore, we conducted the "administrative review" during
the public review period.
Unlike the General Plan process, staff will not be devoting a
substantial amount of time "walking through" the environ-
mental documents. We ask that you review them prior to the
scheduled hearings because part of the certification process
of the FEIR requires that the decision-making body consider
the information in the Final EIR before taking action on the
proposed project.
If you have any questions, please call Ann Larson or Vince
Bautista at (714) 384-5057.
Sincerely,
~ t. ,e~,b-
Brad L. Kilger
Director of Planning
o
o
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON
DRAfl E~V~RO~ME~lAl
~M~ACl RE~ORl
City of
San Bernardino
General Plan
Envlcom Corporation
In association with:
OKS Associates . Albert A. Webb Associates . Sage' Associates
MAY-19-S9 FRI 5:1~
o
o
ERRATA SHEET
TO mE
:~~Rl'MRDTNO DW1PLAN lUR.
:sUQ COMMlimi DOCUMElir.
DATED MAY 11, 1989
~place re$ponse to romment ~206 with~wini:
As the significant mineral resource areas existing within the planning area are
preserved by the Draft Plan for future aggregate production, the loss of any aggregate
resource as a result of land uses proposed by the Drait Plan is considered an adverse
but not significant impact (Class 3). Potential impacts from mining with respect to
aesthetics, air quality and biological resources are considered to be adverse but not
significant. With respect to aesthetics and air quality impacts, policies and
implementation programs referenced In response to Comment El provide for
reclamation and fugitive dust mitigation. Potential impacts with respect to biological
resources can be mitigated per Information provided in response to comment N165.
consequently, the level of environmental significance is Class 3.
The following information will replace the discussion in Section 4.3.4.5 of the Drait EIR:
"As the significant mineral resource areas existing within the planning area are pre-
served by the Draft Plan for future aggregate production, the loss of any aggregate
resource as a result of land uses proposed by the Draft Plan is consiq,ered an adverse
but not significant impact (Class 3). Potential impacts from mining with respect to aes-
thetics, air quality and biological resources are considered to be adverse but not signifi-
cant. With respect to aesthetics and air quality impacts, policies and implementation
programs identified above provide for reclamation and fugitive dust mitigation. Poten-
tial impacts with respect to biological resources can be mitigated per information pro-
vided in Biological Resources, Section 4.3.14." Consequently, the level of significance is
Class 3."
MA'.~-20-89 SAT
b 12
P.03
o
ERRATA SHEET #2
TO 11iB
~DINO DRAUPLAN E.I.R. ,
~NSETOCo~DOCUl@NT
DATED MAY 17, 1989
Rel2.lace rellponse to comment 02 with the followiJ\g:
The percentages on Table 13 have been corrected as indicated on the following page.
The 1.6 million retail trips were calculated based upon 31.9 million square feet of retail
space indicated In Table 2 and the trip generation factors provided in response to
comment N82.
MA.....-20-S'Sl SAT
7' . 12
o
p.e4
o
TABLE 13 (Revised)
Average Daily Vehlde Trip Ends
Associated with Existing (1987) Conditions
and the Draft Plan
1987 Increase Above % Increase
Land Use Existing Draft Plan Existing Above Existing
Cat~~ IIiI' Ends IJip En4a, Conditions Conditions
Single-family 597,000 698,900 +101,90~ +17%
Multi-family 133,100 201,900 +68,800 +52%
Office 47,800 252,000 +204,200 +437%
Retail 411,100 1,675,700 + 1,264,600 +307%
Industrial 45,600 276,400 +230,800 +506%
TOTAL 1,234,600 3,104,900 +1,870,300 +152%
Source: DKS Associates, March, 1989.
o
o
The following material provides responses to the comments listed below received
regarding the San Bernardino General Plan EIR.
Date
A. March 20, 1989
B. March 27, 1989
C. March 31, 1989
D. April 6, 1989
E. April 10, 1989
F. April 10, 1989
G. April 14, 1989
H. April 19, 1989
I. April 21, 1989
J. April 21, 1989
K. April 24, 1989
L. April 24, 1989
M. April 27, 1989
N. May 1, 1989
O. May 3, 1989
P. May 2, 1989
Q. May 3, 1989
R May 5, 1989
S. May 5, 1989
T. no date
U. May 12, 1989
V. May 11, 1989
SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN ElR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
MAY 17, 1989
Or~anization
Southern California Gas Company
State of California, Department of Water
Resources
San Bernardino Oty Unified School District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Oty of San Bernardino
Oty of San Bernardino
Oty of San Bernardino
Oty of San Bernardino
Oty of San Bernardino
Oty of San Bernardino
Oty of San Bernardino
Arda M. Haensze1
Oty of San Bernardino
Oty of San Bernardino
City of San Bernardino
City of San Bernardino
California Department of Transportation
California Department of Forestry
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Oty of San Bernardino Police Department
California Office of Planning and. Research
San Bernardino County Flood Control
Department
Envicom Corporation
4764 Park Granada, Suite 202
Calabasas Park, California 91302
(818) 340-9400
Si&I\ature
Roger L. Baughman
Charles R White
Scott Shira
Robert S. Joe
Brad L. KUger
T.L. Cain
Brad L. KUger
Robert Ewing
Charles P. Dunham
Annie F. Ramos
James C. Richardson
Arda M. Haenszel
Gene R. Klatt
Brad L. KUger
Jim Knight
Jim Knight
Harvey Sawyer
David J. Driscoll
Gary Krueger
no signature
David C.
Nunenkamp
Kenneth D. Guidry
-
"
o
o
EY/ v. LOwI
MfJ.,R 21 1939
, fTl
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ COMPANY
A
-...-.
1981 WGONIA AVENUE. AEDLANDS. CAUFORNIA
'. ~ ~ "'. .
MAlUNG ADDRess, P Q BOX 3003. REDLANos. CAuFORNIA ll2373-03OII
Barch 20, 1989
, "
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California
92418
ATTENTION: Vincent Baut~sta
RE. City wide and sphere of influence
The Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in various locations areas.
Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the proposed
development without any significant impact on the environment. The service would
be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the
California Public Utilit~es Commission at the time contractual arrangements are
made.
The ava~lability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based
upon present ~onditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public
utility, the Southern California Gas Company is uncle. tne jurisdiction of the
California Public Utilities Commission. We can also );~ affected by actions of
federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take ~y action which affects
gas supply or the conditions under which service is aval"able, gas service w~ll be
prOVided ~n accordance \Vlth revised conditions.
Typical demand use for:
a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearlv
Single ramHy
Multi-FamHy 4 or le,ss units
Multi-Fam~ly 5 or more units
799 therms/year duelhng unit
482 thermstyear dwelling unit
483 therms/year dwelling unit
These averages are based on total gas consumption' in residential units served by
Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular I
home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. ~
b. Commercial
Due to the fact that construction varies so Widely (a glass bUilding
vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation
in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand f~gure is
not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need
to be made after the building has been designed.
.'
., "
o
o
"
To insure the existing facillties are adequate to accommodate the new d~velopment,
an engineering study will be requlred. Detailed information including tract maps ~
and plot plans must be submltted to the Gas Company liarket Servlces Representa-
tive, 1-800-624-2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural
gas pipeline.
We have developed several programs Which are available. upon request, to provlde
assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservaticn Ll
techniques for a particular project. If you desire further lnformatlon on any ot -\
our energy conServation programs, please contact our Area Uarket Services llanager,
P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373-0306, phone 1-800-524-2497.
Sincerely,
,f?f''Oa<.L ~~-
Roger L. Bau~~'-'-'
Technical Supervisor
PTG:teb
cc: EnVlron !\ffalrs - ilL:09B
.'
.
o
o
Response to Comments from: Southern California Gas Company (dated March 20.1989)
AI Information provided in this comment has been addressed in Section 4.2.2.4 of the
Draft EIR.
A2 Factors used in calculating the project-related demand for natural gas are those
suggested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Handbook for
Preparing Environmental Impact R~orts. These factors are considered to be
appropriate for calculating natural gas demand in the Southern California area.
A3 This comment refers to the design, and provision of natural gas, to individual
projects, and not to the broader scope of the General Plan.
A4 See response "A3" above.
. ~~
,}'" Slale 'of California
o
o
The Resources Agency
Memorandum
Date
B
MAR 2 7 1989
!""'-.
~ ,~ I
if>; .-
L.:'~
7
i :j
To
1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary for Resources
2. Ci ty of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attention: Vincent Bautista
Departmenl of Water Resourc..
I "'"0 , 3 198Q
.~!' i., !l
o ..
From
~'T,"t; ;~: ,~.
us... . .....;~';.. _ \
~~.; ~.'.'" ~ ,''';:~i' '-~',~::; ~;"
S..t. .-..........u.....i. 1_...
Los Angeles, CA 90055
Subject ,
Notice of Preparation of DEIR for a Proposed Comprehensive City-Wide General
Plan Program. dated February 1. 1989
Your referenced document has been reviewed by our Department staff.
Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damage
prevention, are attached. .
I I
The Department recommends that you consider implementing a comprehensive J
program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh -:...
water supplies for beneficial uses that require high quality water.
For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at
213-620-3951.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this report.
Sincerely.
C~~
Charles R. White. Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments
cc: Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
-
, 1
o
o
;
l
.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER'RECLAMATION
To reduce water demand. implement the water conservation measures described
here.
RequIred
The fOllowing State laws require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in
structures:
o Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and
urinals in virtually all bUildings as follows:
"After January 1. 1983. all new bUildings constructed in this state
shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves. if any. which
are water-conservation water closets as defined by American National
Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2. and urinals and associated
flushometer valves. if any. that use less than an average of 1-1/2
gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer
valves are exempt from the requirements of this section..
o Title 20. California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) (Appliance
Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that give the
maximum flow rate of all new showerheads. lavatory faucets. and sink
faucets. as specified in the standard approved by the American National
Standards Institute on November 16. 1979. and known as ANSI
A1l2.18.1M-1979.
o Title 20. California Administrative Code Section 1606(b) (Appliance
Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply
with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in
California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance
with the provisions of the regulations establishing applicable
efficiency standards.
o Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(b)
California Ener Conservation Standards for New Buildin~s prohibits
the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to
the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards.
o Title 24. California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(i) and (j)
address pipe insulation requirements. which can reduce water used before
hot water reaches eqUipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to I
steam and steam-condensate return piping and recirculating hot water t
piping in attics. garages. crawl spaces. or unheated spaces other than
between floors or in interior walls. Insulation of water-heating
systems is also required.
:<
.
.
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,.'
.
.-'
o
o
"
o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of
residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain
conditions are satisfied. Included is the requirement that. in most
instances. the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by
water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned
water.
o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public
facilities constructed after January 1. 1985. be equipped with
self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water.
To be Implemented where eppllcable
Interior:
. \
\
I
\
1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square
inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing
valve.
2. Drinkin~ fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing
valves.
3. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms.-
Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower.
4. Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used.
5. Restaurants: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray
emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be
served upon request only.-
. 6. Ultra-low-flush toilets: 1-1/2-gallon per flush toilets be installed in
all new construction.
Exterior:-
1. Landscape with low water-using plants wherever feasible.
2.
Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses. such as
playing fields. When lawn is used. require warm season grasses.
I
i
I
,
3.
4.
Group plants of.similar water use to reduce overirrigation of
low-water-using plants.
Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using
landscaping and sources of additional assistance.
i
(
-The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in
developing these materials or providing other information.
.
-
.
A
,"
Il
o
o
5. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch .applied on top of
soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs.
often adapted to low-water-using conditions and
needed to establish replacement vegetation.
Established plants are
their use saves water
7. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation. soil moisture sensors. and automatic irrigation systems
are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and to aid in ground water recharge.
9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
10. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water. stored
rainwater, or grey water for irrigation.
'2.
11. Encourage cluster development. which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious
paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation
of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water
recharge.
13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer
recharge areas as open space.
::!'
.
~
.
o
o
-I' )
,.
I
- FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
In flood-prone areas. flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
proposed development should be based on the following guidelines:
1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground
water should be mitigated.
2. All building structures should be protected against a lOO-year flood.
3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the lOO-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the
Environmental Impact Report.
4. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a lOO-year flood.
5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside
developments.
6. Revegetation of disturbed or newly constructed slopes should be done as
soon as possible (utilizing native or low-water-using plant material).
7. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be
assessed and mitigated as required.
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
....
-
o 0
Response to Comments from: State of California. Department of Water Resources
(dated March 27.1989)
Bl The "Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Water Conservation
and Water Reclamation" more appropriately address individual project design as
opposed to the broader scope of the General Plan. However, the General Plan does
iilclude policy and programs for encouraging water conservation and the following
information will be added to Section 4.221.4 'Water Supply, Mitigation Measures"
of the Em.: ''In addition to addressing the concerns of adequate water supply and
transmission, the Utilities Section of the Draft Plan addresses the issue of water
conservation with policy 7.6.8 and implementation program 17.18. That program
states that the Municipal Water Department will administer a program of public
education regarding the benefits of water conservation. These issues are also
addressed in Section 11.0 of the Draft Plan: Energy and Water Conservation. In that
section, policies 11.1.1, 11.1.2, 11.1.13, and 11.1.14 and associated implementation
programs 111.1, 111.3, 111.4, 111.6, 111.13, and 111.14 encourage the incorporation of
water conservation features in the design of all new construction and site
development, and direct the City to work with other cities to develop a strong state-
wide water conservation policy."
B2 With respect to the use of reclaimed water, the following information will be added
to the EIR, Section 4.2.21.4 'Water Supply, Mitigation Measures": "To further
facilitate water conservation, it is recommended that the following be included as a
policy of the Draft Plan: Encourage the use of reclaimed water for landscape
irrigation and other non-contact uses for industrial projects, golf courses, and
freeways."
,
o
o
c
.'.1
dl!r-
00
& rr:: ,.,., ~ ~~
O j... " ~,', ~
.;' . '" '...
-:z!;iJ~
f:i
L2.J
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTFUC'l
AFR 04 1989
(714) ;!BZi'l=1?9":"'r ~__.__
SAj~: S~~.~:::'l.~;:~'...~. i; .~.~~:iT
. ...~'..~. r..'
March 31, 1989 . .
Platlning. and DeveZopment
All r,t"r,1
FROM THE DESK OF SCOTT SHIRA 1/1/
To: Mr. Brad Kilger, Director of Planning
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of,San Bemardino
General Plan
"
. I believe the underlined statement on page 4-150 is incorrect and should I
reference ,the San Bemardino City Unified School District.
".
.:",;'
~.:;. .
.....
'.'
....
:',"
:
I.
.
/.~
c
0-'
budget cuts have limited the ability of the Districts to constrUct these new schools and
revenue generated from developer fees (Assembly Bill 2926) are an inadequate
supplement.
4.2.3.3.2 Project Impacts
Given maximum buildout of the Draft Plan, 16,028 housing units would be added to the
housing stock of 1987. 'This would be expected to generate 14,168 additional students,
based upon student generation factors supplied by the San Bernardino City Unified
School District (Table 20). 'This 38% increase students residing in the City would be
expected primarily where the greatest increase in housing will occur: in the downtown
area of recycled and intensified housing, and in the major infill areas of the northwest
quadrant. 'This will result in impacts on the Rialto Unified School District as well as the
San Bernardino City School District.
I
4.2.3.3.3 Cumulative Impacts ~ . ~"..
s.",. hJ." ;:2~{ PSI.
~ ,;",tI4O
The exP~~Q~.-Q.LthlUtudent population in t.1LQ.ty....Q ~_Bernardino will have its
,.
greatest cumula~ imp'!f!...En the Rialto Unifiec! Sc.'lool Dist:ri~. because of this
District's proximity to areas of future development. Based upon San Bernardino City
School District's generation factors, the proportion of students from San Bernardino
attending RiaHo could increase by as much as 70'l"0, further aggravating Rialto's current
overcrowding problem. Other adjacent school districts may be affected as well,
however, to a lesser degree: Colton Joint Unified. School District is not adjacent to any
major housing intensification areas and Red1ands Unified School District is adjacent to
an area of future industrial/ commercial development.
4-150
""
o 0
Response to Comments from: San Bernardino City Unified School District (dated
March 31. 1989)
a The discussion in question in the EIR was referring to the impact on adjacent school
districts. For purposes of clarification, the following information (now included in
Section 4.2.3.3.3 "Cumulative Impacts, Education" of the EIR) will be added to
Section 4.2.3.3.2 "Project Impacts, Education": 'With respect to adjacent school
districts, the expansion of the student population expected to result from buildout of
the Draft Plan would have its greatest impact on the Rialto Unified School District
due to this District's proximity to areas designated for future development. Based
upon San Bernardino City School District's generation factors, the proportion of
students from San Bernardino attending Rialto schools could increase by as much as
70%, further aggravating Rialto's current overcrowding problem. Other adjacent
school districts may be affected as well, although to a lesser degree: The Colton Joint
Unified School District is not adjacent to any proposed new or intensified residential
areas and Redlands Unified School District is adjacent to an area of future
industriall commercial development."
The following information will be added to Section 4.2.3.3.3 "Cumulative Impacts,
Education": 'There are five school districts which serve the cities and communities
within RSA-29: San Bernardino City Unified, Rialto Unified, Colton Joint Unified,
Redlands Unified, and Yucaipa Unified School Districts. Based upon generalized
average student generation factors per household (0.30 for elementary, 0.12 for
intermediate, and 0.12 for high schools) and 271,028 dwelling units in 2010 for RSA-
29, a student population of 146,352 would be expected. (This estimate would be
considered to represent a worst case scenario since some housing units may have
been double-counted (refer to Table 4).) Since the exact location of these projected
housing units with respect to school district boundaries cannot be known at this
time, it is not possible to determine the impact on the districts. However, new
schools, or reopening of previously closed schools, would probably be needed to
avoid overcrowding at existing facilities."
...,
-
'.
o 0
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS AHGlLlES DISTRICT. COAPS OF (NGINURS
Pf) 80.2711
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA IOOSJ.2325
L;.J.-J L/J C(..,~
.'
April 6, 1989
D
AEP\Y TO
Office o'f"'/:'lPI1Othief
Environmental Resources Branch
..... '.,
iiif; 13 i9a9
; I --::t
,;II~ WJ
: :)
. ,
Mr. Vincent Bautista
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
City Hall
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
~~l;: :.', .... ~'~:-::~r.:?-:\
,,:,.~ '1 '''~'' .:" :_.... '4:c.;.~T
.......,. ;;';'~.""'" :-":~J, C.l
Dear Mr. Bautista:
We have reviewed the ~~.:_- of Preparation of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of San Bernardino General Plan Program,
dated February 1, 1989. The notice requests information about our
responsibilities involving the proposed project.
Our responsibilities include investigation, design, operation and
maintenance of water resource projects, including preparation. of environmental
guidelines in the fields of flood control, navigation and shore protection.
We are responsible also for administration of laws and regulations
against pollution of the waters of the United States. we believe the
forthcoming document should address the above-listed responsibilities.
Work in waters of the United States might require a permit under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. We :L
cannot determine from the submitted information the extent of the Corps'
juriSdiction over this project. Please give our Regulatory Branch
documentation that clearly describes the area and extent of any proposed work
in watercourses and adjacent wetlands to help us make that determination.
If the proposed project involves any Federal assistance through funding
or permits, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation :3
Act of 1966, as amended (16.U.S.C. 470f) and implementing regulations, 36 CFR
800, will be required.
Your general plan should reflect the fact that there will be a floodway
On the Santa Ana River between Seven Oaks and Prado dams. Your local flood 4...
control sponsor will manage the floodway in accordance with Federal Emergency
Management regulations.
III
')
o
o
..
.
-2-
We will appreciate an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed I ~
DEIR when it is issued.
Sincerely,
~ ....._~ 'Z:.;11....1 . J
"",~bert S. Joe
.1 "Chief, Planning Division
.
-
o
o
Response to Comments from: Department of the Army. Los Angeles District Corps of
Engineers (dated April 6. 1989)
Dl The topics listed in this comment are included in the following sections of the EIR:
Section 4.2.2.1: Water Supply; Section 4.2.2.3: Sewage Disposal; Section 4.4.2:
Flooding; and Section 4.4.3: Hazardous Materials/Uses.
D2 The EIR is not addressing any particular site-specific projects at this time. Should
any future projects in water courses or adjacent wetlands be proposed, the Corps
would need to be contacted at that time.
D3 The proposed project, the General Plan itself, does not involve any such federal
assistance. However, should federal assistance be involved in a particular site-
specific future project, compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and
implementing regulations would be required at that time.
D4 This comment addresses the content of the General Plan and not the EIR.
D5 This letter addressed the Notice of Preparation for the EIR. The EIR itself was
subsequently published March 27, 1989 and is available for review from the City of
San Bernardino.
. .
" .
o
o
,-"---"",
..~ .: -.., . I~, ,\ 7""\
f.... .~:;....:.. '~ ...~\';"'t..
r~-'/' """\ _..r' . Y ',,,:A
0:-' -~...: .- ,_~\
/;:...1. -. ....-:.,..~,.,. /;- \::" C I T Y
,-t _. _ ..... ".'"' ~_..' - .-11
1-.",. ~.. . - ,.:.'~rl '-I
!~~t=-l.-:--"::>,..; Ill:'" 5
:.. ", ,.:....c..--- .' "_
,,,,,,-,{,:/:/~'>:.:.\'v'~:-'. an
~t;1 .,.. ."_:....~~::-.....
~~
E
o F
t)E-'-"" '1="':""<
_,'.. .1-_' ~ ..........,r
Bernardino
APR 1 ~l 1989
~,"!'i'~
t':'....., '-', d~"'.
.' -~~.QllltI'!:,..............
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 10, 1989
Mr. Joseph Gibson
Director of Environmental Services
ENVICOM CORPORATION
4764 Park Granada, Suite 202
Calabasas Park, CA 91302-1593
Dear Mr. Gibson:
As you know, the Planning Department is currently reviewing
the Draft Environmental Impact Report and will be preparing
comments as to its adequacy. We have verbally indicated to
Janis Dworkis that we would be providing comments as we
review the DEIR so that you can begin responding to them.
We have discovered that a major shortfall of the DEIR is that
policies, development standards and implementation measures
are used as mitigation but the specific policies, standards
and measures are not identified. The reader must take your
word for it without being given the evidence to either agree
or disagree with the conclusion. There is no traceable
relationship between the mitigation and the conclusion. For
example, on Page 4-40 the DEIR states "Policies are defined
to mitigate potential impacts of noise, odor, light and
glare, height and bulk, vehicular access, and functional
activity where dissimilar uses are located adjacent to one
another." The policies mayor may not do this; however, we
cannot verify it because we do not know to which policies
they are referring. These kinds of undocumented conclusions
are stated throughout the DEIR.
We realize that correcting this problem will require many
hours of work, therefore, we are notifying you at this early
date of our concern. Please begin correcting this problem
immediately. Any time the DEIR indicates that an impact will
be mitigated by policies, standards or measures in the Plan,
they must be referenced. We want this done consistently
throughout the EIR.
A different concern we have is that the public hearings
currently underway will result in changes to policies,
standards and measures. How will this affect conclusions
\
,
,
,
\~
300 NORTH "0' STREET, SAN BERNARDINO.
CALIFORNIA 12411.0001 7'.."......,
PRIDE -I
"IN PROGRESS
~~...~f
.-
~
." ..
o
o
Mr. Joseph Gibson
April 10, 1989
Page 2
that impacts will be mitigated? An analysis of the changes
made to the General Plan will need to be part of the Final
Environmental Impact Report. We would like you to be think-
ing about this during the hearings and be prepared to address ~
this during and after the hearings. If changing certain
policies, standards or measures will require major environ-
mental analysis or significant changes to the DEIR, we need
to be apprised of this situation.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at
(714) 384-5057. Thank you.
c_~
Director of Planning
mkf
o 0
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino Planning Department (dated
Apri110.1989)
EI The proposed changes to the EIR which provide information concerning specific
policy and program references are indicated on the following pages. This
information will more clearly relate the policies contained in the General Plan that
mitigate impacts identified in the EIR. This additional information will enable the
reader to use the General Plan document to locate the specific wording of policies or
programs discussed in the EIR, as desired.
E2 The Final EIR will acknowledge changes made by the Mayor and Council during the
public hearing process to the General Plan by relating significant changes to impacts
associated with either the proposed action or the alternatives. General Plan changes
to be considered must result in a physical change to the environment. Discussion of
relative impact during the public hearing will advise the Mayor and Council wheth-
er the potential change is within the scope of the proposed action and alternatives.
If the change is not within the scope of analyzed impacts, the recommendation will
be made not to make the change; if the change is made over the recommendation,
the consequences of the change will be verbally discussed at the hearing. Additional
analyses may be required to evaluate impacts beyond those discussed in the DEIR.
.,.
-
o
o
20. Land use development is impacted by the presence of significant environmental
resources and hazards. The mountain foothills contain extensive and important
riparian habitats and scrub lands. The Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek, Lytle Creek,
and tributary drainages contain significant habitat and pose a flood hazard for
development. The City is crossed by the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault systems
and a large area is subject to a high liquefaction potential. The northern portions of
the City are impacted by a high wildfire and wind hazards.
4.1.1.2 Project Impacts
The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the Draft Plan contains 348 policies (Table
5) and 23 pro~ams for policies implementation. These policies and pro~ams regulate
how land in the planning area is to be utilized. Thus. this element has the broadest
scope of the State required elements. Most of the policies contained in all other plan ele-
ments are integrated into and synthesized by the Land Use and Urban Design Element.
All ~oals. obiectives. policies and implementation pro~ams in the Land Use and Urban
Design Element are organized to address 12 land use issues:
L. What types and amounts of land use should be accommodated in the City?
2. How should land uses be distributed throughout the City?
J:. What should be the functional role. uses permitted. and physical form and character
of the City's land use districts?
.L What should be the future role and character of Norton Air Force Base?
.2.:. What should be the future role and character of the railroad yards?
4-37
o
o
~ How should buildin~s in the City be maintained?
7. What should be the physiS;al and visual Quality of development?
.a.. How should develo,pment be linked with the provision of supportinl: infrastructure?
2.. How should development be related to the Qty's environmental resources and haz-
ards?
10. What should be the relationship of land use develo,pment to public safety?
11. What lands should be annexed to the City and what should be their priority?
12. How should the public continue to participate in land use decisions?
Policies and programs associated with the first three of these issues are the primary de-
terminants of the future nature and distribution of land uses in the plannini area. In
particular. policies determining the functional role. uses permitted and physical nature
of the land use districts are structured as follows:
Policy'
Pw:pose
1.x.10-19
Description of permitted uses for residential. hillside man-
agement. commercial. office industrial park. industrial and
public designations. These policies also describe density and
h~ight restrictions for residential and hillside management
designations.
. x = numbered objective (8-38) corresoondin~ to eoals of the Land Use and Urban Desi~ Element.
4-37A
....
.
o 0
l.x.20-29 Description of density /intensity (e.~.. floor area ratios) and
height of structures for commercial. office industrial park,
industrial and public designations.
1.)(.30+ Design and development ~delines for residential, hill~i9~
management. commercial. office industrial park. industrial.
and public designations.
Table 7a provides a matrix for determining s.pecific policy numbers describing permit-
ted uses. density/intensity, and design standards for residential (low density. multi-
family and senior/congregate care) commercial (~ion-servin2. community-serving in-
cluding five specific areas. neighborhood-serving. office and heavy). office industrial
park. industrial. and public uses. Table 7a can be referred to throughout the following
discussion of land use impacts whenever the reader desires specific policy number ref-
erences.
Implementation of the policies aRS stansllfEi:; of the Draft Plan (particu1arlv policies
1.1.xx-1.38.xx describing permitted uses. location of uses. density/intensity and design
and development guidelines) will result in the (a) preservation of existing residential
neighborhoods and commercial and industrial districts which are physically and
economically stable and of value to the community, (b) preservation, enhancement, and
expansion of public uses and parklands, (c) development of vacant lands for residential,
commercial, industrial, public, recreational, and other uses, (d) infill of vacant parcels
within existing districts and neighborhoods with similar uses, (e) intensification of the
intensity/density of development in areas characterized by physically and economically
deteriorating uses and mixed patterns of development, and (f) recycling of areas of
mixed use for a consistent use.
Development in accordance with the Draft Plan (Figure 4) will result in the construction
of an additional 26,028 residential units, containing a population of 65,070 persons,
36,470,175 square feet of commercial use, and 50,774,408 square feet of industrial use.
4-37B
...
~
o
o
TABLE 7a
Correlation of Plan Policies with
Use, Density, and Design
Policv and Guidelines
Land Use Permitted Use Densitv /lntensitv Desi~
Residential
Low Density 1.9.10, 1.10.10, 1.9.10,1.10.10, 1.93()"33, 1.10.3()"33,
1.1 1.10, 1.14.10 1.11.10,1.14.1()"14 1.113()"32,
1.1430-91
Multi-Family 1.12.10, 1.12.11, 1.12.10,1.12.11, 1.1230,1.1231,
1.13.1()"13,1.16.12, 1.13.1()"13,1.16.21, 1.1233-35,
1.16.13,1.22.12 1.22.21 1.133Q..40, 1.22.34
Senior/Congregate 1.12.11,1.13.13, 1.12.11,1.13.13, 1.28.35
Care 1.16.14,1.22.13, 1.16.21,1.22.22,
1.28.12 1.28.21
Commercial
Region-Serving
. Retail 1.15.1()"11 1.15.20 1.153()"37
. Downtown 1.16.1()"17 1.16.2()"23 1.163()"34
. Tri-City / 1.17.1()"13 1.17.20 1.173()"38
Commercenter /
Cub
. Auto Plaza 1.18.10 1.18.20 1.18.3()"31
Community-serving
. General 1.19.1()"11 1.19.2()"21 1.19.3()"35
. Highland "Core" 1.20.1()..11 1.20.20 1.20.30-35
. "E" Street Corridor 1.21.1()"12 1.21.20 1.213()"33
. Mount Vemon- 1.22.1()"13 1.22.2()"22 1.223()"34
Base Line
. University Village 1.23.1()"11 1.23.20 1.233()"33
. . Specialty/Theme 1.24.1()"15, 1.24.20,1.25.20 1.243()"36,
Center 1.25.1()"1l 1.253()"35
Neighborhood-serving
. General 1.26.1()"1l 1.26.20 1.26.3()"35
. Verdernont 1.27.10 1.27.20 1.273()"33
Office 1.28.1()"12, 1.28.2()"21, 1.29.20 1.283()"35,
1.29.1()"11 1.293()"32
Heavy 130.10,131.10 130.20, 131.20 1303()''31,
1313()"34
Office-Industrial Park
Industrial
Light 132.1()"12 1.32.20 1323()"32
Heavy 133.1()"11 1.33.20 13330-31
Extractive 134.1()"11 N.A. 13430-32
Public
CommeK~IRecreation 135.10, 136.1()"11 135.20,1.36.20 1353()"31,1.36.30
Public 137.1()"14 137.20 13730-31
Public Flood Control 138.1()"11 N.A. N.A.
-
o
o
Table 8 indicates the increases in development which will occur on buildout of the Draft
Plan. In addition, public uses, including governmental administrative and service
facilities, schools, parks, cultural facilities, and similar uses, will be expanded in the
planning area. These specific locations are not depicted in the Draft Plan, because of the
potential for property condemnation for public use. However, policies and standards
contained throughout the Draft Plan (e.g.. 1.37.10-1.37.14, 1.37.20, 1.37.30. and 1.37.31)
provide for their development and distribution. For example, the Draft Plan establishes
an objective (Objective 9.1) for an additional 507 acres of parklands to serve existing and
future residents. Street and highway improvements, including new rights-of-way, will
occur in the planning area in accordance with the Draft Plan's Circulation Master Plan
of Highways. Other infrastructure improvements, such as utility easements and flood
control improvements, will occur on lands in the planning area, though their specific
locations will be determined by subsequent planning and land acquisition activities.
De'lelepffieRt iR aeeeFBanee vlitft !he Draft P-lan peliey will Implementation of the Draft
Plan would be expected to result in the following impacts on the planning area's land
uses:
1. Or~anization and Character of Land Use
a. Land use districts will become more clearly distinct due to the limitation of uses and
establishment of precise development standards for commercial, industrial, and
residential sub-areas of the City. For example, specific community-serving
commercial areas, such as the Highland Avenue "Core" between "E" Street and
Waterman Avenue and the Mount Vernon "ethnic themed village" between 4th and
8th Streets, will be developed (per policies 1.20.10, 1.20.11, 1.20.20, 1.20.30-1.20.35,
1.24.10-1.24.15,1.24.20, and 1.24.30-36) with a specific set of uses and in accordance
with architectural and site design guidelines which differentiate these from other
commercial corridors and districts. Region-serving commercial centers are
differentiated by use, intensity, and design; e.g., the downtown containing a high
density mix of governmental and professional offices, convention and hotel facilities,
4-39
...
o
o
cultural uses, and residential with pedestrian oriented amenities versus the Tri-
City /Commercenter area which will contain a mix of corporate offices, research and
development uses, and supporting retail and restaurants located in an extensively
landscaped, park-like setting. Each of these, as well as the other key districts and
neighborhoods identified by the Draft Plan, will exhibit its own unique "personality"
and design character.
b. Within each use district, implementation of Draft Plan policies and standards will
result in greater homogeneity among land uses and development. This will be
particularly evident in the southeast, in the areas between Norton Air Force Base
and Interstate 215, where the current pattern of mixed industrial and residential uses
will be replaced by a consistent and uniform pattern of light industrial and office-
industrial park uses. In the southwest, in areas adjacent to the railroad yards, the
current mix of residential, light and heavy industrial, and commercial will be
replaced by more consistent and uniform patterns of these uses. In older residential
neighborhoods between Highland Avenue and downtown, areas of a substantial
mix of single-family residences, duplexes, and apartments will be replaced by
consistent and uniform patterns of medium and medium-high density apartments
and condominiums.
c. In general, development in accordance with the Draft Plan will improve the
compatibility among land uses. Policies (particularlv those specifying "design and
development guidelines") are defined to mitigate potential impacts of noise, odor,
light and glare, height and bulk, vehicular access, and functional activity where
dissimilar uses are located adjacent to one another. In the southeast of the City,
residential areas subject to the high noise impacts of Norton Air Force Base will
evolve to uses which are not noise-sensitive (e.g., light industrial and office-
industrial parks). In other high noise areas, the development of new sensitive uses
will be prohibited unless adequate mitigation can be implemented and existing such
uses will be buffered by the installation of noise-attenuating wails and other
elements, where feasible. The Draft Plan, further, establishes limits on noise
4-40
"..
-
o
o
generation by uses. Where dissimilar land uses abut one another (e.g., residential
and commercial), the Draft Plan provides (via policies and programs in both the
Land Use and Urban Design and Noise Elements) for the implementation of buffers,
property setbacks, height and bulk setbacks, and other elements, requiring project
by project review to ensure their adequacy. The development of a more
homogeneous land use pattern, as described above, will reduce impacts that accrue
to mixes of dissimilar uses.
Compatibility impacts could result from the introduction of residential use in the
downtown area (allowed per policy 1.7.'7>. either vertically integrated into structures
whose lower levels are used for commercial or horizontally distributed. These
include potential conflicts of functional activity (i.e., commercial uses characterized
by high customer use versus low activity, private housing), noise, light and glare,
vehicular access, and public safety. Draft Plan policy requires individual project
review in these instances to provide adequate mitigation of any potential impacts.
The Draft Plan will allow for the introduction of residential uses in areas of
commercial development. In the Mount Vernon/Baseline areas, this is intended to
reduce overall commercial capacity. In the downtown area, this is intended to create
a more active mixed use environment. In these instances, impacts may occur at the
interface of commercial and residential land use, e.g., noise and functional conflicts.
In response to these potential impacts, the Draft Plan includes policies that address
siting of structures, buffers, density and floor area ratios, parking, architectural
character, landscaping, and mitigation of noise, traffic, and lighting associated with
commercial structures.
d. The general quality of development and construction will be improved by
implementation of the Draft Plan's policies and standards. Among these are
architectural design guidelines which mandate the avoidance of anonymous,
undifferentiated "stucco-boxes" and establish a "pedestrian-oriented" character in the
ground elevation of commercial structures in key activity areas of the City and
4-41
o
o
requirements for the extensive use of on-site landscape and amenities.
e. Development in accordance with the Draft Plan will increase the overall intensity
and development in the City. This will change the character of some of the City's
districts from suburban to urban and rural to suburban. The greatest intensities will
be realized in the areas immediately within and abutting the downtown, Tri-
City /Commercenter area, Waterman Avenue Office Industrial Park and Regional
Opportunities Corridor. Many of these are suburban in intensity and character and
will evolve to a higher urban use. Similarly, peripheral areas in the foothills and to
the west will evolve from rural to suburban densities.
4-41A
'\:3.
-
Wl
o
o
4.1.2.2 Project Impacts
a. Housinl Ouantity and Affordability
California law requires that the City make provision for adequate numbers of new and
rehabilitated housing units to accommodate a share of projected population growth. It
also requires that the City adopt policies to assist in making a portion of these new and
rehabilitated units affordable to low and moderate income households.
To allow for growth in housing, the Draft Housing Element promotes the production of
new housing units on currently vacant or under-utilized land (policy 2.1.1,
implementation pro~ram (I) 2.1), permits homeowners to construct second units on
properties in neighborhoods designated "RU" (policy 2.1.2, 12.6), and provides for
residential and commercial mixed-use development in the downtown area of the City
(policy 2.1.3, 12.1).
Over the next 20 years, of the Draft General Plan will allow for the development of an
additional 23,206 units (with densities ranging from one to 36 dwelling units/net acre)
on 8,496.7 acres of land within City limits distributed as shown on Table 9. If
production of these 23,206 units were evenly distributed over the 2o-year period,
approximately 6,505 units would be added every five years. In the first five years this
production level would represent a 12.1% increase in total housing units, a decrease
from the 26.3% increase experienced between 1980 and 1988.
The 1988 Regional Housin~ Needs Assessment, prepared by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), allocates a share of estimated growth in housing
demand to each community in its jurisdiction. For the period 1989 to 1994, San
Bernardino's share of regional housing growth is estimated at 8,021 units distributed as
follows (no SCAG estimate for units needed in 2010 is available):
4-57
-...
o
o
Maximum housing buildout under the proposed Plan would result in a slight decrease
in the ratio of single- to multi-family housing. Distributions (1988) by housing type
(with mobile homes considered as single-family) are as follows:
~ Number Percent
Single-family 39,463 67.4%
Multi-family 19,108 326%
Total (within City of 58,571 100.0%
San Bernardino)
Assuming that the percentage of mobile homes remains constant at 6 percent, the ratio
of single- and multi-family units would have changed only slightly, with an increase in
the share of multi-family dwelling units:
~ Number Percent
Single-family 51,332 62.8%
Multi-family 30,435 37.2%
Total (within City of 81,767 100.0%
San Bernardino)
~raft General Plan l"elieies policy 2.4.4 and implementation programs 12.24 and 12.25
would contribute to the preservation of existing residential housing by requiring the
upkeep, maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing consistent with the
requirements of the City's building code. The Plan provides that the Oty continue to
.. .
offer financial assistance for housing rehabilitation to eligible owners of rental units
with low~income tenants (policy 2.4.1, 12.10 and 12.13), to low income homeowners to
bring older single-family dwellings into conformity with the City's building code (poli-
cy 2.4.2. 12.9), and, through a new program, to buy and rehabilitate abandoned houses
for resale to eligible low and moderate income households (policy 2.4.3. 12.23).
4-60
I
o
o
In addition to the financial assistance provided for the rehabilitation of existing housing
stock, policies of the Draft Housing Element provide for the City to facilitate the
production of affordable housing through support for nonprofit housing developers
(policy 25.2. 12.27. 12.28. and 12.32>' a 25% density bonus (or equivalent financial value)
to residential developers who provide a prescribed number of low income units (policy
2.5.1 and 12.18). and a program to reduce fees and review development standards for
infill housing projects (POlicy 2.5.3. 12.22).
The Draft Housing Element I'raviaes far the ae\oelel'ment af permits shelters for the
homeless by conditional use permit in areas of the City designated RM, RMH, and RH,
and downtown in areas designated CR-B2 (policy 2.7.7. 112.30). The Plan proposes that
the City assist in efforts to increase funding available for shelters (policy 2.7.2. 12.31,
12.32) .
Housing Element policies would also require (1) that a portion of units built with City
assistance be designated for large families (policy 2.7), (2) that City assistance be
directed to the construction of housing rehabilitation for low income seniors in an
amount commensurate with the number of low-income elderly in the population (poli-
cy 2.7.4, 12.26), and (3) that a density bonus be made available to developers of projects
serving adults SS ana allier senior adults (policy 2.7.1. 112.1. 112.19). In addition,
publicly assisted housing units would be accessible to the handicapped in conformity
with Title 24 of the uniform building code policy 2.7.5, 12.16).
The HetiSiRg BleH\eRt af the revisea PlaR Policy 28.1 (and implementation plan 12.34)
proposes that the City attempt to reduce any housing discrimination by enacting fair
housing legislation that prohibits all discrimination in housing based on race, ethnicity,
national origin, age, religion, sex or family status (presence of children).
SCAG estimates that 4,823 additional units would need to be built within the City of
San Bernardino to accommodate the needs of low and moderate income households by
1994. However, the "market" can no longer produce housing affordable to lower
4-61
......
o
o
income groups, particularly to those earning less than 80 percent of the median income
and a large public subsidy would therefore be required to make housing affordable to
these households. Resources allocated by the City for this purpose are sufficient to
produce only 10 percent of these units over the next five years.
b. Housinll Distribution
The Land Use section of this EIR (Section 4.1.1) describes the impacts on the pattern of
residential development and existing residential neighborhoods. Generally, these con-
clude that (1) existing economically stable and physically sound residential neighbor-
hoods will be preserved; (2) dilapidated and mixed-density neighborhoods will evolve
to higher densities; (3) residential areas subject to high noise impacts attributable to
Norton Air Force Base will evolve to non-residential uses; and (4) peripheral vacant and
rural lands will be more intensely developed for residential uses. The overall result of
the changes (amon~ others) would be a reduction in the amount of affordable housing.
as also discussed above).
4.1.2.3 Cumulative Impacts
Development in accordance with the Draft General Plan will increase the local and re-
gional housing supply. Its percentage of the regional total will decline over time as the
City's ultimate ''holding capacity" is attained and peripheral areas develop.
4.1.2.4 Mitigation Measures
As existing housing units are displaced for higher density or other uses, the City shall
require that relocation assistance is provided in accordance with the California Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act. The City shall monitor state and federal programs and in-
crease funds, as available, for assistance in the provision of housing for low and moder-
ate income households.
4-62
~ .
-
o
o
4.1.2.5 Level of Environmental Significance
Due to the reduction in the amount of affordable housing expected to result from
implementation of the Draft Plan, impacts are expected to be significant, and not
avoidable within the scope of the Plan (Class I).
4-62A
--
.
-
Jl.
.
.~
o
o
The planning area also contains three historic parks viz.; the Campo Santo Memorial
Park, Pioneer Park and Meadowbrook Park.
4.L3.2 Project Impacts
The Draft PIe sets fertfi "elides Policies 3.1.1-3.1.14. 3.2.1-3.2.7. 3.3.1-3.3.8. 3.4.1. 3.4.2.
3.5.1-3.5.8. and 3.6.1-3.6.4 are set forth in the Draft Plan to minimize the disruption of
prehistoric and archaeological resources. These policies provide for a program of
inventory and identification of the significance of these resources (implementation pro-
gram (1)3.1 and 13.22) and for the enactment of a City ordinance to require the extensive
environmental review procedures as per the California Environmental Quality Act (13.2
and 13.22).
f.ddiseaal "elides ef the Draft Pie tafget tfie "resef'\'8.sea ef histeFieal reSelUee5.
TM:se pslides inelaae: lfte 8~'elel'lMftt sf a e8mprdtensive plan eased ttp8ft farther
sm-/ey; estaBlishment sf an at-may 28ae anti an 8a7isery eeay t8 aveFsee iRe
de<lele"lfteftt ef gttidelilu:s, "rejeet re-Jie\';, ana tfie aae"ti&fl af i!8ning sttlftaaras;
pr8mBa8a of ooBllftU.mty H\vsl-,;ement and pre-Jisisa fer ineef\HveS te r~,;iti1H-e ,'.i:\ile
preteesRg Natarie reaaW'eea aftd ftet dis"ladftg the eeenemieally Eiisaa7aRtagea.
Additional policies and implementation programs of the Draft Plan tar~et the
preservation of historical resources. Policies 3.1.4. 3.1.9 and 3.1.10 and programs 13.3.
13.6. 13.21 and 13.22 provide for the establishment of an Historic Preservation Overlay
Zone. with an associated advisory body to oversee the development of ~idelines.
project review. and adoption of ap,propriate zoning standards. Policies 3.3.1-3.3.8 and
programs 13.2. 13.12-13.14. and 13.16-13.18 promote community awareness and involve-
ment in historic preservation. The Plan also includes policies and programs that focus
on incentives to revitalize while protectin~ historic resources and not displacing the
economically disadvantaged (policies 3.5.1-3.5.8. 3.4.1. and 3.4.2: implementation pro-
grams 13.5.13.7.13.10. 13.18-13.21. and 13.23).
4-68
-'"
-
~
~
.
-11
o
o
It should be noted that even with the policies and programs of the Draft Plan
implemented, significant adverse effects to archaeological and historical resources may
still occur: Previously unknown archaeological sites may be encountered during new
project construction, especially in areas of the mountain foothills and canyons, and in
the Shandin Hills. Similarly, every older and potentially significant building in the
developed areas of the City can legally be replaced by another or there may be
overnding concerns such as public safety which necessitate building demolition. The
Draft Plan does, however, provide a maximal level of protection for these resources
which can be considered legally acceptable.
Moreover, the historic preservation element of the Draft Plan sets up a process by which
the City's historical and archaeological resources are identified, design standards and
review procedures are established, and an ordinance is enacted to protect these
resources. Where potential conflicts with resource protection arise because of increased
allowed densities or land use changes, the City has options to down-zone these areas
and/or establish Historic Districts or Overlay Zones with consequent development
standards. These actions will enable the City to become certified by the State Office of
Historic Preservation, thereby insulating the City against legal charges of arbitrary and
unfair land use decisions related to historic preservation.
4.1.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
Planned developments in surrounding communities will not pose direct impacts on
cultural resources in San Bernardino. However, with increased development in SCAG's
RSA-29, increased air pollution and pollution may indirectly impact historic buildings
and monuments through additional exposure to undesirable or harmful pollut~ts
and/or increase use or access by the larger population. Similarly, increased
development in the planning area could indirectly impact historic buildings and
structures located elsewhere in RSA-29.
4-69
o
o
4.1.3.4 Mitigation Measures
To more effectively implement the City's program of certifying historic resources,
implementation program 13.4 ("the City shall adopt ~fic criteria for determining the
si~cance of historic resources and develo.pment of a certification pr~am for Histor-
ic Points of Interest. sites. structures. and Districts.") should be amended to provide for
the notification of owners when significant resources are identified on their property,
together with explanation of the benefits and constraints that this condition represents.
4.1.3.5 Level of Environmental Significance
Because previously unknown archaeological resources may be discovered during new
construction projects, and because historical resources may be lost as a result of
concerns such as public safety, potentially significant and unavoidable adverse (Class 1)
impacts may occur.
4.1.3.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Plan will include impacts which may become adverse
impacts such as:
4-69A
tC
.
o
o
ments are in place in advance of development. However, it is unlikely that the City
would implement improvements until such time as they were necessary to respond to
buildout.) Figure 9 displays the location of the roadway segments which are forecast to
be most significantly impacted by buildout of the Draft Plan. This figure illustrates that
the impacts are forecast to occur primarily along "E" Street from 1-10 to Base line Street
and south of 1-10, Waterman Avenue from 1-10 to Mill Street, plus segments of Sierra
Way, Inland Center Drive, Mt. Vernon Avenue, Fairway Drive and Orange Show Road.
Traffic on these road segments would be expected to experience unstable flow, lowop-
erating speeds, severely limited ability to maneuver and possible queue formation.
The Traffic and Circulation Section of the Draft Plan includes specific policies 6.1.1-
6.1.14) addressing the roadway impacts expected to result from buildout of the Draft
Plan. Most of these policies require the Oty and developers to work together to imple-
ment improvements including the roadway reclassifications described in Table 14, and-
provide mechanisms to implement improvements. However, implementation of two of
the policies may not be feasible. These policies are:
Policy 6.1.11
Correlate approval of new development with roadway improve-
ments that would be necessary to either maintain a "C" level of ser-
vice (a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.79 or less) and other perfor-
mance characteristics applicable to the classification of the affected
roadways or reduce the development's impact to below City estab-
lished levels of significance, and that development not be autho-
rized until measures are in place to construct any necessary im-
provements, provided that the development is guaranteed an equi-
table reimbursement for improvements provided above and be-
yond those solely necessary to accommodate that development's
traffic.
4-103
...,
o
o
possible, the improvements should be directly related to specific development projects
through the use of traffic studies, fees, and exactions.
The following Policies, in addition to 6.1.11 and 6.1.14 discussed above, specifically
guide the City in developing the proposed Circulation System:
· The City shall annually review the functioning of the street system as part of the
Capital Improvement Program to identify problems and shall actively pursue
implementation of improvements identified as needed in a timely manner policy
6.1.1; implementation program m6.1).
· Require that all City streets be constructed in accordance with the Circulation
Element Functional Ciassification Map and the construction standard established
by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer (policy 6.1.2; 16.2. 16.11).
· Require appropriate right-of-way dedications of all new developments to facili-
tate construction of roadways shown on the Circulation element Functional
Ciassification Map, including protection of right-of-way for future roadways not
yet constructed (policy 6.1.3; 16.3. 16.11).
. Reserve t~e rights-of-way required for highways designated in the arterial
highway system shalll:le re3el"VeEll:ly the City eEl and prohibit land uses and de-
velopment that could preclude the timely acquisition of these lands for roadway
purposes sftall Ret I:le JleIlnitteEl (policy 6.1.4; 16.3).
· Direct t~e Public Works Department shell to be responsible for developing and
enforcing access standards regarding new driveways and other encroachments
to arterial highways so as to minimize side frictions that are detrimental to safe
and efficient functioning of arterials (poli<;y 6.1.5; 16.4).
4-107
--
-
o
o
· The CitJ traffie eftgineer sitaR p,Prohibit, where feasible, left-turn movements to
and from any driveway within 250 feet of an existing or planned signalized
intersection (POlicy 6.1.8: 16.4).
· =ffte Req.uire that cumulative and downstream impacts of new development on
the circulation system citywide sftaU. be evaluated and adequately mitigated con-
current with development where practical, provided that the development is
guaranteed an equitable reimbursement for improvements provided above and
beyond those solely necessary to accommodate that development's traffic (POlicy
6.1.12: 16.7. 16.8).
· =ffte Require that the burden of costs of roadway improvements including traffic
signal installations shall be equitably distributed among property owners/ devel-
opers benefiting from new development and highway users (policy 6.1.13: 16.7.
16.8).
· 'The City saaR \i'Work with Caltrans to insure that construction of new freeways
(Route 30) and/or widening of existing freeways (1-215, 1-10) include appropriate
sound walls or other mitigating noise barriers to reduce noise impacts on adja-
cent land use (policy 6.2.1: 16.9. 16.11>.
· The City sftaD p,Provide for the development of mixed-use residential-commer-
cial-office developments to capture demand that would otherwise travel to an-
other area (i.e., increase opportunities to work and shop close to home and to
conduct errands close to work) (policy 6.2.5: 16.12).
· Provide for the development of mMulti-family residential areas shan be f3llHlf1.ea
near job centers to maximize opportunities for people to live and work in close
proximity to one another (POlicy 6.2.6: 16.12).
4-108
"....
o
o
. The City SRan rRequire that a traffic impact study be prepared and submitted to
the City for review and approval for all new developments or substantial im-
provement to existing developments which will result in significant increased
trip generation so that an adequate evaluation of potential significant traffic im-
pacts associated with proposed new developments is obtained prior to project
approval and shall require the implementation of appropriate mitigation mea-
sures prior to or in conjunction with project development (poli<;y 6.2.7: 16.13).
. The CUy sRall rR!'!quire that adequate access be provided to all developments in
the City including, where feasible, secondary access, to facilitate at a minimum
emergency access and egress for the development (poli<;y 6.2.8; 16.4, 16.14).
. The City sRall rR!!gulate on-street parking of trucks where necessary to discour-
age truck parking on primarily residential streets or in other locations where they
are incompatible with adjacent land uses (poli<;y 6.3.2: 16.15, 16.16).
. The City SRalI. tiDevelop and promote interconnected pedestrian facilities and al-
ternate modes of transportation (poli<;y 6.4.1).
. The City shall rRequire the provision of adequate pedestrian access for new de-
velopment projects through its standard site plan review process (poli<;y 6.4.6:
16.18).
. The City shall ppursue implementation of a shuttle service connecting regional
commercial and employment centers in the downtown and Tri-City areas (policy
6.4.11; 16.22).
. Encouraie mMeasures which will reduce the number of vehicle-miles traveled
during peak period, shall. he eneewageti, including the following examples of
these types of measures (poli<;y 6.4.12: 16.22):
4-109
-,ft
-
o
o
1. Incentives for carpooling and vanpooling.
2. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.
3. Conveniently located bus stops, with shelters.
· ReQuire that !\New developments sftaY size their improvement to service the up-
stream needs of future developments, consistent with the long range infrastruc-
ture needs of the City, as approved by the City Engineer CI6.23>'
TIle Ciratlatieft Blemalt al.se eefttams a series ef imp1eH\ef\taaeft pregi'lUftS. These
pregi'ams The implementation programs contained in the Circulation Element shall be
carried out by the City to implement the goals, objectives and policies listed in the ele-
ment. The following are key implementation programs which must be carried out to
ensure that the Circulation System improvements are completed:
· Prepare Annual Five Year Capital Improvement Program.QQ,ll
· Right-of-Way Dedication~
· Access Standards (16.4)
· Traffic Signal Timing and Installation (16.5)
· Infrastructure Cost Allocation/Reimbursement Program.ilQ2l
. Traffic Systems Fee (16.8)
· Implement Land Use Element (16.12)
· Traffic Impact Analysis Standards (16.13)
· Secondary Access Guidelines (16.14)
· Neighborhood Protection Plans (16.162
· Pedestrian Master Plan (16.18)
· Transportation Demand Management Plan and Ordinance (16.22)
The remaining implementation policies are equally important, although they have less
direct impact on the roadway improvements analyzed in this EIR.
4-110
.....
o
o
The demand for additional water service resulting from General Plan buildout will re-
quire the construction of new and/or upgraded water transmission, storage and distri-
bution facilities within the planning area pursuant to the Municipal Water
Departments' Water System Master Plan. CeneHl PlaR PaYees HUI. Pregrllfl\S relatiag
General Plan policies 7.6.1-7.6.11. 7.7.1-7.7.3. and 7.8.1 and implementation pro&rams
CD7.2.17.11-17.14, 17.17-17.19. and 17.41 relate to water supply, transmission, distribution,
and storage ADd are intended to tie development into the availability of adequate do-
mestic water service.
Secondary impacts, e.g., noise, air quality, and impacts to biological resources, associat-
ed with the physical construction of new water facilities could also be of concern, both
short-term and long-term. These impacts will be identified during the environmental re-
view process for specific development projects in the planning area.
4.2.2.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
Multiple public and private water purveyors are responsible for providing water ser-
vice within RSA-29. Ultimate buildout of RSA-29 is anticipated to require approximate-
ly 153,000 acre-feet of water per year (Table 19).
4.2.2.1.4 Mitigation Measures
Draft Plan policies and programs relating to water facilities require:
'. .
· Development to be served from an approved domestic water supply (policy
7.6.5; 17.17);
· The construction of upgraded and expanded water facilities to support existing
and new development (policy 7.6.2; 17.2.17.16.17.19);
4-120
...
.
o
o
· Adequate water facilities be operational prior to the issuance of certificates of
occupancy (policy 7.6.4: 17.17); and
· Monitoring the demands on the water system and, as necessary, manage and I or
limit development (policy 7.6.6: 17.6. 17.17>.
Adherence to these policies is expected to adequately mitigate impacts to water supply
as buildout occurs in the planning area.
Mitigation measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the con-
struction of new water facilities would be identified during the environmental review
process for specific development proposals.
4.2.2.1.5 Level of Environmental Significance
The additional demand for water resulting from Draft Plan buildout does not exceed
the available water supply within the planning area. Therefore, no significant adverse
impacts are expected to occur with respect to water supply (Oass ill).
4.2.2.1.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No unavoidable adverse impacts with respect to water supply are expected to result
from implementation of the Draft Plan.
4-122
.. -
o
o
4.2.2.2.4 Mitigation Measures
No adverse impacts are expected with respect to solid waste collection activities as a re-
sult of implementation of the Draft General Plan. Consequently, no mitigation mea-
sures are required.
Impacts to area landfills resulting from General Plan buildout of the project can be miti-
gated by General Plan policies 7.12.1-7.12.5. 7.13.1. and 7.13.2 and programs 17.4. 17.24-
17.31. and 17.41 which:
· Require the City to participate in regional long-range planning for the provision
of adequate landfIll capacity (policy 7.12.5 and prolrrams 17.26-17.28); and
· Require the City to participate in the development and implementation of recy-
cling programs (both local and regional) to reduce the amount of solid waste re-
quiring disposal (policy 7.13.1 and programs 17.27. 17.28. and 17.30).
4.2.2.2.5 Level of Environmental Significance
No significant adverse impacts with respect to solid waste collection and disposal are
anticipated that cannot be mitigated to a level of non-significance by policies of the
Draft General Plan or the County Solid Waste Management Plan (Oass ill).
4.2.2.2.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Intensification of development under the Draft Plan will result in generation of greater
volumes of solid waste and will contribute to the ultimate utilization of existing landfill
capacities. While short-term impacts are potentially significant after ultimate utilization
of existing landfills, long-term impacts can be mitigated through implementation of
County and City solid waste management practices per the County Solid Waste
Management Plan.
4-125
111.
o
o
the City's Sewer System Master Plan. Approximately 35.6 mgd of wastewater generat-
ed will be generated in the planning area total, at General Plan buildout (Table 18). This
total amount of wastewater requiring treatment is less than the Master Planned expan-
sion of the SBWRP.
Secondary impacts; e.g., noise, air quality, impacts to biological resources, associated
with the construction of new sewage facilities could also be of concern from both a
short-term and long-term perspective. These impacts will be identified during the envi-
ronmental review process for specific development projects in the planning area.
4.2.2.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
Maximum buildout of RSA-29 will result in the generation of approximately 91.8 mgd
of wastewater as indicated on Table 19. Wastewater collection and treatment services
are provided by several different agencies within RSA-29.
4.2.2.3.4 Mitigation Measures
CeftEral Plan flelieies am!. flrsgi'affiS relatiRg te wastev;ater fl1cilities l't:EfHire: The Draft
Plan addresses wastewater facilities with policies 7.1.1-7.1.8. and 7.5.2. and
implementation prolrrams 0)7.1-17.15. 17.21. and 17.41. These policies and programs re-
Quire:
· Construction of upgraded and expanded wastewater collection and treatment fa-
cilities to serve existing and new development (17.1. 17.5);
· New development to connect to a master planned sanitary sewer system per the
Department of Public Works Sewer Policy and Procedures (17.3);
· New development to secure capacity rights for the SBWRP flrier t8 tfte iGsl:laREE
8f lniilaiftg fl....,".its; ltR6. as a condition of proiect approval (17.4);
4-128
II..
o
o
. Monitoring the impacts and demands of new development on wastewater collec-
tion and treatment facilities and, if necessary, manage development to mitigate
impacts (17.6).
.
Adherence to these policies and to the discharge requirements set forth by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, should mitigate
impacts with respect to wastewater disposal as buildout occurs in the planning area.
Mitigation measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the con-
struction of new wastewater facilities will be identified during the environmental re-
view process for specific development proposals.
4.2.2.3.5 Level of Environmental Significance
Adoption of the updated General Plan is not anticipated to result in any adverse envi-
ronmental impacts with respect to wastewater collection and/or disposal that cannot be
mitigated to a level of non-significance (Class ill).
4.2.2.3.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Implementation of the revised General plan is not expected to have any unavoidable
adverse impacts with respect to wastewater disposal or treatment.
4-129
,,~
-
o
o
4.2.2.4 Natural Gas
4.2.2.4.1 Existing Conditions
Natural gas service is provided in the planning area by the Southern California Gas
Company. The company owns, operates and maintains underground gas lines in most
of the public streets. Southern California Gas Company has indicated that its existing
distribution system will adequately serve existing and future customers in the planning
area, and the company has no plans for major upgrades of its system in the near future
(TBR page 3-56). In 1987, the planning are used approximately 503 million cubic feet
(mcf) of natural gas per month (Table 16).
4.2.2.4.2 Project Impacts
Buildout allowed per the revised General Plan would be expected to result in the use of
an additional 383 mcf of natural gas per month (Table 17), a 76 percent increase above
1987 consumption. This additional demand for natural gas represents a commitment of
a non-renewable energy resource. Approximately 886 mcf of natural gas will be used in
the planning area at General Plan buildout (Table 18).
4.2.2.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
Buildout of RSA-29 could result in the use of approximately 2.3 billion cubic feet of nat-
ural gas per month (Table 19).
4.2.2.4.4 Mitigation Measures
General Plan policies related to energy conservation (policies 11.1.2-11.1.7, 11.1.9,
11.1.10, and 11.1.14) are intended to reduce the amount of energy (natural gas and elec-
tricity) needed to serve the planning areas. Specific pPolicies and implementation
programs which encourage energy conservation include:
4-130
L/_
o
o
· Incorporation of energy conservation features in new construction and site
development (policy 11.1.2: 111.3. 111.4, 111.6);
· Installation of energy conservation features in existing construction (policy
11.1.2; 111.3. 111.4. 111.6>:
· Energy audits of existing structures (policy 11.1.3: 111.7. 111.8); and
. Incentives for the installation of energy conservation measures (policy 11.1.4:
111.7,111.8).
4.2.2.4.5 Level of Environmental Significance
The Gas Company has indicated that it is able to provide natural gas service to the plan-
ing area at project buildout. hnplementation of the Draft Plan is not anticipated to have
an adverse impact with respect to natural gas utilities (Class ill).
4.2.2.4.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Even with implementation of energy conservation measures wherever feasible, buildout
of the revised General Plan would result in an increase in natural gas usage. This repre-
sents an incremental decrease in the future availability of this non-renewable resource.
4-131
o
o
Increased use of geothermal resources and the subsequent reduction in the use of tradi-
tional energy supplies would be considered a beneficial impact of the project.
4.2.2.5.3 Cumulative Impacts
Maximum buildout of RSA-29 will result in an electrical demand of approximately four
billion kwh per year (Table 19). Increased use of geothermal energy resources in the
cumulative project area, and the subsequent reduction in demand for traditional energy
resources would be a beneficial impact.
4.2.2.5.4 Mitigation Measures
General Plan policies related to energy conservation (policies 11.1.2-11.1.7. 11.1.9.
11.1.10. and 11.1.14) are intended to reduce the amount of energy (natural gas and elec-
tricity) needed to serve the planning area. PelieiES relates. te Efterg)' eSftSfr7atiSft ift
ehis.e: Specific policies and implementation programs CD encouragin~ ener~ conserva-
tion include:
· Incorporation of energy conservation features in new construction and site
development (poli~ 11.1.2: Ill.3. Il1.4. Ill.6):
· Installation of energy conservation features in existing construction (policy
11.1.2; Il1.3. 111.4. 111.6);
· Energy audits of existing structures (poli~ 11.1.3; Il1.7. Ill.8); and
· Incentives for the installation of energy conservation measures (poli~ 11.1.4:
111.7.111.8).
In addition. policies 7.18.1-7.18.3 (and implementation programs 17.38 and 17.39) pro-
vide for continued development of geothermal enerID' distribution lines. public fund-
ing. and public education regarding the City's available ~eothermal resources.
4-133
L_
o
o
4.2.2.5.5 Level of Environmental Significance
No adverse impacts with respect to use of electricity and geothermal energy are
expected to result from project implementation (Oass ill).
4.2.2.5.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No unavoidable adverse impacts with respect to electrical or geothermal energy are ex-
pected to result from project implementation.
4-133A
LId
-
o
o
4.2.3.1.2 Project Impacts
Under maximum buildout of the Draft Plan, San Bernardino's population will expand
to 260,326, a 33% increase over the 1987 level. Development will also intensify, and
both these factors will, in turn, increase the demand on police patrol, traffic and associ-
ated services. Based on the City's existing ratio of 1.7 sworn officers per thousand
citizens, the maximum buildout population would require an additional 198 officers.
Based upon ratios described in Appendix D, 28 additional sergeants, 9 additional lieu-
tenants, 3 additional captains, 65 additional non-sworn personnel and 79 squad cars
would also be necessary to maintain existing levels of service.
4.2.3.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative population in RSA-29 is projected to reach 644,070 persons by the year
2010. Of the total cumulative population, 28% will be contributed by the City of San
Bernardino. As the vacant, unincorporated areas of the northwest quadrant are
developed, the City may require increasing support from the County Sheriff's
Department until such time as they are annexed and become the jurisdiction of the City
Police Department. This means that the County Sheriffs Department will be required
to allocate a greater proportion of its services to the City's planning area in the future.
4.2.3.1.4 Mitigation Measures
Although the Draft P~an buildout of the Draft Plan will create a significant impact on
police services, the Draft Plan has incorporated policies (8.1.1-8.1.6 and 8.2.1-8.2.4} and
programs (18.1-18.9) which will allow City Police services to meet the increasing
demands. Not only shall the City provide funding necessary to adhere to state and
federal standards .!m.:11 but the City shall conduct an annual assessment of the Police
Department to evaluate current and anticipated infrastructure and staffing needs (18.2).
Effective utilization of funding sources will occur through programs incorporated in the
Draft Plan which centralize funding development lUui esteBlish a staff pssitisR speaHe
4-139
.--.
o
o
te that I'lH't'ese ~ Finally, the Draft Plan calls for programs which coordinate
private security patrols and crime prevention activities, establish an early intervention
program for youth as well as support and expand Neighborhood Watch programs 08.6-
18.8).
With effective implementation of the Draft Plan's policies and programs, no mitigation
measures are necessary to eliminate or reduce impacts.
4.2.3.1.5 Level of Environmental Significance
The increase in population and community activity accommodated in the Revised
General Plan will significantly impact both City and County police services. However,
with appropriate implementation of the Plan's policies and programs, these impacts
will be addressed adequately and mitigated. Therefore, the Plan's impact on police
services is a Class II level of significance (significant impacts that can be mitigated).
4.2.3.1.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
If police personnel and equipment are increased in proportion to population growth
within the City, no unavoidable adverse impacts to police services are expected to occur
from implementation of the Draft Plan.
4-140
,.
-
o
o
the California Department of Forestry and the Central Valley Fire District's fire services.
These and other entities which have joint mutual response agreements with San
Bernardino may have to respond increasingly to calls in San Bernardino's Planning area
as the number of fire sources and the demands on emergency services grow.
4.2.3.2.4 Mitigation Measures
To offset the increased potential for wild fires, as well as to maintain an adequate level
of fire service for the expanding City, se-.ual numerous policies and programs have
been incorporated into the Draft Plan. These include policies 8.3.1-8.3.4. 8.4.1-8.4.6.
8.5.1. 8.6.1. 15.1.1-15.1.8. and 15.2.1-15.2.8 and implementation programs U>8.10-18.19.
and 115.1-115.9. Administrative programs include annual City documentation and
assessment of fire services and events (18.13); periodic review of the City's mutual aid
agreements for unincorporated areas (18.17); and a study on establishing a greenbelt
buffer between foothill residential development and wildland areas fI15.7). The Draft
Plan further states that the City's development code shall incorporate both landscaping
and construction provisions of the Foothill Communities "Greenbelt" Program (18.10).
Development projects will be reviewed not only for their conformance with policies and
programs in the Draft Plan but reviewed also as to their effects on the level of fire
services 08.12). Finally, the City shall impose fees on development as permitted by
State legislation, where development of fire facilities are necessitated (18.19).
Given that these and other policies and programs of the Draft Plan are effectively
implemented, no mitigation measures are necessary. .
4.2.3.2.5 Level of Environmental Significance
The Draft Plan policies and programs can control fire hazards, but not eliminate them.
Therefore, the impacts are determined to be potentially significant but mitigable (Oass
m.
4-146
--
-
._ "'-~J
o
o
4.2.3.3.4 Miti~ation Measures
The Draft Plan I"rel"eses I"elieies lIRa I"regams v,hieR IIff iftteftaea te H\aiRtaiR ana
iRll"reve Plan policies 8.7.1-8.7.3. and 8.8.1-8.8.7 and implementation pr<>il'ams (I)8.20-
18.29 focus on the maintenance and im~rovement of the quality of education for both
youth and adults. Key programs of the Draft Plan include annual City assessment of
the adequacy of public educational facilities and the use of non-traditional funding,
such as additional residential development impact fees 08.20). Also included are
policies which address the need for citizen awareness and education through the use of
cable television broadcasts of City meetings and other publici emergency information
(policies 8.8.3. 8.8.5). Given that these and other educational policies and programs of
the Draft Plan are effectively implemented, no mitigation measures are necessary.
4.2.3.3.5 Level of Environmental Significance
The Draft Plan contains policies and programs which, when implemented, will allow
for the expansion of educational services to meet the expanding population. Therefore,
the Plan's impacts are significant but mitigable (Class m.
4.2.3.3.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Given implementation of measures included in the Draft Plan's educational policies and
programs, no unavoidable adverse impacts on education are expected to result from
buildout of the Draft Plan.
4-152
lII.
o
o
1,000 population; 1-2 acres per 1,000 population should be allocated for neighborhood
parks.
The Oty of San Bernardino currently provides 521 acres of developed parks. This
equals 3.7 acres per 1,000 population; .9 acres per 1,000 of neighborhood parks. This
indicates a shortage of 182 acres based upon standards discussed above. However, this
deficiency is offset somewhat by three regional parks, various school sites and the San
Bernardino National Forest, all of which provide additional recreational opportunities.
4.2.4.2 Project Impacts
Under the Draft Plan, the City's population may grow to 260,326 people. Based upon
NRPA standards of 5 acres per 1,000 people, the City should provide a total of 1,302
acres of local parks for this future population. This means that in order to both improve
the existing park ratio and maintain the standard through to maximum buildout of the
Plan, 781 acres will be required in addition to the existing base of 521 acres. Because the
northwest comer of the planning area is currently lacking in community parks, parks
and recreation facilities will become especially acute there as the vacant areas are
developed and as presently unincorporated lands are annexed.
4.2.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
By the year 2010, an estimated 644,070 people may reside in SCAG's RSA-29. Based on
this estimate and the National Association's standards for park land dedication, 3,220
acres of local parks will be needed in the area; the City of San Bernardino's future need
for 1,302 acres of parks represents 40% of this total.
4.2.4.4 Mitigation Measures
The Draft PlaR Ra5 iReerfleratea flelieies aRa flrsgrams whim aaeEIHatdy Plan policies
9.1.1-9.1.14. 9.2.1-9.2.7. 9.3.1-9.3.10. 9.4.1-9.4.8. 9.5.1. and 9.5.2 and implementation
4-154
_I.
-
o
o
programs <D 9.1-19.23 address the expanding needs for parks and recreational facilities
in the City. ThE!R.programs include the preparation of a comprehensive master plan of
parks which identify existing sites to be improved or expanded as well as target
acquisition locations for future parks !I2J}; determination of neighborhoods with low
park acres-to-people ratios.il2&l; and estahli&hH\~ studrini the need for establishini a
new position in the Parks and Recreation Department to monitor and expand funding
programs 09.11). Emphasis is also placed on the purchase, acquisition or base of
surplus public lands, particularly Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek and Lytle Creek, for
low intensity recreational use (19.15. 19.16). Finally, administrative and legal
mechanisms shall be established to allow for benefit assessment districts and special
taxes to fund proposed acquisitions and improvements (19.23).
Given that these and other park related policies and programs in the Draft Plan are
effectively implemented, no mitigation measures are necessary.
4.2.4.5 Level of Environmental Significance
The Draft Plan has incorporated policies and programs, such as the preparation of a
park master plan and expansion of funding mechanisms, which, if effectively
implemented, will mitigate the potential demand for parks. Therefore, the Plan's
impact on parks is significant but mitigable (Class II).
4.2.4.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Given effective implementation of the Draft Plan, no unavoidable adverse impacts are
expected.
4-155
c
o
· Indirect loss in the quality of remaining wildland habitats as a result of increased
human-related activities within and on the edges of open spaces. This impact in-
cludes such things as light and noise disturbances, introduction of exotic species
and predators, decline in air and water quality as a result of pollution, animals
killed upon highways, direct depredations by humans, and other less apparent
impacts.
The net result of these impacts would be to reduce the extent and diversity of the exist-
ing biological.resources and replace these resources with a habitat typical of an urban
environment.
Policies and programs of the Draft Plan affecting the future condition of biological
resources in the planning area include:
· The acquisition and maintenance of a data base (POlicy 10.1.1, implementation
program (1)10.1); designation of a Biological Resource Management Overlay.!lm!:.
icy 10.2.1, nO.2-n0.5); and establishment of an Environmental Review Board to
act as an advisory body to the Mayor and City Council in matters of project
review (within the Biolo~cal Resource Management Overlay area). conformance
with development standards, mitigation and monitoring (policy 10.2.2, nO.2-
nO.5).
· The establishment of a committee to investigate the feasibility, suitability, and to
make specific recommendations for the acquisition of property rights to accom-
plish a corridor connection between the Cajon/Lytle Creek Wash area and the
publicly owned National Forest Lands (policy 10.4.1, nO.6. nO.7. and nO.9).
· The preservation and enhancement of riverine habitats for sensitive fish species
through establishment of a committee to investigate feasibility, suitability, and
the making ofrecommendations (policy 10.5.1. nO.1, nO.2. and nO.B).
4-162
I!".
""-
o
o
· Halting the further loss of two federally-endangered plant species in the
floodplain by requiring assessments, mitigation and by restricting off-road
vehicle use (policy 10.6.3, 110.2).
The Draft Plan's policies and programs, such as those discussed above. attempt to
provide safeguards for sensitive biological elements beyond that of existing state or fed-
erallegislative mandates. For example; the Federal Endangered Species Act provides
no protection whatsoever to species occurring on private land unless they are involved
in projects requiring federal approval or funding. Similarly, private projects do not
come under the jurisdiction of the California Endangered Species Act. California's
Native Plant Protection Act requires only that landowners give the Department of Fish
and Game ten days notice before destroying protected plants provided the landowner
has previously been notified of their presence. Moreover, the Draft Plan provides some
measure of protection to a broader spectrum of sensitive biological elements, including
natural communities, than do state or federal listing programs. In this respect, the Draft
Plan's policies are ahead of current legislation in addressing the issue of preserving bio-
logical diversity at the local level.
4.3.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
Indirect loss in the quality of remaining wildland habitats in the planning area is expect-
ed as neighboring communities continue to buildout, thereby causing increased de-
mands upon these wildlands for their scientific, educational and recreational values as
well as intrinsic values such as flood control or amelioration of air and water quality.
The impact of the accumulated buildout of neighboring communities is expected to con-
tinue the current trend of loss of biological diversity.
4.3.1.4 Mitigation Measures
Even with all of the Draft Plan's policies and programs relating to biological resources
implemented (policies 10.1.1. 10.2.1-10.2.6. 10.3.1-10.3.4, 10.4.1-10.4.3, 10.5.1. 10.6.1-
4-163
.... "l
c
.
10.6.3, and programs 110.1-110.9), impacts to biological resources may occur. Such im-
pacts could include the direct loss of listed federally endangered plants in the Cajon-
Lytle Creek Wash area, as a result of the Draft Plan's intensified industrial zoning in
this area. Additionally, this area also supports the sensitive Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
habitats. The Draft Plan also allows for development to occur within the mountainous
areas designated for hillside management. This may adversely affect sensitive biologi-
cal elements through direct loss, or more likely through secondary or indirect degrad-
ing of habitat caused by fragmentation and increased edge-effects of human presence,
noise, lights, exotic species introductions and general declines in air and water quality.
The Draft Plan's policies and programs should minimize any adverse effects on biologi-
cal resources by requiring that the City's buildout be rational and cognizant of its bio-
logical constraints. This will occur by establishing a management (overlay) zone (policy
10.2.1. 110.2-110.5), within which will be required development review and design stan-
dards to protect the resource.
A potential problem could occur in implementing the Draft Plan during the Initial
Study phase of project review, whereby the City determines (initially) whether there is
potential for significant impacts to resources associated with individual projects: In
many cases, the individual responsible for making this determination does not have ad-
equate training or information available, and in addition may know little of mandated
protections, and therefore, cannot make an informed judgment. The Draft Plan partial-
ly addresses this problem by requiring that the biological Data Base Report shall be re-
ferred during the Initial Study for each project proposed to the City (110.1). However,
the Data Base is admittedly incomplete and inadequate as a single source of information
upon which to make an Initial Study determination.
To site and develop land uses to minimize impacts on sensitive biological resources
(Objective 10.2), the Draft Plan should assure an adequate assessment of biological
resources during the Initial Study phase of project review. Amend implementation pro-
gram 110.1 to include:
4-164
,.A
o
o
· The City shall retain the services of a qualified professional biologist<s) whose
function shall be to evaluate Initial Studies for proposed projects from the
standpoint of potential for impacts to biological resources.
Policies 10.4.1 and 10.5.1 in the Plan call for the studies to determine the feasibility of
establishing connected open space and of enhancirtg fish habitat. There does not appear
to be specified time limits for implementing programs nO.6 and no.s in connection with
these policies. Therefore, these programs should be amended to specify:
....The committee shall present to the Mayor and City Council a written report of their
findings and recommendations within two years of Plan adoption.
4.3.1.5 Level of Environmental Significance
Because the Draft Plan does not uniformly impose project review and design standards
uniformly over the project area, then those areas outside the identified Biological
Resource Management Overlay (BMR) do not receive the increased level of protection
afforded therein. Consequently, impacts to previously unrecognized biological resourc-
es could occur outside the BMR, especially if the Initial Study fails to identify potential
impacts. These impacts are deemed potentially significant, but mitigable (Class II)
through adequate Initial Study procedures and strict adherence to CEQA mitigation re-
quirements.
'. .
4.3.1.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The Draft Plan does not, and cannot, preclude the conversion of land from vacant or
wildland uses to urban land uses. Over time, continued fragmentation of habitats for
wildlife and plants, together with concomitant increases in adverse edge-effects and
general degradation in the quality of remaining habitats is expected to continue the
local and regional depletion of biological diversity.
4-165
...q
1
o
o
4.3.2.3 Cumulative Impacts
Substances emitted into the air in the northeastern portion of the San Bernardino Valley
affect the adjacent communities in the Redlands, Riverside Basin and Pomona Valley
areas and other contiguous valleys. Pollutants are frequently transported to the San
Bernardino Valley from the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley and the greater
Los Angeles Basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan does not specifically
address control requirements for adjacent areas, but recognizes that control measures
within the San Bernardino Valley and the entire South Coast Air Basin assist downwind
areas to comply with California and Federal air quality standards (SCAQMD, 1988).
Predominantly western winds frequently move air pollutants into the San Bernardino
Valley. Any increase in emissions within the San Bernardino Valley or South Coast Air
Basin will further degrade existing air quality.
4.3.2.4 Mitigation Measures
To restore and perpetuate good air quality (policies 10.10.1-10.10.6. 10.11.1-10.11.13. and
10.12.1 of the Draft Plan focus. ~e Draft Plan pelides Rave feel:lSea on promoting air
quality that is compatible with the health, well being and enjoyment of life.
A:ir Ettilllity mltigatisR indl:ldes tile Draft Plan's pelieiell Ma impleffietltlltieR pregraft13
tftat eaR fer eeRftmtea air Ettilllity meniteriRg) eeRiftg reg1:ilatieRs te B'IHlimiile veltiele
ir&"L."el ana a5sseiatea air .emissisl\5, parlieipatisR is regisaal meeh.afti5H'l5 te reatlee
emlssieflS ana iJRpreve air Efl:lality. Specifically; policies 10.11.1-10.11.10 and 10.11.12
and implementation pro&1'ams m10.11, 110.16-110.18. 110.21, 110.23. 110.24. and 110.26-
110.28 address the air quality situation by providin~ for mechanisms (includin~ zoning
regulations) to minimize vehicle travel and associated air emissions. Policies 10.10.4.
10.121. 110.16 and 110.28-30 provide for participation in regional mechanisms to reduce
emissions and improve air quality. Working with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District and other local cities in the South Coast Air Basin will help to co-
ordinate and ensure effectiveness of programs and mechanisms to improve air quality.
4-176
f_r\
-
-~
,-
o
o
k. Fortieth Street: from Wildwood Park to Mountain Avenue
1. Mountain A venue: from 40th Street to Marshall Boulevard
m. Hospitality Lane: from UE" Street to Waterman Avenue
n. North Park Boulevard
o. Airport Drive
San Bernardino's urban forum is dominated by its pattern of north-south and east-west
arterials. Along these are grouped continuous and semi-continuous masses of commer-
cial buildings. In the downtown area and along portions of Highland Avenue CUE"
Street to Waterman Avenue), Mount Vernon Avenue, and Base Line Street, the build-
ings front directly onto the street frontage and directly abut one another. This conveys
a typical pedestrian-oriented ''Main Street, USA" character. Most other commercial cor-
ridors are developed with multi-tenant centers setback from the street frontage and sur-
rounded by asphalt parking lots, infilling the grid pattern of commercial-lined streets is
a uniform pattern of low and moderate density housing. Along the northern limits of
the City, this pattern varies to reflect the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.
The City's uniform pattern of development is broken by a number of clusters of high
density and land extensive uses. They include the downtown, Tri-
City/Commercenter/Club area, Inland Center and Central City Malls, Norton Air
Force Base, California State University campus, San Bernardino Valley College campus,
Santa Fe Railroad yards, Auto Plaza, and National Orange Show. Additionally, much
of the southern portions of the City is characterized by a sprawling pattern of industrial
and vacant lands.
4.3.3.2 Project Impacts
The Draft Plan sets forth policies and programs that will, generally, enhance the visual
character of the San Bernardino planning area. These include policies 1.43.1. 1.43.2.
1.44.1. 1.45.1-1.45.10 and implementation proWams 11.1-11.4. 11.6. 11.9. 11.12. 11.17. and
4-183
, J
-
I
~~
o
o
11.23. The policies and programs are designed to work in concert with additional densi-
ty and development in a manner that will support the character of existing districts and
sites, and enhance the character of other districts and sites, through development and
infrastructure improvement standards.
The Draft Plan, in the Land Use and Urban Design, and Urban Design for Public Open
SpaCes Sections, targets specific districts and corridors for improvement or enhance-
ment programs, including: City entry and gateway improvements, streetscape im-
provement programs, facade rehabilitation, design and development standards, signage
standards, and policies and programs designed to enhance and facilitate pedestrian ac-
tivity.
The general visual quality of development and construction will be improved by imple-
mentation of the Plan's policies and standards. These include policies 1.13.32. 1.13.34.
1.14.40. 1.15.34. 1.16.32. 1.19.30. 1.19.31. 1.20.31. 1.20.34. 1.21.33. 1.22.31. 1.22.32. 1.22.34,
1.23.30. 1.23.31. 1.24.30. 1.24.32. 1.25.31. 1.25.33. 1.26.31. 1.27.30. 1.27.31. 1.28.30. 1.29.32.
1.31.31. and 1.3230. Among these are architectural design guidelines which mandate
the avoidance of anonymous, undifferentiated "stucco-boxes" and establish a "pedestri-
an-oriented" character in the ground elevation of commercial structures in key activity
areas of the City and requirements for the extensive use of on-site landscape and ameni-
ties.
Existing commercial districts will become more visually .distinct due to the limitation of
uses and establishment of precise development standards for commercial, industrial,
and residential sub-areas of the City. For example, specific community-serving com-
mercial areas, such as Highland Avenue "Core" between ''E'' Street and Waterman
Avenue and the Mount Vernon "ethnic themed village" between 4th and 8th Streets,
will be developed in accordance with architectural and site design guidelines which dif-
ferentiate these from other commercial corridors and districts. Region-serving commer-
cial centers will be further differentiated by intensity and design; including the down-
town and Tri-City /Commercenter area. Each of these, as well as the other key districts
4-184
,,~
.It
-
I.
'''''''''"''''-
o
o
While the Oty's overall open spaces will be reduced by development in accordance
with the Draft Plan (as previously discussed), public parklands and recreational areas
will be expanded. These will include neighborhood, community, and regional parks,
recreational corridors in the Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek, and Lytle Creek, and "green-
belt" linkages to the San Bernardino Mountain foothills.
4.3.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
Buildout of RSA-29 at projected levels would alter the aesthetic character of the commu-
nities involved as densities increase. However, the extent of impacts on viewsheds,
both to and from the developed areas, will depend upon specific architectural and de-
sign standards used on a project by project basis.
4.3.3.4 Mitigation Measures
Many of the Draft General Plan policies and programs will mitigate the impacts of
development on the City's visual environment. (These policies include 1.1.xx-1.38.xx
which. as discussed in the land use section of this EIR. address design and development
suidelines for all permitted uses.) In some cases, they will enhance the visual character.
Principal among the latter are the following:
1. Guidelines for the compatibility (height, mass, architecture), setbacks, etc.) of new
development as infill in existing districts and neighborhoods.
2. Guidelines for the architectural and site character and design of residential,
commercial, industrial, and public uses (e.g., facade articulation, variation of
building volumes and masses, and landscaped setbacks).
3. Requirements for the establishment of visual buffers between uses of different
function and density.
4-187
14
-"
it"
C)
o
4. Establishment of pedestrian-oriented commercial districts at key activity locations in
the City.
5. Programs for the development of urban design improvements throughout the Oty.
a. Street tree master plan; consistent planting
b. Entry and key district identification
c. Streetscape improvements (furniture, landscape, paving, lighting, and signage)
in the Oty's key districts (downtown, Tri-City/Commercenter, Mount Vernon
Theme Center, Santa Fe Railroad Depot, Waterman Avenue Office Industrial
Park, Regional Opportunities Corridor, Highland Avenue "Core", etc).
6 Prohibition of the construction of new billboards (policy 1.45.1, 11.1).
7. Increased design standards for signage (policies 1.45.1-10 and 11.1, 11.9. and 11.23).
8. Guidelines for the visual compatibility of new residential development in hillside
areas, prohibition of cut-and-fill residential pads on slopes exceeding 25%, and
prohibition of any development on slopes exceeding 40%.
9. Financial assistance and other incentives for the renovation and upgrade of
deteriorated buildings.
10. Evolution of areas of mixed use and density to a more consistent and uniform
pattern, improving their visual quality.
While the Draft General Plan will result in the increased intensity of buildings
throughout the City, many of the visual impacts will be reduced by the prescribed
policies for architectural design, vertical setbacks of building elevations, property
4-188
faU
u
-
,~~-
o
o
compatible land uses, and assure adequate reclamation. The primary areas of
Construction Aggregate Sectors, including most of the B, C, and F areas will not be
impacted by the Draft Plan because these areas will be designated as Industrial
Extractive or Public Flood Control. These designations effectively preserve the Sectors
for future aggregate extraction uses. The smaller disjunct Sectors F-l, C -4, C-5, C-6, C-8,
C-I0, F-l, F-9, F-12, and F-20 are planned for various urban uses but these Sectors are
either currently urbanized or are in urban areas where the impacts to the community
from mining activity would be greater than the proposed urban uses.
Land uses in the Draft Plan surrounding some of the Sectors may experience some
impacts related to dust generation from the mining activities, although in many areas
industrial uses are proposed as buffer areas adjacent to the Industrial Extractive zones.
However, in the Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek areas, residential uses and planned
residential areas do border potential extraction areas and may experience potential
impacts from fugitive dust generation related to future mining activities.
4.3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
In RSA-29 the Cities of San Bernardino, Bloomington, Colton, Fontana, Highland,
Redlands, and Rialto contain construction aggregate deposits designated as MRZ-2 by
the California Division of Mines and Geology, indicating that a commercially mineable
aggregate deposit is present. Active aggregate mining currently occurs in San
Bernardino, Bloomington, and Fontana. Loma Linda and Yucaipa do not contain any
MRZ-2 zones. Implementation of the San Bernardino General Plan should not affect
the minability of the MRZ-2 zones located in RSA-29.
4.3.4.4 Mitigation Measures
In order to preserve future aggregate production areas, allow future mining activity,
and ensure adequate reclamation, the Draft Plan policies 10.7.1-10.7.6. 10.8.1-10.8.10.
and 10.9.1-10.9.5 and implementation proWams (1)10.10-110.13 have focused on the
4-193
rp
.-
Jl,
-
o
o
location of mineral resource extraction areas, defrning compatible land uses, and
reclamation.
Location of mineral resource extraction areas are provided for by the Draft Plan policies
10.7.1-10.7.6 that 6ftEi focus on the identification, inventorying, and mapping of sites
with the goal of managing these areas to meet the mineral extraction needs of the area.
These policies are expected to reduce potential impacts pertaining to the loss of mineral
resource areas to acceptable levels.
Mitigation measures addressing the issue of land use compatibility focus on reducing
conflicts between the productive use of mineral resources and urban growth. Policies
1.34.31 and 10.8.1-10.8.10 specify buffer zones, compatible adjacent land uses, access,
monitoring programs, environmentally sensitive habitat avoidance areas, and mining
approval procedures. On a more site-specific basis, operators of aggregate extraction
facilities in areas where dust generation may impact adjacent urban uses shall follow a
dust mitigation plan including paving or watering access and haul roads, reduction of
mining activities during high wind periods, covering or watering open aggregate haul
trucks, and planting windbreaks on the periphery of the mining area. These activities
should be periodically monitored for compliance since most potential impacts related to
dust generation might not be able to be totally avoided through mitigation.
The third level of mitigation contained in the Draft Plan is to assure adequate
reclamation of mineral resource extraction areas. Policies 10.9.1-10.9.5 detail
reclamation requirements, exploration procedures, review of reclamation plans,
permits, and approvals which are expected to reduce potential impacts to acceptable
levels.
The above policies are put into force by the implementation programs 110.10-110.13 de-
tailed in the Draft Plan.
4-194
'-.1...
.
-
II
JIW
,. ~Y.'''''''--
o
o
textural variability of the sediment types and the yearly fluctuations in groundwater
depth, site specific geotechnical studies would be necessary to determine actual
liquefaction and surface damage potentials.
Potential slope instability areas include the front of the San Bernardino Mountains, the
Shandin Hills, and other localized areas of moderately steep to steep slopes. Regional
ground subsidence has occurred historically in the southern and central portions of the
Oty but is not currently a problem due to the local water district's groundwater
recharge practices. Wind and water soil erosion currently occurs on sparsely vegetated
and barren slopes with sand and silt texture soil material.
4.4.1.2 Project Impacts
The City of San Bernardino planning area can be expected to experience a large
magnitude earthquake sometime during the life of the Draft Plan or during the life of
the structures constructed while the Draft Plan was in effect. Therefore, the
Geologic/Seismic section of the Plan is specifically written to reduce impacts via both
policies (12.1.1, 12.1.2. 12.2.1. 12.3.1-12.3.4. 12.4.1-12.4.8, 12.5.1, 12.5.7, 12.6.1-12.6.3.
12.7.1. and 12.7.2) and implementation programs (112.1-112.46) from initial planning
through emergency response and disaster recovery.
A brief summary of hazards that can be expected sometime in the future includes
ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, slope instability and wind and water
erosion. Ground subsidence is not currently considered a problem because of the
existing groundwater recharge program.
Ground shaking or ground acceleration will, at sometime in the future, impact existing
structures, new structures, and the population growth anticipated by the Draft Plan.
Fault rupture impacts are reduced in the Plan by designation of lower density
residential uses on larger acreages within Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones. Potential
impacts from liquefaction have not been adequately reduced by the Draft Plan because
4-201
I~
-.
e
o
of the large areas of the central and southern parts of the Oty in liquefaction
susceptibility areas that will still experience growth. Areas of potential slope stability
problems are designated Hillside Management with reduced densities and, therefore,
reduced impacts, in these areas. Many of the most severe wind and water erosion areas
are also included in the Hillside Management areas which will help reduce these
potential impacts.
4.4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
Generally, the geologic hazard conditions in the other portions of RSA-29 are similar to
those described for the planning area. As these areas grow, general plan and site
specific studies will be necessary to identify potential hazards and to stipulate
mitigation that will reduce impacts. The San Bernardino Oty General Plan would not
be expected to cause any cumulative impacts with respect to geologic and seismic
conditions in the other areas of RSA-29.
4.4.1.4 Mitigation Measures
Concern with geologic and seismic issues in the planning area has led to Plan
objectives, policies and implementation programs that address mitigation of fault
rupture, strong ground motion, liquefaction, critical, sensitive, and high occupancy
facilities, hazardous buildings, emergency preparedness, and post disaster
reconstruction as described below.
Fault rupture mitigation includes the Draft Plan's policies 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 and
implementation programs 112.1-112.5. 112.10. 112.27. and 112.29 which call for
identification of fault rupture areas, Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone designations,
zoning regulations, geotechnical site-spedfic studies and review and monitoring
procedures. Avoidance of the placement of human occupancy structures within 50 feet
on either side of an active fault should reduce the fault rupture hazard to acceptable
levels.
4-202
LII
-
[
..r
,,-~..:""""""-
o
o
Poli~ 12.2.1 and implementation programs 112.1-112.5. 112.16-112.18. and 112.23-112.29
address the aAvoidance of structural collapse is aelire!3sed BY a8e"ssft sf "slieks ed
implemefttaasft by inco1'JlOrating programs that deal with seismic performance
standards, building codes, technical studies, siting, and enforcement.
Liquefaction hazard identification, reduction, and enforcement is addressed in the Draft
Pie's "slieies aREl"rsgriHRs in policies 12.3.1-12.3.4 and pro~ams 112.1. 112.2. 112.5.
112.6. and)12.18-112.22. The reduction of this hazard to acceptable levels (avoidance of
structural collapse) by specific design standards developed through liquefaction reports
is a part of the Draft Plan.
Policies and programs relating to critical, sensitive, and high occupancy structures flfe
aearessed ift the Draft PIe. 1ihigassa measlH'eS ineltlae address siting these
structures in less hazardous areas, special code and design standards, and emergency
response plans. These policies include 12.4.1-12.4.8 and associated implementation pro-
~ams 112.1-112.3. 112.5. 112.9-112.11. 112.18. 112.19. 112.23. 112.26. 112.27. 112.34. 112.37.
and 112.38.
Impacts of hazardous buildings can eventually be reduced to acceptable levels by
adhering to the Draft Plan's policies 12.5.1 and 12.5.2 and programs 112.10. 112.11.
112.13-112.16. 112.27. 112.43 and 112.46. These mitigation measures include
identification, structural evaluation, retrofitting, abandonment, use limitations, and
evacuation of hazardous structures.
Emergency preparedness is of vital importance given the potential for foreseeable
significant seismic shaking in the planning area. Policies 12.6.1-12.6.3 and programs
112.7 and 112.30-112.37 dealing with this iS5t1e are detailed Ad!iress this issue in the Draft
Plan. Reduction of impacts is suggested through siting of emergency facilities,
adoption of Emergency Preparedness Plans, public education, public and government
preparedness, and access designations.
4-203
-
~
u
c
o
expose a significant increase in population to potential flooding hazards associated
with climatic patterns and topography of the area.
4.4.2.4 Mitigation Measures
.IM General Plan pelieies an6 pregrems incoJ:POrates poliges 7.9.1-7.9.9. 7.10.1-7.10.3.
7.11.1. 7.11.2. and 16.1.1-16.1.4 as well as implementation programs U>16.1. 116.2. 17.6.
17.20-17.23. 17.41 and 17.8 relating to Flooding and Storm Drains and Flood Control.
rel}l:lire! In ieneral. these policies and pr~ams require:
· The construction of upgraded and expanded storm drain and flood control
facilities to protect new and existing development (policv 7.9.2: 17.20. 17.21>.
(This would apply to the three areas discussed above not currently protected
from the 100-year storm.)
· Adequate storm drain and flood control facilities be in place in most cases prior
to the issuance of certificates of occupancy (policy 7.9.4; 17.6.17.20.17.20.
· Limitation of new development until flood control facilities are available or until
project specific flooding concerns are mitigated (policy 7.9.5: 17.6.17.20. 17.22),
General Plan policies further mitigate flooding impacts by:
· Prohibiting the construction of structures intended for human occupancy in the
100-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management A~ency
unless the project complies with the San Bernardino County Floodplain
Management Program aftEi (policies 7.9.7. 16.1.3; 17.22. 116.1).
4-210
:&.1'\
..
J
..lli
..
.
,
&.
o
o
... J'iteRibitittg eritieallat\8 uses, e.g., nsspit&l.s, fire statiSM, psliee statiens, pueBlO
aamHUS8'a:aeR bliilElittgs, ana seaeels, fFeIR leeaftRg ,\iiftiR ifte 1 e9 year ileea
26M vntfteut aaequate mitigaaeR agaiMt ileea l\!lillH'Eis.
Adherence to these policies should adequately mitigate flood related impacts to a level
of non-significance as buildout occurs in the planning area.
4-210A
~I
-
.
.
~
.
JU
'I
o
G
Twenty groundwater wells in the planning area show evidence of groundwater
contamination. Regional groundwater flow is from north to south toward the Santa
Ana River and Colton Narrows. Therefore, sources of contamination may be expected
to migrate over time in a southerly direction. Some of the groundwater wells south of
the contaminated areas have already showed traces of contamination and this trend
may continue further south in the future. It is also possible that rising water tables
south of the contaminated areas could bring contaminates to the surface in surface
water flow.
4.4.3.2 Project Impacts
Future impacts associated with proposed City-wide land uses in the Draft Plan
generally fall into the categories of 1) hazardous materials use by certain types of new
industrial and commercial businesses such as those described above; 2) construction
within previously mapped and identified contaminated areas, or construction within
areas not previously known to be contaminated and, 3) existing ground and surface
water contamination impacting the water supply.
While adverse impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected to be largely
mitigated to insignificant levels through implementation of Plan policies .03.1.1-13.1.3.
13.2.1-13.2.4. 13.3.1. 13.3.2. and 13.4.1-13.4.4) and programs (113.1-113.59). the potential
risk to public health, safety and property still exists. Given land use changes and the
number of identified hazardous waste sites and areas of groundwater contamination, it
is possible that as yet undiscovered areas of surface, subsurface and/or groundwater
contamination could exist in the project area. Also scientific advances could reveal ad-
verse affects of related materials not presently known as toxic or hazardous.
Implementation of the Draft Plan would result in increased-population exposed to these
potential risks.
4-214
':11
II
.
.0
o
o
4.4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
New growth in the geographic areas of RSA-29 may be subjected to a variety of
contamination from past, present, and future users of hazardous materials. However,
through criteria for planning, identification of hazardous material sites, avoidance of
hazardous sites, licensing and monitoring of hazardous material users, clean-up, and
public protection mitigations, potential impacts can be minimized.
4.4.3.4 Mitigation Measures
Adherence to the Draft Plan's policies and implementation programs prepesea iR tAe
Draft WaR Me discussed below are expected to reduce impacts to acceptable levels.
Policies 13.1.1-13.1.3 and 13.2.1-13.2.4 and implementation pro~ams (1)13.3. 113.21.
113.25-113.31. 113.33 and 113.35 address hHazardous waste management planning is
aaaressea if!. the Draft FlaR's peYees ana pregrams ana and operations. Policies and
prosrams detail waste disposal siting criteria, public risk reduction, recycling, flftd
meRiteftRg pFegrams. HailarElel:lS waste epel'atieR ilRpaets are mitigate a threagh
pelieies aRa. pl'6grams ,fflim iwlel-le waste minimization, licensing, monitoring,
enforcement, siting, clean-up provisions, emergency plans, fmes, and compatible land
use designations.
Emergency response planning is provided under policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 and programs
113.40 and 113.42-113.46. lIRa iftel1:1Eles These involve establishment of emergency
response plans, training, public education, and hazard inventory and identification.
Surface and subsurface water contamination mHigatieR isGaE:s are aiseussea tlftder
pelides aRa pl'6grams lIRa aae.ess are addressed in policies 13.4.1-13.4.4 and pro~ams
113.5.113.9.113.10.113.13-113.18.113.24.113.26. and 113.47-113.59. These policies and
4-215
~"
. I.l
o
o
prOlp"ams establishiftg a water quality task force, identification of contaminated areas,
study of future contamination sites,as needed, avoidance of hazardous areas, and clean-
up of contaminated water resources.
Future site-specific mitigation measures should stipulate that any development in
previously contaminated areas should be preceded by detailed soil analysis studies for
residual hazardous materials and necessary clean-up. (This is in conjunction with 113.8
which states "Develop criteria for the evaluation of sites prior to the issuance of build-
ini permits where the land use history su~gests prior hazardous waste or materials
storage or disposa1.") Corrective measures for existing groundwater contamination
should include installation of monitoring wells down the hydraulic gradient from the
contaminated source, and construction of aeration towers to treat the areas of
contaminated groundwater.
4.4.3.5 Level of Environmental Significance
Because the Draft Plan provides policies and programs to control and monitor activities
that utilize hazardous or toxic materials, impacts with respect to hazardous materials
are categorized as significant environmental impacts that can be mitigated or avoided
(Oass IT).
4.4.3.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Intensification of commercial and industrial development associated with the Draft Plan
will result in higher usage, storage and transport of hazardous materials and wastes,
thereby increasing the risk of upset to public health and safety. In addition, as dis-
cussed above, implementation of the Draft Plan would expose a greater population to
potential health hazards related to hazardous materials issues.
4-216
.::&.I.
'--',.-_..,r,:!I:'J
o
o
or greater. .Residential areas adjacent to Cajon Boulevard and North Park Boulevard
will be particularly impacted, experiencing noise increases of 8.0 decibels over
conditions in 1986. Future traffic on University Parkway and Kendall Drive will create
estimated noise increases of 5 decibels.
Future noise increases along highways servicing the City will, generally, be minimal.
However, noise levels along State Route 18 can be expected to increase by 4 decibels.
Expansion of residential areas in the northwest quadrant will cause noise sensitive
receptors and industrial noise sources (both existing and future) to be in closer contact.
In all cases, however, open space, roadways and/or commercial strips serve to dissipate
or buffer industrial sources from future residential areas. Although background noise
levels can be expected to increase, levels experienced by sensitive noise receptors in
new residential areas should not be above the recommended 6S decibel level.
The Draft Plan includes policies (14.1.1-14.1.4, 14.2.1-14.2.2. 14.3.1-14.3.9. 14.4.1, 14.4.2,
14.5.1. 14.5.2. 14.5.1. 14.5.2. 14.6.1-14.6.5, 14.7.1-14.7.3. 14.8.1. 14.8.2. 14.9.1, 14.9.2. 14.10.1
and 14.10.2) and programs .!I14.1-I14.26) which are intended to reduce the significant
potential noise impacts generated by the Plan. However, the implementation of etle
paraealar policy 14.1.3 may not be realistically feasihle effective. It states: "Require that
existing housing, health care facilities, and other "noise sensitive" uses located in areas
subject to existing or future noise levels of an Ldn of 65 dB(A) and greater install insula-
tion, wails, berms, or other elements which reduce the interior noise level to 45 dB(A) or
less, unless physically or economically infeasible or mitigation is provided by the
source." It would seem that the installation of these noise barriers in existing sensitive
uses to protect against increasing noise levels caused Qy sources outside of that use's
control. would not be economically or physically feasible in many instances.
Vehicular traffic increases are expected to contribute significantly to noise level
increases, eel as a meeile ftei5e se1tfee life Elifiiealt te miagate. Therefore, sSince vehi-
cle-related noise increases are generally unavoidable, it would be ~ unreasonable to
4-228
~~
......,
. .
o
o
require existing uses to mitigate these future noise impacts through attenuation mea-
sures.
4.4.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
Assuming that vehicular traffic will be the major source of noise increase in the
planning area, background traffic growth due to buildout in surrounding areas will
generate noise increase in addition to those created by local planning area traffic alone.
This additional noise increase resulting from background growth can be expected pri-
marily along freeways and major arterial roadways.
4.4.4.4 Mitigation Measures
The Draft Plan has incorporated manv policies and programs which, if eifeeti:1ely
ilftl'lemeRtea, will help to retard the increase of noise levels, both from land use sources
and vehicular sources. Noise related ordinances and development standards include
the establishment of land use compatibility standards (114.2); adoption of a community
noise control ordinance (114.9); and design and construction standards which attenuate
the transference of noise between uses (114.5).
The Plan prohibits new development of "noise sensitive" uses in areas subject to exist-
ing or future noise levels of 65 dB(A) or greater unless interior noise levels can be re-
duced to 45 dB(A). 'ThE: PIe alBe ~rehiBUs ~e ae-:el8J'meftt ef l:ISes "him geftefB.te
fteise le>'oe1s eave 65 aB(..'.) eR aajaemt "fteise seRSiwoe" lises. When proposed projects
may incur noise levels which exceed 65 dB(A) on adjacent "noise sensitive" uses, the
Draft Plan (114.8) calls for analysis of the noise impacts and implementation of
mitigation measures by the developer. BeelHlse effeee-oe ilftl'1emefttaaeR ef these ana
e~er Raise eatemeRt ~elieies llfIa ~ragHffts iR ~e Draft PlaR 'will realiee e!Elsellg Reise
1~1€15 as l\'eY as I'K7eat sigt\ifie:ant ftthtle iRereases, He mitigaasR measures are
Ileeessary.
4-229
':1/.
~V'.'~\N
o
o
'The geels eE tftE: "eYer tHselissee. aBeve e.ees ftet seem te BE: Pealistk vli~ tfte elllSftRg
se8"e eE tfte "fejeet; Me. tAs discussed above. implementation of polic;y 14.1.3 would
not be expected to be extremely effective. Therefore, existing "noise sensitive" land
uses may still be impacted by future increased noise levels. The only mitigation avail-
able to reduce future noise impacts generated by vehicular traffic would be to substan-
tially downsize project buildout. However, significantly reducing buildout would re-
sult in a plan that would be less effective in meeting many of the City's goals for devel-
opment.
4.4.4.5 Level of Environmental Significance
Because the Draft Plan contains policies and programs which, when implemented, will
reduce projected noise increases, the impacts are a Oass II level of significance.
4.4.4.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Any increases in housing, commercial, or industrial developments will increase the
amount of human activity associated with them and thus ambient noise levels will
inevitably increase. h8\vt\'er, t.fle mereaae ,"Jill Be minimal.
4-230
~..
~
e
o
are restricted by the Draft Plan to a building height of two stories, thereby not exacer-
bating the potential high wind hazards. Commercial uses in the downtown area of the
City are not restricted by height limits. Although the downtown is not within the High
Wind Area, the potential for high speed winds in that area could be increased as the
construction of tall buildings create a wind tunnel effect result in nuisance type condi-
tions. Any development in High Wind Areas adjacent to areas of high fire potential
could result in potentially significant fire hazards if fires occur during periods of high
wind.
4.4.5.3 Cumulative Impacts
Growth associated with future development in RSA-29 would expose a greater popula-
tion to potential structural and fire hazards associated with occasionally high wind ve-
locities. Jurisdictions would need to provide development standards with respect to
wind velocities, where deemed necessary.
4.4.5.4 Mitigation Measures
The Draft Plan has incorporated policies 15.1.1-15.1.8 and 15.2.1-15.2.8 and programs
115.1-15.9 ,""MeR to create, as well as support and expand, building and development
standards to prevent the increase of wind speeds, and the resulting wind hazards
wherever, possible. The policies and programs provide for construction of buildings
and residential dwellings to withstand extreme wind velocities (poli<;y 15.1.1 and pro-
grams 115.1 and 115.4); prehffiit eeftaitieRs that may resl:llt in wifta aamage te SRue
ftHoes; prohibit conditions related to architecture and sitinS that would be most likely to
incur structural wind damage (poli<;y 5.1.2 and programs 15.3 and 15.4), and reducing
adverse funneling of winds (policy 15.1.5 and programs 115.1, 115.3, 115.4, and 115.6).
The Draft Plan also provides safeguards to minimize risk from fire that may spread
under high wind conditions including adherence to standards specified in the Foothill
Communities Protective "Greenbelt" Program (poli<;y 15.2.1 and programs 115.1-115.3
and 115.5) and the use of fire retardant building materials for development in the High
4-233
=loR
_"m__._.""""""'"
o
o
Wind Hazard Area (policy 15.2.6 and programs 115.2. and 115.3). With effective
implementation of programs such as siting, design and landscaping guidelines and the
elimination of unsafe structural elements, no further mitigation measures are necessary.
4.4.5.5 Level of Environmental Significance
Although the Draft Plan provides policies and programs. as detailed above. to control
hazards associated with wind velocities, additional development, particularly in the
undeveloped portion of the northwest quadrant, could channel winds to a significant
degree, increase the potential for wind related and fire related damage.
These impacts can be mitigated by restricting building heights, location, and adhering
to fire prevention in the High Wind Hazard Area. Consequently, impacts with respect
to wind are considered to be Class IT significant environmental impacts that can be miti-
gated or avoided.
4.4.5.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Expansion of development into the northwest quadrant and the Hillside Management
Areas would increase the population exposed to occasional high wind velocities and as-
sociated potential damage.
4-234
--
~".
;"
o
o
co/l VI UJ>Yl
C I T Y
o F SAN B ERN A R D
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8904-2508
I N 0
REC'O.-AD"'IH. OFF.
F
1939 A?R II fi1~ 9 24
TO: FRED WILSON, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: T. L. CAIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, RISK MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PATE: April 10, 1989
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Approval of the General Plan does not appear to pose any
unusual (new and/or different) liability exposure. The
"reasonable prudent" rule still applies to all acts by
employees of governmental entities with certain exceptions.
Your attention is invited to the enclosed Summary of 1988
legislation with particular reference to the last item.
We see no significant increase or decrease of liability
exposure of the proposed General Plan,
--14, ()~
T'. L. Cain
Acting Risk Manager
TC/sf
Attachment
..
to
,-~.~,'-"""'~
~ .
o
o
X. LIABILITY/INSURANCE
LIABILITY
1. Land Failure. AB 3694 Harris Cha ter 1034 Statutes of 1988. Under eXisting
law, neither a pu ic entity nor pub ic emp oyee are a e or property damage or
infliction of emotional distress where the private property damage WIS caused by _
land failure resulting from a natural condition of unimproved public propert,.
AB 3694 provides that this immunity is not applicable where the public entity or
public employee had actual notice of probable damage to private property dUlj&
potential land failure and failed to give a reasonable warning to the af . .cd
property owners. If such a warning is provided, neither the public entit I
publ ic employee can be held liable for damage or injury arising from giv1 ~.
warning. This bill amends Government Code Section 831.25. . . . _\,.. .
2. Hazardous Substance Releases. AB 3946 La Follette Cha ter 1401 Statutes of
1988. Existing law allows a property owner to see in emnity or contr tion or \
cleanup costs from prior property owners or others who, deposited hazardous!
substances on their property. AB 3946 provides that any person (1.e., including.
local government) who has incurred costs to remove hazardous wastes or conducted;
remedial actions may seek indemnity or contribution froll any person held liable i
for depositing or discharging wastes. This bill amends Health and Safety Code'
Section 25363. '
3. Police Dogs; Liability for Dog 8ites.' AB 2973 (O'Connell), Chapter 298, Statutes
of 1988. This bill provides immunity froll liability for government agencies which
use dogs in police work for dog bite duages if the dog was defending itsel f frOll I
an annoying, harassing or provoking Ict; or the dog was assisting an employee of I'
the police departllent in apprehending a criminal suspect, investigating a cri_,
executing a warrant, or defending another person, However, this immunity onlJ
a li es where the a enc has ado ted a wri tten 01 icy on the appro riate use 0
oQS or po ce work. his b amends Section 3 42 0 the Civi Code.
4. Immunity frOll NeglIgence Actions for Members of Advisory Bodies. AB 3992,
Frazee Cha ter 490 Statutes of 1988. Under existing law, members of elected I
or appointed city counc; s, boards 0 supervisors, commissions, school district,
boards and governing boards of local public entities are personally immune from
lawsuits based on the act or omission of the public entity. AB 3992 extends this
immunity to locally elected or appointed members of advisory bodies. This bill
amends Government Code Section 820.9.
.'
.. 53 ..
Cil
-,"
o 0
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino. Risk Manal:ement (dated April
10.1989)
Fl Comment acknowledged.
Stj
---~'--"-"-~'''~-
o
o
CITY OF
G
San Bernardino
'LANNINQ DE'ARTMENT
I
I
April 14, 1989
Hr. Joseph Gibson
Director of Environmental Review
ENVICOH CORPORATION
4764 Park Granada, Suite 202
Calabasas Park, CA 91302-1593
Dear Hr. Gibson:
The Planning Department is beginning to shift the focus from
the General Plan to the General Plan ErR as the time to
review the DEIR begins to narrow. We have forwarded one
comment to date and now have several more that you can begin
working on. These comments will enable you to begin the
changes we feel are necessary to make the document adequate.
To ensure there is not an unnecessary work crunch at the last
minute, we are requesting these changes and the previous
change be provided to us for our review by Friday, April 21,
1989. If you cannot meet this deadline, please call us the
day you receive this letter and give us the absolute date you
will have the changes made and sent to us.
The following are the additional changes we found to be
necessary:
Page 2-5:
At the bottom of paragraph 2-5 the discussion
of new residential units and square footage of
commercial/industrial.use should be amplified
by a discussion of the number of acres in each \
category that will be converted from undevel-
oped status or current uses to the proposed
uses. This information is in Table 2 and is I
equally important to the absolute increases in
homes and square footage because it provides
the basis for discussion of natural resource
impacts, as opposed to public utility and
service infrastructure impacts. Also, to
assist with an evaluation of sensitivity of
converting land, a discussion or map showing
the location of the increased land converted
should be provided.
300 NORTH 'D. STREET, SAN Bi.ANAAOINO.
CALIFORNIA 1241'-0001 "4',.4.....'
. PRIDE-I
"IN PROGRESS
~L~~--=i1f '2-:1.
-
o
o
Mr. Joseph Gibson
April 14, 1989
Page 2
Page 2-6:
Page 2-7:
Page 2-12:
I
The land use policy map should be augmented
with a map illustrating current developed
areas, undeveloped areas, areas where develop-
ment is designated and areas where conserva-
tion uses are established. Such a map is a
key communication device for the reader of the
EIR.
2-
At the bottom of the' first full paragraph on
the page, the term "intensification" of older
deteriorated neighborhoods needs to be
addressed and these areas should be shown on
the map discussed above to provide a sense of
spatial change within the City.
3
..
This document
the boundaries
readers with
considered for
needs to provide a map showing
of RSA29 in order to provide
some sense' of the area being
cumulative impact evaluation.
4-
Additionally, we have received only one comment on the DEIR
from the San Bernardino Unified School District. We have
included it for your response. Please include your response ~
when you send us the above referenced changes. If you should
have any questions regarding this request, please feel free
to call me or Ann Larson-perbix at (714) 384-5057. Thank
you.
c~ ROS~~
D~ L. ER
Diro~t of P1000in.
mkf
---,
:~ ". .,. "_ :.1,,:
; \,'.
-;......
. .~'"
UU",~~,~..
o 0
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino Planning Department (dated
April 14.1989)
Gl To provide information regarding the acreage of additional residential, commercial,
and industrial uses per buildout of the Draft Plan, the last sentence in the first
paragraph, page 2-5, will be amended to read: "In comparison to land uses and
population existing in the planning area in 1987, development in conformance with
the Map and associated policies and standards would result in an additional 26,028
residential units (9,001 acres), 36,551,621 square feet of commercial use (1,180 acres),
50,774,408 square feet of industrial use (1,942 acres), and a population increase of
65,070, as indicated in Table 2 (in Summary Section). In addition, Figure 4a will be
added to the EIR showing existing 0987) vacant lands that would be developed per
the Draft Plan (Figure 4). That figure is included in this document on the following
page.
G2 The EIR indicates those areas that are currently 0987) developed in Figure 5
"Generalized Land Use (1987)", p. 4-28 of the DEIR. Undeveloped areas are also
indicated on this map as "vacant". In addition, Figure 4a, highlighting those vacant
areas, will be added to the document as described in response to comment G1
above. Areas where development is designated is shown in Figure 4 ''Land Use
Policy Map", p. 2-6 of the OEm.
In order to provide more information regarding the relationship between currently
vacant lands that are to be developed per the Draft Plan and the conservation uses
referenced in this comment, three additional figures are being added to the Em.
These include:
Figure 14a. ''Location of currently 0987) vacant lands in relation to Fire Hazard
Areas",
~o
o 0
Figure 15c. "Location of currently (1987) vacant lands in relation to Biological
Resource Management Overlay", and
Figure 20a. ''Location of currently (1987) vacant lands in relation to Alquist-Priolo
Special Study Zones and areas of high liquefaction susceptibility".
'nlese new figures are included in this document on the following pages. The text of
the EIR will be amended to reference these additional figures where appropriate.
G3 The following information will be added to the text of the EIR where indicated in the
comment: ''Intensification refers to the replacement of older, deteriorated single-
family dwelling units with multi-family units. This replacement of units is indicated
to occur in the older areas of the City abutting, and north of, downtown.
Specifically, intensification would occur primarily in the area bounded by 1-215 on
the west, Highland on the north, Waterman on the east, and the downtown area on
the south (Figure 4a). In addition to those areas of intensification shown in Figure
4a, it should be noted that virtually all existing commercial and industrial uses <Fig-
ure 5) could potentially intensify because the existing level of buildout is consistent-
ly lower than the floor area ratio allowed in the Draft Plan. While it is unlikely that
most existing commercial/industrial uses would intensify their development, such
intensification would be allowed given the floor area ratio established in the Draft
Plan."
G4 Figure 4b will be added to the text to indicate the area referenced as RSA-29.
G5 This comment is included in this document as comment "C".
0(_
<
....
w
a:
~
(!J
I&.
J......,..... /..,,>\..,..)0... A... .--. .'../'1@r."...........'T
Wi *\\' J f" ) '''1'' ...,]t
; r-; '10 IS .....d
~ iE i
z
:5
Ii.
Ii:
~
c
a:
w
c
z
~
w
(!J
z
<
:z:
o
w
en
~
c
z
:5
I&.
o
~
a:
<
..
Ii:
s
~
oS!
l!
. ..
'8 j
~ ~
C I!
rJ ~
~ f
if
'5.-
= ~
c -8
~ .8
::l 0
o eo
m
m:;J
~
t"... It.
rf[ili!I!ti::;~~:~': J,,! ' ..,
l,.... r '.'
,;fir ....~:i
f'
E~
?fAik,J ^--
I.......................L
~'~fl~llf~
i:l~'I:J
.;.:.:.:.;.-.;.":-. € I-I .j::,
o
-
~
E
!
8
I
:;)
ii
E
I.
II ·
a:~
....ii
0'1:
.-
~~
<.5
EI
EB
E
-~
c
o
;:
~
Ii
c
i
ii
=
c
-8
II
a:
....
o
.
I
<
.
=~
E9
_0
"'J"
;;::
o
i=::
~
~
0:
o
U
~
o
u
s;
ffi
'-,Wl'd
;;
I
I
,
,
\
\
(j )C"
'::::i.
~~\,
\,
o
_ 0
. .
- Ii
.
o
~
"
.
"
IS'.''''''
..'
.@~
'.:-
:~;:::~., ','i.:;
"^l
~~
'f{""'" ,-\
; ..
ti
':':-:':jf: ::~~:::::::::::::::::::.
.
-
~
EB
~'].
"ft
c
.,
...
III
~. ~._- --0
:5 t
!z ~
C .!
U III .. !
C ill 'U ..
>a:ili
F:' c -J Go
Ie c'!
c!i go
~~>.3
Z:z:F:'5
~~!i I I
a:iL-J' i '8 Ii
:) ~. :z: c; :z:
uoc~ . !l !!
I&.l-lD" ~ ~ 2!
ozc-3! I:-!
~~ag Jj , i
~ illJ c? .llP
-Ja!:
w
a:
:)
"
ii:
'/
.
I
I
,
I
I
I-
I
I
~~~
~\
\',;;;;rE......
I -
I
I
--I
-..y_ I
{'ot'" Il~
..'
c.,'-
I l_...
I "
-' ,
"'Y"'''''M
-_. -0
-.-
\
'-
--I
-_I
Vi 1'" -j
e 1- z :J
. ".
,-
.-
,'-
II !!!!Il:
,
/
L__
/1
-, I .
y' r'
WI
~ , Ui
J !
J .
I
.'
..- :
" ..
" ..
.... I
"
'"
I ...".,
"
-a
-ft
_0
! 1
..
.
.
.
..
i
..
~z
~
g
~
o
&i
01
U
~
!J
::::;;
~
0"
'Ii"
,"
r :=-..r=iiiitA o.n
I
.-
I
J
'.W' ''''
T "
"
-J
'- -' .. .."..,
;;
I
D
:;:
oft"'.
.u
Iii
..
W
II:
::l
Cl
i.i:
>
.
...J
II:
W
>
o
~
w
::l!
w
Cl
.
Z
.
~ :
z U
II:
II! ::l
II: 0
::l013
U,..II:
I&,Z...J
00.
i!jj:Q
!;:5g
..w...J
UII:O
OZ-
...J_ID
lfl
C
z
:5
~
.
U
.
>
f;:'
1IO
Cl>
..
-
.
'ii
., -
~C
~~
c'!
M~
~l
II
C.ll
~~
C ·
~]
Og
mD
o
..
l
s
>-
01
'C
l:
o
c
-~
-
Ii
Ii
ao
01
c
I
~
~
II
II:
.~
-0
'lZ
~
~
~
~
8
~
o
~
:>
as
11
'61
.S!
o
iii
,
,.. l
,
1..
II ,. '"
! i
.
.
=
..
.
..
,$-i"
''''''I
..:lJt
I.y ""'"
.1 .....
II
i
~
III
C c~
z
:5 z= ..
... C !D. .li> ~
z 11I1= lI.
<1 WII. S :a
ZW ~ f
~ 00 . .
NIIl '" ! c
$; >::;) 'g .. ~
Clll c C :J
...S III ~ /-
CII ::;)Z ..10..
... ...0 C
- C.., ,g :J / .
1Il- -
~ ..It; a~ u III . /
CC .l! i .. .
z Dill ::.~ !l !
W
It W::;) ,.." l:T
It 11.0 ;1 ::; III
::;) 1Il_ .c ,g
000..1 -.ll ~ 0
1&......1:1: .2'~ ';::
c ozQ~ c · :I: II.
-
~ zolt:l: ~~ 0 1i
W 01=11.1&. a.D ! 'S
It I=ct;O g g
::;) c..l-1Il C
CJ OW::;)c c:;, .-.
oltOW lliJ
iL ..I z..l It :;:;:::; ./
_cc ..
'''W -1'4
=,
-~
-I
-0
IS '.'lI'lY
"\jZ
:2
Q
~
~
~
0::
8
~
!.:1
::s
~
.
_ 9
... ;li
.
9
.
.
.
.
..
'''~O''''''1f
IS Itid'"
0;
:i
~
o.
CITY OF SANaJERNARDINO - OIEMORANDUM
To
Brad Kilger
Director of Planning
COlDlllents on the "Environmental Impact Report"
From Robert Ewing
City Librarian
Date April 19. 1989
H
Subject
Approved
Date
We have reviewed the draft of the EIR and found that libraries were not
mentioned at all. The omission is perhaps due to the law that requires
only certain areas to be addressed specifically. We think that in spite
of the law libraries should at least be given a hearing.
Attached are the pages with the suggested wording that would allow the
library to be included in the report.
I3d-
Robert Ewing
City Librarian
RE:mb
'-. .,
~ ;.~ ;
. - '. -.-
: I ~
. .'
i ~ ....
~-..
t ....
. ..
,j .
.
~-'
r~pj~ ~: I} ~989
.}x~ :"L~,~;~~.;:i'. . _ . :.~:~T
~;1?: ~~f("-.;.:,E;,;;.. .:. ~;,\
, i=RIC.-: ..*
~, :1'~1' ;;:;:.-:... -=_.~ ~
-. .11, >4. ...... ..... '_"'"
.." ~ .... . I
~~\~~?
. ......,..
..
^ ..
o
o
:
2.0 DESClIP'l'ION 01' 11.TE1lHATIVES
1'JIe thr.. alurnati.,. luu:l use plana ba.,. been fo~ated to present a
rua;. of future devwl~t options. The alt.rnative. rUlC)e iD acale frea
one wbida --"~_he. the pre.ervation ofe1dat1nq use. uu:lllaita develop-
MIltiD ._:l.tive envir~ta1 re.CNI'Ce aren, to an option wbida pro-
vide. for iDtensification iD aiati.Dq area. uu:l allows additional develop-
MIlt iD hi'''ide uu:l other ~ta1ly ._iti.,. ar....
The attadaed land use plan ups depict the distriJNtion of luu:l use which
could OCCUI' ~r the three alt.mati.,. plana. The luu:l use cla..U-
ication depicted OIl the.e plan up. repre.ent a r&DCJll of allowable densi-
ties uu:l iDtensiti.. desipdto repre.ent flmc:tiODal land use types.
%!Ie.e land use classificat:tou reflect a new ayat_ of cat.gories. uu:l
differ frOll the City'. ClUTant General' Plan imd z-.;..v deaic;natiou.
table 2.1 presents a Ust of the land use cat.gories. th.ir a.sociated
densities uu:l iDt_iti... and a de.cription offlmc:tiODal luu:l USe typ..
for eeda cat.qory. Categorie. an qenerally vrouped III'lder Residential.
Co.Dercial. Bized. Induatrial. Public/OUa.i Public. and Hanaqeaent cla..- "L'
ificatiODS. Under Public/Quasi Public. which include Public Facilities) ft,abl.c. ,
Public Parks. Public Flood Control. and Public/Commercial Recreation, it
should be noted that no !!!! area. have been de.iIJDated on the alternatives
ups. Aa areas of luu:l are brCNCJht IIDder public ownership, the City'.
adopted General Plan will be updated tc! reflect the c.bange iD land use.
Under the Hana~ent classification. Hillside HanagelleDt uu:l Floodplain
Hanaqeaent catelJOries allow variable claveloplHnt densities aonq the three
altemati.,... While the physical location of the.e UDa~t cateqories
is prillarily the .... -V the three alt.mative.. density is permitted
to vary to reflect the overall developll8nt .trateen of that altemative.
l-
e.
-'
OVerview of Alternative 1
'!'he basic land use .trateen behiDcl Alternative 1 is twofold, (1) to
.i".;..;~e development iD environmentally sen.itive anel/or hazarclou. area.,
uu:l (2) to pn.erve the eld..tin; built environment. Thi. alternative
l!.its den.itie. in area. of .ensitive habitat, hillside area. of qreater
than 15 percent slope. and areas subject to flood haurd and hiqh noi.e
level.. Exi.tinq re.idential neighborhooels and commercial and industrial
eli.tricts an predollinately retained, with the infill of vacant parcels
pendtt.d at prevailinq densities. Growth under this alternative occurs
prwrily iD undeveloped areas unhindered by . environmental con.traints.
and in ...,.ral node. of hiqher den.ity development permitted in the exist-
1nq bu:l.lt environment. The b..ic criteria used to define land use under
Alternativ. 1 i. .. follow.,
o aetain mo.t eld.stinq sinqle-family neighborhood. at their existinq
den.ities .
o Allow re.idential neiqrllorhooels severely impacted by noise to
convert to a more appropriate land u.e type.
o P.rmit the development of second residential units in the rear of
developed .inqle-fuily lot. in econOlllicaUy depressed neighbor-
hooda.
2-1
- ..
o
o
,
f. Circulation
This element establishes policy and standards for the improve~ent of streets and
highways to accommodate the traffic generated by the development permitted by the
Land Use Policy Map. Its principal components are a Master Plan of Streets and,
Highways and implementation standards. The policy provides for the expansion of
public transit, van-pools and other alternative modes of travel. A transportation
systems management program (van-pools, car-pools, preferential parking, transit, etc.)
is established for significant employee generators and public uses to reduce vehicle
trips. The element also establishes policy for the expanded use of pedestrian,
equestrian, and bicycle paths and trails.
g. Utilitiet
This element establishes policies and standards for the prOVISIon of public
infrastructure' to support the demands by development permitted by the Land Use
Policy Map. These include wastewater collection and treatment, water, storm drainage,
solid waste disposal, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and geothermal
systems. Policy provides for the linkage of the location and timing of development with
the necessary improvements in the infrastructure systems. Funding for the
improvements is linked on a pro rata basis to development and other beneficiaries.
h. Puhlic Facilities and Services
. Jib~,'.e.:s
This element establishes policies and programs for the expansion of police, fire/{and J
cultural facilities and services to support development permitted by Land Use and
Urban Design policy. Linkages are prescribed for the timing and funding of
improvements and programs necessitated by development. In addition, the element
defines programs for the improvement of public safety through crime prevention and
protection, defensible space, and emergency response. Policies and programs prOvide
for the protection of existing and new development in areas of high fIre hazard.
2-9
3
I
Ii
A..
o
o
,
and 306 acres (31.2 percent) are developed for heavy industrial uses. These areas
contain an estimated 5,658,000 square feet of building area.
Primarily, the industrial uses are located in the southern portion of the City and in a
corridor along the west side of Interstate 215 in the northwest. In the south, industrial
uses extend from Norton Air Force Base in the east to Rancho A venue in the west.
Many of the uses in the latter area were developed to take advantage of their proximity
to the rail transit opportunities provided for by the Santa Fe Railroad yards and lines.
Industrial uses east of Interstate 215 are widely scattered and only a few are
functionally related to the Air Force Base. Largely these have developed in lieu. of other
uses in areas subject to the Base's high noise impacts. In the northwest, industrial uses
have developed along the Interstate and railroad lines. Sand and gra~el extraction
industries have been developed in the resource-rich Cajon Creek flood area. Research
and development light industries have, largely, been isolated to the Tri-
City /Commercenter areas in the south along the Interstate 210 corridor.
Public and quasi-public uses represent the second largest category of use in the
, planning area, other than streets and rights-of-way. They occupy 3,627 acres; or 14.9
percent of the area. These include a wide variety of governmental buildings, schools,
and other public uses. The two private hospitals are, also, included in this category.
The public uses are dispersed .thrqughout. the planning area. Many facilities, in I
~ p...bhc.. It Dt"'Q.f".c.s)
particular schools^, are located to be easily accessible to adjoining residential :
neighborhoods. The largest single concentration of public uses occurs in the downtown
area, which contains City, county, state, and federal office buildings. The San
Bernardino campus of California State University is located in the northwest and the
San Bernardino Valley College campus is located in the southwest portions of the
planning area, respectively. Patton State Hospital is located in the northeast, Saint
Bernardine Medical Center and the County Medical Complex are located in the central
area, and Community Hospital is located in the west. Other significant public and
quasi-public uses in the planning area include Norton Air Force Base in the southeast,
4-30
..'."-
,.-
. iii
--
II
--
,-
i.
l~
.
.
-
II
.
4-
..
-
ftlllf:.
o
o
,
13. Norton Air Force Base, while a major provider of jobs, has substantially impacted
adjacent uses due to its on-site Operations and noise. It is anticipated that the fadlity
will be dosed imminently and the future use of this significant property will have to
be determined.
14. The Santa Fe Railroad yards, historically, have influenced the development of the
City's west side; stimulating the development of extensive rail-related industrial
uses. Over the years, many of these have become obsolete and have not been
replaced with more modem facilities. This, coupled with the noise impacts of the
railroad, have resulted in deteriorated conditions.
15. The National Orange Show property, physically and functionally, is an isolated
"island", unrelated to adjacent properties, and is sporadically used throughout the
year. When it is most intensively used, its traffic significantly impacts adjacent
streets and commercial uses.
16. The California State University San Bernardino campus, physically and functionally,
is an independent "island" in the northwest of the City. It has impacted adjacent
streets due to student and faculty traffic and areas by the development of student-
serving apartments and condominiums.
17. Many recent multiple-family residential units have been poorly designed and
constructed, containing few amenities or open space.
18. The City contains few housing units oriented towards higher income individuals
and families who may work in the City.
19. The City contains many well-developed and used neighborhood and community
parks. However, there are few linkages to and recreational use of the natural open
space amenities which surround and bisect the City.
~ 0, S~~ <<iio.c.k &4C,.. ,. _, Co ~
4-36
.
,*,--V~ ~.
--
r'~
,
-
III
..
~
.JIII
-
.
G_
Itt.
,.'
II _
.I
o
o
20. The City cont<lins four br", :ch libr~ries and a Cel!tr~
library. The Librar~ ?:an calls for 0.75 sq. ft. of
library space ~er citizen. Growth areas where access to
library services is limited or non-existant include: the
northwest section of t~'e city (State University II: 'Terde:::ont),
the east section of t~e City ( relocation of the Coddin;ton
Branch :ibrar"J' is s'l.~ested, and the Inghram Brar..ch Libr'U"J'
service area (ll~adequately served b:' a 3500 sq. ft. f:l.c::.lity.
,/'
'J
21. Land use dev~lo~Je~t....
be reLucceredo
O~ext r-~~e, 4-37, woul~ ~~ed to
,
J( -36
02.
- - - III
0
"
o
!k
...,.. Land use development is impacted by the presence of significant environmental
resources and hazards. The mountain foothills contain extensive and important
riparian habitats and scrub lands. The Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek, Lytle Creek,
and tributary drainages contain significant habitat and pose a flood hazard for
development. The City is crossed by the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault systems
and a large area is subject to a high liquefaction potential. The northern portions of
the City.are impacted by a high wildfire and wind hazards.
4.L1.2 Project Impacts
Implementation of the policies and standards of the Draft Plan will result in the (a)
preservation of existing residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial
districts which are physically and economically stable and of value to the community,
(b) preservation, enhancement, and expansion of public uses' and parklands, (c)
development of vacant lands for residential, commercial, industrial, public, recreational,
and other uses, (d) infill of vacant parcels within existing districts and neighborhoods
with similar uses, (e) intensification of the intensity I density of development in areas
characterized by physically and economically deteriorating uses and mixed patterns of
development, and (f) recycling of areas of mixed use for a consistent use.
Development in accordance with the Draft Plan (Figure 4) will result in the construction
of an additional 26,028 residential units, containing a population of 65,070 persons,
36,470,175 square feet of commercial use, and 50,774,408 square feet of industrial use.
Table 8 indicates the increases in development which wiUoccur on buildout of the Draft
Plan. In addition, public uses, including governmental administrative and service
facilities, SchoolsU,~'If,I~ftu-al facilities, and similar uses, will be expanded in the
planning area. These specific locations are not depicted in the Draft Plan, because of the
potential for property condemnation for public use. However, policies and standards
contained throughout the Draft Plan provide for their development and distribution.
For example, the Draft Plan establishes an objective for an additional 507 acres of
parklands to serve existing and future residents. Street and highway improvements,
4-37
(,
I
--
. .
o
o
accomplished by the limitations on use and development standards specified for
"Light," "Heavy," and ''Extractive" industrial areas. Presently, many of these areas
are characterized by an extensive mix of uses which often are incompatible with one
another. The presence of commercal and residential uses in a number of areas
compounds these problems. Long-term development for consistent uses will lessen
the incompatibilities.
b. Areas along Waterman Avenue will be developed for "Office Industrial Park" uses
on implementation of the. Draft Plan. This will accommodate a mix of light
industrial, research and development, corporate office, and supporting retail uses in
an extensively landscaped park-like setting. Such development is a reflection ot the
current trend in intermixing offices and industrial in business parks throughout
California (e.g., Irvine Industrial Park). The uses and developmen! standards
prescribed by the Draft Plan will considerably improve the physical and visual
quality of this corridor, which currently contains an unattractive mix of industrial,
commerdal, and residential uses.
Co Implementation of the Draft Plan's polices and standards will increase the
compatibility of heavy and extractive industries with adjacent land uses. Polices for
property setbacks, visual screening, noise and air emission controls, and other
buffering elements will enhance their compatibility.
S. Public Use Areas
a. Implementation in accordance with the Draft Plan will result in the continued use,
enhancement, and expansion of public uses and fadlities in the planning area. The
_ Draft Plan polices will result in the development of additional parklands,
h~~cvemmental administrative faclities, police and fire stations, hospitals and other
health care facilities, utility corridors, flood control improvements, and other public
4-46
..
--
II
II
..
.
.
[II
.
.
.
.
1-
o
o
budget cuts have limited the ability of the Districts to construct these new schools and
revenue generated from developer fees (Assembly Bill 2926) are an inadequate
supplement.
4.2.3.3.2 Pm;ect Impacts
Given maximum buildout of the Draft Plan, 26,028 housing units would be added to the
housing stock of 1987. This would be expected to generate 14,168 additional students,
based upon student generation factors supplied by the San Bernardino City Unified
School District (Table 20). This 38% increase students resi~g in the City would be
expected primarily where the greatest increase in housing will occur: in the downtown
area of recycled and intensified housing, and in the major infill areas of the northwest
quadrant. This will result in impacts on the Rialto Unified School District as well as the
San Bernardino City School District.
4.2.3.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
,The expansion of the student population in the City of San Bernardino will have its
greatest cumulative impact on the RiaIto Unified School District because of this
District's proximity to areas of future development. Based upon San Bernardino City
School District's generation factors, the proportion of students from San Bernardino
attending Rialto could increase by as much as 70%, further aggravating Rialto's cW-rent
overcrowding problem. Other adjacent school districts may be affected as well,
however, to a lesser degree: Colton Joint Unified School District is not adjacent to any
major housing intensification areas and Redlands Unified School District is adjacent to
an area of future industrial! commercial development.
',p' . . -Aon;"- -.....-ul.-.........n
Lib -~. ~"'c'li.l.":.as ,,,.;"!j,, "";3e1 to :.:e~"j ';'E'~ce '../:'..11 04ri.1:. .. ......J _....~ ~.........,
:-:l.. J J..~... _ _ _ . __ . .
. . -.... b-.; c "'c-"oc' ~ 'ind i:: "')ost seconi:lZ":!" ~':t'lC~t:;,..:;~.
ir.c~u:!u; stun '=::...5 J.n ~u __ .~ u _ _
. ~5 - it ,ar ~~div'd~~ and
Tho!! ~lJD!.=-C Lib:-;rJ Fl~ C".u!.s l~r . I ~o. .: _ __.. _
. ... .. .,
~'/O b-:-cks !,er ~:l_J.VJ.._U.u..
4-150
B
. .
-
.:
~
8
-
3
~
~
o
:c .:;
r'5
-=:>
E ;
!!-
<-
..
..
UJ
.! ~
:!l;
..~
!! .
<~
~tjl
> 0
-= ..
EU
!! ~
-q
<
-~
.~.::
e ..
Il. E
o~
Z<I
o
-
..
... 8-
.... 0..
.5 fa Q. e.I a
~ _ :0 E ~
o c c 0._
=o.-cn!n
~5~c~
~"Oo.2c..-
GI-~-(J-
Z .... .. c ~
:> i-;;;._ ..
=
$/ ..
.. c 51
,.; .. C Q,. ta
-","-B';~
.:: .. Q..- '7 CJ
C co ~ "'C ..,.s
ccc"<>!-,,;
.= Q'O'o I:l:; 8
51::: o.-tJ._
""CI~Ct;:.::~
!-oo.!2'Cj'ECJ
"~~:;5.co"
Z:>i-;;;..Vi.5
-
..
... 8-
.... 0..
C ~ 0.... =
.- cs III E ..
C :J _
c = c Jl .:
~ o'eD lJ
- E c c' ..
'" f:I ~ 0 ~
~"Eo::~~
QI QI ~ ~ ~ .,
Z:>i- ;;;.:;;;
-
..
... 8-
.... 0..
c ~ 0.... =
- .. .. E ..
C_:.I C
C ~ C C ._
=O'-U1",
~ Ere 51
Co! _ _ cs
~~ c.:~:::
II c:; ): to ~ to
Z:>i-;;;._;;;
c
-~~
.. c ..
."s.E-~
c"'K.'=a."
'c :; :0 "5 G.~
.g~.5~1l=~
~E~.~e.~
IIICJG.lCCS:'::~
~'E c.g'~'c 51
Z.. ~ ~ ~ ~.~ c
",.- en 11'1 V'J._
i:;
:!
c
. ..
c ~ K...
-to ~
c_!:Ec':;
c c c 0.__
-= Q '0'0U'l .. ..
~ccc5!t:
.. .. 0 .. 8-
~'EC=~o..
GI Co! ~ fa ~ :=
Z:>i-;;;._ ..
J
!
'"
~
'0 .~
lfa
~Vi
0-
-
c
5
;::
10
Vi
"fi --
c
.."..c:.2 iii
. .o.ft__
- '6 '0 ~'6 )1
:!"c..c:""c
,g"'5.A...u
-.. ""_ r") '"
'6..~ l!.n ~
." .... oc 0 - I'l:I
..!!:a'=ihc
... C_ .-- CoI
R~:!:ggE
",.i!c,,'5.s1
-"'::C")lIIlU
-
c
5
-
10
Vi
..~
.!'J ce..!. :....
-.J. g;;:":l ...
j:g'5.!:i.'g~
-ftlWlI_&I'\CI
'6N~l!c::iE
.,,:~COCN..
.. :11._ ...._.
-..c'= fA II '"
N~;;'68;;8
'<<!.~g'g~6~
S::'iQ=aob:=~
=
5
;::
10
Vi
..
- j ~
l! '6:11 "c
,g~~;;:II
.: OIl c ,."
." ("If'- 0 '-'
"a .....c..: ftI
... ~ .,:.--
C '-"0 C
NCJ-"t:Ic"
~"'l!"E
.. ::::lI 0'" CI
,..U;::oci"U
;::1'\ c
e
1
Vi
-
c
5
fa
Vi
or
-,j i
s'6:11 ~
='gfa~ :II
."N'- 0 ~
"0 .",.c:: ftI
fa.!! ..:._-
c '-"0 C
-C"I-"'''
~"'l!"E
'.i! O"l ..
S!.,.::",Qi
~
v
-
c
5
-
.~
Vi
or
;;.J. '0..: ,."
c"'C~.- ""
.S! "'C vii.... to
~ fa "" C..!! c '
:g.. ~ ~:~ ~!! . C
-~."uii.. 5
lIa~;;""Oi'O ;::
C")."tJ c ....c:... 0 C
.... .i! 0 '" '!.ON '€ .!.O
.."';ClD..c:...."" (,I)
;; j.J. '~t-
C .t:"'C:J :eta I
""_c -"~"'c
_ ,.. DOftI CoI
." at-: -.., e
"C .,.: N..c: - CI
..vt._...a.:..._ .~
C "0 .!! '-.!! CI.!! J =
~~'gg~8~g~ III
t~~~.g~.g~f e
=
III
..
o
Il
.!
C
"
."
III
-0
-
~
~
'0 .~
]~
.5-ID
-
c
.~
-
.~
Vi
.,;
'"
..
..
_0..
0_
:0 :!
.. 0
u .-
.. .:
~:g
.....
-
c
.~
fa
Vi
.,;
'"
..
- ..
Co..
~;;
u C
".s
<8:;
"':,."
-..
.,;
'"
..
_a
0_
g.~
.. .:
...."
"'."
.... ..
-
c
5
~
III
III
'l!
_a
c_
.. ..
.. c
b.2
.. .:
~~
III
'"
..
'Oa
OI-
l!! ..
u c
...S
100.-::
-":l
'<<!.~
-..
III
'l!
_a
0_
Ill!
c.2
.. .:
-"
..."
......
." Il
5~
..
115
la ..
llod'
=
e
;::
'c
co
Vi
I
I
I
=
e
;::
'c
01:
Vi
I
.
C
5
;::
.~
Vi
.
I
I
-
c
5
;::
.~
Vi
I
I
I
=
5
;::
.~
Vi
J
~
-
-
J
:II
..
o
~
-5
c._
]}
.'
. -.
. t.
o
1
'"
~
i]
o
----
~
'"
j;
.:>
.--!
....
.
....,
~:....
....,
c:
~
.n
~
"
"=
~
r;:
~
:i
~
'=
~
.
i:.
-.
+'
"
"
"
'::;
:;
~
.}
~
'0
~
~
~
..
tJ
,~
>
...
"
~.~
v ~
~~
.;; :..::
','
~
~~
~ - ~ 4)
:; ..... .~
;..~:; >
-::' .~ - ;..
.:
''; =
'-'-
~
..
~
i:
"
...
>> .,
!... .
"
.., r:: ~. ..
~:;
.Q -
'~ "
>~ c
.~ ~ ..,
- -
. .
-
.;:; iJ
~ -:: .3
-Uo f t:"4'\Lo
~..... ~ . ~ ~ =-J.;:;
.... 0:..... """ ~ _ G
;::I:; Co..t:: = u...:
. r- ~-: :: c
>a i C'" 0 !'"'1 c:
~ ~ :II ::'" > 1) .:... u
~~....:O'-~::;:
... X Q . :: '~"f"'4
~:"_~':'l=- _
(,) -;J -;,.\ .. ~
~;:o.....'::>"C .~.
:aJ_.....t_r""'t:: to,
:::
0:
"
1!
<::
()
..,
"
..-
<.
g
:;:;
...
.-
...
OJ
.~
g
.:.:~
~"3
~ =:;
:.:' -
"
-.) -. C-? '"';
.1. ~:-_.,....,
~ ?
"=
...
Z
~ -
<; ::\:
'-
.:
~
~
~
". :,
~~
~.. ~sJ
..:;:..~
~
:-.
;..
'"
.~
,JJ
'"'!
."
.;: >>
'..~
....
.
'-1 _
:..
-
"...
'!
.~
'2. .~
o
:.r.
.A^
o
o
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino. Cty Librarian (dated April 19,
1989)
HI The potential impact of implementation of the Draft Plan on area libraries was not
addressed in the Draft EIR because it was not indicated as a topic to be considered
per the City's Initial Study. However, the information provided in this comment
with respect to libraries will generally be included in the Fmal EIR, as specified
below.
H2 This comment refers to p. 2-1 of the "City of San Bernardino General Plan Update,
Land Use Alternatives Working Paper", March, 1988, included as Appendix D to the
Draft ElR. That document stands as previously prepared, and it is not within the
scope of the EIR to make any changes to the .....Alternatives Working Paper"
document.
H3 The change reflected in this comment will be incorporated into the Final EIR.
H4 The change reflected in this comment will be incorporated into the Final EIR.
H5 The following information will be included in the Final EIR, immediately preceding
Section 4.1.1.2: "20. The Cty contains one central library and four branch libraries.
However, access to library services is currently substantially limited in the
northwestern and eastern sections of the City." The following paragraph will be
renumbered as #21.
H6 The change reflected in this comment will be incorporated into the Final EIR.
H7The change reflected in this comment will be incorporated into the Final EIR.
H8The following information will be added to Section 4.2.3.1 (Existing Conditions,
Education): 'The City of San Bernardino Public library System includes one main
.
o
o
and four branch libraries. The system contains holdings of approximately 260,000
books, with an annual circulation of 250,000. The central library is one of the largest
in the Inland Empire and attracts users from throughout the region".
The following information will be added to Section 4.2.3.3.2 (Project Impacts,
Education): "Increased population growth will also result in a greater demand upon
library facilities. The Public library Plan calls for 0.75 square feet.per individual and
two books per individual. To meet these objectives, implementation of the Draft
Plan would necessitate an additional 48,800 square feet of library space plus 130,140
additional library volumes."
The following information will be added to Section 4.2.3.4 (Mitigation Measures,
Education): "Policies 8.12.1 - 8.12.8 address the adequate provision of library
services and facilities to City residents. The topics addressed by these policies and
implementation programs 18.37, 18.38, 18.41-18.43, and 18.46 include the construction
of new libraries and expanding existing facilities as required to meet demand,
acquisition of books, literacy programs, and funding for library facilities and
activities. "
H9 Although this comment addresses Table 29, it would be more appropriate to add
information concerning libraries to the Education section of the Summary Table
(Table 3). The following information will be added to Table 3 under the topic
"Education": "Impacts: Necessitate an additional 48,800 square feet of library space
plus 130,140 additional library volumes, per the Public library Plan. Mitigation
Measures: Plan incorporated measures include policies and programs with respect
to the construction/expansion of libraries as required to meet demand, acquisition
of books."
. -..
~
o
o
I
"
C I T Y
OF SAN BERNARDINO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8904-601
n
I!!)
. .....
. . ~ i
~... ..". ~
r:': ,-.
i .~
r-: ~ --
~ n
iI'
L.. ;
-- ..- - . ...~
APi{ :!', 1989
TO:
Brad L. Kilqer, Director of Planninq
CiTY Fl;~~.:i.jb~; -:- .... . .:-;0' :~~ r
.:r.r.J !:'-r~:., ro,".'.' r.
"'r'u ;..te,'I..,.:.,;1 ,~. v,l
FROM: Charles P. Dunham, C.E.
SUBJECT: General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
DATE: April 21, 1989
COPIES: Vincent Bautista, James C. Richardson
-------------------------------------------------------------
The fOllowing comments as to the revi ew of the EIR are
stated:
Page 4-231, Subject 4.4.5 wind, strike out in the third
paragraph the words, HIGHEST WIND FACTOR AVAILABLE, and
insert EXPOSURE "C" GUST FACTORS.
Page 4-233, First paragraph, change the word RESULT to
RESULTING and insert at the end of that sentence, IN ADDITION
TO INCREASE WIND EXPOSURE FACTORS IN THE UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE.
\ ~
d'~.
Plan Check Engineer
Imes
.'
._to!.
~ .:
I
.
I
I
I
I
J
I
.
.
I
I
!
,
o
o
4.4.5 Wind
404.5.1 Existing Conditions
The Cty of San Bernardino has historically recorded wind velocities high enough to
cause structural damage. Highest wind velocities occur during Santa Ana wind
conditions in the downslope canyons. These winds blow from the north through the
mountain passes and canyons and dissipate as they spread across the valley floor..
These Santa Ana winds generally coincide with the period of highest fire danger in the
adjacent San Bernardino Mountains.
Wind velocity is recorded at the weather station located on Norton Air Force Base in the
southern portion of the Cty. Between 1946 and 1985, the average wind speed was 49
knots (56 mph), with a high of 69 knots (79 mph) in 1949 (refer to Table 66 in the TBR).
Wmd speeds can be expected to be even higher in the Cty's northern foothi11s.
Because of its high wind velocity potential, the northern portion of the City has been
designated as a ''High Wind Area" (Figure 26) with stringent development construction
standards. fO! example, ~e City of San Bernardino Building Department uses the
. "
_l':~l!I~ . . b.._l_. .....il..le in the Uniform Building Code to ensure that cross bradng
C......cxf.lo~~(..,..:. "C' t.,':..-~~ ~;" :'':'''~'t...I!''...
in waIiS and nailinischedules are adequate to withstand potential high winds.
4.4.5.2 Project Impacts
The Draft Plan provides for residential and commercial development throughout the
Cty including areas of high wind susceptibility. Residential development in the High
Wind Area could subject houses and apartment buildings to conditions that may result.
in minor damage to roofs, fences and windows. H appropriate building standards in
High Wind Areas are followed, no substantial structural damage should occur as a re-
sult of high wind velocities. The commercial uses provided for in the High Wind Area
4-231
1111./_
,
. "
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
~
I
I
, ,
! I
-
.J1
o
o
.
are restricted by the Draft Plan to a building height of two stories, thereby not exacer-
bating the potential high wind hazards. Commercial uses in the downtown area of the
City are not restricted by height limits. Although the downtown is not within the High
Wind Area, the potential for high speed winds in that area co~d. be increased as the
construction of tall buildings create a wind tunnel effect resul~uisance type condi-
tions Any development in High Wmd Areas adjacent to areas of high fire potential
COul~:~t :: potentially significant fue hazards if fires occur during periods of high
win~ '~,.'ltJ i\c;',i::;(\ 'Ie J...JC~ep.-::.c.' Wi,\.lL) c:"'~~;,;~:-r. F-fY.I(,!I<:$
2..
,,,- ~ \t'>..
:,,, ; \-'IE: \J~\~~'" ,J\ll!....vi..:.f
4.4.5.3 Cumulative Impacts
.'.:..,\i .
Growth associated with future development in RSA-29 would expose a greater popula-
tion to potential structural and fire hazards associated with occasionally high wind ve-'
locities. Jurisdictions would need to provide development standards with respect to
wind velocities, where deemed necessary.
.
4.4.5.4 Mitigation Measures
The Draft Plan has incorporated policies and programs which create, as well as support
and expand, building and development standards to prevent the increase of wind
speeds, and the resulting wind hazards wherever possible. The policies and programs
provide for construction of buildings and residential dwellings to withstand e.xti-eme
wind velocities; prohibit conditions that may result in wind damage to structures, and
reducing adverse funneling of winds. The Draft Plan alSo provides safeguards to mini-
mize risk from fire that may spread under high wind conditions including adherence to
standards specified in the Foothill Communities Protective "Greenbelt" Program and
the use of fire retardant building materials for development in the High Wind Hazard
Area. With effective implementation of programs such as siting, design and
landscaping guidelines and the elimination of unsafe structural elements, no further
mitigation measures are necessary.
"
4-233
lOT
m
o
o
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino (dated April 21. 1989)
n The change reflected in this comment will be incorporated into the Final EIR.
12 Then change reflected in this comment will be incorporated into the Final EIR.
1M
'-
J
'CITY OF SAN EQRNARDINO
-
~MORANDUM
J
To Brad Kilger. Director of Planning
From
Annie F. Ramos. Director
Parks. Recreation and
Community Services
April 21. 1989
,
~
s,
;t GENERAL PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT-REVIEW Date
Approved
Date
I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact of the General Plan and find
that the Parks and Recreation and the Open Space elements have been adequately
addressed.
If you have any questions on this. please call me at your convenience.
~ ) /?
f.l::1uW 7'-- 7...(t:.~<cc"",
ANNIE F. RAMOS. DIRECTOR
Parks. Recreation and
Community Services
AFR:fw
i.
PRIDE -t
"... IN PROGRESS
.. Ll .L
~,,,,"--,,(I
---..:.:~.J;;: I
In<\
.l>
o 0
Response to Comments from: Citr of San Bernardino: Parks. Recreation and
Communitr Services (dated April 21, 1989)
Jl Comment acknowledged.
""
....
-
C I T <;> 0 F SAN B ERN A R 91
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8904-1427
N 0
CORRECTED COPY
.T-O: --- Brad Kilger, Planning Director
. FROM:
J:(l.mes C. Richardson, Deputy City Administrator -
Development Services
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
DATE: April 24, 1989
COPIES: Mayor Evlyn Wilcox, James Robbins - Acting City
Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to offer the following comments on the Draft EIR
for appropriate consideration:
Paae (D.)
p. S-9
p. 5-14
p. S-14
p. S-15
p. S-16
p. 2-3
to 2-14
(Land Use) Mitigation requiring developers to
provide relocation expenses could make infill
housing and development cost prohibitive. The use
of RDA 20% set aside funds, CDBG funds or other
public funding should be used to help at least in
part as an offset.
(Police) Mitigation through coordination of
security patrols will be difficult to achieve, as
this will entail control of the private sector.
(Fire) Mitigation for an annual assessment of fire
services indicates no basis for review, such as
review for residential or commercial structures,
response time, damage or loss of life.
(Education) An annual assessment of educational
facilities which address the condition of buildings
and not necessarily the capacity of schools.
Residential development impact fees are already
required, thus, not a "non-traditional" funding
source.
(Biology) Formation of committees for open
corridors not listed in draft General Plan, thus,
implementation measure not clear.
(Project Characteristics) The description of the
Draft General Plan seems particularly brief
considering its complexity and detail.
K
<-
2-
3
+
l
6
o
" ,
..
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8904-1427
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
April 24, 1989
Page 2
o
p. 4-1
to 4-24
(Analysis of Environmental Issues) The chart notes
direct and indirect impacts of various policies,
but does not indicate the degree of significance of
the policies.
(Housing) Although the removal of older housing can
reduce the amount of affordable housing, offset can
be achieved by encouraging new rental housing which
could help mitigate the adverse impacts noted.
(Historical and Archaeological Resources) The
circulation impact caused by vibrations on
structures can be mitigated by a program of
rehabilitation, preservation and retrofitting of
older homes and structures.
p. 4-63
p. 4-70
p. 4-109
(Circulation and Traffic) Shuttle service between
downtown and Tri-city should be the responsibility
of OMNI TRANS.
p. 4-111
(Circulation and Traffic) While there will be an
adverse impact with full build-out, mitigation
measures as outlined should help to some extent,
and this fact is not reflected. Recommendations to
widen the North/South and East/West corridors are .
not set forth in detail which would help in
mitigation.
p. 4-146
(Fire) provision of additional fire fighting or
fire prevention personnel not set forth, which may
further mitigate to Class III level of
significance.
p. 4-154 (Parks & Recreation) Acquisition of 781 acres (A)
of parks should mitigate to a Class III level of /
significance or better. The future need is
referenced as 1302 A (4.2.4.3) but in fact is 781
A, which does not include 521 acres of existing
park land.
p. 4-176 (Air Quality) Much of the air quality problem in
to 177 the planning area originates in Los Angles and
Orange Counties. This fact is not adequately
recognized. That is, greater attainment levels in
the L.A. Basin would help San Bernardino. An
aggressive pursuit of the regional "Jobs-Housing
Balance" policy by SCAQMD could help mitigate the
level of significance of our air quality problems.
p. 4-233 (Wind) Mitigation measures to prevent a wind tunnel
effect in the downtown area needs greater detail
and specificity.
{,~
\ B
q
110 -
I'
/\ 1'2-
13
f1
\ . b
Il'l
o
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8904-1427
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
April 24, 1989
Page 3
. .
p. 7-1
(Growth Inducing Impacts) This section provides
good general comments but not sufficient detail to
set forth justification for overriding
consideration(s).
Appendix C (Responses to Notice of Preparation)
Written comments by the Archeological Information
Center (2/7/89), San Bernardino County Airport Land
Use commission (2/8/89), City of Lema Linda
(2/13/89) San Bernardino city Unified School If
District (2/15/89), Forestry and Fire Warden
Department (2/23/89), Federal Emergency Management
Agency (2/21/89), California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (3/3/89), California Department of
Transportation (3/8/89) and City of Redlands
(3/8/89) should be addressed and responded to.
I~
Appendix D ("city of San Bernardino General Plan
Update, Land Use Alternatives Working Paper" -Karch
1988) Data is provided on alternatives A, Band C
but not for the no project alternative.
Additionally, similar data should be supplemented 18
for alternative H, draft plan variation land use
changes, as well as for alternative for the Draft
General Plan. The attached Appendix A for the
Karch 1988 Land Use Alternatives Working Paper
provides information on fiscal analysis data. The
physical impact data for alternative H, as well as
the Draft General Plan, should be included to
properly review these two alternatives.
S C. RICHARDSON,
uty City Administrator -
Development Services
mtb
11'\
o
o
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino. Development Services (dated
April 24, 1989)
K1 The following will be added to Section 4.1.1.4 "Mitigation Measures, Land Use"
under item #1: "The City shall also explore the utilization of Redevelopment 20%
set-aside funds, Community Development Block Grant funds, or other available
public funding sources to offset the relocation expenses that developers would be
required to pay."
K2 Implementation programs 18.6-18.8 discuss Neighborhood Watch programs, early
intervention programs for youth, and the coordination of private security patrols
and crime prevention activities. The coordination (not control) of these private
sector functions has been successful in affecting crime rates in many communities.
K3 The referenced mitigation measure refers to implementation program 18.13. This
program provides an explicit list of items to be considered as the basis for review
including number, types, and geographic concentration of fires; amount, types,
and cost of damage; emergency response times; and quality of equipment and
facilities, among others.
K4 This mitigation measure refers to implementation program 18.20. The annual
assessment in question refers to "the adequacy of public educational facilities in
meeting the needs of the students and population in keeping pace with population
growth." With respect to non-traditional funding sources, the text will be changed
to read: "Key programs of the Draft Plan include annual City assessment of the
adequacy of public educational facilities. Should deficiencies occur and traditional
revenue sources be unavailable, the City would consider alternate means of
funding, e.g., additional fees on residential development."
K5 Policy 10.4.1 states "Initiate a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a
contiguous open-space corridor which would connect the Cajon Lytle Creek wash
I I .,
J ,l.
o 0
to the publicly owned National Forest lands via Cable Creek and/or Devil's
Canyon." Implementation programs 110.6, 110.7, and 110.9 provide for the
establishment of a committee to research the situation and consider mechanisms
for funding.
K6 As discussed in the project description section of the Em, the Draft General Plan
contains 70 goals, 171 objectives, 836 policies, and 465 implementation programs.
As indicated in this comment from the Oty, the Draft General Plan, is indeed a
very complex document. The purpose of this section of the EIR is to describe the
organization of the Plan, the general scope of the various elements, and the overall
land utilization changes expected to result from implementation (i.e., increased
residential, commercial, industrial uses, and associated population). Detailed
information about the Draft Plan is presented in each topical section of the Em, as
needed to discuss impacts and related mitigation.
K7 The purpose of Table 5 is to indicate the general relationship between each of the
Draft Plan's 836 policies and the 23 topics of analysis discussed in the EIR.
Information provided in each of the individual topical sections includes a more
detailed discussion of various policies and groups of policies, as appropriate. It is
not the purpose of the EIR to provide a complete analysis on a policy by policy
basis, but rather to provide a thorough environmental analysis on a more
meaningful topical basis.
K8 As indicated in section 4.1.2.2 of the Em, the Draft General Plan does include
policies to aid in offsetting the anticipated loss in low-income affordable housing.
However, the comment referenced on p. 4-63 of the Draft EIR expresses the
conclusion that even with implementation of such policies (including encouraging
new rental housing), the City will experience "a net reduction in the amount of
affordable housing available to the City's lower income residents."
IlCi
.
e
o
I<9 The following information will be added to Section 4.1.3.2 "Project Impacts,
Historical and Archaeological Resources" in the paragraph that begins "It should
be noted that...": "Damage to historic structures can also result from poor air
quality which can degrade the structure's exterior surface and from vibrations
(resulting from increased traffic volumes) that could weaken the structure's
foundation .and framework. An increase in population would be expected to
proportionally increase visitor-use days, adding incrementally to monument
destruction."
The following information will be added to Section 4.1.3.4 ''Mitigation Measures,
Historical and Archaeological Resources": "The circulation impact caused by
vibrations on structures could be mitigated by a program of rehabilitation,
preservation, and retrofitting of older homes and structures where it might be
needed as determined by guidelines of the Historic Resources Commission (to be
established per implementation program 13.2)."
KI0 This comment expresses an opinion on an implementation program in the Draft
General Plan, and not on the EIR.
Kll The text does state, in section 4.2.1.4, that while full buildout of the Draft Plan
would result in significant circulation impacts, the Draft Plan Circulation System is
designed to accommodate as many of the anticipated project-related impacts as
possible, primarily through reclassification of a number of key roadway segments
within the City. The reclassification and associated widening of those north/south
and east/west corridors have been described on Table 14. All other streets shown
as part of the circulation plan (Figure 29 of the Draft Plan), were also assumed to
be built to full design standard.
K12 The Cass II Level of Significance with respect to fire protection services reflects
not only the level of provision of rlJ'e fighting personnel and equipment, but also
the natural fire hazard of the area resulting from proximity to wildland areas and
II,
-
-
o
o
wind hazard. As indicated on p. 4-146, this represents a significant fire hazard.
Consequently, even though mitigation measures have been identified, impacts
associated with fire protection services are designated a Class II, and not Class ill,
level of significance.
K13 The distinction between Class II and Class ill levels of significance refer to whether
the impact is "adverse" (Class ill) or "significant" (Class II), defined in CEQA
guidelines as "substantially adverse". Impacts associated with both categories can
be mitigated. As discussed in section 4.24.2, San Bernardino's future total need for
parkland given implementation of the Draft Plan would be 1,302 acres (781 acres in
addition to the existing base of 521). The sentence in question in section 4.2.4.3 will
be changed to read "... the City of San Bernardino's total future need (an additional
781 acres plus the existing 521 acres) represents 40% of this total."
K14 Section 4.3.2.1 of the Draft EIR states 'Winds are predominantly from the west
during Spring, Summer, and Autumn... Warm temperatures and a persistent
inversion frequently cause pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin to collect near
San Bernardino." In Section 4.3.2.3, the Draft EIR states "Pollutants are frequently
transported to the San Bernardino Valley from the San Fernando Valley, the San
Gabriel Valley and the greater Los Angeles Basin." The Em's discussion of air
quality indicates that mitigation measures include policies to minimize vehicle
travel (e.g., proximity of housing and work).
K15 Section 4.4.5.4, "Mitigation Measures, Wind" will be amended to read as follows:
''The Draft Plan has incorporated policies 15.1.1-15.1.8 and 15.2.1-15.2.8 and
programs 115.1-115.9 to create, as well as support and expand, building and
development standards to prevent the increase of wind speeds, and the resulting
wind hazards wherever possible. The policies and programs provide for
construction of buildings and residential dwellings to withstand extreme wind
velocities (policy 15.1.1 and programs 115.1 and 115.4) and prohibit conditions
..-
Jj
o
o
related to architecture and siting that would be most likely to incur structural wind
damage (policy 5.1.2 and programs 15.3 and I 5.4).
"Policy 15.1.5 and programs 115.1, 115.3, 115.4, and 115.6 address the reduction of
adverse funneling of winds known as the wind tunnel effect. These programs
incorporate into the City's Development Code the siting of structures so that they
do not "funnel", "eddy", or intensify wind effects on adjacent properties, on public
open spaces, or in pedestrian passageways, and encourage strategies to create
wind-sheltered entries and outdoor spaces in the grouping of buildings.
'The Draft Plan also provides safeguards to minimize risk from fire that may
spread under high wind conditions including adherence to standards specified in
the Foothill Communities Protective "Greenbelt" program (policy 15.2.1 and
programs 115.1 - 115.3, and 115.5), and the use of fire retardant building materials
for development in the High Wind Hazard Area (policy 15.2.6 and programs 115.2
and 115.3). With effective implementation of programs such as siting, design, and
landscaping guidelines and the elimination of unsafe structural elements, no
further mitigation measures are necessary."
K16 ~ Section 15126(g) CEQA requires the EIR to discuss the "Growth-Inducing
Impact of the Proposed Action". This section should address ways in which the
project could foster economic or population growth, the construction of additional
housing, community service facilities, and indirect impacts of the project. All of
these items are referenced in Section 7.0 of the EIR. CEQA requires "the decision-
maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project." (Section
15093(a), emphasis added) It is not the responsibility of the EIR to "set forth
justification for overriding consideration(s)".
K17 The responses to the Notice of Preparation sent out by the City of San Bernardino
indicate the jurisdictions'l agencies' concerns that they would like to see addressed
I't
!l1 I
o
o
in the EIR. Although the comments do not need to be responded to individually,
the EIR should address the concerns expressed, as appropriate. This information is
included in the EIR as follows:
Archaeological Information Center: This comment actually refers to the accuracy
of the initial study. Information regarding archaeological and cultural resources
are included in section 4.1.3 of the Draft EIR.
San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission: Information referenced in
this letter is contained in sections 4.1.1 "Land Use" and 4.4.4 "Noise" of the Draft
EIR.
City of Loma Unda: Information concerning land use compatibility with respect
to odors is included in section 4.1.1 "Land Use". Although it is true that the Initial
Study checklist did indicate that there would be additional traffic without any
impact on safety, the General Plan does address safety issues, particularly in
policies 6.1.6 and 6.4.3. The following information will be added to the EIR in
Section 4.1.22 ''Project Impacts, Circulation and Traffic": 'The increases in traffic
volumes expected to result from implementation of the Draft Plan could result in
increased vehicular and pedestrian safety hazards. The Draft Plan addresses this
issue in policy 6.1.6 which indicates that safety will be assigned priority over other
factors in the engineering design standards for major and minor arterial highways,
and in policy 6.4.3 which responds to the needs of bicyclists by developing a plan
for safe bicycle facilities not on arterial highways. Implementation programs 16.1,
16.2, 16.20, and 16.21 are intended to carry out these policies."
Colton Joint Unified School District: This information is addressed in section
4.2.3.3 of the Draft EIR.
San Bernardino City Unified School District: This information is included in
section 4.2.3.3 of the Draft EIR.
. . ..
j;
o
o
Forestry and Fire Warden Department: Information referenced in this letter is
addressed in section 4.23.2 of the Draft EIR.
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Information included in this letter is
addressed in section 4.4.2 of the Draft EIR.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Information referenced in this
letter is addressed in the EIR in sections 4.221 Water supply; 4.2.22, Solid Waste;
4.2.2.3, Sewage Disposal; 4.4.1 Geologic/Seismicity; and 4.4.3, Hazardous
Materials/Uses.
California Department of Transportation: Information regarding traffic and
circulation is provided in section 4.21 of the Draft EIR.
City of Redlands: This information is included in section 4.1.1 of the Draft EIR.
K18 The "City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Land Use Alternatives Working
Paper", March, 1988 does address only Alternatives A,B, and C. That paper was
prepared for informational purposes during the formation of the Draft General
Plan. The "no project" alternative was not of concern or interest during the
preparation of that paper, but is included as an alternative in the EIR, as required
by the California Environmental Quality Act. Alternative H was developed in
response to input on the Draft General Plan, subsequent to the publication of the
"...Alternatives Working Paper...... That paper is included as Appendix D to the
EIR because it provided substantial reference material for Section 5.0 of the EIR.
However, the analysis of alternatives presented in the EIR is the more accurate and
up-to-date of the two sources.
Although the .....Alternatives Working Paper..... did include a fISCal analysis, it is
not a required topic of the EIR. CEQA states (Section 15131) that economic or
1"'\'"
o
.0
social information may be included in an EIR. When compiling the list of topics to
be addressed in the Em, the City of San Bernardino did not include a fiscal
analysis.
I ~I
c
o
ARDA M. HAENSZEL
138. GEHllYl&vE aTR.1ET
SAN BERNARDINO, CAL.lfI'. 8a408
L
: ~~ j ~
, r1"1
uL
"
. '.
,-" -
I
~~-'"
APR 2 4 1989
C'T\f ,~: .. .
III. .....
.i
Mr. Brad L. Kilger, Director of
City of San Bernardino Planning
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
Dear Mr. Kilger,
Herewith are my comments relative to the draft of the
"City of San Bernardino Technical Background Report" of Feb-
ruary 1988, Section 2.3, "Historical and Archaeological
Resources", a part of the "Environmental Impact Report, City
of San Bernardino," Sch. 8902308, of March 1989. The Envicom
researchers properly consulted Mr. Lester Ross of the Archaeo-
logical Information Center at the County Museum, who is the
official recorder of such resources for the state. He directed
them to me for details of city landmarks.
Since 1952, and until relatively recent years, I had been
Landmarks Chairman for the County Museum Association, and had
registered county landmarks in the several state programs.
This included most of the first San Bernardino city landmarks
to be listed as County Points of Historical Interest. I also
did a large part of the research for the recent Seccombe Park
development in cooperation with Alexandra Luberski.
Building on a tour list compiled by L. Burr Belden in the
early 1960s, I compiled landmark inventories for the city of
San Bernardino, and updated them as needed, all on a volunteer
basis.
April
Planning
Department
24, 1989
SAi"v ,)~r:li:~;.HD~i'~G. CA
Envicom used my 1985 inventory as the basis for their
report, and I had been expecting them to contact me for pos-
sible changes and developments in the succeeding years. It
would have saved them much time and effort. But I heard
nothing from them. So, after reading the draft Report, and
talking with Mr. Ross, I decided to offer what help I could
in the way of corrections and additions for the preparation
of the final draft.
Sincerely yours,
tadt1f{, f-.;~t'~/€
cc: Lester Ross
o.
1'1"
o
o
1
'2-
3
I" ~
o
2
o
"". -e ~ 55
:"ClIL t::.,-
?ara~ranh 2. The Politana settlement was probably primarily
in Colton, just west of the city boundary which follows the
Lytle Creek storm drain.
Para~ranh 4. Overland emigrants were greeted by Isaac
Williams at the Chino Rancho, not by Lugo at the San Bernar-
dino ~ancho. Williams kept a register for them, which survives. ~
+-
The road led around the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains
from the mouth of Cajon Pass to Cucamonga and Chino, not down
into San Bernardino.
Pa~e 2-56
Between Para~ranhs 3 and 4 there should be a mention of wagon
freighting, which was a major industry in San Bernardino from
the early l850s into the l880s. Even after the coming of the
railroads, it provided the feeder transportation to and from
resources often extremely distant from railroad lines. San
Bernardino was the supply point fer vast desert and mountain
areas. Wagon freighting involving San Bernardinans also fos- ~
tered secondary commercial activities in the city beside just
driving the wagons. There were raisers and dealers in horses
and mules; bankers and investors; raisers and dealers in hay
and grain~ fuel for the draft animals; blacksmiths and farriers;
harness makers; wagon builders; and wheelwrights. It was
responsible for the building of important wagon roads, not
only the long distance ones like the MOjave Road through Cajon,
Bradshaw Road through San Gerger-io, and the road to Panamint,
,"u.
o
o
3
but also more local ones li~e the Brown, Daley, Van Duzen,
and ~aterman Canyon roads into the mountains, the Mormons'
Base Line ~oad via Cncamonga to Los Angeles markets, etc.
r;,
The commercial center for all this far-flung activity was to
a large extent San Bernardino. Local freighting was in stiff
competition (and sometimes cooperation) with Banning, Nadeau,
and others that were perhaps more widely-known.
Pa~e 2-66, e. Shandin ~ills
I seriously question the words "vacation residences". To lilY
7
kno~ledge they were and are still permanent homes. Vacation
homes were in the mountains.
Pa~e 2-67, ~..25th Street
I happen to ~e familiar with this 2-block area and the care
with which it was designed and maintained. My family home
was the first one built in that subdivision. It was developed
by a man named Andersen, with a great respect for quality.
B
Pa.:::e 2-68
Para~ranh 1. I applaud with enthusiasm the frankness with
which the writer condemns the city's .official attitude toward
its history over the years. The City Department of Cultural
Affairs, ~rowing out of the Bicentennial movement in the 1970s, ~
has indeed finally brought a voice to City Hall. Together
with the City ~istorical and Pioneer SOCiety, it has teen
effective in making the city officials aware of historical
resources, and informing the city's residents about what has
.'
....-
o
4
o
survived. This was all that was nossible ~ithout legal p~o-
vision fer nreservation.
But the movement actually started at least 20 years earlier
when the young San Eernardino County Museum Association attempted
to support history-minded residents as they fell back step by
step frustrated in preservation efforts, particularly during
downte~n redevelopment, and, ironically enough, in the period
just before the city's Bicentennial celebration. During that
time, unable to get help from the city government, the County
Museum Association did at least work for recognition of landmarks,
and registered many surviving ones. As Landmarks Chairman, I
myself registered 15 of the first County Points of Historical
Interest in the city, and others continued this work. Such
identification of landmarks, however, was ignored by the city
when it failed to provide reg~lations agai~st destruction, and
incentives to nrivate nronerty owners for nreservation.
. ~.. ..
Pa:re 2-68
Paralrranh 2. There are a number of competent local historians,
and I am generally recogn~zed as one of them. However, I have
"probably been at it longer than most (some 30 years) and conse-
quently have accumulated very extensive information and files.
This is we1~ known, so I'm sure Envicom researchers were so
informed. Also, I serve every ~ednesday morning in the Califor-
nia Room at ?e1dheym Library, and am often contacted by people
working on EIRs. Yet I did not hear from Envicom, who sought
"information from local historians".
/0
\ I
."
,:)(.
o
o
5
Pa~e 2-68. (bottom of na~e)
Tte material on this page is continued, I see, on page 2-80,
and is needlessly interrupted by Fig. II, and Tables 11 & 12.
Surely this order should be corrected.
Pa~e 2-70. Table 11. Item A-I
The first quarters built to serve as a post office were con-
structed in 1587 at the' northeast corner of Court and E Sts.
as part of the Drew-Andreson Block. In 1904 the post office
had been ~oved to quarters built for it in the Swing Block at
the northwest corner of 4th and D. The post office later ex-
panded into the whole building, which was remodeled for it.
This building burned about 1928.
Pa~e 2-70. 3 - 1.
Not "one of" but ih! first train entered San Bernardino in 1883. \ t
"1833" is obviously a typo.
/2--
13
Pa~e 2-72. B - 4
This was an1"arently taken frc'D the registration application,
which is erroneous. The Sturges Academy, an early private
secondary school established by David Sturges in 1883, was
located on the north side of 4th st., east of D and immediately I~
west of the fire station. After the first San Bernardino high
schoel, a ~ublic school, was built at the southwest corner of
8th and ~, David Sturges became a much beloved instructor
there. Tte high school building was severely damaged by an
earthquake in 192;, and replaced in 1924 by an L-shaped stucco
building that was dedicated to the memory of Sturges. The au-
itorium was built shortly afterward.
."
I~"I
o
6
o
Pa~e 2-72. E - 8 Pioneer Ce~etery
This c~etery as a historical land~ark is pri~arily character-
ized oy burials of historical figures, not by ~eople with
Spanish surna~es. Many of the latter are now found a~ong
more recent burials in the later additions to the cemetery,
for it is still open for use. Spanish surnames are ~ore
commonly associated with Campo Santo Memorial Park (p.2-68),
a former Catholic cemetery, and with the Catholic section of
1&
Mt. View Cemetery, at the northeast corner of Waterman and
Highland hves., which was established in 1907. Most of the
burials from Cam?o Santo were moved there at that time. Inci-
dentally, Xt. View Cemetery should also ~ualify as a city
historical landmark.
Pa~e 2-75. Table 12. Ite~ 3. Ea~les Lod~e Buildin~
The address was copied wrong; it should be 467 - 4th St. A
word of explanation is in order.
The modern Eaales building
~ .
was added on a~d around, and attached to, the former Brunn
residence. The old house was remodeled and incorporated into
this hybrid structure in such a way that no sign of it is now
visible except a small patch of roof that can be found with
difficulty only when viewed from a particular ,oint. It is
not suitable for registration in its present state, but should
be considered for restoration if the eagles additions should
I~
ever be removed.
.
.~o
'.
o
7
o
PaLe 2-77. Item 10.
The title s:,ould have read "f\i.alto Ave. and E St. Station on
the Santa Fe Kite ;{oute". It was originally built about 1890
on the west side of E, on the north side of the tracks, which
ran par?llel to and a little south of Rialto Ave. The past
tense is deliberate. This building is another prime exam?le,
and one of t~e mest recent, of the attitude and action (or lack 18
of action) by city officials. In this instance, Envicom re-
searchers apparently just co?ied my 1985 landmarks inventory
list. They did not notice, as I didn't until recently, that
the little station had been removed. The city lost its lease
Deparhent, I found that the building had been "given to some-
I
On inquiring at the city Park I
I
on Viaduct Park, and the locomotive was ~oved away, and the
station too, several years ago.
one in Muscoy". The landmark inventory had not 1:>een consulted;:
i
the Parks De;t. ~robably didn't know one existed. But through
ignorance and neglect, the city has lost another one of its
older and uni~ue structures, for lack of an agency to monitor
such things. The little station should simply have been moved
to another park.
Pa~e 2-77. Item 13. Amasa Lyman-Rich F~~
This titl~ is nonsense. The house has nothing to do with
/1
Mormon leaders Amasa L~~an or Charles Rich, beyond the fact
that the firm of Lyman, Rich and Co. once owned all the city
land as part of their purchase of the San Bernardino Rancho.
The house was obviously not built in the 1850s. The Hormons
. .....
C)
o
8
Lyman and Rich were of course two different peo~le, and they
left San Bernardino in the 1850s. There was a Lyman ~ich, well
known in San 5ernardino, born in 1896 as the grandson of Jewish
businessman Jacob Rich, who came to San Bernardino in 1865.
lq
But this Jewish family lived first at the northwest corner of
4th and ~t. View, and later moved to the southeast corner of
6 h an" ~,t \1,_' el....
t .~. ~ .
Neither is the property in question.
This
house is bea~tifully restored, and should be registered on the
basis of architecture.
Pa~e 2-77. Item 15. Colliver ~ouse.
D Street runs north and scuth. The address is 950 Korth D St. \ ~O
?a~e 2-79. Item 19. Grow House.
This is probably not the correct name to give it, though it is
presently occupied by Mrs. Alexandra Grow Jenks, member of a
pioneer family, and her husband. According to the Directory,
2\
the house was occu?ied in 1913-14 by another pioneer, A. M. Ham,
who may have been the builder. Mrs. Jenks should have more
information.
?a~e 2-79. Item 23.
I am not familiar with the structures here noted, but G St.
runs north and south. Either the nu~ber or the street should
be ccrrected. I have corrected the above addresses where the
22.
structures are familiar to me, but there may be other address
errors in Tables 11 and 12 that should be checked before the
draft is accepted.
."
.- -
o
o
9
?a~e 2-79. Item 27.
This item is the W. F. Miles ~ouse, at 439 w. 8th. It was
built in the l6aOs. It is currently being considered for
~oving onto D St. nearcy, and restoring, as an exa~ple of
Victorian architecture. If this can't be done, it will be
destroyed.
Pue 2-79. Ite::! ;0.
B Street is now Mt. View. This building, presently occupied
as an a:;Jart:nent house, was the "San Bernardino Eospital", a
private hos;ital run by Mrs. E. H. Grey, and was well known
in 1907. In 1916-17 it was serving as the County detention
HOllie.
I should like to suggest some additions to the list of
potentially significant historical structures. I have research
material on a nu~ber, though not all, of the items in Table 12,
and these ~ronosed additions.
Pa~e 2-79. Additions to Table 12.
Item 32. Larsen Dye ~orks
At southwest corner of Oak and Stoddard, built about 1927.
Building has an unusual clerestory roof. Has been restored
and remodeled inside into an office building.
Item 33. Ice Plant-Cold Stora~e
A ce~ent building on the north side of 3rd, just west of E.
. i
25
24
IJ.~
\~
."
12'
o
10
o
Pa~e 2-79. Ite~ 'u. ;aitt Eouse
At 850 North F st. 3uilt before 159c. Present owner and ~1
resident is Mrs. Janet ~iles, an old-timer, ~~o doubtless
knows the history of the house.
Item 35. R~luhs Eouse.
At 1298 W. Mill St. Possibly built 1883 of brick. John C.
Ralphs Sr. was one of San Bernardino's first two brick makers.
He came to San Bernardino in 1834 and farmed. John C. Ralphs
Jr., also a farmer, was city marshall in 1893 and sheriff in
1903. As sheriff, he was among those who pursued the Indian
renegade ~illie Boy, and on another occasion also Death Valley
Scotty after the Wingate Pass incident. Or the house may have
been built by George E. Ral:-hs, son of John C. Jr. The ,resent
street number is first recorded in the 1928 ~irectory as his
28 -
residence, though the whole area belonged to his grandfather.
\
Item 3~. Peck ~ouse
At 358 W. 8th St, corner Mayfield. Built 1809 by E. C. Peck, ~q
paint and wallpa,er dealer.
Item 37. Mt. Vernon Ave. Viaduct
The first viaduct was constructed by the Santa Fe in 1908.
Plans for its replacement by the present structure were ap~roved
by the city in November 1932.
30
Item 38. Patton (formerly Asylum) Station on the Santa Fe
Kite Route.
North side of Eishland Ave. at the crossing of the railroad ~I
berm.
1'2.'1
o
11
o
Pa~e 2-79. Item ~q. Parker House
.~ 7-- N' h"
Ji.", .=:.0.. .."rrow. eaa Jo.ve.
3uilt before 1906 when it ~as occu-
pied by the fnily of Wilbltr 11. ?arker, proprietor of the
Parker Iron ~orks en 3rd St., later the Parker Ice Y.achine Co.
;-',-.
-<.
....).L-
After ~is death, it continued as the home of his daughter,
Mrs. Nora Parker Coy, a teacher and director of cultural pro-
grams at San Bernardino Valley College for many years.
Pa~e 2-80. Para~ra~h 6.
In 1975, as part of the city's Bicentennial preparations, at
the request of Mr. Gary VanCsdel, I submitted an annotated
inventery of city historical sites, which was presumably filed
in his office at the City Hall, and afterward forgotten. At
that time, I also su[gested and wrote a tour booklet of historic
sites in the downtown area, and with the help of Mrs. Thelma
Press, it was published by the city Eicentennial Commission
and i:lustrated with photos and a map. It went through several
";1,':<:
-'-
reprintings and was used by t~e econonic development depart~ent
in succeeding years. This.bock is listed in ~nvicom's bibliography,
In 1965, at the re~uest of Mr. Salvatcre Catalano, I pre-
pared a revised and much expanded update of the inventory,
which included dates, significance, and other pertinent data
for eech itec. A ma, was not included because precise street
addresses were given for the sites. It was used by ~~vicom
as the basis for their report. These inventories, involving
years of study and research on my part, were done on a voluntary
basis as a service to the city.
Respectfully sub~itted,
Arda !-1. naenszel
April 1969
... .,
f ';l
I ll:
...
--. . w. T !:
J:
o
~
rs;
I ~
I.... .
l"rnJ. ~ " TiO' f" r-I~ [....
~ I/) In V) 01 j "
:..' ' U~ ',J "
" ~" .:\. c( ·
. .
lD' " losE D~
z ~ .-ll- ~...l1;o
.~ L-J! l ~i
'om V NTH f;
,.', : I I
I r .
i NTH , ~ . U
;[l(] lliJ [32~D~D D EJ
rUDoi ..088 om D D
~\n n- fn- ~ c,\ol D f10 on 01 ': ~ ~ 00'" ~ BElt.I1TH ~\'L~~
I ~ i "" ~ LI ~ ,:;'l " '. ~r;, 1 I TO" ~~Met:
~ :wi ~ t' I, I ~I ~..t . ~ ;. ~ ~' c
L...~ t....J L..-..-l1! "L-..l Iff - .
'" []j - 'HI U U 1":':"1 D[~10'D- r::~~:-_..~
':: ,~ ~;::~,'! ~ ,,J ( i c~~~~ ~~~, ~ I D ~fl
! I '" J I II I .fllp I L ,~~~. '"
,j;('Ir:TH11 'iST. ![1]' U' ',:nDO:t'f' I-l. ~~1
I:. "<...". U: T(r-lI: "'i.~:; , :u I ~"""1~'-=
;Ir----. ; . I../.' t\"t I' 01 I ~
,;~' f. _ : 1 i . , ItPlll: f "!I I l'-
?S '" IJ~ sr.. "iJ' 1 1"0\1.. "C ~ S":.
,.~' 'Jr=.~O$ :,J q is. I! ;z,.rl ~,<::O .!:. ~'~'1' EJI I. ~.r u..... c::
= I I~i t:~I..~f':I' L;>l~1
tPOTl '. . L--J I ~.':r I.: ~L-.J ~ ' _
. 4"-, ....-~\~- -"'C.o~~Ri-,~-,_u--e-'=i - ~r'r.i.::uD""~"r~~.w~""' "'}:,::;
~ I ...,.... !..~'II 1'.......,. ""- -z1. A'"
:~- i i., D:D ~~:U': . I r-PAR-K-T -
:~ I ~ I"" I. .
-:t; \ r ..I sr ~,i-rlniJ'-~Oi-Bt-~Jt-'. I-'C~
"I,/). l~ I I::; <." fI).. en V') e_ .......jl/)
. :H! :U~' \ ~ r-'j 5 ~-
· :~t~.~'_.~_.~- o~~-'-'-'~'-'-'-'-'I~ ;;
! ij - !i- I~L ___u. ~ .
-\1-\:' C\iY- ii 'c' I I
..:--:.11 ~
,Z;
ic;:
r.
Ii
.,..
t.
I-
N
I"
i
11-1
IN
ST
:]1
......
~ .':~r~ -
. ~,Sch.., fTH
...... .. 1/
:~ ..
, &~:. - -1/ ..
'\I.\<' ~ }
I TTH /
.- I
/~ ~
NST~NI' S,\ATE ENGINEER 0
H..i.HNAIIOI.N. U.N. UHTH..~ HIGHLAND AVe ICAIIF In. a.1I "". 17'30"
" . -- "-:-'l-<> -- -. I C' . ..
, ;.01 ['I! .,'I'r '~'H iiii) (ij) m:
.~~.~ I1! l -:J ,,' Ililcy - .-] T~ - ~
"'M "Ali~ - LINE /~ Sche,! l~ WI
-- 'IT.rs1 11:4' 'L'.~ ,.,
,~ I n'HJ IV
~ Jri.1 HER I\: A 1: ITI N (
~ i H_-
7:;_ n V ~
~ L H I IT ,;;: ~)
~ ~
II.
o
~l,-i ~AN Uf::it:IA;<I.,:
:....
/
"
T .~ I,,,u.~qa ~'T .-
.0 ,J.hHi, h ~ /
'T &I~_~_ .
[T~ IIOIl
._ r Sclj
..' T -
I~ I
8M J.H~f., ..,
1046 ! l Co., .....
IT I .'- ,
-to1' Dl P'Klr .'
..~II'''/ ~,...
!~~., .u.
I "IOn , III
M , : II ~
C.me ;.\
.r-~:".:,
...-.... ...: '\
':' . ',. 1104/.
'-::I(::n -c-
_ _ ,. ,~:~~'!r.~+~ ~,
1M 9S:iij r !!ii il I Ji'~"
~ " 1 ~ ,:" U~ I~.
~ . -- ~..- jl! I
waterman{'''~, ! ~
Gardens. i : :JI
,... ,.-I
\ 'I o. ~
r ~ '.,':":- r~~...~
......... .." /.
.. I' ..
. ,',/
, ^- I'
t -j!
/ .1
,0_____')
.t.' , :::. t~~L' "H l .
.. '"'__..... __ ...-...t.~.'_
'"." .' . 10$' '
: ~ Munlere)'~I, I
'", ?&. .
~ "CoUilge , ,
, I P"k ) Garcie'ns
~ 8M Iono:" . CHy I : 8M 10.3 : ..
..~ '
&T
HI.; c In
.ns
ST
~
r-
1100
, I _
T ,...(.. I 5TH ~
"0 Il'TT!TSHOP
II-I ._~M
-. r I. ~PII:}:' .-
. -t::~1 :::1- -.'1 I"""':
,/.. --. ..". :;:::, (.--1 ~.~. :..
.-...... . - ..
~ lard; g
,~ ilO ~111 P::..'
il;1: . ...;h
"hi-'
8M '.049.'
>I,
.
~-~ ~g-"'A - I , .tNI,
(\ ,::1 ~M_1079 , i . ~- ;;'
IlMl 1086 r ' " I I ./ I. ,
.Jl' '..' Ii RIA' ~ \ 'AI I (I .tv", p:c'_' c'I"'~ ~'."."""",::-.:~' CAR, :~'... . ~ -::.:~ .~r~l';
I" _ I ,,-. ,'..oJ. . Ii, ..~ : :
, . I H ---: )1..' '"" '.:;0., '. '::: .~ " ~~, :.
':'"- ~I;j.;;.isll :' c"rtl.cr~l= : I- '~~.:l~' rN . :~l""'" t .
,'/1078:::: .=. _ Hchool . l\ i . . .~, ~.' . . (' -" _. -. ...!'~,~ do .:
{:3ir~l3~1 =::: =::'k~~~t ~~II~;. lU;S', "A~1: N....> r ~\<> "'I~"',,!lll!ldD_.....!:
.. ~ Ipt -, Itichardso. n .>\\. '.':'- ,L. ~ ~
. !oI~tIc.,Il',I./ I' J. H,gh ~ . \" ,BUrl ";'k
".'.'_. ii--;. ~hOUI. '.",,; , ~~hool .. MIU. . -:,'\\ ~ _. , -;-j~ 001. ...".: aT . ,o.JI . .~.:___.~_~ ...
~ r.,;; ~..._...__ ;;".'_ -~~,----..._
I'''' '0~7 -., ~'~ m' '~l(" . .. . " .,"" ......' "'w':X'-r'~
: LL'- '\ ""'/'.' ciJ.: ;...:~ I r;.. '--'r~'~:~l\~:'::':W:: .
~II~:::I~~ (. \: .... IO"~.: ....:'V/J ...:.;:r........,:.........:.
..... !- - .' II) '. 0 ANGt - .::. t . .!,..th~.;;:.r:.~~:.~.
, j'" ---.. l'" \~i-o. . €IV. ". ....: ......~,. ..... ....
f' ,.,;.: :-nSJ'1i,lI, n ~ .0 I 7.1;:.. ")~, r;,i..,,~JI : I / .. \;;.~" . '. i.H='l .' . .
II ~ .I~a:- _. .t" ~. . ~~ ~~ ,,~~ :lffu..g'./ 1/ J . u). :~.:~.;:;a.J. .:~.
::s.-~ Ur ta. J~ W. 'C'.::l I ,Cw'HT AL .IOM ....,... I .... ... :'~.JI
l . lr "" I ts.;i'~I' :. -. 'I'I'~-~;-~''>- . '. .' ":' .:,:. ':. :,-. -' . -~":':. .
- ....., \" ... . MiII"'Si:h
.~FiJ'f.:"\ .>,"(1) :.I:II:....~./':... ::.. ...1:....
.'..... ':h;;Q'll', . I ___ : .' '-! r.;,...., .... . . ~ . {
. i I .4i~' '. }' ,$(.... . ..;.
.j( ~l.S-.., . R",yJ~l'V . A /:'R :;'.;'D
,:,i.~..~.rl.-' ~"".."" :....,.....;.(:! ,,:. ".:..
I, ,I ~~- '/}j' '. ;~;n:'l'/ ....: . / .~:..:..:I~~,. ".;
-Ace ~,~f! ....:......~{._~ .J'''''.::..'}::' 'ru " .: oil: ~o:I'IOI.
c .;~.. C, , ,.10...- ., :,' : , ...;. . ....::
. t;.: I ofof'.-""" ..* . "....,
.. '"" " ....;p..; : : .' ,_' , .' ..~. I~O~
. .,.W.,.. . ~ ..,/ ',' ....",.:~.~ ....... . :: .... ..
y~ ." .>:~....:~Dn ..~ :",:! ~..
~?9 ~~;!....jG9.. l : i : ~ .
1.....,.1..... Y~f:I,/ ,....~. :.....i.. D~s:~1 ! :::.......:~~..l 1...~1 ':oo~
- N." ' . If ~'d'... " ,\.:: "'~ :n411''\
' rrn . abington TOw."o .... . " : . \.
)C."O'Ir . Sl!houl ( , ;. .... ' ....." 1
Plun.. ~ I. : . t'o ...7..t It.. '.
~ P.ull '.1 "___,, ...~}. \ : .
~ : .. " -
.
.' . '. I ,
.
..
J~
--
. . AVC.
~~~l7~
~~~~
...:...J ~......~......~.:.:9.
..............,..~~z:..&:.-.:..-l-~-
.... .. ~-.-'~'"'' f.
. .....;J ,V
~.".., \~
'.
...
10"
"'~4~.. _~ !
"-~
~ -.,.--'
. I
vi
1/
.....TT..............,... ....'~.
: \Ii:
. ._-
~
.~~I.J'"
Ai)!iGalt.
-' -, \ I \ ~i '" ,'; j]:I~';';" '~ " )' ~ J ,'\, ,""- " ,~~~ \.,...- ~ a \. ~j / ' ,'-,
----;,\,),\~.:f!)\ ~1 ,) ~I{I ,,~,,:_~',11' 1'/' ,J~ '<) ,,:' 19J. ~'Ll~ '~R'-~~ ~I~t. ;\:/II\i"'>'I"I!\h~~~~J': ;,,,,',
.o\J ,,"~:i;"";~ '. I ::, '~NV~ ,. .-",,"A/ I )1~ll) 1('"' ~\J.~~/;;ijffi&~~'~'~'#'li-~~
: : . '. ,~)!;\ ;:;:~(I'!' " ,,;r~~~~~0:t\?"I~~ ,) ~~\ ' ~"~~~_'''~~~~~~;~ ~P:%;~'4/ift3ir:;//E\~
.L .. _~t.~..E_ ~"'" .:-' 'j~'*'~P'~(7"!~~t"jliT\.\ I>. I . \ \+:~'\~~~~r;;~\~f'jfJIIJ,l~~.J \'S'i!r~..~;:J.'~ '
, ",: ,'1,/,; 1':"'''', -", ~~, ~,.."'''I (f,'" ,\ .")} ,!l~''/A.I/(~...... --):.r; -' ~~~.... '",..I(~Y;
\...; ,"" I,: If" :,~ _ :', , -,,/~!, ~,i' ,':/1",""-"-'.1 , ,') \'. -\'J91~~ ,}~~zi~~;~J7l/',il .I ,,11 'U!rr~~ :r~';:~ ~o ~
~ :' 1'/' ClCJCO '\_':'~'I.......I,I/I/'\' I..,,\,,~ 4' I({!' \.~~ i.~j~~b':-<:~) '11',' ......",-. _~ "II \....~.../ ~
:/ { '/- r ,!':,/~i(?~/;'l'.' '1'~)(~l~~~Jlt' i\~\~'\i~)"i :!~rr~'''\~, :',;;i:,.,j ~
7 : ,,,.1 '," }"..t . ,/' (I l.i;:,~~:; I( ,.." I I' .-'f;;j(t ~~/\ ~\ "'~m~~JiJJ"", :\. ,L ~, .~.. ~~.' "",~ ~
v'1 \':\ '()(,;I.: I" ,,,, ,,~,,:--, ~\)\II::1r~:" ~. -:'J~,5:!t)\ 'hi)>' if ,- I ~~., , : ~
~~". :.J~,:l'i:,:''''!_'_ - ,<'-v"~~-VJ~)~ : ,II: zOOO.. ;!f<'~~IA~e.dri,:, :',u~
'~~~'01~:I~~~~({;fi~:'~t~'~; ~lf~1 d~' ~?~~ /I\.:;t!;:f, .-.Ii1):~ ;"~~~~:1{~' ~
. l...............C:lil,: "j: }ii,~;~~,'ii~I't't;llQ),,r_~r,:'~~o:i~ {/, ,'" ~~.v:.'f, ",' ~.~..~;f..;,L-<~4
\., .... t '.'''':-:::'''1 I" ( . '\. . ~rr. l,"~ III''' '" ...io9'::>/ '.~
" ""''l. I~U-'bt... 't. '~...._< '-:t.=~~.... S..:\;>-"~\LI~ \ ~ f~rh ~ J ..~!/,'i I :,;.;;:,.. :-"1
. .....;...~......~!~) ','I;iocP ~~If~1 ~- ..~,r' -:-.:.~:\.~ w. r I~' ~..~ ~'(f:iJ~I:\\;-:>,?~'
".1 .'.,.-:-~... I": '.,' :~~ltl\:I(;1'",I.,~~'~\'\~ ~~ V~ 'i.' g:~!:~~;;)~')i.I(~~r
1- ....~ ~r ;t.-. 7\/:~~"~\r~ ~~!-m~~ ~s~- ~~ " ~ /::~&;~i~~t~~t\\~~;~!i::;' :llJ
'I \ p... ~ 'I"...... \ l:........d...~4.J!~. n I e f'tm \ I" -.~ _~,~ ~.:~, ' ~ '," .
. .,11 ........ ' .-) l~u:: ~ -' ~-""rrf;\f&,;, ... r-:"':T
i ..' ..." .-~-- .-~----~.,.-=. rri:"" ~)\~~l'-'l. ,~. ., Wi., \\~,~..~' ~(~1.S='<"
i \ : \ ,.~~~, ............ '.'t,...,~ ~ ~ ,JI ...t~ I. . ~ (~'~~~~.E!""J.I'\~~=--~l~ ~:-";;}~
, . Rn. / ;.(.......".-:') ~"'~ ' 'iT' "'I'....~~ C '....1.1 . GE--;; 'k.,.:q ~~~I'it \. ':, e"""",
I J.W4j'... 15 I. ' '., v"" :>~., ~,,~ !'i:<~'\\\, . ....... "',
~.../~ : =: -:.; . t'. ~ ~r':~! <\'.r' \.~ ~:d~ ~;. r;:;: ::1'~ ~~ @;f:~',
l4f>1 /! .... ~.. ~.. ~ . ::r( )" ~~':::-"'))~"~~' ~ei!!(f3J.
::;. . . ,.d' ! F- I.'~ :~ri}",":-J ::;,~~..) ..7: ~IS-~~"S;<;:;} ~~~ f( !f/,I"j
. :: i ! .: :\\ " ~ /,--_.:-....:.~~Jtl- \ .:;Ir:- ~I^i ~V~~}~"I '- ~.~L>.,i
'. ,I II I"" '. ---~.","': :W<: ,~\\~ ~ Jf.-for
, :: i - n : GoI'"ISlr.l'-__ 'i ~ (.t{~'~~)~IJ.~ ( . t14';'l\~
. -.. . I __ . ,( -..,..... " \\~ ;:~~~, I _ ...~.J;~\~
I.' .~. .., .8T .~" ~ "" 1-~ iZ ~'~' ,''i!]~)",
. ~ : .~~ ~.. 1-"~V!'--1 ~I\ . IQ~\",,~::;,~~"
. ... . 't., ........". "'" '". I"~ ' J.I..1 ~~t::.-~ I "
: ..., .: :J +, , "'" "" "'''''' i',. . I. . 7,,". ~ 7.' ..fll'r: .
.. : i: ~..;" ......,. .....".. ...... ..... :: ; : .~;...:",IIl~~~-...A.,.....:.:...
'-' · . 1'\ ''''''''. ~"'''''''''''~'J}A . ,..,('t:(,:..,\., I ~'('--
.. I . '. ~.. .'. ,,~;-"..~ '""'\ ....', I M
.- - . . ., -' . '. ' "iI'" .,' d'r'O lJ -. '( , eI
. ""'~ '''~]{~... '~'. =" ; ..... ""'''''""" " ,I,. '//'1 '.. Ol'~'! '... ,,0
I .. ... .611.. ~ ........."",,,,...... : 't'.' ... - R.;;:
1 .. '. (~\:IeI., ...... :to :;''f; . rt:r-:---'- ."'....., 1
. .... ... II . -t..:. I.!J :~ \.... '...........".....:,,: I: . _; - ... ---::.....~
: '.1:.. il: ..:. '. ~~ ........ I: i!i : ..:n ~l . \::- .. '-t ~
;. .:;.. .'d: ~:: 4 ~ : ......,,,. 'J52~ "T ;,l.i ~: "'Sf' ~ .~ "l, __..
1::.";,1!. 'I~' .._~:' '. ,,'. : .J'. ii j l'l ,W''''l (;'I'~I."" ~~,: ',~ ';
;: ~... ...-.~ d---1 i ' _ _, ..J : " ; l> ~ ~,' _ '" .. ~
oM ..1 i! LJ ~o' ,~)~ ~~.. . -7~'~i .J;; 'J290 t - I p~ \II 10" \ p'
... I \' :;1./ ~Whead'.\ I::';I~. . .,. : , .! ii : __. - ___ I~.
-... ,..-...'.J.J5iA' '. !.':St.if"~ School~l -1[~l!StlleOIVI'lon par1"aide~~. II ""1 \'\}C==-=.j"!!! ......, \ ,
....., ,--""!,,I, __ ~.!;.'" ...~ ~., lofFor"ltY Se :Ir,. ..;:t 1 .. . n .a;~ I ". ,l\..
Ii' .. -' /--'~--'" ~h \l-~ .' i (~~I.tA~~-!: R c: ~~ .. I ' -- ~,-
J'.. > \ i ) "-" ':-'V .:.:,.::;~ .;: rr- !I',__ ,. J;;:~ ..... ,~. " L;, . i" ."<: \' ;.1
J .,...._ __~_____ 1._-",-...-- ~ ",.- .. I~ . .. .... .""'11.' I /.
1'~-~=-/::; , ',... "'..., \.-- ...., .:.::1. w.''':": ~::=01~':~'+GJ"""""" . ,~' I -
.','.)~ , -J~ 'I' ~ 1- 4....1"'." !. :. i ~ d ~ ~~=J i.. ~ll nl.l/IZ'O--.~ ~ I
," '., u .' .. ~ ~ .n 1 I . t . n, '
dJ)"~' .F:''' ~ ! . . .- i ~ ~ ~ ; !~~ ~._. ..~,.. --~ ~.." . I II r'
.,,, . . 11.1 c 5 : I h c:tI . . .-. II
.t.,' . \ ~ ~3" ~ H: u!! I: ~.." 1/11 r-/ !);. '''~I;''
,1 Mil;i ~ ' '. i !i'",""" . i .' I ~~~l.' !r' I
Sc 001- ~ .. ..~.. 1 Ll .: . l,:,~~ .. ..,.:"." .. LE aT_
.. -:. ",
",.,&....
.
.
.
.
.
: ,'i{' ..J. ' H
I: ~::I .ouv~ Ir
..~~ri(:'II:;"ir.'"
.. -.. U:\
.....If. ~ij; .
31.. I ,. ; ,.s.~.^!r
I I :::.,; i
'o..... .. '. , ... :/1"'1.. i1
L-/ ..
.. "1:"" 11
.,... LJII/......"
",,,,-
-------~,.-: ----;/1.
..- Ih:J
--,: .
;
8M 12.48 :1' J
. ,I,.
" ~: ;' I
. '
'. .
" ,'" ,_: 'r_i'~l''''lJ
Ii' '1 ft.... 1,1 I
. i: Deli~Rosa.~II~: 11; \
=... :.r I
.. . J....1i ...! i.-
. '.e .D';'~__ .r.l~~
.....--- -.. . I!.'"
J
.' ~T
.SH L 8 V
L
~
'- ..
..
i. A !;..!.S N ;j=- T
,~
L' \V
"J \' UI
1:,'" -I
/ ,,-,
.. \',. fi
, -
'I' ~ I ~ .re'
..oE __n' h
. It ,,_
-.,
'm;
"-~!,
_.__~A,_
~;,
1 nO' 'i1
"'; .~~!:t I
,,}.....=I
"""Rool.1
n .n'
RORANT
o
o
Response to Comments from: Arda M. Haensze1 (dated April 24. 1989)
L1- L33 The comments presented address the "Technical Background Report" (TBR) pub-
lished March, 1988. Although that document is incorporated by reference into the
EIR, no changes can be made to the text of the TBR at this time.
..,~
-.
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R D
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8904-704
o
I N 0
TO: Brad Kilger - Planning director
FROM: Gene R. Klatt, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft EIR
DATE: April 27, 1989
COPIES: Grubbs, File 9.01
-------------------------------------------------------------
Per your request, we have reviewed portions
in particular Section 4.2 beginning on page
are comments and questions on the draft:
pg. 4-71 Freeway should also say controlled access in
addition to limited
of the draft EIR,
4-71. Following
Expressway does allow access to propert~ in commercial or
business districts and in some cases d1rectly to private
property.
Arterial should refer to traffic generator sites
pg. 4-72 Seventh line in first paragraph refers to eastern
part of the city, where is this, why not use street or RT 330
as a reference? Why is Rt. 330 not mentioned at all?
Bottom of page in discussion of Rt 30, second line, where on
Highland Ave.?
pg 4-74 Figure 7 presents portions of the freeway system
that are under construction but not yet completed as existing
pg 4-75 Rim of the World Drive does drop to two lanes near
the top but his is not mentioned.
Kendall Drive classification
would not view it as freeway.
word freeway has typo.
pg 4-78 first line says Rt. 30 but I think they mean Rt. 330
as it is two lanes east of 330 or Boulder
is not set by city and most
In second line from bottom
pg 4-80 first paragraph seventh line down need paragraph
beginning with The volumes. Eighth line second word area is
are. beginning in the tenth line after words peak hour
- suggest deleting "in the downtown area" from the paragraph.
pg 4-81 Second paragraph line 6 after ... level of Service E.
it should read Level of Service F. In rest of paragraph it
was my understanding that the city was attempting to get
level of service C not D.
pg 4-83 Table 11 all volumes are incorrect. Need to follow
guidelines set in the TBR
-
M
r
\2-
\3
4
\6
\0
1-
B
~
10
\ 1\
\ l~
. -~
INTEROFFICE MEMO~DUM:
Comments on Draft EIR
April 27, 1989
Page 2
o
8904-704
pg 4-84 to 4-91 all values are incorrect because they are
based on incorrect values in Table 11. Needs full update
pg 4-92 Figure 8 Needs to be more clearly labeled as
congested areas as of a specific date and traffic volume.
pg 4-93 Last paragraph second line word 'lane should be land.
In total discussion, it needs to be rewritten to address the
fact that the CBD never had enough parking, was redeveloped
and a parking district created but even that did not sup~ly
sufficient parking for code requirements and that park1ng
district was set up for customers, not employees and that
current surveys list usage of parking as 83% employees. Also
need to cover that employees are also customers.
pg. 4-95 No discussion of air transportation
pg 4-97 last paragraph first line ater work forcast we should
insert "by the model and in second line after words project
buildout we should insert "at maximum intensity".
pg. 4-103 Paragraph in middle of page line two word form
should be from. The last sentence should be revised to read
"The following tokw polices have significient impact on
development inb the city that may result in only a no build
option:
pg 4-104 Figure 9 appears to be mislabeled is it existing or
proposed and is it complete?
pg 4-110 Last paragraph on ~age line 4,
the 100 trips comes from, 1t does not
paper and is not used by the city.
we have no idea where
match traffic policy
\ \3>
\
( 14
(,
I r0
) 1'1
/6
11
12D
I
I
~g 4-112 second to last line the work desirable should be (:L\
1nserted between above and roadway.
p~ 4-200 figure 20, in text for this we need to say that the
C1ty needs to complete more detailed studies of the area and
ref1ne the areas subject to liquefaction.
Pi 4-202 first paragraph in section 4.4.1.4 third and fourth
1 nes, need to define sensitive, high occipancy facilities
and hazardous buildings
pg 4-217 Noise, need to cover what and when higher noise
levels are permitted. It may be impossible to have noise at
65 db during construction or rehabilitation of streets or
during installation of storm drains or sewers. Discussion
should cover limited exposure to higher levels. Whole
discussion centers on after development and traffic or
background noise only.
As you are aware, Traffic, Design and Department Head levels
have also reviewed the draft and may have additional comments
on its contents. As time allows, we will try to review other
sections you deem appropriate and comment if necessary.
"'h
"'-L
1"3
\L
24 -
I'\q
o
. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8904-704
Comments on Draft EIR
April 27, 1989
Page 3
o
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Cordially,
d:C/~
Gene R. Klatt
UU\
. .JIj\
o 0
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino. Assistant City Engineer (dated
April 27, 1989)
Ml The definition of "freeway" will be modified in the EIR to read, ''Mobility with no
land access and controlled and limited access to arterial streets".
M2 The definition of "expressway" will be modified in the EIR to read, ''Mobility with
more frequent access to arterial streets than a freeway, with some access to
property in commercial or business districts, and occasional direct access to private
property".
M3 The definition of "arterial" will be modified in the EIR to read, "Mobility with
access to collectors, some local streets, and major traffic generator sites".
M4 SR 330 is not mentioned in this section of the text because this section addresses
regional and inter-regional access and freeways. SR 330 is an existing roadway
(Creek Road) that is discussed on p. 4-77 of the Draft EIR. In conjunction with the
Route 30 project, Caltrans does plan to upgrade SR 330 to "freeway" classification.
M5 The last sentence on p.4-72 of the EIR will be amended to read as follows: "It
carries an ADT of approximately 45,000 on Route 30 west of Sterling Avenue."
M6 As indicated in the Figure title, Figure 7 shows the existing roadway classification,
per the City's previous General Plan. It is true that the previous Plan indicated as
"existing" portions of the freeway system that are under construction, but not yet
completed. However, that document stands as it is, and it is not within the scope
of the EIR to make any changes to it. To clarify this point, the text of the EIR
immediately following the heading "Freeways" will be amended to read: 'The
planning area is served by the following freeways and highways as shown on
Figure 7: (Note that Figure 7 shows the previous Plan's circulation classification
ILU
4:J
o
o
and that some portions of the freeway system currently under construction are
indicated as "existing" on that Plan.)"
M7 The text describing Rim of the World Drive (SR 18) will be amended in the EIR to
read, "... is a four-lane (dropping down to two-lane at higher elevations) circuitous
highway that extends..."
M8 The first sentence of the description of Kendall Drive (State Route 206) in the EIR
will be changed to read as follows: "Kendall Drive (State Route 206) is classified as
a major arterial with posted speed limits of between 45 and 50 miles per hour over
some of its length". The typo referred to in the comment will be corrected.
M9 The phrase referenced in the comment will be changed in the EIR to read "...Route
330 and City Creek Road".
MlO The three editorial changes discussed in this comment will be made to the text of
the EIR.
Mll The text as it currently reads is correct with respect to Level of Service E.
However, the three references in that paragraph to Level of Service D will be
changed to Level of Service C. Corresponding to that change, the 5th line of the
subject paragraph will be changed to read "...Service C) daily volume of up to
27,600 vehicles per day". Sentence beginning line 6 of that will read: Level "E" is
considered to be..."
M12 Table 11 in the EIR will be replaced with the new Table 11 shown on the following
page.
M13 Table 12 in the text will be replaced with the updated Table 12 included here on
the following pages.
hl~
. d
0 0
rG:;~
000 000 00
000 000 00 ....
000 000 00 ..
"I "'I c
000 00'" ON 0
....0.... "''''..... "'..... .....
..... ..... 01
OJ
...
C
0
.. '0
1Il 000 000 00 OJ
0 000 000 00 en
o-lQI coo CO "''''0 <'I..... ..
. . . . . . ..c
<'I" CO 0"'<'1 U'l0 ...
..c "COU'l "''''..... <'I..... en C
.... ..... OJ
en B
OJ ...
g ... ...
..
.... ~
0 000 000 00
> 000 000 00 en Q
"'0'" .."'.. ....'" 6
.. . . . . . . . . en
.... VI ...."'co ........0 oco ..... .M
en u ...."'.. ..N..... N ... ...
a. ..... .... 8- ~
..... .e
... .. ...
fo< > ... u
.. .....
.. ... ....
.... .... c ~
u ..... .....
..... '" l>o
.e Q ...
.. 000 000 00 OJ 0
> g 000 000 00 OJ C
cooco .."'..... NU'l ... .....
:>. .!!j III 1 . . . ... '0
.... .......... N.....CO "'''' en ...
- ..... III "'U'l'" "'N ..... ..
- '" '" -8 c
Q lC ...
~ ..... OJ
8- .. III
.. ... c
r ... OJ ..
OJ '0 1Il
~ 000 000 00 .....
000 000 00 .. ...
"'0'" .."'co ........ 0 0
... oil I . . . u
0 "''''.... "'U'lU'l .....'" :>.
... "''''N <'I..... .... ... ...
0 .....
'" c V
.....
... en .e
.. OJ ...
... 0 .....
..... '0 :.
... c
V 0 '0 c
..... c 0
e. ... OJ OJ OJ .. OJ OJ OJ .. '" .....
OJ .. C C C C C C c c ...
..... c ... '" '" .. '" '" .. '" .. en u
en '" ............ ............ ........ .. c
.. o-l I I I I I I I I !i ='
Q ..... 0"''' "'''N "N ...,
... ..... .... c
6 0 0
V :- u
~ c
.....
....
...
I ..
.. ..
OJ ...
... ..
... .....
u
.... . 0
'" .M en
.. ..... u ..
... 0 . oil
.... .. ....c
.. ... ..co 1Il
..... ... I..... ~
... oil '0... Q
... .. ..... a.
..... ... :>. E ..
.... ... ... u ..
..... :>. oil '" .. ... >-
u .. '0 .... .. ..c
( '" :. ... c ..ca.
1&0 .. 0 0 .. '0
.. ..., u ... ... ..
... .. .. .. ....
1&0 lC 1Il .. :- .....
.rot.,.. ~
.e...
fo<'O 0
.. V
. I."
t-I
-
\
'"
-'
...
;:
.
c
-I ....
.... U
>u.._
....0>
-I '"
....
V>
>
....1-
:1:-0
::IU-
-1<1-
oc. c(
><'"
U
<Il
....
<Il
>-
-'
::s
:;:
~
....
u
<
""
<
u
~
-'
~
t:l
Z
....
....
<Il
....
><
'"
<!:l >
Z~1-
--1-
I--U
V><<
-0"-
X <
.... U
<!:l
z> ....
_ ...J::
I--:::l
v><-I
-00
X >
....
~
-....
-1"-
->
UI-
<
u..
<!:l V>
Z "'....
-....z
I-CD<
V')~...."
-::I
X Z u..
.... 0
o
I-
.....
:I:
o
'"
...
>
<
3
o
<
o
'"
<CD....
CD CD....
N... CD
. . .
000
coo
OC'>O
000
00Lt>
... ... ....
000
000
000
""C'>""
............
.........
000
...,...,...,
"'''''''
::E:t!:::E
... ... N
V>
...
...
I-
...
-I
...
U
<
u..
l-
V>
....
3
I
l-
V>
<
....
C
'"
EftI
......:.
11>"'11>
"'11>-
"'->
3V>C
I ''''
"'C:I:
-'" ,
UE'"
C......
11>11>...
~"'II>
"''''-
>3V>
I-
....
....
'"
....
V>
%
I-
o
...
3-16
L&JQU<
OLnC)M
0"1,....\0('1")
. . . .
0000
ooo,"=,
0000
0000
000,,",
..,...,...,......
coco
o 0 0,'7)
0000
\OO""Lt)
""""N
'-'-'-'-
ooco
....,""""..-,....,
fOracara
::E:X:i:::E:
.....,...,.N
o
""OJ
Lt> C
_fUCU_
N-~...J
,...'"
-00>,
, +ole:....,
CUUI_
'1:t_tUU
_>_ I
ut I '-0
L.U") OM
OJ""'"
> C\.I U GI
_ I_+.l
a::_>e::::
.
OJ
>
<
"'C
C
'"
~
.c
01
-
%
o
cncacCQ
('l")CX)("')("')
In..,.,....&t)
. . . .
0'0'00
0000
0'000
0000
LnOOO
.......,... ..
0000
0000
0000
CXJcncn_
....NN
'-'-'-s....
0000
....,....,..,..,..,
n:tcarara
:::~::E::::
"'....,...,.
OJ
Lt> "'C
EtG__
__N",
raUIL.
~C-Q,J
I CU I >
0_ IG_
M fG_CI::
>U'
CUICU')
+.lEGI_
=__N
OcalGl
e::::o..>_
...
V>
OJ
C
-
-I
OJ
II>
'"
CD
CC<Cmc
0,....("')("")
U'l(\JU')CX)
. . . .
0000
0000
0000'
0000'
NOON
...-lIMM_
0000
0000'
0000
ltOCI)\,Q 0
........
>.>.>.>.
L.s...s...s...
rartlratG
-0-0"0"0
cccc
0000
uuuu
CUQJGlQ.I
V') V') V') V)
N....C\J
...
...
U OJ
OE
"'C C~
cu U') to '"
X_ul:L
I N CU I
......"c.GJ
--C.O
E I - C
-'-....,.,
...J+.lIU
ULt> OJ
>. ....c.
"'-"CNe.
_ CU I _
U::I:-I-
...
II>
OJ
...
...
V>
.c
...
C'>
ill
.
.
J
"'C
II>
'"
C
-
...
C
o
U
'--
\.'
'"''
~
,..
,.
-
J
-
'l
....
'"
~
o
tIl
.....
tIl
>-
....
<
z
<
~
.....
u
<
""
<
u
~
....
g
<.:l
2:
.....
!-o
tIl
.....
><
w
..... ...
... W
>u._
"'0>
..... c::
...
VI
>
"'1-
:E_O
::>W-
.....e(1-
O<>-e(
>e(C::
W
." >
Z>I-
-.....-
I--W
Vle(e(
-CQ.
>< e(
... W
."
Z>...
-.....:E:
1--::>
VIe(.....
-CO
>< >
...
>
I-
-...
..... Q.
->
WI-
e(
u.
." VI
:z:: 0:: UJ
-...Z
I-COe(
VI:E.....
-::>
>< Z....
.... 0
>
e(
3
C
e(
o
c::
CCmuc::c
LnOOCO
oqo..,. \0....
. . . .
0000
0000
0000
0000
Ooana
V"lllit...."IIlit
0000
0000
0000
0:)\0 en ,....
........
S-S-L..L.
0000
...-,.....,.,.,...,
"'latUla
~:::i:::E::E
....N~
o
I-
.....
:E
o
c::
u.
ll'l
....
N
,
-
I
.
CUCU>Q..
>~ I I
<cae",
3.._
LIEL
CULl') L.. 0
c._ CU +oJ
CLN ~ U
eLl I n:5_
Q,......3>
..
-
...
1::0
...... E
EU...
...- ..
....
OJ
OJ
...
....
VI
.c
....
ll'l
~ ..,
W
ucr::c:tc:c
M
..,
.
o
ocncor"')
\ONNLl')
. . . .
0000
o
o
o
o
M
0000
0000
0000
LnOOan
-"IIlit..,......
o
o
o
0\
....
0000
,0000
0000
cn-_c:c
........
...
o
...,
..
:E
'-'-'-s...
0000
...,.,.,...,....,
tara",",
:E:E::E:E
....
N.....N
"Cl
..
OJ
.c
~
...
...
e(
1
ll'l
....
N
,
....
OJ
o 0
.J::""",C
ucu,-",
CG.1s...u
"''-cucu
CI::...,..... Q.
, en en Q.
OJ 1_
"1:t.....+-J~
..... I CU I
cnOlU'tI
s....J:: So. '-
CU U +oJ s...
> ccn G.J
-.. -
o::a::_V)
....
OJ
OJ
...
....
VI
.c
....
....
OJ
=
I::
OJ
>
e(
o
....
...
..
-
c::
o
....COe(
MMCO
O\ll'lM
. . .
000
000
000
OCO
ll'l00
............
000
000
000
........ll'l
....N....
s....s... I-
000
...,...,...,
......
:E:E:E
N........
....
1::1::-
"OE
EI::_
...........
OJ OJ
....> >,
.. ....
3 ._
, ....W
OJ:E ,
0, I::
1::1::0
....I::
UE...
OJ... OJ
0. OJ>
0.....
- ......
1-3:E
....
OJ
OJ
...
....
VI
...
...
-
:E
00
00
00
00
MM
00
00
00
"'0\
--
~~
....
"Cl"Cl
1::1::
00
Uu
OJ OJ
VI VI
........
I::
..
E
...
OJ OJ
1::....
....
""'3
,
"'OJ
....e
e..
=-
::
''''
........
VIe
=
...::
OJ
e
..
.....
>,
....
-
...
..
....
-
0.
'"
o
::
COW
.
.
.
"Cl
OJ
=
e
-
....
e
o
W
Q
MM
ll'l..,
. .
00
M
....
.
o
o
o
o
o
M
o
o
o
N
N
~
..
."
e
o
U
OJ
VI
....
e
..
E
...
OJ
....
..
3
,
ll'l
-
N
,
...
.
."
>
-
CO
'"
"Cl
e
..
-
"Cl
OJ
'"
ICI'i
~-
c
e
-' ..... .
..... u .
>u..- <u< uu. c u..CO< <c<cc cu CO< .
.....0> '"
-' a:: OJ
..... '"
I/') C
~
....
C
0
U
............ -0....\0 O.....CO MMMC 00 0....
> N\O... 00........ N....N ~......N... .... \0 .....N
.....1- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2:-0 000 0.... 0 "'00 0000 00 00
=>u-
-'<I-
0<>.<
><a::
U
(!l > 000 000 000 OOCO 00 00
Z>I- 000 000 000 0000 00 00
-...,J,_ oog 000 000 0000 00 00
I--u 0..... 000 .....00 CLnCLn 00 NO
1/')<< ........ ....0.... ........... ...~...~ ........ ......
-0<>' .......
X <
..... u
(!l 000 000 000 OOCO 00 00
Z>..... 000 OOe 000 OOCO 00 00
-...J:;: 000 000 000 OOCO 00 00
Vl I--=> 00..... 0....0 CO CO... Lt')~'0\\D CO .... '" CO
.... 1/')<-, ... ... \0...... ......... - NN
Vl -00 - ...
>- X >
.... .....
<
Z
~ < > >,>,
I- >,>,>, ....
~ -..... ...... "''''''' .... .. s:.'-.'-.'-. .... "''''
-' <>. 000 :S:S~ 000 0000 00 '" '"
- .... -> ...,...,..., OJ OJ ...,...,..., ...,...,..-,..., ...,..., CC .'"
~ Ul- "''''''' GJGJGJ "''''''' I'DI'D 10 I'D "'''' 00
~ < :E%X ...... 2::r:: ::E:::E:2:2: 2:2: uu
.. u.. u..u..u.. GJOJ
tJ I/') I/')
W .......
.... ~
...
~ (!l I/')
.... Z "".....
~ -.....Z
I-~< 0
I/') -' ....N. .... \0 ... N........ "'N"I\:tN ........ N....
~ -=>
:z: X Z u..
.... ..... 0
f-o
Vl
.... GJ
>< GJ
"" ..
.... 0
I/') .. ...
. GJ I
0_ .c...._ '"
0 ....- ....C , ..
I- -~ enGJ" .c '" ..
....... "'.c 'UGJ >, .... cGJ GJ'"
:E -.... .... .... "'.c_ O "'~ C..
0 a:: 0 u'" C :s...._ .... _I/') - ...
a:: , 0 ...,CGJ .. en '" I .c I _ I
u.. .c~... "'u - '''' c.c - 01'" GJGJ
.... , 0_ "'>'C I'D~"'C_ -C "'C
....._0 ... C '" "''''GJ E Lt) c: or- :C:", "'-
, >.... -C , :s "" '-.IN:::r: ,- CO_
o _ . , '" 0.. I CII.c I I O.c I GJ
_C'" GJ.c_ ..._.c ~~~"'C - 01 "''''
VI I ...- .......C I "'.... I'DO+Jc: 1_ C'"
..... -2: a:: ""en_ -...en 3...Ln(\,l -:c: ""'CO
-
I-
-
-'
- .
U >, GJ
< GJ .... '" > '"
... > CII 3 < -
> < ..... CII ..
< :c: ... .. '" C 0
3 I- 0 N .... .. '" ...
0 S .c I I/') .. e U
< U ... GJ .. -
0 I/') C ..... - GJ >
a:: I '" I/') .... ~
:r a:: '"
I- 3
a::
0
Z
lilt
. .ft
0 0
.
U
u.._
-' ...... u..u..
...... U 00:-
>u.._ U U U < <ceo f-u
~ ......0> Vl ......
-' "" U 0..
...... - '"" V)
V) u.. z
u.. - .
< "" a:
a: ............
f- ......>
z: ......
-' -::;.
0 0 lXl "" .....""0 < ,",,0
>- '" '" ll'l "" ........ll'l - Z::c
...... f- . . . . . U ......
::E:-O 0 0 0 0 000 ......
::>U- 0.. U .
-' < f- Vl - z:
00..< u.0
><a: ...... u._
U ::t: < f-
f- a: V)
f-......
'"" >- 0 0 0 0 000 0 '""
Z>-f- 0 0 0 0 000 z: Oz
--,- 0 0 0 0 000 < ZO
f--U ll'l ll'l N 0 000 -U
V) < < ... - - .... """""" '" 0
-00.. lXl a:0
>< < 0\ <0
...... U - Z_ -'
a: a: .......
'"" 0 0 0 0 000 < ~L.&.JV)>
z: >-...... 0 0 0 0 oog U CO Q,.. L.I.I&.u
-....JZ 0 0 0 0 00 a: Vl -'
Ul f-- ::> 0\ 0\ ..... "" ll'lNll'l - Z"">-
.... V)OO:-l - N_ U <C<C....JLU
Ul -00 (/)L.&.J<CU
~ >< > 0.. o..z_
...... < u. 00:>
~ ::E: OX a:
~ 0..............
>- >,>,>, f- >- Vl Vl V)
f- ......... Z f-O...... 3
>- -...... ... ... ... ... """ '" ::;, -Z%>-O
- ... -' 0.. 0 0 0 0 ..,..,.., 0 U<C.........J-J
.... ->- ...., ...., ...., ...., <::<::<:: U - -'
~ :.J Uf- '" '" '" '" 000 1.&J:i:>c(O
< < ::E: X X X uuu U ::Z::CCc:cC~
c.. u.. OJ OJ OJ - f-
< V) V) V) u. ......O~ V)
OJ U u. CXL.&.JL.&.J<C
"'" ..... < ZO.........J
~ = ! a: c(V')!.&..CCL.&.J
~ f- -<a:
'" Vl V')UJ~~<
"'" za: ...... 0 L.&.JXZQ..
C -......z z: ~~L.a..lu.J(/)
> f- lXl < - c:CV')C1U_
'" V)X-l N N N .... ............ 0 -V')-uV')
-::0 a: U< e(> ...... u. u.
:z: ><Zu. < o W.....J
.... ...... 0 z: V). eo <
E- a: V)L..I.l L.LJZ
Ul ...... <:1-%<
.... .., al Of-
>< a: V)wZ V')
OJ Z ~u c- 0\
<:: < C_>L.&.J% C'\
. >, V) ><0::1-- .+
.... 0<:: >-c::::E:L.I.l 000
... ""U U. CCLLJ CZ 100
0 al ... 0 V)tn-- ll'l . .
f- E .- c :4(1') lXl_N
.... ~ OOJ~ >- L.l.JLL.WZC .
X -........ f- ~o~8~ 0
0 .., - '" IX " -
a: <:: ... 0.. I C1 U ...J...JO ::)
u. ...... - I OJ. ...... a: Vl
I .., .., .c '<::0 ~ >~Q.._V>
I- <:: <:: V) .....~"" ...... ......
QJ !oJ !oJ Vl_ a: c~zut!'
.c . I 0 OJ . U. o Z
'" .., .., - "''''OJ L&J -V"J<
~ <:: <:: I ..."'..... C O:::~1-0~
u. ...... ...... - "" eo a: L&JNL&J U...J <CCUQ
>03 L.a.I ....J
_~ V>(,I)V')L&J
O::IV)L&JO:::_>
LI.Itl:JL.&.J-LI..IV)L.&J
. cz.-I--I->-....J
QJ I- w.n- ...... z -'
> 0 Cl c:(1_W_<L.&J ...."'....
< "" ... .....,,"u< ZU aH,n. \C CXj
>- E "" OJ '" <aJ<C~CC:C""" "" . . .
< - I- a. '" c a..<w > .oee
3 '" QJ . a. 0 Cl<cUNV)O::: 01 . I
Cl 0.. .., OJ OJ a: l.&JZU __L&J 'Olne
c:( - .... 0.. X_ >-J::Z::V) O'lll:tl.l')"'"
0 " a: - =>1-:w::....J<.... 0000
a: 0 OJ ......J V> z...... U LIJ
eo 0 V)O--<OZ::z::
L.&.J>....J...JC...J_I-
f-
, O~ ~~ ~~
z: _ "''''' ....ll'l
3-19
IU";l
o
o
M14 The title of Figure 8 will be changed to indicate that the information refers to 1987
existing conditions. Traffic volumes are provided on Table 12.
MIS The word '1ane" in the referenced paragraph will be changed to "land". Beginning
with the second sentence in that paragraph, the remainder of the paragraph will be
rewritten to read as follows: ''However, downtown parking supply has been a
problem, although free on-street parking is permitted along most of the streets in
downtown San Bernardino. The City did not previously have any set
requirements for on-site parking. When the CBD was redeveloped, a parking
district was created, although parking was still insufficient to meet code
requirements. While the district was created to address parking for customers,
current surveys indicate that 83% of parking places are utilized by employees
(some of whom are also customers).
M16 The following information will be added as Section d. "Air Transportation" to p. 4-
95 of the EIR: "There are currently five airports serving the public in the regional
vicinity of San Bernardino. The closest commercial airport is Ontario International
Airport located in the City of Ontario, southwest of the of planning area. A second
air carrier airport, located in Palm Springs, would not be utilized as often due its
distance from the planning area. There are also three general aviation airports in
the region: one to the west in Rialto, the second to the southeast in Redlands, and
Riverside Municipal Airport, 12 miles to the south in Riverside. The Rialto Airport
is also used as the base for the County Sheriffs helicopters, which are used on
occasion by the City. The future utilization of the airport at Norton Air Force Base
in the southeast corner of the City has not been determined at this time."
M17 The words "by the model" will be added after the word "forecast", first line, bottom
paragraph, p. 4-97. At the end of that same sentence, the following phrase will be
added after the word "buildout": "at maximum intensity allowed by the Draft
Plan".
I..,
o
o
M18 The typo referenced in the comment will be corrected in the EIR. The remainder of
the text referenced will stay as it is currently written. It is not the position of the
EIR that these policies could impact development and possibly result in a "no
build" situation. The point of the discussion is that the goals of these policies may
be unrealistic given that a "no build" situation is not a viable option. By examining
Table 12, it is clear that even without any future development, existing conditions
are such that the goal of Level of Service C may not be a realistic standard for the
City.
M19 Figure 9 in the EIR will be replaced by the map shown on the following page.
M20 The referenced sentence will be changed to read as follows "Prior to development,
a detailed traffic analysis should be required for projects expected to produce
vehicle trips in excess of a threshold to be established per implementation program
16.13 and appropriate mitigation measures identified to reduce trip generation
and/or maintain a Level of Service C".
M21 This change will be made to the EIR as requested.
M22 As indicated in the revisions to p.4-203 of the Draft EIR (see response to comment
El, this document), policies 12.3.1-12.3.4 and implementation program 112.1, 112.2,
112.5,112.6, and 112.18-22 address the identification and reduction of the potential
for liquefaction hazard. These policies and programs discuss specific design
standards developed through liquefaction reports in order to avoid structural
collapse.
III ^
~
- - - -.. ....... ...................... -...... - - - - - -... ...... -. ..AI --
~lAY 4' 89 1 02 V
--
------------------
P~GE.02
'Uj
I ,)
I .. 'I,
f ~.......
I ~!
~ .: ~
..I ~..
1'- i ~
. l i
, ::-
. . ~
-, .::.c..,
~t''''
. A~
" -~("
\ .'
, ..~
',~ "'~ 'I,
~,
..
I
I
I
I
,--- f '.
'-j ,.. I
I I
"
oJ
~
-
a: 0
oJ W 0
~ t- o
a: ...
-
II: < Al
w
I- >- II: 0
>- a:: II: 0
~ -
Z < < Cl I- ~
< ~ II: Z Co)
oJ w II:
a. w 0 0 oJ
W ., Co) oJU
z If ~ w 0....
0 ::E 0) Co) >
-
t-
< I I . i
.." I
= I
Co) I
a:
- I
Co) .
j-l
--'
,\
r--- "
I ,
I 1""\
I -,
I "
,
I
,
1----"
I
I_~
I I....
'-,
I,
I.,
I----..,t\-~"!'
: Lu'::H
I ,~~
: ,... r
,-.-
f It
..........-.-'1
: I
: i.
: j-....-
: ~-"i:.1
. .....,
t-----.-- -
I
I
., ,
.
J
..
I
.
!...
,1
, I
....,,,..".. ",.. .....
... ......
-"
"
........"........"
Ie; ~......
':::J..............
.,~
...........I....~ .....
~
I
I~
-
o
o
M23 The first sentence in section 4.4.1.4 "Mitigation Measures, Geology /Seismicity" will
be amended to read as follows: "Concern with geologic and seismic issues in the
planning area has led to Plan objectives, policies and implementation programs
that address mitigation of fault rupture, strong ground motion, liquefaction,
emergency preparedness, and post disaster reconstruction. Of primary
significance in these policies and programs are critical facilities (those whose
continued functioning is necessary to maintain public health and safety), sensitive
facilities (those used for manufacture, storage, or sale of hazardous materials, or
socially significant facilities, e.g., schools, nursing homes), high occupancy facilities
(public or private structures for housing or assembly of large populations), and
hazardous buildings (unreinforced masonry, precast concrete tilt-up, soft-story,
and non-ductile concrete frame buildings)."
M24 The following information will be added to Section 4.4.4.2 "Project Impacts, Noise"
of the EIR: "Short-term noise impacts will result from construction of both
proposed land uses (e.g., houses, office buildings) and infrastructure required to
support those uses (e.g., street widening, utility extension). As indicated in Figure
25a, noise levels associated with construction equipment range from just below 70
(dbA) at 50 feet from the noise source to above 100 (dbA) at 50 feet. Although
these noise sources will not be permanent (unlike the increase in vehicular
traffic/noise) they will significantly impact localized noise levels for a relatively
short period of time,"
The following information will be added to Section 4.4.4.4 ''Mitigation Measures,
Noise" of the EIR: "In response to the concern of significant short-term noise
impacts related to construction, policies 14.8.1 and 14.8.2 and implementation
program 114.6 require that construction activities adjacent to residential use be
limited as necessary to prevent adverse noise impacts, require that construction
activities employ feasible and practical techniques which minimize the noise
impacts on adjacent uses, and restrict hours of operation of construction
equipment within and abutting residential areas."
.rl
o
o
FIGURE 2'5iL.
NOISE LEVELS FOR TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT REFERENCED TO 50 FEET
NOISE LEVEL (dbA) AT 50 FEET
60 70 80 90 100 110
COMPACTERS (ROLLERS) .
FRONT LOADERS
w I
Z Cl BACKHOES
a z I I
z ~
w
z ::t TRACTORS
~ I I
:r ,
I- SCRAPERS. GRADERS
::l a:
m c(
::t w
8 PAVERS .
...J
c( TRUCKS
z
a:
~ Cl CONCRETE MIXERS
2; z
...J
~ C
z CONCRETE PUMPS .
c c(
w :r
a. ~
~ c( CRANES (MOVABLE) .
CE
W
I- ti CRANES (DERRICK) .
z ::t
w
::t PUMPS
Q. >
:5 a:
fil c( GENERATORS .
z
0
~ COMPRESSORS
tl
t~ PNEUMATIC WRENCHES
JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS
~::t
::t!!:
-::l
fil PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS)
a: - VIBRATOR
w I
5 SAWS
I
Note: Based on limited available data samples.
Source: EPA. 1971- "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Buildin9 Equipment, and Home Appliances," NTID 300-1.
II:'}
o
o
N
CITY OF
San Bernardino
PLANNING DI,ARTIIINT
May 1, 1989
Mr. Joseph:Gibson
ENVICOM Corporation
4764 Park Granada, Suite 202
Calabasas Park, CA 91302
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Planning Department of the City of San Bernardino has
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
General Plan and have the attached comments. Because we were
not given an opportunity to review an administrative draft of
the Draft Environmental Impact Report, our comments are
somewhat extensive and include reference to typos and minor
work modifications.
We look forward to reviewing your responses prior to
receiving the final Response to Comment document.
If you should have any questions, please call Ann Larson at
(714) 384-5057.
Sincerely,
rad L. X' ger
Director of Planning
.,;.. ~.
BLK/ALP/nmg
ATTACHMENTS
':-;':,.~'~'~.--. ';"J."': a 0 0 NO lit T H . D' . T R E E T '.
~.' .
- ....,.:.;.;_.~--~--.c A L " 0 lit N I A . 2 .1..000,
" PRIDE.I
. AN. ERN A R DIN D. :...:::::.,NPROGRESS
, t . I I . . . . . I' . :-:.-:'"':-::-::1!!IL.~ s","2'
Introduction
o
o
DRAFT REVIEW COMMENTS
CI1Y OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT
The City of San Bernardino is in the process of preparing a new General Plan to update
its existing Plan. Envicom Corporation prepared the Draft General Plan and subsequently
compiled a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. At the
request of the City Planning Department, a thorough review of the Draft ElR has been
performed and this document provides City staff comments on the EIR.
EIR Comments
Page 1-2:
Page 3-1:
Page 3-2:
Page 4-31:
The ERC is left out of the Flow-Chart (Figure 3) on this page. Correct this
omission in the Final EIR
The environmental setting does not provide a comprehensive description of
the natural and man-made environment that provides the setting for the
General Plan. As obvious examples, this section does not identify the severe
geotechnical environment that exists because of the presence of the San
Andreas and San Jacinto Faults nor does it present any information regarding
the severity of air pollution in the region. Instead, a meaningless discussion
of topography of the Santa Ana River and Lytle Creek are presented and the
authors could not even characterize "incised stream channels" accurately. No
information was presented on the status of the City's public utility and service
infrastructure. Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the
environmental setting section be no longer than required to understand the
significant effects of the proposed project, but it must have some content.
Finally, no regional information is presented, such as the bounds of RSA 29
and the general resources found within its boundaries. This can and should
be corrected by adding a summary description of each of the pertinent
environmental issues. .
A page is missing from the Draft EIR distributed to the public. Please insert
the page in the Final EIR.
Is the Santa Fe Railroad considered a public or quasi-public use? If so based
on what and what other uses are considered public or quasi-public? This
needs to be defined for readers who may not understand.
1
,
2
(3
\4
.,..
Page 4-35:
Page 4-35:
Page 4-37:
Page 4-40:
Page 4-40:
Page 4-40:
Page 4-41:
Page 4-41:
o
o
In the last sentence of item #7, the term "with limited new development
occurring" needs to be explained in order to characterize the significant land
use issue being referred to.
In item #8 the relationship between developed parcels and key activity
districts needs to be discussed. Similarly, the importance of "clear linkages.
needs to be described. Examples need to be provided.
The imp;tct discussion begins with a description of the benefits that the Draft
Plan policies and standards will cause. This section is indicative of the focus
of this EIR on the benefits of the Plan and not the averse impacts. Land use
issues are a synthesis of all other issues and this is not reflected in the text
of the EIR. This section consists more of description than of analysis.
In the sentence that comes on the page, a substantial change in land use
pattern in the southeastern portion of the City is not assessed for impacts.
Instead, the analysis should have estimated the number of houses that will be
eliminated, particularly low income or affordable residences, and assessed the
potential adverse impact.
At the beginning of section .c" the comment is made that "In general,
development in accordance with the Draft Plan will improve the compatibility
among land uses." Throughout this paragraph policies are mentioned with no
specific reference that allows verification or understanding of the degree of
mitigation provided by the policies. Again, the specific policies that can
accomplish this goal are not defined. Further, there is no way for the reader
to independently verify the assertions made by this statement. Also, the term
.in general" is so unspecific as to have no meaning unless it is placed in
context by noting the exceptions.
In the next to the last sentence in .c. paragraph, a conclusion regarding land
use conflicts (compatibility) and the ability to adequately mitigate conflicts is
made. There is no analysis to reach this important conclusion; no criteria to
judge how this conclusion was reached; no specific reference to the policies
that "ensure their adequacy" when referring to buffers. The policies should
be referenced; analysis presented that justifies conclusion; and a supportable
conclusion presented.
In the first full paragraph on this page the potential for conflict between uses
in areas where residential and commercial uses is discussed, but no conclusion
is reached. Again, in this paragraph policies are referenced that are not
presented, therefore no conclusion as to their effectiveness can be drawn. The
solution to this error is the same as the previous comment.
In paragraph .d" the discussion focuses on the positive impacts of further
quality of development and construction, rather than the potential adverse
environmental impacts. In such a case the appropriate method of addressing
2
~
I~
i-
8
Gl
I
10
/I
\ 10-
I~~
Page 4-41:
Page 4-42:
Page 4-42:
Page 4-42:
o
o
this issue would have been to cite the pertinent policies and then draw a
conclusion that all of the policies result in beneficial, not adverse, impacts. I" .
Because of the manner in which the information is presented in this text it .<./
is not clear if there are any adverse environmental impacts or not. By
presenting or refe~encing the policies and then rewording this paragraph to
draw a clear conclusion this section can be corrected.
In paragraph "e" there is a reference to "districts" that will undergo transitions.
However, I do not believe that these districts have been identified. Therefore,
the reader does not know where these transitions will be and can not make
an independent judgment regarding the potential significance of such
transitions. A map illustrating the "districts" should be provided and specific
references made to the ones that will undergo transitions. Equally important,
these transitions are identified for the west (not identified where) and the
foothills and no assessment of the significance of these changes is made. Are
there adverse impacts associated with transitions from suburban to urban
intensity uses or from undeveloped foothill areas to rural suburban settings?
This paragraph needs a clear conclusion regarding the specific types of
impacts that occur from the transitions and the significance of these impacts.
In paragraph "f' the loss of a substantial amount of open space in the
community is identified. No criteria for judging the overall or local
significance of this loss is provided and no conclusion regarding its significance
is presented for the reader to evaluate. This information should be provided
or corrected. Staff indicates that the 12,146 acres referenced in Table 4 on
page 47 is not all open space, but includes total land use change for vacant
and developed land.
13
14-
This is a conclusionary statement. It fails to provide any content for
evaluation by the reader. What is the compatibility issue referred to in this
paragraph? Where on the southeastern boundary does it occur? What is the
basis for incompatibility? Does the Draft Plan cause this compatibility
problem or is it one that already exists? This paragraph needs to be
supplemented with some analysis that elucidates the issue and allows
appropriate conclusions to be reached.
Paragraph "b" presents the reader with a dilemma. One of the major impacts
that I perceive with the Draft Plan is that it could result in loss of affordable
housing and displacement of current residents without providing them with
a replacement unit. This issue calls for careful, quantitative analysis that
relates total future affordable housing needs (this would include new and
displaced affordable housing demand) based on the Draft Plan. Further in
this paragraph it is noted that the housing and loss of historical structure
impacts may be mitigated, but no conclusion is reached. Thus, the reader is
not presented with an understanding of the actual degree of adverse impact
that will remain after implementing policies (which need to be specified).
This information should be included in the Final EIR.
I~
1&
3
, C,_
Page 4-43:
Page 4-43:
Page 4-44:
Page 4-44:
Page 4-44:
Page 4-45:
o
o
In paragraph "d" the text raises the issue of a substantial density increase for
the City as a whole. No discussion of the consequences, if any, are presented
in the EIR. This issue should be addressed in the Final Em. The increase
in density should be related to circulation system and all other infrastructure
system impacts. This should be characterized in the Final Em. An unusual
impact from "recycling" existing homes will be a substantial increase in solid
waste that has not been addressed anywhere in the Em. Finally, the changes
implied in this document will result in substantial changes in existing
neighborhoods that may be considered significant. Each of these issues
should have been fully discussed in the Em.
/"1-
Paragraph "eO discusses "intensification" of land uses and change in character
in the Verdemont area and other unspecified areas within the City. These
other areas should be specified and then an analysis of the consequences of
intensification must be provided. This section of the document does not
present any conclusions regarding the potential for adverse impact and this
deficiency must be rectified.
15
In paragraph "a" which comes on to this page there is no discussion of which
are existing commercial areas and which are new areas. Only the beneficial
impacts of unreferenced policies are discussed and there are potential adverse
impacts associated with both existing and new commercial centers, regardless
of their quality. These issues have not been examined and should be
examined in the final text. Are there any adverse impacts a5S04;iated with the
policies that result in unique commercial centers? Without knowing which
specific policies are being referenced it is not possible to draw any conclusions
regarding this topic.
In paragraph "c" the issue of conflict between building height and future air
operations (commercial or military) at Norton are raised. There are no data
or explanation of the basis for this statement and no conclusions regarding
the potential consequences of this potential conflict. An analysis and
conclusion of the extent of conflict, its significance and possible mitigation
measures must be provided in the Final EIR.
lq
?J)
Revitalization and upgrade are discussed (without reference to specific
policies) in paragraph "e" as benefits. No analysis of what these terms mean
as actual physical changes to the environment is presented. Such an analysis
needs to be presented and conclusions regarding potential for adverse impact
must be presented.
The conclusion presented in the first full sentence on this page seetDS
incorrect and is not supported by any analysis. Increasing the vitality (how
is character increased? and what does that statement mean?) is more likely
to cause greater incompatibility between commercial and residential uses
because the activity associated with commercial operations is one of the
2/
:2')..
4
I '5-r
Page 4-45:
Page 4-45:
Page 4-46:
Page 4-47:
o
o
primary sources of conflict. This conclusion needs to be reexamined and
either deleted (and replaced) or justified with sufficient analysis.
In the first full paragraph on the page it is not specified if one or all corridors
will be permitted to have mixed residential and commercial use. Do
circumstances vary in any of the corridors? What is the basis for the
conclusion that the reduction in overall capacity of commercial development !
"will be a significant benefit." There is no obvious benefit from this reduction I'
or the City would reduce the overall commercial designations within the Plan. ,
Without further justification, this conclusion should be revised or deleted. I
The compatibility impacts between commercial and residential uses are again I
raised with no analysis of whether they are potentially significant or not. \
Finally, in this paragraph it is not shown how which development standards
would achieve the claimed mitigation and what the ultimate level of \
compatibility would be. All of the above deficiencies need to be corrected
in the Final EIR by supplying the requisite analysis and the conclusions
derived therefrom.
In paragraph "f' is a discussion of the significant changes due to regional
service uses. No discussion of the basis for this conclusion is presented.
Further, reliance on preparation of a specific plan provides no basis for
mitigation. Such a plan may simply show that such impacts cannot be
mitigated. What this section does is to defer analysis to the future that should
be accomplished now. If the land use changes are actually significant and
specific mitigation cannot be assured (i.e. is deferred to the future), then I
would conclude that the impact from the allowed land uses at the regional
centers is unavoidably significant and adverse. The findings regarding traffic
impacts in the Tri-City area would support this conclusion. The text of the
Final EIR at this point should be revised accordingly.
The first two sentences on this page discuss elimination of incompatible uses,
but do not address the adverse impact of displacing the existing uses in terms
of replacing the housing or commercial resources that they represent. Some
general characterization of the amount of resources in each category that will
be lost must be provided.
In paragraph "b" the statement is made that open space will be lost, but no
analysis of the type and amount of open space being lost is presented.
Further, no analysis of the consequences is provided for the whole planning
area or specific segments of the area. This section fails to assess whether
there are adverse impacts associated with creation of new public parkland and
recreation areas. Just because such uses may provide benefits for the
community does not mean that their development will not cause loss of
valuable habitat or cause other adverse impacts that can be considered significant. This information needs to be included in the Final EIR.
5
\'):-
I
1-3
!
;
I
I
\ ~+
I
I
I
I
,
I
(
~5"
\ ~.
Ic;9
Page 4-47:
Page 4-47:
Page 4-48:
Page 4-48:
Page 4-49:
Page 4-49:
o
o
11-
25
I
'.t\
30
31
\O~
Page 4-49: In the second full paragraph on this page the discussion again address the I
mitigation incorporated in the Plan to reduce impact on the hills and that
adjacent National Forest lands will be complementary to these lands. There ~?
is no basis provided for this conclusion. Specifically, the only way to
determine whether intrusion is extensive or not is to define what level of
development will be allowed and then provide a criteria for determining what
The whole section discussing impacts of the City's Draft Plan and adjacent
land use plans suffers from not having any supporting graphics that describe
both the existing land uses and the uses allowed under each jurisdiction's
general plan and zoning. Thus, the conclusions regarding compatibility cannot
be independently verified and one must either accept the conclusionary
statements made by the authors or reject their findings. Thus, each of the
discussions in this section need to be rewritten to incorporate sufficient data
to allow an independent fmding to be made.
The last full sentence on the page certain "portions of the land" abutting
Norton are identified as being compatible. This discussionis totally unclear
as to what land is being referenced; what uses are being considered
compatible; and what the basis is for judging the proposed uses compatible.
This information needs. to be incorporated in the Final EIR.
The paragraph that comes onto this page has so many contradictions that it
is not possible to determine what it is saying. First, it is not,clear that impacts
can be mitigated for much of this area because many of the uses already exist
and buffering does not appear feasible. Second, the incompatibility issue
appears resolved in thefU'St part of the paragraph and is then found to pose
potential significant adverse impacts that may need additional, undefined
mitigation. This analysis needs to be replaced with a new text that provides
maps, details and a conclusion based on facts, not conjecture and unsupported
conclusionary statements.
In the last sentence of the first paragraph on the page, the claim is made
that land use compatibility impacts. between the City of Highland and Draft
Plan uses "are mitigated" by certain land use controls. None of these controls
are described nor is there any basis for determining that mitigation is actually
achieved. This section needs additional support text and evaluation. The
same comments apply to the second full paragraph on the page.
In the full paragraph coming on the page, the conclusionary statement
(although it may be valid) is not supported by any analysis in the text.
Additional text and graphics need to be added to support the conclusion.
The Specific Plan to the west of East Highlands Ranch discussed in the first
full paragraph on the page contains substantial medium density designations
and the compatibility analysis presented in this text is invalid. The Final EIR
text should be revised to address the actual specific plan designations.
6
III:Q
Page 4-49:
Page 4-49:
Page 4-50:
Page 4-50
Page 4-51:
Page 4-52:
o
o
is and is not intrusion. There are probably areas where any intrusion is
considered significant and this evaluation should have identified these and
criteria for intrusion along the rest of the National Forest/City boundary. In
particular wildfire hazards are substantially increased when access is provided ,?'Q
into or adjacent to the National Forest. The policies for slope management
need to be cited: Finally, does the Forest Service agree with the term
"generally" regarding the Plan promoting complementary, i.e. compatible, land
uses. There is no factual basis or analysis to justify this conclusion. Basic
data need to be provided to present this information in the Final EIR.
In the last full paragraph on the page, the basis for the conclusion of
compatibility between extractive industry, light industry and low density
residential is not clear and appears questionable. The basis for this
. conclusion needs to be presented or a revised analysis and conclusion should
be provided in the Final EIR.
In the first sentence of the last paragraph that begins on this page, the term
"is supported" does not make sense in the context in which it is used. This
needs to be clarified in the Final EIR. A map needs to be provided to
confirm and justify the conclusions regarding compatibility in this paragraph
that ends on page 4-50 of the Draft EIR.
In the first full paragraph on this page, the discussion of compatibility between
single-family residential and multi-family units is not clear. Is not this area
already developed and if so, how can buffers be installed in such areas to
mitigate existing potential conflicts between the two uses? On what basis is
there compatibility between the uses on Mill Street? There is no foundation
established for this conclusion and it is intuitively difficult to accept. Data
needs to be provided to support this conclusion.
The conclusionary statement in the final paragraph that starts on this page
contradicts some of the previous analysis and is not supported with any
verifiable data. It is based on a sequence of conclusionary statements that,
as has been shown, do not contain any supporting facts or analysis. Further,
the recommendations that preparing specific plans provides mitigation is not
valid. Preparing a plan does not ensure mitigation unless the unequivocal
result of that plan is committed beforehand, i.e. that the plan will have as its
primary goal the mitigation of the conflicting land uses. The manner in which
this EIR discusses such the specific planning process does not result in any
mitigation.
Mitigation measure 2 does not provide any actual mitigation and should be
deleted or reformulated.
Mitigation measure 3 seems to be placed here in error. What impact is it
designed to mitigate? No significant adverse impact has been identified for
this issue in the text of the EIR. Delete this measure or provide some
7
\:4
"L
~-'
./
?;;~
31
\
\ 3~
\ 3q
ILn
Page 4-52:
Page 4-52:
Page 4-53:
Page 4-53:
Page 4-53:
Page 4-54:
Page 4-54:
Page 4-55:
Page 4-57:
Page 4-59:
o
o
\ '~'\
analysis that justifies its inclusion in the EIR.
No discussion of possible adverse impacts from proposed mitigation measures 't)
is provided and at least a summary statement with some rationale must be
provided for the Final EIR.
.
The level of significance discussion does not have any basis for the conclusion \
that all impacts are mitigable as previously noted. Further, the language in
the text of the remainder of this chapter contradicts the conclusion regarding I 4 \
significant adverse impact because it speaks of substantial land use change to
existing land use designations, increases in density and intensity of overall
development and loss of irretrievable open space and vacant lands. I interpret
these impacts as being significantly adverse and unavoidable.
At the end of the first paragraph on the page is an example of a very common 4
error in this EIR, that is, a failure to supply sufficient references for '1..
information presented in the document. What is the basis for the conclusion
that 58,571 units will be located within city limits. A citation or basis for this
finding should be provided to the reader.
The next to the last sente.nce on the page is redundant. The same fact is \ 4-'
presented in paragraph two on this page. It should be deleted.
In the last sentence the issue concerning location of these units needs to be
better addressed. The area of dispersal is too generally defined in this
sentence. Specific percentages or a more detailed qualitative discussion of
this issue needs to be presented.
In the second sentence on the page, the term "newer areas" is too ill-defined
to have any meaning. Is it intended to mean that new developments contain
standard-sized subdivisions? If so, what is standard sized. Clarify in the Final
EIR.
Last sentence on page, the basis for the owner occupancy percentage estimate
needs to be cited.
A citation is needed for the local housing and costs cited in the last full
paragraph on this page and the last paragraph that begins on this page. This
should be corrected in the Final EIR.
In the first sentence on the page the term "share of projected population" is
not referenced to any measurable area. Is it a share of the RSA's population
or the regional housing needs assessment allocation? This should be clarified
in the final EIR. Note also that the analysis in the housing section presents
the benefits of the project instead of focusing on the adverse impacts.
I perceive a contradiction in the discussion of development on this page. The
8
\*
\ 4'<;
\4(p
\41-
~
\~
II l
Page 4-60:
Page 4-61:
Page 4-61:
Page 4-62:
II
o
o
EIR indicates that SCAG's projections would cause sensitive areas to be
developed. In fact, the General Plan already provides for such development,
with the possible exception of locating houses on top of faults in
Alquist/Priolo zones. All areas of the City are given a designation that would ~
allow developmen~, albeit at a lower density than might be envisioned by the
SCAG plan. This contradiction needs to be resolved in the Final EIR with
a better rationalized statement supporting the lower housing development
figure over the next five years. In particular, the basis for the number 5,802
houses needs to be presented to demonstrate that it was not just grasped out
of thin air.
In the last full paragraph on the page, a discussion is presented which implies
that residential neighborhoods will be maintained at a high level. However,
this is misleading because the degree of maintenance is actually tied to the
City's building code requirements which are not presented or discussed. Does 60
the building code contain requirements which will enforce maintenance at a
level that will preserve existing residential housing? If so, the specific sections
in the code should be provided (if short enough) or summarized and
referenced. The same problem occurs in the final paragraph beginning on this
page. The EIR text references policies that will facilitate production of
affordable housing, but the specific policies that accomplish this goal are not
presented for the reader to make an independent review.
In the first three paragraphs on this page, citations need to be provided for \ 61
each section of the Plan referenced.
The discussion in the last paragraph on this page is critical because it presents
the argument for not meeting the SCAG affordable housing projection.
Because it is such an import9.!1t point, I would have expected a substantial
analysis of the basis for the conclusions in the paragraph or reference to such
analysis. Instead, the inability to meet affordable housing projections (by a
sizeable 90%, or 4,341 units) is attributed to an undefined "market." Such a
conclusion poses a very significant problem for the City because as stated in ,/,...,
the land use section of the EIR, many of the land use designations and '? .J.-'
policies will cause the elimination of existing affordable housing. The net
result is that the Plan will reduce the overall available affordable housing and
not meet the future demand as projected in the RHNA Further, the analysis
of affordable housing is extended only through 1994 and does not consider
the total scope of the affordable housing impacts through the life of the Plan.
The potential impacts of the Draft General Plan on the affordable housing
needs of the City has the poteritial to cause severe (significant adverse)
impacts on the City's population and the RSA's communities. This potential
impact is not adequately or honestly addressed in this document and it needs
substandalaugmentation in order for it to be considered adequate.
There is no analysis of impacts in the Housing Distribution discussion on this \-'S?J
page which is consistent with the analysis in the land use section of the EIR.
9
,,~
Page 4-62:
Page 4-62:
Page 4-62:
Page 4-64:
Page 4-64:
Page 4-68:
Page 4-69:
Page 4-69:
-
o
o
A summary statement of whether the land use changes incorporated into the 6?J
Plan cause significant adverse impacts should be presented here.
This section does not present any analysis of the Plan's impact on the quality
of housing, either the present housing stock or future housing. An evaluation
of this issue needs to be included in the Final Em.
The cumulative impact section does not contain any analysis, just a statement
of the obvious with no conclusions regarding potential adverse impact.
Specifically, if the City of San Bernardino does not plan to construct its
affordable housing allocation, what impact does this have on the surrounding
communities? This issue poses very significant potential cumulative housing
impacts because the SCAG regional housing allocations are based on
communities meeting these defined needs. H the City fails to meet affordable
housing needs, particularly by the 90% projection, then the impact is shifted
to other communities because the demand is not going to disappear. In fact,
some of the City's policies will further exacerbate the problem. Although the
City challenged the RHNA, the discussions of significant and cumulative
impacts from no fulfilling its share of the housing need must still be discussed.
No discussion of mitigation measure impacts is provided and at least a
summary statement is needed in the Final Em.
In the fourth paragraph, second sentence change "1940" to "1840".
The whole description through page 67 section suffers from a lack of maps
to illustrate the locations being discussed. One or more maps need to be
provided, especially the boundaries of the areas surveyed for.historic district
merit. Further discussions on these districts will be of less value without
illustrating their boundaries.
At the top of the page, what is the basis for identifying the three parks as
historic? Is this a formal designation? Please clarify the significance or
meaning of this designation.
The analysis section does not provide the fundamental data to understand
the nature and extent of historicjarchaeologic resources (and data) that may
be impacted by the Plan's land use designations and policies. The reader is
not presented with any sense of whether the resources discussed in the existing
conditions section can or will be lost as a result of adopting the Plan.
Further, the mitigation identified at the top of this page is optional and
therefore does not accomplish the reduction of impact implied in this
discussion.
The cumulative impact discussion is unusual to say the least. Up to this
point we have had no discussion regarding monuments in the City that may
be impacted by air pollution or pollution(?). Second, I am not sure that such
10
15+
66
/6&
/61
65
\6l
(;0
{pI
. I 't
Page 4-69:
Page 4-70:
Page 4-72:
Page 4-72:
Page 4-75:
Page 4-75:
Page 4-75:
Page 4-75:
Page 4-76:
~
o
o
pollution will impact historic structures. This conclusion needs to be
referenced to provide confirmation.
The proposed mitigation, notification of historic resources, does not
accomplish reductions in impact to significant historic/archaeologic resources.
It establishes a strhcture in which mitigation can occur, but does not guarantee
its occurrence. No assessment of impact from this measure is provided in the
text and it should be included in the Final EIR.
The unavoidable adverse impact section does not address the same impacts
analyzed in the text. There was no discussion of monument destruction from
increased visitor-use days or traffic impacts on older structures. The impacts
discussed in the text were related to future uses allowed in the Plan impacting
significant historical or archaeological resources. The unavoidable adverse
impact discussion needs to be revised and/or the text of this section needs to
be augmented with the additional issues raised on this page.
In the fourth line on the page insert the work "low" between the words "the"
and "desert". In the fifth line insert the work "high" between the words "the"
and "desert". In the eighth line on the page change "provided" to "provides".
Throughout this discussion of roads two important features are missing.
First, each discussion should be referenced to Table 12 which presents level
of service data for existing streets. Each discussion road should present the
current traffic flow status in the discussion to enable the reader to have a
good understanding of the circulation system and its current functional
capacity. Second, the adt's and LOS information should be portrayed on a
series of maps that allow the reader to visually reference the information.
The text discussion is so long and complicated that it is difficult to keep track
of related circulation system information. A few maps would overcome this
problem and they need to be provided.
Second line on the page, should not the word "Highway" be "Way"?
The last sentence of the Rancho Avenue discussion does not make sense.
The double reference to south should be reworded to clarify this statement.
In the second line of the Cajon Boulevard discussion the word "Devon" should
be "Devore".
In the flrst line of the Mount Vernon Avenue discussion the word "form"
should read "from".
In the second line of the Tippicanoe Avenue discussion the "San Bernardino
Airport" is referenced. There is no such facility. Further, Tippecanoe does
actually extend through Norton (not sure if the name remains the same on
the base) and given that Norton may close, then Tippecanoe may become a
11
\ (r I
\~L
(03
04- -
(/
&&
\&1-
i 0f?
",q
10
., u
Page 4-17:
Page 4-77:
Page 4-77:
Page 4-77:
Page 4-78:
Page 4"79:
Page 4-78:
Page 4-80:
.4 Jtb.
o 0
more important north south thoroughfare between the 1-10 Freeway and
Baseline. Of all the traffic impacts that may be changed as a result of Norton 10
operations, this one may have the greatest effect and should be analyzed in
the General Plan Circulation Element and EIR or in an amendment in the
near future.
In the Creek Road discussion, second sentence, the road is described as a
six-lane divided facility. I believe that it currently has only four lanes, but its
width may accommodate six-lanes to Baseline. This description needs to be
completely revised. In the third sentence the word "volumes" should read
"volume". For other roads that continue to Interstate 10 outside the City a
description of the road and its status is presented. This is not provided for
Boulder Avenue/Orange Street in Redlands.
In the discussion on 40th Street, I do not believe that 40th runs from Kendall
Drive to the San Bernardino City line. This statement needs to be confirmed
and graphically portrayed.
Is there some reason that 30th Street and Lynwood Avenue are being ignored
in this circulation system analysis? This is the major east-west street between
Highland and 40th and it carries a substantial volume of traffic that is likely
to increase substantially as a result of completing the Route 30 Freeway.
At the bottom of the page and carrying onto the next page, I believe that
Highland Avenue is 4 lanes to City Creek Road. Please confirm this
statement in the EIR.
In the 5th Street discussion, the statement that 5th is four lanes east of
Victoria is not correct. It is configured as two lanes with perhaps enough
width for four lanes. This statement needs to be corrected.
In the first line on the page the word "venue" should read "Avenue".
In the Rialto Avenue discussion where does the 10,000 ADT occur, along
the whole road or at specific locations along the road.
The next to last sentence in the paragraph that comes onto this page, makes
a conclusion regarding the functional capacity of the existing circulation
system that has not been supported in the text to this point. At a minimum
Table 12 should be cited and the information contained in it discussed and
related to suitability of the existing system. The reasons for judging the
system to be consistent with the intended uses of the system. Two word
corrections are also needed: in the eighth line on the page the second word
"area" should read "are", and in the ninth line the word "he" should read "the".
The adequacy of the system is referenced only to the downtown traffic
situation. Several other areas should also have been considered, including the
following: the Commercenter area, particularly Waterman and Hospitality
12
1\
11-1.-
\~3
l-:rt
\T'S'
11-&
\ 11-
:w
Page 4-81:
Page 4-93:
Page 4-95:
Page 4-95:
Page 4-97:
Page 4-97:
~
e
<)
Lane intersection, Waterman and Baseline and Highland, and Interstate 10 \-:
near Inland Center Drive. These data and evaluations need to be added to
the Final EIR.
In the fifth sentence of the first paragraph that starts on the page, something
was left out of the text. What level is it that is considered ultimately
acceptable street capacity criteria? It appears to be LOS F. Please COrrect
and revise subsequent text as appropriate after confering with the City
Engineering Department.
In paragraph a. the statement is made that Highland Avenue is a two-lane
road along a portion of its length. This is incorrect. Highland is a four lane
road all the way to City Creek Road. Thus, the whole evaluation and
conclusion in this section is incorrect and may require revision in Table 12
and Figure 8. These corrections must be made in the Final Em.
The source of information for the conclusions regarding ridership percentages
needs to be referenced in this document. Some analysis of why the system
does not operate with the same type of peaked ridership would be
appropriate.
In the last paragraph Table 13 is discussed. This discussion needs to be
expanded to address how the trip end data were generated and their level of
accuracy. Table 13 has several contradictions that need to be explained.
Specifically, the increased number of trips for housing occurs at a lower
percent for new housing based on the percentage increase of new housing
units. Why does this occur? Similar disparities exist between the number of
trips related to existing commercial and industrial areas and the number of
trips projected for future industrial and commercial square footage. Since
these projections form the basis for the whole impact projection, they must
be carefully documented and this information is not provided or referenced
in the EIR.
In the second paragraph that begins on this page, it is not explained how the
CaItrans trip data relates to and is integrated with the DKS predictions. No
quantification or discussion is provided and this information is important to
understanding both current and future traffic patterns.
The third paragraph that begins on this page contains a major hidden
assumption that removes the reader from the process of how and why roads
are given a different classification from the present. The reason for this is
in second sentence which, in essence, states that the traffic evaluation is based
on the proposed cir~lation system. Thus, the impacts being presented are
after mitigation, i.e. assumes that the roads have been reconfigured or
constructed to meet the designations in the Draft Plan. This is in contrast to
other environmental issues which are compared to the existing systems. What
13
-:r{
CD
\ 8/ -
6:l
83
6~-
II. t.
Page 4-97:
Page 4-98:
Page 4-103:
Page 4-103:
Page 4-105:
o
o
this analysis does not tell the reader is when a particular road will exceed its
current capacity (LOS E based on the criteria in the Plan) under the Plan and
will need to be expanded to meet the ultimate traffic flow. In the end the
information not included reduces the value of the circulation system analysis
from an infrastructure planning standpoint. The more fundamental problem
from an analytic sUmdpoint is that if the new roads that were used to calculate
impacts are not constructed (due to lack of funding or other problems), then
the level of impact projected will be much worse and the time it will occur
will not be known. The net result is that, since construction to meet the new
classifications cannot be guaranteed, the Em is not presenting the reader with
adequate information to achieve full disclosure.
Based on the conclusions presented in the final paragraph on this page,
development under the proposed Plan, even after including all of the
proposed roads at their new classification in the Plan, will have significant
adverse impacts on portions of the City's system. Thus, it is important for the
EIR to discuss the implications of not constructing these facilities. I base this
on my general understanding that the majority of the roads already exist and
much of the land surrounding them is fully developed. Therefore, an
understanding of how roads are going to be funded and constructed to their
new classification level is essential or the impacts will be much more severe
than forecasted, as outlined above. Amechanism to assure road construction
funds must be provided or the current analysis will be inadequate as discussed
above.
There is no discussion of the physical impact on the existing environment
from constructing the roads to the new classifications in this table. Thus, it
could be necessary to disturb some significant habitat, archaeological
resources, or, more likely, to disrupt existing property and existing manmade
uses due to taking portions of adjoining developed property along certain
roads. This impact has been ignored and should be addressed in the Final
EIR.
Figure 9 is misleading because is focuses only on those locations that will be
"most significantly impacted by buildout of the Draft Plan." As shown in
Table 15 it is clear that many other intersections throughout the City will
exceed the criteria of significance used in this document. Therefore, either
an additional graphic or a modified version of the same graphic should be
included in the Final Em.
Specific policies to accomplish traffic mitigation are not identified in the text
of the first full paragraph on this page. These should be identified in the
Final EIR.
The discussion in the second full paragraph on the page regarding infeasibility
of constructing roadway segments to provide a LOS "C" is not clarified in the
text. Is the reason for infeasibility based on planning system limitations (Le.
14
M-
0~
rlll
61-
\ BB
\61
I....
Page 4-106:
Page 4-106:
Page 4-107:
Page 4.108:
Page 4-108:
Page 4-109:
o
o
funding) or on absolute limitations such as lack of road width along certain \
right-of-ways or other similar situations? Perhaps one of the best examples S I
is how will freeway traffic flows be mitigated below a significant level? Please
clarify in the Final EIR.
o
In the first paragraph under mitigation measures, the impacts of implementing
the roadway classification upgrades have not been evaluated in the text of the
Em. The consequences of local parking removal, widening of streets,
driveway closures (in terms of access to individual parcels) were not discussed
in the text. Because of the large number of roadway upgrades, a specific
discussion on each would probably be inappropriate but a general discussion
based on categories of impacts could be provided and should be provided in
the Final Em.
In the bottom paragraph who will be "required" to implement circulation
improvements? Many of the classification upgrades occurs on roads where
development has already occurred and most new development will not directly
impact these roads. Some mechanism for funding must be identified that has
some reasonable chance of being implemented by the City and this has not
been identified in the EIR.
It is not clear that the policies discussed on this and the next page are in the
General Plan or are new mitigation measures. Each policy cited in this
section should be correlated with General Plan policies by providing the policy
number as was done in referencing policies 6.1.11 and 6.1.14.
In the third paragraph on page 108, will new development generate adequate
funds to .construct proposed roadway improvements? Has an estimate been
prepared for upgrading all the roads identified in the Plan and discussed in
the EIR? Has a similar estimate been prepared for the amount of funding
that can be anticipated from the development forecasted in the Plan and
EIR? Do they match or will there be a shortfall? Without answering these
questions it will not be possible to evaluate the potential success of proposed
mitigation. These figures need to be included in the Final Em.
In the last paragraph on this page and the top of the next page, what is the
basis for establishing 100 trips/day (see page 110) as the criterion for
preparation of a traffic impact study? My concern is that this will result in
a large number of traffic studies that will not identify any significant impact
on the circulation system because 100 trips/day have a very low potential to
impact the system. Please provide the justification for this criterion. IT it was
arbitrarily selected by the City just say so.
In the first paragraph fully on the page it appears that secondary access could
be avoided based on some undefined feasibility finding. Should the City
allow any projects to be constructed without secondary access? There is a
long term potential impact to developments not served by secondary access
15
qa
q\
\q~
q3
q4
q~
11..9
Page 4-109:
Page 4-111:
Page 4-111:
Page 4-112
Page 4-113
Page 4-113
Page 4-113
Page 4-116
o
o
that has not been addressed in the EIR. It should be discussed as a
consequence of the proposed mitigation measures.
In the fifth paragraph the term "pursue" does not provide real mitigation and
the verb should be revised to be mandatory or any mitigation attributable to
this measure must be discounted.
The Transportation Management Demand Systems mitigation discussed at
the top of the page is not mandatory and therefore cannot be counted as firm
mitigation. This is an essential program that needs to be better defined and
made mandatory in the Final ElR.
In the first paragraph fully on the page the comment is made that the only
way of ensuring LOS "C' would be to substantially downsize tho development
allowed by the General Plan. Is this a valid statement? What prevents the
City from expanding the funding and solving traffic problems with engineering
solutions? This issue needs to be clarified in the Final EIR. The last
sentence in this paragraph is a rationalization and rmding that should not be
in the EIR and should be included in the ultimate statement of overriding
considerations and findings.
The following issues were not discussed in the EIR: existing traffic hazards
that need to be corrected; new traffic hazards that may be created by the
proposed system upgrades or the new General Plan land use designations; and
impacts of proposed mitigation measures. Each of these issues should have
been addressed in the Draft EIR and need to be addressed in the Final EIR.
In the list of water purveyors at least two of the water company boundaries
(South San Bernardino and Muscoy Mutual) are not shown. They should be
added to Figure 10.
In the second paragraph on the page, a quantative analysis is needed to
derme what current daily water demand is; what constitutes "adequate" storage
for the water system; and an assessment of ability of the system to meet fire
flow requirements throughout the system's extent. Is the production capacity
(52,300 gpm) peak flow, average flow or what? This issue, as well as the
other quantitative information, needs to be added to the Final EIR.
In the final paragraph on the page it is not clear whether treated stream water
is a "supplemental" or normal source of supply. Please indicate which streams
are currently used; the volume of surface water currently used annually; and
the potential volume of surface water available to water purveyors. The
concern is to define potential surface water sources and define potential
impacts resulting from expanded use of the surface water.
In the second paragraph the information deficiencies regarding the East
Valley are the same as for the City's water system. The same data needs to
16
\q.{
\q~
\ q1-
q&
qq
\ IDO
ID \
\ IO~
\ lOr?
. . .....
Page 4-116
Page 4-116
Page 4-117
Page 4-117
Page 4-117
Page 4-117
o
o
be provided in the Final ElR.
110:'
In the third sentence which agency supplies the other half of South San \
Bernardino's water. A broader discussion of the capability of this limited IDt
system to meet its water supply requirements needs to be provided.
.
In the bottom paragraph that carries over to the next page, similar
information is needed for the Muscoy system. It needs to be included in the IL
Final EIR. As in the instances above, the information is essential to U-'
calculating adverse impact and allowing an independent evaluation of
"adequacy".
In the second full paragraph on this page the discussion presents 80,000 acre
feet as the available water supply. The problem is that no context is provided.
Is this the water rights that they collectively own or actual production
capacity? Will new wells and surface water supplies have to be developed to
provide this volume of water? Is part of this supply dependent upon State I D(P
Project Water and can these supplies be guaranteed? Can the 123,000 acre
feet of available supply be utilized without adverse impacts aquifers and
streams and on other water supply agencies in the region? All of these
factors are pertinent to understanding the potential environmental impacts
from expanding the water supply system to meet future growth. This
information needs to be included in the Final EIR.
The discussion in the bottom paragraph on this page focuses on data
contained in Table 17. The numbers in this table are inconsistent with
forecasted increases in industrial and commercial square footage and
residential units. For example, industrial growth will result in approximately
10 times the square footage of industrial space at full development compared
to the present (see Table 16). Yet the increased water consumption will be I ^ "Y
only slightly more than twice the volume of water. This is a major disparity u -\
in comparable numbers and can only be justified with an extensive explanation
as to why water consumption not only will not but can not increase in
proportion to the increase in square footage (i.e. about 10 times current water
consumption of 1,440 acre feet per year or 14,400 acre feet compacted to the
forecasted 2,913 acre feet). The same problem exists with both the
commercial and residential water consumption forecasts, but to a smaller
degree. All three values need to be corrected or the rationale for them
established.
A simple compilation of water consumption in the fmal paragraph on the page I D.:D
does not address the adequacy of supplies throughout the water system,
including storage, adequacy of fire flow and other water system parameters.
This information needs to be added to the Final EIR.
It is incorrect to compare the 59,000 acre feet value with the 80,000 acre feet \ 101\
value in the final paragraph on the page. The correct value to compare with
17
I~
Page 4-120
Page 4-120
Page 4-120
Page 4-122
Page 4-122
o
o
59,000 acre feet would be 123,000 acre feet which is cited as the total I N1
available water supply. The comparable value for 80,000 acre feet would be v \
the 16,000 acre feet value for actual increase from present consumption levels.
This evaluation in the top paragraph on this page does not discuss the future
service areas thai will require new water system infrastructure and the
potential adverse impacts from installing the required pipelines, reservoirs,
etc.. An evaluation of the potential sensitivity of the areas where new water
system facilities are most likely to be required should be provided in the Final
EIR. The analysis in the second paragraph is too generic and does not
indicate whether the installation of new facilities has the potential for
significant adverse impact. There is no basis for concluding that developing
these facilities will not be significant.
110
The discussion of policies in the top paragraph does not provide any basis
for determining whether or not the water system can be expanded at a rate
commensurate with demand created by increased growth. This relationship
between increasing demand and an adequate water supply system requires
further elaboration to demonstrate that no significant adverse impacts can
actually occur.
In the cumulative impact section no analysis or conclusion regarding impact
is presented. First, in reference to Table 19, it has the same problems as
Table 17 because the forecasted water consumption figures do not correlate
with water consumption from the number of existing residential units and
industrial and commercial square footage. Second, no data are presented on
the total available water supply for RSA-29 and no comparison is made
between the forecasted 153,000 acre feet of consumption per year and that
which may ultimately be available. These values will need to be corrected in
the Final EIR.
III
II '2..
In the second paragraph on the page, the statement implies that mitigation
can be achieved when future water system facilities are developed. There is
no foundation for this conclusion and it is probably invalid since much of the
new water system requirement are likely to be needed in the Verdemont area
where many of the more sensitive biological resources are located. Either
revise this conclusion or provide justification in the Final EIR.
Under the level of significance determination, the conclusion is not supported
by the data available. The analysis is too superficial to draw this conclusion
and additional data will be needed to justify it. Further, this conclusion
ignores other water system impacts such as ability to provide fire flow and
meet water storage requirements in each pressure zone in the City and within
the sphere of influence area (particularly South San Bernardino's service
area); the potential impacts of expanding the water system at the same rate
as growth; and the impacts from installing water system facilities in the future
to meet the projected demand. These issues need resolution in the Final EIR.
1/3
04-
18
I ~I
Page 4-123
Page 4-123
Page 4-123
Page 4-124
Page 4-124
Page 4-124
o
o
In the second paragraph on this page data on the remaining capacities and \ I
service lives of each of the existing disposal sites needs to be included at this I'::>
point of the discussion. .
In the third paragi-aph reference is made to incineration of waste as one of
the options that will be utilized to manage solid waste (at a minimum). The
basis for this statement is not cited and recent experience in the Valley (the II &
Milliken waste-to-energy project in Ontario) would conflict with including it
in this list. This needs resolution in the Final EIR and it should probably be
deleted.
Last sentence on the page. How much of the 1.15 million pounds of waste
was delivered to disposal sites for disposal and what percentage was recycled? II "'l..
It is necessary to convert the 1.15 million pounds of waste into cubic feet or 1
yards in order to obtain some estimate of the percentage of waste disposal
capacity currently being consumed by the City. These changes need to be
incorporated into the Final EIR.
The 256% increase in waste generation discussed in the first paragraph on
the page needs to be expressed in volume as well as tonnage. To forecast II B
secondary impacts of waste collection the increased number of collection
trucks and additional miles per day needs to be defined to illustrate the Plan's
contribution that waste disposal will make to air pollution emissions in the
Basin.
In paragraph one it is stated that both the City and other haulers will be able
to provide adequate solid waste collection services. Although not a major
issue, this statement is indicative of the document's lack of accountability. II a
These statements must be given citation to someone who has authority and \
knowledge to make such statement. The ability to provide adequate capacity
is not self-evident. It will require expansion of routes, an increase in the
serving fleet, and perhaps the establishment of curbside recycling operations.
None of these issues is addressed and they need to be addressed in the Final
EIR.
The second paragraph is ruled with statements that are wholly unsupported
in the text. First, it is clear that new disposal capacity will (not "could") be
essential to meet future disposal requirements. This conclusion is based on
recent desperate efforts on the part of San Bernardino County to find a short
cut to siting new solid waste management facilities. Second, there is no I '2D
analysis of capacity of existing landfills, analysis of the capacity required over
the life of the Plan, analysis of the volume of waste that will be contributed
by the City to facilities and the amount of shortfall that will occur in waste
disposal capacity in the San Bernardino Valley. There are no current
guarantees that additional capacity will be on line to meet increased disposal
demands due to future growth in the area, let alone the City. This whole
19
1'2.'
Page 4-125
Page 4-125
Page 4-125
Page 4-126
Page 4-127
o
o
analysis as well as the cumulative analysis in the next paragraph (which
contains no quantification for RSA-29) will need reevaluation and additional
data before it can be made adequate. Given the status of waste disposal 120
siting at this time, I would have identified this issue as a potentially significant
impact that will need major resource commitments to be resolved during the
planning period. .
In the mitigation section the conclusion in the first paragraph is not supported
by any substantive analysis. At a minimum the increased number of collection
trucks will increase air emissions, traffic, and noise throughout the planning 12.\
area, but particularly at disposal sites. The proposed mitigation does not
achieve any mitigation of solid waste disposal site impacts. New or expanded
landfills may have unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts and
part of this impact will be attributable to the City's contribution of solid waste.
Lack of adequate capacity to meet waste generated could cause significant
impacts until new landfills or other solid waste management facilities are in
place. These issues need to be resolved in the Final EIR.
The level of significance discussion is not substantiated by real data and it is (122-
highly probable that, at least in the short term, the impact of increased waste
disposal should be considered significant.
The conclusion in the unavoidable adverse impact discussion contradicts the 12.3
conclusion in the level of significance discussion. The conclusion in this
section is probably more accurate and should be extended to previous
discussions for validation and incorporation.
The analysis of sewage disposal on this page does not provide all of the data
necessary to understand the existing conditions. The treatment plant is not
operating properly at all times and for a variety of reasons the plant is under
a Regional Board dictate to increase its tertiary treatment capability. Are
there problems with the system during peak flow periods, for example is there
adequate storage to prevent uncontrolled release of sewage? These problems 12- t
have been ignored in the text and they must be added. Newspaper reports
are constantly referring to limitations on connections to the system by new
projects outside the City limits. The whole context of current operations and
operation problems needs to be provided in this section; otherwise the public
and decision-makers will not be accurately informed about the current
operational status of the system, including its deficiencies. The ultimate
adequacy of tertiary treatment capacity discussed on this page, in conjunction
with the secondary treatment capacity (which is approximately three times
larger) needs to be addressed in the context of recent Board orders.
At the top of the page, are there any areas of concern due to continued use \
of septic tanks? No data are provided regarding their adequacy of
functioning. Also, there is no discussion of current pretreatment requirements
within the City for industrial discharges or the volume and manner in which
I~
20
...."
Page 4-128
Page 4-129
Page 4-129
Page 4-130
Page 4-132
o
o
sewage sludge is currently managed. How is the sludge currently disposed of?
Has it been analyzed and its contents evaluated in light of current regulations
regarding content of sludge, particularly for heavy metals and possible \ ']; )
hazardous waste designation? No data on the City treatment plant's
compliance with waste discharge requirements is presented. How can it be
determined whether the existing operations are nonsignificant without such
data? Each of these issues must be evaluated in the Final EIR.
Based on the discussion at the top of the page, is there some reason for
concluding the sewer plant will be able to operate without the adverse odor
and other impacts that currently exist? Will the expanded operations meet
with expected Regional Board waste discharge requirements? The analysis
contains no discussion of sludge, industrial.pretreatment requirements (even
though industrial square footage will be increased ten-fold), odors, or potential
health impacts of future operations. Finally, no assessment of potential
adverse impact of future construction of sewer lines and expanded facilities
is provided. The impacts from expanding the plant are listed, but no potential
impact evaluation is provided. Since the plant is located adjacent to a
riparian habitat the potential for adverse impact is significant and should have
been provided with a general evaluation.
The second and third paragraphs raise more questions than they answer.
Does the City have a history of complying with discharge requirements?
Regardless, are there policies in the Plan that make compliance a high priority
for the City? Is there some basis for concluding that future mitigation can
be effective enough to reduce potentially significant adverse secondary impacts
below a significant level? No foundation is established for such a conclusion.
These questions must be addressed in the Final EIR.
The accuracy of the level of significance conclusion in the text is questionable
without further data on questions and inadequate data raised in the above
text. The same comment applies to the unavoidable adverse impact section.
At a minimum increased sewage sludge generation and disposal will be
required and the additional salts delivered to the basin's aquifers. These may
not be significant from a water quality standpoint, but these impacts will be
unavoidable.
In the first paragraph, last sentence tbe word "are" should read "area".
In the second paragraph reference is made to 4,300,000 gallons of hot water
produced per day. How is this water presently disposed of? No information
is presented on this topic and depending upon what is done with this water,
the impact could be significant (i.e. a net loss to the areas ground water
aquifer or an impact to surface water resources. In the same paragraph, no
discussion is provided on how the geothermal water is used; how much is
available in the reservoir; and whether the water contains concentrations of
chemicals or noncondensible gases that pose any problems. Finally, if the hot
21
/'2&
\'2..1'
[2f>
\ l2-q
130
, J"l
Page 4-132
Page 4-133
Page 4-134
Page 4-134
Page 4-135
Page 4-135
Page 4-136
Page 4-137
Page 4-137
o
o
water is degraded and then returned to the reservoir is this causing any 130
change in the hot water reservoir temperature? This information needs to
be provided in the Final EIR text.
In the project im~act section there is no analysis of whether the increase in
electricity consumption will have adverse Impacts. Is there sufficient power
within the current system to meet this need? H not, will new power plants
be constructed? H so, this poses the potential for indirect, signiflcant adverse
Impacts from siting new power plants and from their emissions.
The first paragraph ignores potential adverse Impacts and any analysis
supporting such impacts. H there are benefits that should be quantified in
terms of reduced energy consumption for heating at those locations where
geothermal energy are used. For each of the issues identified on the previous
page (water quality, degradation of the reservoir, loss of water from the
basin's aquifers, etc.) some information needs to be provided and conclusions
drawn for each potential adverse Impact.
In the third paragraph the citation to the South Coast AQMP is literally
correct, but does not address the fact that the 20% figure is basin wide and
not necessarily in the local area. Also, why was this issue even addressed in
this section since it has not occurred and no discussion is provided on current
telecommunication capabilities or operations in the planning area.
The conclusions in paragraph four on this page are not supported with
references to sources of information. Can the service be provided without
expanding the existing system's facilities? This information needs to be
included in the Final EIR.
The cumulative Impact section contains no analysis or conclusions. This needs
to be corrected in the Final EIR.
In the mitigation section no mitigation is accomplished when should
statements are used. H the City supports telecommuting, it needs to
incorporate a program for workers under its jurisdiction.
The level of significance finding is probably valid, but is not supported with
data. The unavoidable adverse impact section does not address the potential
loss of habitat associated with constructing new facilities. This needs to be
corrected in the Final EIR.
In paragraph two on this page the same data contained in the first paragraph
for the City Police Department needs to be provided for the Sheriffs
Department.
In the third paragraph 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents is stated as being
nationally acceptable. This conclusion needs to be supported with a reference
22
I~\
l~~
I?~
\ l'?t
[I~
\ j'?/ lp
\ 1'Q1
(I ~t)
tl3q
. ..u:
Page 4-139
Page 4-139
Page 4-139
Page 4-140
o
o
and more data stating what the acceptable level (range) actually is. What is
the average response time within the City for different types of calls (felonies,
traffic accidents, etc.). Is the current officer/population ratio acceptable to
the Police Department? What is the current number of responses in the City
daily and annually and can this be broken down into residential, commercial
and industrial crimes per residential unit and commercial and industrial
square footage? Are there specific high crime areas where special attention
is required? All of these factors playa role in evaluating adverse impacts to
law enforcement services from future growth. Without these data it is not
possible to provide any future quantative assessment of police service demand
based on the mix of future growth.
In paragraph the population expansion is actually 80%, not 33% as stated.
This is based on a current population of about 140,000 and an ultimate
population of 260,000 which is a 120,000 increase or 80% of the current
population. The remainder of the analysis in this section does not contain the
data needed to make a conclusion regarding potential for significant adverse
impact. First, will new areas to be served impact response time and will new \ lip., -
community offices be required? Second, no quantitative data on number of '1'V
responses projected into the future is provided and no data are included which
address response times. Does the Plan create, expand or continue any high
police service demand uses? Does the land use mix alter the demand for
future police services? Is the City satisfied with maintenance of the 1.7
officer/population ratio? H the ratio is not maintained does this result in a
conclusion that the Plan or future individual projects cause a significant
adverse impact on police services? Many major analytic issues have not been
addressed that need to be addressed in this section of the document.
13q
The cumulative impact analysis suffers from the same deficiencies as the \
project impact section, except the data needed is on the ability of the Sheriff's \ 4\
Department to provide services.
Specific policies that will mitigate potential adverse impacts to police services
need to be identified. Of great importance, if these policies do not mandate
maintaining the 1.7 officer/population ratio, then there is no assurance that III '2-
the adverse impacts to the Department can be fully mitigated. This is a "f
critical issue because general statements of commitment, not actual
commitment, to this ratio can not be used to ensure adequate mitigation.
Finally, in the mitigation section which carries on to the next page, the items
identified as contributing to mitigation (coordinating private security,
neighborhood watches, etc.) need to be supported with data to demonstrate
that they are effective in accomplishing the cited mitigation.
Both the level of significance and unavoidable adverse impact sections need \ (4;3
to be revised in light of the above comments and the actual mandatory quality
of the mitigation measures.
23
."'11
Page 4-141
Page 4-141
Page 4-144
Page 4-144
Page 4-144
o
o
In the second paragraph on the page at the end of the second sentence insert \ 1*
"(Figure 13)" because it also shows the locations of CDF and .cvFD fire
stations.
In the third paragraph on this page is the average response time of 3 minutes
a goal or criteria for mell$uring adequate response time to fire or paramedic
emergencies? Also, as in the case of police services, it is appropriate to l A ,/
establish some quantification to be used in forecasting future Plan buildout "f"?
demand for such services. . The total number of responses (average per day
or annually) should be presented and the number of responses tied at a
minimum to population. The best data would be the number of responses for
different types of land use, such as residential, commercial and industrial.
Thus, based on current acreage of each use, such quantitative data could be
used to predict the impact of future growth.
In the first paragraph on the page, the following issues were not addressed
in the existing conditions section and should have been: 1) a discussion of
paramedic services and emergency response capabilities is needed; 2) are I AI-
there other fire hazards in the community beyond the wildland fire hazards "IV'
adjacent to the foothills that need to be characterized in this section; and 3)
the discussion focuses on a "Greenbelt" Program which has not been adopted
by the City and the focus should have been on what programs the City has
in place, not the "Greenbelt" Program. These issues need to be addressed and
included in the Final EIR.
In the project impact section the second sentence identifies a "probable
increase in fire service response times" as a result of Plan buildout. This
general conclusion should have been quantified as outlined above. The
discussion presents no data on the nature of future demand in terms of the
number of expected responses based upon the Plan land use mix. Are new ^ 1-
responses likely to increase with the absolute increase in population or based t "'r
on the types of uses and their locations? These issues need assessment and
conclusions where none are presently provided. No assessment of increased
fire hazard potential is provided in conjunction with the statement that
hazards will increase. Is this impact significant, and if so, based on what?
Finally no assessment of paramedic/emergency response needs in the future
is provided and there is no discussion of potential special fire hazards
associated with industrial or commercial growth in the future. All of the
above information needs to be included in the Final EIR.
In the cumulative impact discussion, first sentence, the increased housing in
Hillside Management Areas "have the potential to" impact CDF and CVFD \ No
service capabilities. The word "will" should be deleted. In the text of this
paragraph that carries onto the next page there is no characterization of fire
and emergency services provided in RSA.29. The analysis is inadequate and
not comparable to previous cumulative impact evaluations. This needs to be
24
._~
Page 4-145.
Page 4-146
Page 4-146
Page 4-148
Page 4-148
Page 4-148
Page 4-150
Page 4-150
o
o
corrected in the Final EIR.
Is the "high fire hazard line" presented in Figure 14 the one that is contained
in the "Greenbelt" Program map? Why does it not coincide with Area B on
the figure? This ~ssue needs to be clarified and the implications explained.
In the mitigation discussion the specific policies and programs in the Plan
need to be identified. It is not clear that the mitigation proposed or that
can be achieved through the policies, and programs will actually accomplish
the requisite mitigation to assure that fire service impacts are reduced below
a significant level based on the proposed Plan. Unless implementation is
ensured in the policies, the mitigation cannot be considered to be fully
effective and the Plan impacts may remain significantly adverse.
The conclusion in the level of significance section is not supported in the text I
of the Draft EIR and must be verified or revised in the Final EIR. No data \
on emergency responses are provided.
\
In the last sentence of the first paragraph on this page higher education in
what "area" is available at Cat State and SBVC? Is this a reference to the
planning area or the region? Because if it is the region then the University
of Redlands and UCR need to be included. This needs clarification.
In the second paragraph several school districts are discussed and it is not
clear what their locational relationship is. A map of district boundaries needs
to be provided and should include the Redlands School District boundaries
on the City's east boundaries because concerns have been expressed about
student allocation in this area.
In the bottom paragraph on the page no discussion is provided on the number
of year-round schools in the District and the number of new schools that will
be constructed and operated. Is it valid to expect these openings based on
the current funding constraints. This issue is not addressed and needs to be.
The discussion that comes onto the page does not address student/teacher
ratios currently in place or whether the District has criteria for determining
whether the existing school system is significantly impacted by the current
circumstances. What are District criteria for determining significant adverse
impact to it education system? Are certain schools more adversely impacted
than others? These questions need answers before the existing conditions
section can be considered complete.
The project impact section does not present any analysis of the consequences
of the potential student increase within the District on the District's education
system. How many new schools or classrooms will be needed over the life
of the Plan? What districts will be most impacted and do the district master
plans contain sufficient awareness of the size and scope of the population
25
1L\fJ
)LA
l60
l~\
It; 2...
\ 1'_..;
\>St
1~6
[6&
.--
Page 4-153
Page 4-154
Page 4-154
Page 4-154
Page 4-154
o
o
increase and adequate funding sources to meet this increase? Substantial
additional information needs to be provided in this section before a conclusion
can be drawn regarding potential significance of Plan impacts on the
education system.
Based on the d~scussion in the first paragraph, the TBR should be
incorporated by reference into the EIR on pages 1-5 of this document. It is
not adequate to reference the table and figure in the TBR when the data is
essential to understanding the current setting and forecasting the future
impacts to the parks and recreation system. Finally, the joint use areas with
the local school district also need to be identified.
In the frrst paragraph the statements about offsetting park acreage by regional
parks, national forest land and school sites is gratuitous. First, the three
regional parks that can meet the City's needs are not specified, but in general
they are not easily accessible to much of the population. Second, there are
separate standards for regional park acreage that are in excess of local park
acreage requirements. Refer to the San Bernardino County Regional Parks
Strategic Master Plan. Second, most school facilities are not open and
available much of the time. To discuss school play areas as offsets for park
needs requires those school areas that are available to be specified. Finally,
the National Forest lands are not readily accessible even when open, but more
importantly, they are closed due to fire hazards much of the year. A more
realistic evaluation of park and recreation resources is needed in the Final
EIR.
The project impact section does not provide any analysis of potential adverse
impacts to the parks system. No assessment is made of how the Land Use
Element Map designations mayor may not impact future park site selections.
How are areas going to be set aside? There is no analysis of the Plan's
policies on ensuring that adequate park land is created on a time schedule
comparable with the growth in population and recreational demand. Also,
no evaluation of social services associated with the Parks Department is
provided in this section.
The cumulative impact section does not provide any analysis of potential
impact within the RSA-29 area and no data are presented on the existing park
acreage available within the region. These data need to be included in the
Final EIR. No social service evaluation is provided in this section of the EIR.
In the last paragraph the specific mitigation policies and programs are not
identified. By deferring the park master plan and acquisition of park land to
a future study, the General Plan does not provide any concrete mitigation.
Thus, there is no guarantee that the park acreage criterion can be met. Do
the policies contain mitigation policies and programs for specific mitigation
of future social service impacts?
26
!6(P
ItSi'
\4J
\6C\
\ I&D
\ 1&1
I,q
il
Page 4-155
Page 4-157
Page 4-158
Page 4-161
Page 4-162
Page 4-162
Page 4-163
o
o
The conclusion in the mitigation section that no further mitigation is required
is not supported in the text of the EIR. Further information needs to be
incorporated in this section and analyzed before a final conclusion regarding
significance of impacts can be reached. The same comments apply to the
level of significance and the unavoidable adverse impact sections of the Draft
EIR. '
l(Y
The list of habitats that may occur is a laundry list. It may be appropriate to
include them in a list, but the actua1habitats within the City need to be shown
in the map referenced above. In addition, the acreage of each habitat found
in the planning area also needs to be compiled in a table.
In the "plants" section an explanation of what the data represents is needed.
It is assumed that these are plants that may be located within the planning
area. A map showing their distribution should be provided or referenced.
A copy of a map showing the natural diversity data base references is attached
for comparison. This map is from another general plan EIR and can be used
as an example. How much sensitive habitat occurs within the planning area
and where? This information is essential if the potential conflict between
proposed uses and sensitive habitat an species is going to be provided.
Based on review, every parcel in the City has some development designation
(no pure open space designations) that can result in direct loss of habitat. In
the first paragraph discussion of this issue the analysis is too general because
it does not quantify the amount of habitat that will be lost by development
under the proposed Plan. Several secondary issues are discussed, but no
assessment of the habitat losses themselves is provided in the text. Another
important issue nof addressed are existing approvals in sensitive habitat areas
that will be allowed to proceed without adequate mitigation when the
proposed Plan is adopted. Some assessment of the amount of acreage and
the area of impact needs to be provided for this potential adverse impact.
In the first full paragraph on this page, the conclusion is presented that \ I (ptp
impacts will occur but there is no analysis to determine whether the potential
impact is significant or not.
I(/~
I((A~
/
\ '
The policies and programs discussed in the second paragraph need to be ::r
identified. Note that the policies discussed in the abstract do not accomplish I (P
mitigation, they simply provide a data base and establish a mechanism for
ensuring that biological data is studied by committees.
In the subparagraph at the top of the page, the proposed mitigation provides \
no assurances of protection based on the language presented. Aside from
designating areas for open space habitat preservation in the Plan (which has
not been done), there is very little that can be done to halt conversion of
lands with federally endangered plant species.
[GO
27
lor
Page 4-163
Page 4-163
Page 4-163
Page 4-164
Page 4-164
Page 4-164
o
o
The policies and programs that protect sensitive biological elements need to
be identified. If they only attempt to protect these elements, then they can
not be considered effective mitigation. In the second sentence in the first full
paragraph on this page, the statement that federal species are unprotected on
private land is invalid. For animals only, Section 10 of the Federal
Endangered Species Act requires the acquisition of a taking permit and
adequate mitigation to offset losses of individuals or habitat. The same
requirement does not occur for plants. This section should be changed. In
the final two sentences of this paragraph it is necessary to identify the specific
measures of protection offered to sensitive species that is not presently
available through CEQA and .the Cty's mandate to implement CEQA
Overall the impact section does not provide any evaluation of the direct
consequences of the land use designations contained in the Land Use Element
Map or the policies, such as policies that support mining in areas where the
most sensitive habitats within the Cty are located. Additional analysis will
be necessary to address these issues.
The discussion in the cumulative impact section does not provide any
conclusions regarding significance or the additional habitat(s) that may be lost
within RSA-29. This section needs substantial expansion and an evaluation
that addresses the potential biological resources that may be lost.
In the bottom paragraph, the statement is made that "impacts to biological
resources may occur." This severely understates the impact because
throughout the document it has been assumed that the planning area would
fully develop out in the designations on the Land Use Elem~nt map. Thus,
the impacts will occur, not "may" occur. Specific policies and programs need
to be identified.
In the first full paragraph on the page it is not clear whether the overlay
requirements prevent development on parcels with sensitive biological
resources or in what manner such resources are protected. It is contradictory
to imply that buildout can occur while "protecting" biological resources. This
issue requires substantial detail to illustrate how this can and will be
accomplished.
In the second paragraph a major problem is raised, discussed and left without
any resolution because no additional mitigation is required to resolve the
issue. The logical mitigation is that within each sensitive area (which needs
to be mapped in this General Plan from the existing natural diversity data
base) a biological resource study will be required for each parcel that is
wholly or partially undisturbed, prior to finalizing the Initial Study.
Referencing an incomplete study is inadequate to address this problem.
In the bottom paragraph, an assessment without a firm commitment (policies
or other means) to prevent impacts by rejecting the use or requiring
compensatory mitigation to be determined by qualified biologists does not
28
v.o'\
\ \1'0
11'\
\1'2
11':;
\ 114
- _.
Page 4-165
Page 4-165
Page 4-167
Page 4-171
Page 4-175
Page 4-175
o
o
provide mitigation and it is misleading to imply that it does.
The level of significance discussion and conclusion are wholly unsupported
based on the data and analysis presented in the Draft Em. Actual mitigation
is not guaranteed ,and it is highly probable that substantial losses of sensitive
habitat and species will ensue under the proposed Plan.
The unavoidable adverse impact section appears to contradict the previous
paragraph. In essence, because the Plan facilitates conversion of land from
undisturbed open space use, the loss of habitat within the planning area will
be almost total. Actual mitigation cannot be achieved without sensitive
biological resources receiving the highest priority (either in direct protection
or compensatory preservation of habitat) where they occur. The Plan and its
policies do not apparently accomplish this at this time, therefore, losses of
sensitive biological resources will cause significant adverse impact.
At the bottom of the first paragraph on this page the last sentence begins
with a statement that ''Emissions" are monitored; actually, pollutant
concentrations are monitored, not emissions. The text needs to be revised.
Second, in the last sentence Table 22 is referenced. Note that the
concentrations need to be confirmed because the concentrations in ppm are
so high as to have very substantial adverse impacts. These values need to be
confirmed.
The discussion in the third paragraph ignores fugitive dust nuisance. The
major problem from construction is not PM10 emissions, but fugitive dust that
causes a nuisance on adjacent properties. The amount of small particle
emissions from construction depends on the character of the soil and is short-
term. On the other hand, aggregate operation emission are not short-term
as characterized in the text and the nuisance and PM10 emissions should be
considered long-term and continuous. The Final Em should be corrected to
address these changes.
The discussion in item #3 of Table 24 should be expanded to address the
proposed General Plan in the context of the local control measures contained
in the recently adopted AQMP. More than 10 measures are assigned to local
jurisdictions for implementation and the Plan's conformance with and
inclusion of these measures must be assessed in the Final Em.
Item #7 in Table 24 addresses the potential of projects that may emit toxic
or hazardous air pollutants and concludes that it is not applicable. Because
of the substantial amount of industrial development included in the Plan, it
is highly probable that some operations will emit limited quantities of toxic
pollutants. The conclusion in this Table should be revised to acknowledge
this potential and to address the issue in the text as requiring a case by case
evaluation of potential with mitigation to be included in the project at that
time in accordance with SCAQMD rules.
29
I r:r"r
\ 1't:;'
\1"0
\1-1---
\10
\ 11'\
\50
I g;
Page 4-176
Page 4-178
Page 4-179
Page 4-179
Page 4-179
Page 4-181
Page 4-182
Page 4-182
o
o
The policies in the Plan that impact air quality need to be defined in the
mitigation section. The analysis in this section should indicate whether the
Land Use Element map carries out the policies that are designed to reduce
air pollution. These policies need to be compared to the proposed South
Coast AQMP control measures for local governments and the transportation
and growth management goals of the SCAG plans. At the bottom of the page
and extending onto the next page the specific measures that will be monitored
in conjunction with SCAQMD need to be defined. Through this whole
discussion insufficient specifics are presented to understand the degree of
mitigation that may be accomplished by the Plan and its mitigation measures
as embodied by the policies. This information needs to be provided in the
Final EIR.
What is the basis for the conclusion on this page. No foundation has been
established for it. If development siIpilar to the proposed Plan was located
in the west valley the commute distances could be reduced and total emissions
might be substantially reduced. This conclusion needs to be rethought and
either revised or substantiated in the Final EIR.
In the first paragraph, the mountain which dominates the east valley is Mount
San Bernardino with Mount San Gorgonio as a background feature.
In the second paragraph, what are the "broad arterial streets" in the City. Be
specific.
In the last line on the page what is "Sterling Avenue Canyon"? Please clarify
or revise to fit a known landscape feature.
In the third paragraph on this page it is unclear what is being discussed.
Several foothill canyon zones have been developed in the past. Examples
include development at the end of Victoria Avenue, on Holcomb Hill, and
at the end of Del Rosa Avenue. SlI,bstantial disturbance has occurred in such
areas and some severe scarring still impacts the area at the end of Victoria.
In the first paragraph, water does not flow year round in the Santa Ana River
through most of the City. Perennial flow occurs only downstream of the City's
wastewater treatment plant which is located west of Waterman Avenue. Note
that San Timoteo Creek is not in a natural river course, but is confined to an
artificial channel that is not a notable visual feature.
In the list of urban parkways a map is needed to highlight the locations being
discussed in the text. It is questionable whether Third Street in the area
discussed is a parkway and the location of Hallmark Parkway is not generally
known. Perhaps a definition of "secondary urban parkways" would assist in
determining whether the streets identified as such in the text at the bottom
of the page actually serve such a role.
30
10\
\ ID~
16'~
\ 164-
ll~
II(jp
101
IBB
.-..
Page 4-183
Page 4-183
Page 4-183
Page 4-184
Page 4-184
Page 4-185
Page 4-185
Page 4-186
Page 4-186
o
o
In the first line in the first paragraph on the page should the word "forum"
read "form"? H so, make the change in the Final EIR.
At the end of the paragraph, how does the grid road pattern vary to reflect
the topography. It is not clear where this discussion is referring to and how
the pattern changes to affect visual settings. This issue needs to be clarified
in the Final EIR.
In the second paragraph on this page the term "land extensive" uses needs
to be defined. It is not clear from the context of the discussion what exactly
is meant and how this affects the visual setting.
liE
\ I~O
\q \
At the top of the page it is not clear how additional density will accomplish
the enhancement of existing visual settings. Please elaborate to demonstrate
that this will occur. This discussion and the next paragraph focus on the
benefits of the Plan and not on the adverse impacts which should be the
focus.
What type of landscaping and amenities will be used in pedestrian oriented \ IW3
area discussed in the second full paragraph on the page. Are there adverse
impacts, such as increased water consumption, that need to be addressed?
!ctJ-
In the first paragraph which City districts will be affected by increased mass,
intensity and scale? Districts have not been discussed previously in a manner
that allows the reader to understand where these impacts will occur. A map )(1'4
and definition of districts needs to be provided. Finally, there is no set of "\
conclusions regarding the significance or adverse nature of the impacts
discussed in the first two paragraphs. Such conclusions need to be provided
as part of the evaluation.
In the third paragraph what is the basis for the conclusion that new
development at higher elevations will be minor on insignificant. The potential
for adverse impact appears high but it is dismissed with no analysis to support \q /'
the conclusion. What are the important viewsheds identified in the Draft YJ
General Plan and not presented in this section of the EIR. The last
paragraph on the page appears to contradict the statement in the previous
paragraph, but no conclusion regarding the significance of impact is presented.
In the top paragraph is the change from predominantly rural visual character
to suburban character a significant impact or not? No analysis or conclusion
is presented on this topic and the locations where it will occur (outside of the
Verdemont area are not defined).
What is the basis of the conclusion that the Plan will not impact identified
urban parkways? The impression from the text is that no changes will occur
but this is not valid based on the discussion of changes in scale already
31
\ \q0
\ \Q1'
, 0-'
Page 4-186
Page 4-186
Page 4-187
Page 4-188
Page 4-189
Page 4-191
Page 4-193
o
o
presented. Please provide the rationale for this conclusion or revise in
accordance with the new analysis.
In the fourth paragraph it would be appropriate to explain how the pedestrian
orientation will ill,crease visual quality. The problem with this whole section
is that the conclusions may be valid, but no analysis is presented to support
the conclusion. The reader is faced with conclusionary statements with no
supporting data to reach an independent conclusion.
In the last paragraph on the page it is necessary to be specific as to how the
Plan will "provide" for the revitalization and upgrading of certain commercial
strips. The specific programs need to be identified and assessed for their
adverse impact as well as the foundation established as to why they will
improve the visual setting of these areas.
The catch-all discussion at the top of the page attempts to minimize the
impact of loss of visual open space by citing development of public parklands
and recreational areas. However, if these areas (which are yet to be defined)
are already existing visual open spaces (as are many of the areas listed in the
paragraph) then no net visual open space will be created. The actual impacts
due to losses of open space should be quantified and characterized, probably
in terms of large viewshed analysis. The discussion in this section is
inadequate and needs substantial revision to reflect the real visual impacts
that will occur when existing visual open space is lost.
The analysis at the bottom of the page (which carries over onto the next
page) does not address the degree of visual change that the planning area will
experience, but instead focuses on the qualitative features of this change. It
appears that the degree of change in the planning area's visual setting
facilitated by the Plan will be significant and should be so stated.
The level of environmental significance discussion ignores the loss of visual
open space due to the Plan and the conclusion does not appear to coincide
with conclusions presented in the unavoidable adverse impact discussion. The
conclusions need to be revised after responding to the above comments.
The analysis at the top of this page ignores the landscape scars that will
result from mining, as amply illustrated by the existing pits throughout the
region. What is adequate reclamation that can eliminate or ameliorate these
visual scars? No analysis is presented of the loss of habitat from supporting
continued mining. The point in this section should be to note that support
for mining (which may be the City's goal) has some adverse environmental
impacts that cannot be avoided. It is these adverse impacts from supporting
mining that need to be discussed.
The discussion in the first paragraph on the page does not define the areas
and scope of land use conflicts between aggregate mining and adjacent land
32
I I q1-
\
\qB
\ ja,q
ZJ6
291
\~2
'2.D~
~'U)+
lOt::
Page 4-193
Page 4-195
Page 4-196
Page 4-198
Page 4-201
Page 4-201
Page 4-202
c
o
uses. The places where such conflicts can occur should be mapped and the
type of impacts more specifically addressed. Areas where buffers have been
established should be identified on a map. The degree of impact from 1J,DVr.
fugitive dust and noise should be identified based on the current experiences
with mining operation. These impacts are significant in some areas to the
east of the City. .
Again, in the cumulative impact section the adverse impacts need to be \ t:)
addressed from protecting and supporting aggregate mining activities in RSA- ?-C
29 and these data are not presented with appropriate conclusions regarding
adverse impact. The information needs to be included in the Final EIR.
The level of significance and unavoidable adverse impact discussion contain
no data to support their conclusions. As an example, support for mineral
operations will cause the loss of identified sensitive habitat and substantial ').00
areas of scarred landscape that may not be reclaimable. These are clearly
unavoidable adverse impacts that are not acknowledged in this section.
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the data seems adequate enough
to eliminate the term "probably" when referring to the ability to generate ]..C1-
large earthquakes. Also, in the next to last line of this paragraph the term
"Whittier Elsinore" should read "Whittier-Elsinore".
The last sentence of the first paragraph should be revised to indicate that l '2/'YJ
the "determination" to be made is whether these areas are subject to ground
surface rupture.
The geology section does not discuss unique geologic resources in the area
and does not adequately map areas of potential slope instability and erosion 2. oq
potential. These geologic features should be added to the discussion,
including a map of such features or hazards. Does the City have a seismic
emergency response plan that can be activated and be effective during a major
seismic event?
In the third fourth paragraphs on the page the brief summary of impacts is
too brief. There is no analysis regarding the potential significance of the
hazards in relation to the development allowed (facilitated) by the Plan. Are
developed areas subject to surface rupture impacts? Are there existing ?-IO
structures in the community that are not designed to withstand the potential
ground accelerations of future forecasted earthquakes? Given the level of
ground shaking from maximum credible or probable earthquakes, what will
happen to new structures being constructed under the Plan policies? All of
these issues need to be addressed in the Final EIR.
For areas with slope instability and high erosion potential, will the policies \
reduce potential adverse impacts below a significant level? There is ,?--\ I
insufficient analysis to draw any conclusions from the text presented on these
33
.91.
Page 4-203
Page 4.208
Page 4-208
Page 4-209
Page 4-209
Page 4-209
o
o
topics.
\ ?-I \
The level of significance conclusions are not supported in the text and are \
contradicted by the conclusion presented in the unavoidable adverse impact :2-12-
section. The disparity between these two sections needs to be resolved in the
Final EIR. .
Somewhere within the existing setting discussion each drainage basin needs
to be shown on a map; the lOO-year flow (in cis) needs to be shown; and the
capacity of the channels needs to be identified. This is a simple graphic that 2\ '3
will allow the reader to independently verify the conclusions presented in this
section. At this time the reader must rely upon conclusionary statements with
no supporting data.
In the fourth paragraph on this page the conclusions are not correct. It is
possible to assess the amount of increased runoff for each affected drainage
basin by making general assumptions based on the amount of current ~l 4
undeveloped land and the land uses that will be allowed in the proposed Plan. -
This type of analysis should already be available from the County Flood
Control District or the Corps of Engineers because they must design their
facilities for ultimate development. These calculations should be provided and
compared with the capacity of the major drainage facilities within each basin.
In the first three paragraphs on this page the uses permitted in known flood
hazard areas are listed, but no analysis of the consequences of permitting ?-I c;
these uses is provided. Such an analysis is- essential to evaluating the
significance of allowing these uses to be identified for these areas.
In the fourth paragraph on this page, one purpose of this Plan should be to
identify the additional storm runoff capacity needed in new channels to ensure
that flood hazards are not increased significantly by development allowed .hI / _
under the proposed Plan. These data have not been provided and therefore ..I- 1.0
the actual impact of the Plan can not be evaluated from the data provided.
Further, if this data were provided, the potential for secondary impacts could
be assessed because the areas requiring additional flood control facilities
could be determined. This information needs to be included in the Final EIR.
Insufficient analysis and conclusions are presented in the cumulative impact
section to assess the actual cumulative adverse impact within the region.
Reading the data presented in this section would lead one to conclude that 2.11-
the adverse impacts will be significant. This section needs substantial
expansion and revision. In particular the increased runoff impacts
downstream of the planning area in the region must be addressed and have
been ignored to this point.
Page 4-210 The specific policies that accomplish the mitigation outlined on this page \ 21 B
need to be identified so they can be independently substantiated. Also, the
34
IX~
The text in the existing setting section should be expanded to assess the
current status of hazardous materials/uses impacts on the City and planning
area. Does the current situation pose significant hazards for residents or the
environment? What programs are in place to mitigate potential impact (the
County's emergency response team is one example of a mitigation system in
place and the remedial clean-up efforts for groundwater represent another)?
In the first paragraph under project impacts, the future impacts also include
potential for future contamination of the environment from use of hazardous
materials and accidental releases of hazardous materials that can adversely
impact the community.
Page 4-214 The analysis of potential adverse impacts in the bottom paragraph on the
page does not even address the three potential hazardous materials issues
identified in the above paragraph, let alone the additional issues identified 2 I
above. The analysis needs to be expanded and related to the proposed Plan's
land use designations and to potential areas where hazardous material
conflicts may be at their greatest with residential areas shown on the Plan.
Page 4-213
Page 4-214
Page 4-214
Page 4-214
Page 4-217
Page 4-219
Page 4-219
Page 4-219
Page 4-226
Page 4-227
o
o
question of whether adverse impacts will occur downstream of the planning
area due to development needs to be addressed by mitigation.
In the legend of Figure 23, the term "Surfaced" should read "Surface".
The discussion of groundwater contamination in the first paragraph on this
page should provide a map illustrating the apparent movement of existing
plumes and a discussion of the City's efforts to treat groundwater by removing
the contaminants.
In the first line the word "presence" should probably read "pressure".
In the fIrst line on the page the word "is" should read "are".
In the second paragraph on the page, next to last sentence the word "list"
should read "lists". '
In the second paragraph, the road noise levels should be mapped in order
to compare them with adjacent land uses, both current and future. The
tabular presentation method does not convey sufficient information to
accomplish a direct comparison.
In the second full paragraph on the page the locations of the heavy industrial
operations need to be shown on a map and a more representative sample of
noise levels needs to be provided.
In the third line on the page, the term "on intermittent bases" should probably
read "on an intermittent basis". This section on rail activity impacts suffers
35
\ ?'~
\ .,-If\
\ 22D
22\
\ '2::2-:2-
\ 224
I 2:::6"
I 'J..'2.W
\ ?-21-
2'2!J
\ 22\
In
4
Page 4-227
Page 4-228
Page 4-228
Page 4-228
Page 4-229
Page 4-230
Page 4-231
4-
JI..
-......... -
~.Jll.,.
='_~.Wc
o
o
from not evaluating the impacts of noise (including future projections) on the
adjacent vacant parcels and their future land uses. An evaluation along each '.2?-~
rail alignment is necessary to determine whether the Plan creates the potential
for exposing incompatible land uses to significant noise impacts. This analysis
should be provided in the Final EIR.
,
The analysis of roadway noise impacts on adjacent land on the rest of this
page and at the top of the next page fails to address the impact on existing
uses along roadways that cannot be buffered and also does not provide an 2. '3 C
analysis of whether uses proposed along the impacted roadways are inherently
incompatible with future forecasted noise levels. Further, it is not clear that
the land ownership patterns will allow the type of mitigation discussed below.
These issues need to be addressed in the Final EIR.
In the third paragraph, a graphic is needed to illustrate the statement that ( 2. 3l
adequate buffers exist in "all" cases. No data are available to validate this
comment.
In the fourth paragraph, the specific policies and programs that reduce noise
impacts need to be identified. In reference to the policy discussed in this
paragraph the consequences of not being able to implement this policy is not ;-, ..." ~
discussed. Does this mean that existing noise sensitive uses in many locations --<- _
will be exposed to unacceptable noise levels that cannot be mitigated below
a significant level? An analysis and conclusion needs to be provided for this
issue in the Final EIR.
The bottom paragraph on this page does not make sense. The text appears
to be concluding that it is unreasonable to require existing uses to implement 2::,"'J
the policy in the previous paragraph and that the noise impacts should be
considered significant and unavoidable. Please rewrite to clarify this sentence.
The policies and programs that will help "retard" noise level increases need
to be identified. The prohibitions need to be examined to determine if they 2..'3'1-
are permissive or mandatory. Until this is done it is not possible to
independently verify the effectiveness of the proposed policies and programs.
The discussions in the level of significan,ce and unavoidable adverse impact
sections on this page do not reflect the previous discussions in the text and
mitigation section regarding increased exposure of existing noise sensitive uses 23::;
to noise levels exceeding the criteria established at the beginning of this
chapter. This section needs to address this issue and a revised set of
conclusions needs to be presented.
In the second paragraph, the average wind speed was not 49 knots. The \
average high wind speed during a Santa Ana may have been 49 knots, but this 230'
statement needs to be rewritten to define the specific conditions under which
the listed values occur over the 39 year period.
36
.qq
Page 7-1
Page 7-2
Page 9-2
.. --
.I
_.1
IiIIII1
JIil..4.
J:l.
.
o
In the last full sentence on this page it is not appropriate to assign the
responsibility on the planners to accomplish mitigation. The Plan must
contain policies and programs that ensure the timing and expansion of
infrastructure meets population growth. The policies and programs in the
Plan that ensure' growth of infrastructure at the same rate as population
growth need to be cited at this place in the text.
No conclusion is presented regarding the significance of growth inducement
of the plan. It will facilitiate growth and based on the economic development
element it can probably be considered growth inducing. Provision of adequate
infrastructure in a timely manner can reduce the adverse impacts of growth
associated with inadequate service and utility infrastructure to meet needs.
Finally, the proposed Plan results in less growth inducement (if this is the
case) than the old Plan.
?-31-
23fJ
The irreversible environmental change section does not address conversion
of substantial open space to urban uses; loss of substantial acreage of
important biological habitat; exposure of people to high noise environments;
and other similar changes. Also, the permitted industrial uses and commercial
uses (such as gasoline stations, industrial operations, pool supply facilities, and
others) can pose the danger of environmentally significant accidents. The
conclusion in the last sentence is invalid and requires revision.
2-Bf
37
,QO
.
~
-
o
o
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino Plannin~ Department (dated May
1.1989)
Nl Figure 3 has been amended to include the ERC as indicated on the following page.
N2 The following information will be added to the Environmental Setting, Section 3.0
of the EIR:
The Oty of San Bernardino planning area lies in a region where numerous faults
are probably capable of generating moderate to large earthquakes. The four major
fault systems potentially impacting the planning area are the San Andreas, the San
Jacinto, the Cucamonga-Sierra Madre, and the Whittier-Elsinore. Zones of high
liquefaction susceptibility are concentrated adjacent to the San Andreas fault north
of the City and in the historic high groundwater area in the central and southern
parts of the Oty.
Although the lOo-year floodplain is generally confined to storm channels, debris
basins and areas between levees, three portions of the planning area are subject to
inundation from lOo-year flood flows not contained within storm drain facilities.
The planning area contains numerous sites that have historically been subject to
the use and disposal of hazardous materials. As a result, twenty groundwater
wells now show evidence of groundwater contamination.
Although much of the valley and upland areas have undergone extensive distur-
bance by agricultural and urban uses, the planning area contains numerous sensi-
tive biological elements within the planning area, including two federally-endan-
gered plant species in the floodplain.
. .... -
. ~ ~
o
...
h
o.",
w
a:
;:)(1)
C)
u::
~ ..
il 5~ (fJ
(fJ
W
()
0
a:
a.
'" ;:
W
-
>
W :
01 ~~ a:
!Z a:
Il~ ~i
~~ -
w
z
u <(
II:
w hso ..J
a.
l!! Co.'" ..J
zz z
U I <(
a:
w
Il~ i ~~ z
~~ ~g",> W
1;L~ll! eJ
0
z
-
Cl
a:
- - <(
iso z
c'" ~ a:
I w
OJ
~I z
<(
~i (fJ
u.
0
~~ ~
-
()
10.
~
o
o
Air quality in the planning area is poor. The South Coast Air Basin (which in-
cludes the planning area) is a non-attainment area for ozone (03), carbon monoxide
(CO), fine particulate matter (PMlO), and nitrogen oxides (NOx)'
Water service is provided to the planning area by numerous districts and compa-
nies, with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department being the larg-
est. Solid waste collection is provided primarily by the City's Department of Pub-
lic Services and wastewater is treated at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation
Plant.
N3 The following page, page 3-2, was inadvertently omitted from the Draft EIR dis-
tributed to the public.
N4 The Santa Fe Railroad properties are considered to be an industrial use. The
sentence in question will be amended to read as follows: "Other significant public
and quasi-public uses in the planning area include Norton Air Force Base in the
southeast and National Orange Show Grounds in the south-central part of the
City."
N5 Add the following text at the close of the sentence referenced in the comment:
"nus has resulted in a variable and indistinct pattern of uses and densities. Some
parcels are extensively developed with mid- and high-rise structures (City Hall,
County Administrative Center, Convention Center, and Central City Mall); others
contain low intensity single-story structures; and many are vacant or contain va-
cant structures."
lat
~ 4
e
G
Two significant hill formations interrupt the valley pattern. The Shandin Hills rise to a
height of 1,717 feet, effectively separating the northwest section of the City from the re-
mainder of the planning area. It comprises an important natural feature in the north-
easterly portion of the planning area.
Elevations range from a maximum of 4,000 feet at a point just inside the northernmost
corporate boundary at Bailey Canyon to a minimum of approximately %0 feet at the
point where the Santa Ana River passes beneath the Interstate lo-Interstate 215 inter-
change.
Regional and inter-regional access for the City of San Bernardino is provided by a sys-
tem of freeways, highways, and local arterials. The San Bernardino Freeway a-10) is
the major east-west freeway providing access west to Los Angeles and east to the desert
communities and. beyond. Interstate 215 provides north-south freeway access to river-
side and San Diego Counties to the south and the desert communities to the north.
State Route 30 provides local east-west service between 1-215 and the eastern part of the
City. The Route 30 corridor is currently under study for the development of a full free-
way access to the numerous mountain recreation areas north of the City throughout the
year.
Because the San Bernardino planning area is situated alongside two major inter-regional
freeways, it receives the benefits as well as the negative attributes of accessibility. Ease
of access will help the County maintain its status as a regional center with continued
residential and economic growth. This means providing jobs for residents as well as
those in other communities. It also means residents can live in San Bernardino and
work in other communities. However, continued growth in San Bernardino, the sur-
rounding communities and the region means the local streets and the regional highway
system will experience significant increases in traffic.
3-2
lall
o
o
N6 Delete existing referenced text and replace with the following: "Few of the City's
commercial districts are distinctly identifiable by use, development pattern, or
physical form and scale. Most are characterized by a consistent pattern of "strip"
multi-tenant retail centers, set back from streets with parking, and individual
buildings, intermixed with single sites developed with independent structures
which abut or are set back from the street. Exceptions include the Tri-
City /Commercenter area, developed as an office-retail park setting, downtown,
with its irregular mix of densities and uses, and a limited number of commercial
clusters/nodes along the highway corridors."
N7 Add the following at the end of the first paragraph: "These actions will result in
various impacts on the City's land uses; some significant and some beneficial. The
effects of these on the organization and character of uses and each category of use
and district are described in the following paragraphs."
N8 Add the following at the close of the paragraph continued from page 4-39: ''It is
estimated that approximately 1,300 single-family and 240 multi-family housing
units will be replaced on evolution of the Norton and Railroad areas to other uses.
Primarily, the units to be displaced are occupied by low income households.
(These impacts are more fully discussed in subsection '2 Residential'.)"
N9, N10 & N11
The text referenced in these three comments will be revised as follows:
c. '1n general, development in accordance with the Draft Plan will improve the
compatibility among land uses. Policies are defined to mitigate potential im-
pacts of noise (Policies 14.1.1, 14.4.1-2, 14.5.1-2, 14.6.1-5, 14.7.1-3, and 14.10.1-2),
odor, light and glare, height and bulk, vehicular access, and functional activity
(Policies 1.1233, 1.13.33, 1.13.36, 1.13.40, 1.15.35, 1.15.36, 1.19.35, 1.20.34, 1.21.31,
1.22.34,1.26.31,1.26.34,1.26.35,1.28.35,1.29.32, 1.31.31, 1.32.30, 1.33.30, 1.34.31,
1.35.30, 1.36.30, 1.37.31, 1.39.11, and 1.39.31) where dissimilar uses are located
. ft ...
IbII
e
o
adjacent to one another. In the southeast of the City, residential areas subject to
the high noise impacts of Norton Air Force Base will evolve to uses which are
not noise-sensitive (refer to Land Use Map, e.g., light industrial and office-in-
dustrial parks). In other high noise areas, the development of new sensitive
uses will be prohibited unless adequate mitigation can be implemented (Policy
14.1.1) and existing such uses will be buffered by the installation of noise-atten-
uating walls and other elements, where feasible (Policies 14.3.1 and 14.5.2). The
Draft Plan, further, establishes limits on noise generation by uses (Policy
14.2.1). Where dissimilar land uses abut one another (e.g., residential and com-
mercial), the Draft Plan provides for the implementation of buffers, property
setbacks, height and bulk setbacks, and other elements, requiring project by
project review to ensure their adequacy (refer to Policy series 1.3D.xx above).
The development of a more homogeneous land use pattern, as described above,
will reduce impacts that accrue to mixes of dissimilar uses.
"Compatibility impacts could result from the introduction of residential use in
the downtown area, either vertically integrated into structures whose lower
levels are used for commercial, or horizontally distributed. These include po-
tential conflicts of functional activity (i.e., commercial uses characterized by
high customer use versus low activity, private housing), noise, light and glare,
vehicular access, and public safety. Draft Plan policy (1.16.12 and 1.16.13) re-
quires individual project review in these instances to provide adequate mitiga-
tion of any potential impacts.
"The Draft Plan will allow for the introduction of residential uses in areas of
commercial development. In the Mount Vernon/Baseline areas, this is intend-
ed to reduce overall commercial capacity; in the downtown area, this is intend-
ed to create a more active mixed use environment. In these instances, impacts
may occur at the interface of commercial and residential land use, e.g., noise
and functional conflicts. In response to these potential impacts, the Draft Plan
includes policies (1.22.12 and 1.22.13) that address siting of structures, buffers,
I~I
o
o
density and floor area ratios, parking, architectural character, landscapin~ and
mitigation of noise, traffic, and lighting associated with commercial structures."
N12 The paragraph in question on page 4-41 will be amended to read as follows: "The
general quality of development and construction will be improved by implementa-
tion of the Draft Plan's policies and standards, particularly those listed in the
'Design' column, Table 7 A. Among these are policies that mandate the avoidance
of anonymous, undifferentiated "stucco-boxes" (e.g., Policies 1.13-30, 1.13/40),
establish a "pedestrian-oriented" character in the ground elevation of commercial
structures in key activity areas of the City (e.g., 1.15.30-1.15.37), and require the ex-
tensive use of on-site landscaping and amenities (e.g., 1.16.30-1.16.34)."
N13 Add the following at the close of the paragraph: "In most cases, such intensifica-
tion of development densities will be perceived by residents to be a significant im-
pact. The evolution of single-family or mixed-density neighborhoods to higher
density housing and rural areas to a suburban character will impact residents who
choose to locate in the area due to the previous character and intensity of develop-
ment and quality of life. The effects of increasing site coverage and building bulk,
and loss of open space are significant. In commercial locations where the Plan pro-
vides for infill at prevailing densities and building heights (e.g., Highland Avenue
'Core' and most General Commercial areas), the impacts will be modest. Areas
subject to the greatest intensification (e.g., downtown and 'Regional Opportunities
Corridor') or which are currently sparsely developed (e.g., Waterman Avenue cor-
ridor) will experience the most significant impacts."
N14 Add the following at the close of paragraph "f": "The loss of these open spaces
represents a significant impact."
11'lt."
'"
o
o
N15 Statement "g' referenced in the comment, page 4-42 will be removed from the text.
Land use compatibility issues in the vicinity of the southeast portion of the plan-
ning area are correctly addressed on page 4-47.
N16 Add the following at the close of the referenced sentence: "...due to the location of
residential units on the west side of Mountain View Avenue adjacent to the mixed
industrial and commercial uses planned (in County areas) to the east."
N17 Density impacts are discussed elsewhere in the E1R on a topic by topic basis.
NIB Add the following at the close of the referenced paragraph: "It is estimated that
approximately 1,104 single-family and 234 multi-family units would be displaced.
Such displacement would significantly impact the City's resource of low income
housing units. The extent to which this impact will be offset will depend on the
Qty's ability to provide additional low and moderate priced units per the pro-
grams stipulated in the Housing Element (12.12, 12.13, 12.14, 1215,1226,1228,12.29,
1232, and 1233). At the same time, this will eliminate the current adverse impact
of residential units located in areas exposed to extreme noise levels exceeding an
Ldn of 70 dB(A)." Add the following at the close of the referenced paragraph: "In-
creasing densities and loss of open space will be perceived as a significant impact
by residents who located in these areas because of their 'rural' setting."
N19 Add the following at the close of the referenced paragraph: "In the long-term, the
evolution of these areas will result in the elimination or relocation of uses which
are inconsistent with their intended use. Such will be classified as 'nonconforming
uses' and permitted to continue in place until cessation of the business or occur-
rence of a disaster which destroys the majority of a structure. Additionally, the
physical expansion of nonconforming uses will be limited. These effects may be
significant."
,qfl
o
o
N20 Add the following at the close of the last sentence: "...by affecting radar operations
and landing patterns. However, such impacts would be offset by controls estab-
lished by continuation (for military) or modification (for public-private reuse) of
the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (Policy 1.39.31)."
N21 & N22
Add the following at the close of the second sentence: "...(refer to Policies 1.22.14,
1.22.15, 1.22.31, 1.22.32, 1.24.10-15, 1.24.30-36, 4.17.1, 4.17.2). New development
will be limited to densities and heights comparable to existing structures, main-
taining the scale, rhythm, and pattern of development (Policies 1.22.20, 1.24.20, and
1.24.30)."
Add the following at the close of the first paragraph: ''The latter would result
from the improvement of existing dilapidated and vacant buildings which are fire
hazards and frequently the location of criminal activity."
N23 Add the following at the close of the first sentence (first full paragraph):
locations between the commercial centers (Policy 1.22.12)."
" .
...m
Add the following at the close of the referenced paragraph: "...(refer to Policies
1.22.12 and 1.22.34)."
N24 Add the following at the close of the referenced paragraph: ''The latter requires (in
Policy 1.7.6) that projects 'adequately mitigate impacts attributable to their in-
creased scale and density and are compatible with adjacent uses.'"
N2S Add the following at the close of the referenced paragraph: ''In the planning area
it is estimated that approximately 1,300 single-family and 240 multi-family units
could be replaced. As previously stated (3. Residential, 'e), this may significantly
impact the City's supply of affordable housing units for which mitigation will
depend upon the effective implementation of the Housing Element's programs.
I.a
....
o
o
Nonconfol'IlliI\g commercial uses would be permitted to continue until cessation of
business or destruction of a majority of the structure."
N26 Add the following new paragraph at the close of the referenced paragraph: "All of
the 12,146 acres of vacant land are designated for a land use. Of these, the Plan
identifies an additional 507 acres (4 percent) for future parks (Objective 9.1 and
Policies 9.1.1-14). Hillside areas exceeding 40% slope will be maintained as open
space (Policy 1.14.31) and on slopes of 15-40% residential units will be clustered to
protect hillside topography and significant biological habitats, maintaining the un-
developed areas as permanent open space (Policies 1.14.10, 1.14.121, 1.14.13,
1.14.31,1.14.33,1.14.34,1.14.35,1.14.36,1.14.38, and 1.14.41). While these will pre-
serve lands as open space, there will be an overall net reduction and significant im-
pact on those lands."
N27 The text will be amended to include Figure 5...A. indicating the location of adjacent
land uses. That figure, which will be referenced in the text, is shown on the fol-
lowing page.
N28 Last paragraph, third sentence, delete and replace with the following: "The uses
have been allocated (by type, density, setback and height) to prevent impacts by or
on Norton Air Force Base."
N29 Add the following at the close of the second complete sentence: "...(Policies 1.28.34
and 1.32.31)" Delete last sentence.
N30 Add the following at the close of the second complete paragraph: "...(refer to Poli-
cy 1.13.40)."
'" nn
J
W
a:
::>
~
-
u.
w
en
"'J
c
Z
<C
-J
f-
Z
W
-C)
<C
..,
C
<C
"'--""
-0
o
~
'ill
15 .Q
a: ..C
.e ~~.:
" C
!!' a" ~
-e 18
g ~if8
~ l :g ~ .s;",,]
.218 !!l";; -2<Ji
~ ~ E~~ ~~ ~..~~~
1 ~ ~ ~~E 8> s~.
.U jOo; 1 ~Ji~ ~;g6; -:ill
I a:00;~;g a: ~2~ ~~~~ ~.~..
j~lff!~IEI~I!i~!~~~!i,iiJ
~~~~~!~~~~i~~~~~~~f]ii..ji
~ ~~ijl~jj~~~~88~~~~!J~ ~~
~ -~M.~G~m~~=~~~~~~~~ - M.~
'JZ
<:
~
~
~
0:
8
~
s..1
:::i
~
.
-I
E9
-~
-"
-0
~ 9
.:. .!:
.
9
.
.
"
.
,'"
E9
.-...---.--....---
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'''Y.If~ta:f
ee
z
o
I-
...
o
o
'SIMellel
:
....
o
I-
...
~
a:
E9
........l
~
o
o
N31 Paragraph continued from page 4-48, delete last sentence and replace with the fol-
lowing: ''TIle continuation of commercial and residential areas with comparable
uses and densities across City boundaries, will maintain the consistency and com-
patibility of the uses."
N32 Add the following at the close of the second sentence of the first complete para-
graph: "...wherein all areas of 15% and greater slope will be restricted by the den-
sity and design standards of the Hillside Management zone (Policies 1.14.10-14
and 1.14.30-41). Densities of the Specific Plan could, therefore, be reduced. As
such, uses to the west of the Plan area will be consistent in density and design."
Delete last sentence.
N33 Add the following after the second sentence (second complete paragraph):
",...restricting development to slopes of less than 40 percent and providing for
clustering of units between 15 and 40 percent (Policy 1.14.31). These standards
coupled with density limitations, which lessen density as slopes increase (Policy
1.14.10), will act as a transition to the National Forest lands from the more densely
developed urban areas to the south."
N34 Third complete paragraph, delete last sentence and replace with the following:
''TIle distances separating these uses, and policies for compatibility for industrial
uses (Policies 1.3231 and 1.34.31), will preclude significant impacts on the Park or
Wash areas outside the planning area."
N35 Last paragraph, first sentence, replace "supported" with "abutted."
N36 First complete paragraph, delete fourth sentence and replace with the following:
''Single- and multi-family units will be separated by streets and incorporate prop-
erty and building elevation setbacks (Policies 1.13.33, 1.13.36, and 1.13.40) to main-
tain compatibility among uses." Revise seventh sentence as follows: ''TIlese areas
are also abutted on the north by heavy industrial zones within San Bernardino for
o
o
which the Plan (Policy 1.33.30) requires the buffering of the industrial and com-
mercial uses."
N37 Last paragraph revise as follows: '1n summary, it is apparent that the Draft Land
Use Plan will impact or be impacted by the uses in adjacent communities in limit-
ed locations. The southeast residential portion of the City adjacent to Norton Air
Force Base and 1-10 could be impacted by the office and industrial uses provided
by the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. These impacts may be mitigated by the
coordination of development in the Specific Plan area with the City of San
Bernardino, requiring appropriate buffers and transitional uses. Areas adjacent to
Norton Air Force Base could be impacted by its reuses. These areas include the
City of Highland and the unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County to the
east and southeast. The potential impacts of reuse could be mitigated by the for-
mulation of a Specific Plan for the Base and adjacent 'impacted" properties, and in-
corporation of appropriate buffers and transitional uses (Policies 1.39.30 and
1.39.31)."
N38 Add the following at the close of the referenced sentence: "This process shall
include review of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects, and
identification and implementation of mitigation measures."
N39 Delete the second sentence and replace with the following: "As their development
capacity considerably exceeds market demand projections, the City shall consider
the potential of reducing their capacity (by rezoning, establishment of 'holding
areas', or other appropriate techniques) and/or increasing development marketing
activities should revitalization not be occurring."
~O~
~
o
o
N40 The following information will be added to the mitigation discussion on page 4-52
of the Draft EIR: "Implementation of the mitigation measures listed above are not
expected to result in any environmental impacts. Measures are related to funding,
community participation and potential future reduction in the development capac-
ity of the subject area."
N41'Section 4.1.1.5 Level of Significance ''Land Use" will be amended to read as fol-
lows: "Implementation of the Draft Plan will result in a substantial and permanent
change to the character of development in the City of San Bernardino. Although
many land use issues can be (and have been) effectively mitigated through Plan
policies and implementation programs, the general intensification of development
and associated loss of vacant land/open space cannot be mitigated within the
scope of the Plan. Consequently, implementation of the Draft Plan will result in
Class I level of impacts (significant impacts, not avoidable within the scope of the
project)."
N42 The source of the data, as cited in the EIR text, is the General Plan Technical Back-
ground Report. Further, the text indicates that the City contains 58,571 housing
units in 1988 not "will be."
N43 Last paragraph, second to last sentence: delete.
N44 The last sentence on page 4-53 will be amended to read as follows: "The majority
of sing1~fami1y uses are located north of Foothill Boulevard. The exceptions to
this are small pockets located west of Rancho Avenue and south of Foothill Boul~
vard, pockets located south of Rialto Avenue and east of Rancho, a fairly large area
of sing1~family located north of Interstate 10 and southeast of the City limit of San
Bernardino, and several small pockets located between Tippecanoe Avenue south
of Foothill and east of approximately Sierra Way."
",HI
o
o
N45 First paragraph, second sentence, delete and replace with the following: "Areas of
the City developed since the early 1960s primarily contain subdivisions with
'standard' single-family lots of 7,200 square feet."
N46 Last paragraph, last sentence: delete.
N47 Fourth paragraph, add the following at the close: "...according to the Board of Re-
altors."
N48 First paragraph, first sentence: add "regional" between "projected" and "popula-
tion."
N49 Revise, beginning with seventh line, as follows: "...logical habitats) and
infrastructure capacities: Straight-line projections of SCAG's allocation for a twen-
ty-year period (32,084 units, or 8,878 above the Plan) would require considerably
more intensive development. The City's hillsides, significant biological habitats,
earthquake fault zones, and flood hazard areas. The Plan's development densities
were formulated to maintain the integrity of those areas and protect properties
from hazards. In addition, increased densities would require conversion of
additional single-family neighborhoods and 'affordable' units to multi-family den-
sities. It is likely that the differential of 8,878 units would be largely multi-family,
increasing the ratio of new single- and multi-family units from 50:50 to 37:67. As a
consequence, the Housing Element provides for the development of the one quar-
ter of the housing capacity, or 5,802 units, during the five-year period. These units
would be distributed among the income levels as follows:" (Note: The
justification in reducing the City's "fair share allocation" is the responsibility of the
Plan, not the EIR.)
N50 Third paragraph, revise as follows: "Draft General Plan policies would contribute
to the preservation of existing residential housing by requiring the upkeep, main-
tenance and rehabilitation of existing housing consistent with the requirements of
,,^,
-
o
o
the City's building code (Policy 2.3.4 and Programs 12.23, 12.24, and 12.25). The
Plan provides that the City continue to offer fmancial assistance for housing
rehabilitation to eligible owners of rental units with low income tenants (Program
12.11), to low income homeowners to bring older single-family dwellings into con-
formity with the City's building code (Program 12.10), and, through a new pro-
gram, to buy and rehabilitate abandoned houses for resale to eligible low and
moderate income households (Program 12.22)."
N51 Paragraph continued from Page 4-60, add the following: "...{Policies 2.4.2, 2.4.1,
and 2.4.3, respectively)." FlI'St complete paragraph, add the following: "...(Policies
26.7 and 2.6.2, respectively)." Second complete paragraph, add the following at
the end of the first sentence: "...{Policies 2.6.3, 2.6.4, and 2.6.1, respectively)" and
the following at the end of the second sentence: "...(Policy 2.6.5)." Third complete
sentence, add the following: "...(Policy 2.7.1)."
N52 Last paragraph, add the following at its close: "This will be exacerbated by the po-
tential replacement of an estimated 1,300 single-family and 230 multi-family units,
primarily occupied by low and moderate income households, on evolution of
areas in proximity to Norton Air Force Base and the Railroad Yards to other land
uses. Further, many low income single-family areas north and east of downtown
will evolve to higher densities. The loss of these units, coupled with incremental
increases in the costs and pricing of housing, will adversely affect the City's supply
of affordable housing units. Reductions in the City's affordable housing will, fur-
ther, impact the overall supply in the greater San Bernardino Valley and RSA-29."
N53 First paragraph, add the following: "These changes, except for the flrst, will
represent significant impacts on the City's housing resources, including the loss of
'affordable' units and intensification of development."
"I""
o
o
N54 Add new subsection "C" as follows:
"c. Housing Quality
'1mplementation of the General Plan will result in various impacts on the
Oty's housing quality. Preservation of existing single-family neighborhoods
will increase the age of the housing units and long-term potential deteriora-
tion, without proper upkeep, in these areas. Plan policies provide for the
monitoring of the physical conditions of housing and enforcement of building
codes (1.41.1, 1.41.3, and 2.3.4), educational programs for housing mainte-
nance (1.41.2), assistance in the rehabilitation of rental and low income units
(2.3.1 and 2.3.2), and program for the recycling of abandoned units (2.3.3) as
means to maintain the quality of existing housing and upgrade deteriorated
units. Effective implementation of these would significantly benefit the hous-
ing stock. In areas north of downtown, the Plan provides for the
intensification of mixed density residential neighborhoods, many of which
contain dilapidated units (refer to Land Use Plan). This, coupled with the
Plan's policies for the quality of new multi-family development (1.13.32,
1.13.35, and 1.13.39), would enhance the quality of the City's housing."
N55 Add the following to "4.1.2.3, Cumulative Impacts": "As a consequence, subse-
quent regional housing development demands would be expected to be shifted
to, and significantly impact, adjacent communities which contain vacant lands
with fewer environmental constraints."
N56 The following will be added to the discussion of mitigation measures regarding
housing, page 4-62: "These measures are not expected to result in any environ-
mental impacts, although the utilization of funds for purposes stated above
would remove availability of those funds for any other purpose."
N57 The correction indicated in the comment will be made to the text.
~O~
L
e
o
N58 Figure Sb will be added to the text to indicate the location of areas surveyed for
historic district merit.
N59 The term "historic" used here is not a formal designation but is instead
descriptive, to indicate that these sites are considered to have significant histori-
cal resource value for the community.
N60 The last complete paragraph on page 4-68 will be amended to read as follows:
'1t should be noted that even with the policies and programs of the Draft Plan
implemented, significant adverse effects to archaeological and historical resourc-
es may still occur: Previously unknown archaeological sites may be encountered
during new project construction, especially in areas of the mountain foothills and
canyons, and in the Shandin Hills. Moreover, every older and potentially signifi-
cant building in the developed areas of the City, including those identified and
designated significant by the City, can legally be replaced by another because of
overriding economic or public safety concerns. The Draft Plan does, however,
provide a maximal level of protection for those designated resources which can
be considered legally acceptable."
N61 The following information will be added to the "project impacts" discussion:
"Additional impacts to historic resources arise indirectly out of the general in-
crease in population levels and related increased levels of atmospheric pollution
and vehicular traffic. The nature of these impacts include external erosion of
structures and deterioration of artifacts due to acid deposition from the atmo-
sphere, structural cracking or vibration damage due to vehicular or human foot
traffic, and perhaps vandalism."
N62 See response to comment El in reference to page 4-69 of the text.
,.,
..::lO~
I/) 0
I-
~
cc
l-
I/)
~ c - U
.!:! "C
~ - ;;;
-
'" is
cc C
0 iii iii
l-
I/) ;; 'u
i: c -
-'l ., .,
\(l ...I 'g E
< 'iii E
~ ., 0
111 CC 0
CC Z
::l W
l- I I
Cl 0
ii: ll..
~
IS tillS ,JJ _.
,
,
,--
.
.'.
. .
.' c
.' .
.." ::
..'
.'
.'
;.....................
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
..........
#......
.'
.t........
~1-.
..'
"
.'
:........
I
I
,
,
,
1--'
,
.... ................
: I
. L,
. ,
.
o -
o ~ J
: --,-
t--------I"-, it
, "
, :
I'
~
,
,
,
,
,
'----
I
I
\
"'--1 I
I l_..Jr
,
--
~,
, ,
I ---,
I --
I --
r--- ,----"'j
"'I ,_J I
I I I
1..1 I
~I
~I
I
"
-,
,
,
,
,
~
,,-
,
I
,
-,
,
/
1;'--/
\
(
(....--,'/
,
,
l.._,
,-
o
,-,
, ...
-, ,
, ,
1___ 1
, I
I II'"
-(
, /
I (
- I
IQr I
, 'H
I
".
,-----'
I
L__,
,
I
I
"
'i
I
_,
,
l~/l
'l..1
rr7
-.
lAW III'"
ISllIItqllY
J I
J,-
,
5 ..
..
~
c
;;;
--_"'I,__r
-,
,
IA't'lW'OVt>> 11
I \
.' I
'I-
I L_""
I., 1.
'A' "'..I'M
Ii
w
Q
0.
~~
0""
f5 ~ 9 .~. 'q~..,
> ~ a:--t
,!:zlii I
_41:_ ,
_tIIQ I
---., ".
Vo;
.
.
"
II.
o
llO:>
8:
...0
'lID Z
I 0 ""
I 101&1
,.>
~o "_
....~
..
i
g
~
:1__
c
!! en
;;
iE i
I IS Itdel...
'__1
z
I
.
.
2-65
~
Z -:
..
.
.
~
;;
.
~
-i'
I
-I
=~;
i
I
_01
"\;Z I
2::1
01
;::::
~
o
2:
8
~
o
~
::s
~
'---, (
I,
\
/
i
c
.S!
!
~
o
o
E
,~
w
~
l!
~,
8q
"
e
o
N63 See response to N61 above. In addition, the first item on page 4-70 will be
amended to read: ''Poor air quality will cause incremental degradation to the ex-
terior of structures and potential associated deterioration of historical artifacts."
The Level of Environmental Significance discussion will be amended to read as
follows: "Because previously unknown archaeological resources may be discov-
ered during new construction projects, and because historical resources may be
lost as a result of economic or public safety concerns, potentially significant and
unavoidable adverse (Class n impacts may occur."
N64 The second and third sentences on page 4-172 will be amended to read as fol-
lows: "The San Bernardino Freeway 0-10) is the major east-west freeway provid-
ing access west to Los Angeles and east to the low desert communities and be-
yond. Interstate 215 provides north-south freeway access to Riverside and San
Diego Counties to the south, and the high desert communities to the north." The
last sentence in the same paragraph will be amended to read as follows: "State
Route 18 provides access to the numerous recreation areas north of the City
throughout the year."
N65 Due to the extensive size of the "project site" and the roadway network under
consideration, it would not be feasible to indicate ADTs and levels of service on
appropriate, legible maps. The following discussion will be added to the text of
the EIR, page 4-72 immediately preceding the subheading ''Freeways'': "The fol-
lowing discussion describes the major roadways in the City of San Bernardino.
Figures 6 and 7 indicate the location and classification of these roadways. Tables
11 and 12. indicate their design criteria, existing (1987) daily volumes, vol-
ume/ capacity ratio, and resulting level of service."
N66 The reference to "Sierra Highway" in the first sentence on page 4-75 will be
changed to read "Sierra Way".
~u"
.
J..
mUilll
J:L
. ~
o
o
N67 The sentence in the discussion concerning Rancho Avenue will be amended to
read as follows: "ADT volumes are about 10,000 vehicles immediately south of
Rialto Avenue and dropping to about 5,000 vehicles further to the south."
N68 In the discussion on page 4-75 of Cajon Boulevard, the words ''Barstow Free-
way I Devon Freeway" will be corrected to read ''Barstow Freeway I Devore Free-
way (1-15)".
N69 On page 4-75, of the EIR, in the Mount Vernon Avenue discussion, the word
"form" on the first line will be amended to read "from".
N70 Reference to Tippecanoe Avenue will be changed to refer to Lena. Due to the
current uncertainty of future land uses associated with Norton Air Force Base,
the General Plan includes objectives and policies to provide a framework for fu-
ture development of the Base. Policies 1.39.10 and 1.39.11 address the formula-
tion of a specific plan in collaboration with other appropriate jurisdictions for the
reuse of Norton Air Force Base. During formulation of the specifIc plan, as the
use of the property is determined, roadway alignments will be determined at
that time. As part of such a study, the impacts of any realignment of roads
would be addressed during environmental evaluation.
N71 The two sentences in question in the discussion of Creek Road on page 4-77 will
be amended to read as follows: "South of Highland Avenue, the road becomes a
four-lane divided facility known as Mountain Avenue (SR-30). In this segment it
has an ADT volume of approximately 8,000 vehicles."
N72 The first sentence in the discussion of 40th Street on page 4-77 will be amended
to read as follows: ''Fortieth Street is classifIed as a major arterial and runs from
Kendall Drive (SR-206) to Waterman Avenue."
~, ,
-
- ......
~
.mb. _
~
."
.
o
N73 The following information will be added to page 4-77 of the text: "30th Street-
Lynwood Avenue is an east-west facility which parallels Route 30, just north of
the freeway extending from little Mountain Drive on the West to Victoria Ave-
nue on the east. It is primarily a four-lane roadway with 30th Street currently
designated as a collector and Lynwood Avenue designated as a secondary arteri-
al. Existing ADTs range from about 3,000 vehicles per day between ''E'' and "F"
Streets to about 14,000 between Arrowhead and Waterman. ADTs decline to
8,500 east of Golden Avenue. The circulation element of the Draft Plan does not
pose any changes along 30th Street or Lynwood Avenue. Future volumes
following completion of the Route 30 Freeway were forecast to range from 8,000
to 20,000 vehicles per day. That volume is within the acceptable capacity of a
four-lane roadway."
N74 The last sentence on page 4-77 will be amended to read as follows: ''It has a total
of four through-lanes along most of its length except for a two-lane segment east
of City Creek Road."
N75 The second sentence on the discussion of 5th Street will be amended to read as
follows: ''It has a total of four through-lanes west of Waterman Avenue and two
lanes east of Waterman."
N76 On page 4-7 of the EIR, the last word on the first line will be corrected to read
"Avenue".
N77 On page 4-79 of the EIR, the last sentence in the discussion concerning Rialto Av-
enue will be amended to read as follows: "ADT is about 10,000 vehicles at Ar-
rowhead Avenue and at Rancho Avenue. Volumes increase to about 20,000 ADT
at ''E'' Street downtown."
N78 On page 4-80, the sentence beginning on the seventh line of the page will be
amended to read as follows: ''The volumes currently being experienced on the
... I ..
o
o
roadways in the study area are consistent with the functional classification (in-
tended uses) of the streets in the circulation network. Only a limited amount of
congestion or delay is currently experienced during peak hours, indicating that
adequate capacity is generally available to accommodate significant amounts of
additional traffic generation downtown. Capacity deficiencies are currently ex-
perienced on Highland Avenue, Baseline Street, and Redlands Boulevard near 1-
215, on Mill Street east of Waterman Avenue, on Waterman Avenue near Hospi-
tality Lane, 40th Street between Sierra and Mountain View, Sierra Way between
40th and 5th Streets, Del Rosa Drive near Route 30, 9th Street between
Tippecanoe and Palm, and on "E" Street near its southern end."
N79 The sentence in question on page 4-81 will be corrected to read as follows:
''Level of Service "E" is considered to be the ultimate capacity of the street."
N80 Regarding the discussion of Highland Avenue at the top of page 4-93, references
to ''Route 30" will be changed to indicate references to ''Route 330." This same
correction will be made to the discussion of ''Highland Avenue" on Table 12 and
Figure 8.
N81 On page 4-95 of the EIR, the first sentence of the first complete paragraph on that
page will be amended to read as follows: "Omnitrans has indicated that transit
trips in San Bernardino account for less than two percent of the home-to-work
trips and just slightly higher than one-half of one percent of total daily trips."
N82 The following information will be added to the impact analysis of the circulation
discussion: ''The existing conditions model was composed of seventy-five zones
internal to the City of San Bernardino. Trips were generated for these seventy-
five zones based on the land use information supplied by the City. These values
are shown in Table 13 as '1987 Existing Trip Ends.' For the area outside of the
City, data included in the Caltrans LARTS model for Route 30 was used. For the
future conditions model, a similar procedure was used."
"\I~
l
o
o
"The apparent discrepancy between the increase in trip ends and the increase in
dwelling units can be explained by the fact that, in the existing conditions model,
the land use and trip ends were calculated for seventy-five zones. For the future
model (Draft Plan), however, land use was collected for eighty zones while the
trip ends reflected in Table 13 were calculated for seventy-five zones. The trips
in the additional five zones were gathered from the Caltrans data and, thus, all of
the trips for the future model were accounted for. The trip generation rates were
held constant for single-family and multi-family dwelling units so that the in-
crease in trips generated was directly proportional to the increase in dwelling
units on a zone-by-zone basis." Specific generation rates are indicated on the
table on the following page.
N83 The following paragraph will be added to page 4-97 of the text immediately pre-
ceding the second complete paragraph now currently on the page: ''In order to
forecast future traffic conditions, a travel demand forecasting model was devel-
oped. The microcomputer model was developed using the TRANPLAN soft-
ware and was based on the regional model developed by Caltrans for the Route
30 Freeway EIR. It includes the regional growth and programmed regional
transportation improvements (e.g., Route 30 Freeway) forecast by SCAG and
Caltrans for the year 2010. The focus of the model is on the City of San
Bernardino and areas immediately surrounding the City. It includes 130 traffic
analysis zones (TAZs) of which 75 are within the City of San Bernardino. An ad-
ditiona133 zones were identified to represent to/from locations further outside
the study area." The first sentence on the last paragraph on page 4-97 will be
amended to read as follows: ''Table 15 lists 49 locations where roadway level of
service is forecast, by the travel demand forecasting model discussed above, to be
''E'' or "F" following total project buildout."
~'\4
A
o
o
Oty of San Bernardino Travel Model
Trip Generation Equations
-
iii
Pw:pose
SFH
Tri,p Generation Rates
MFH ~ OS
Productions
HBW
HBS
HBO
NHB
2.021
1.946
5.029
0.229
1.517
1.090
2.691
0.186
5.446
Attractions
HBW
HBS
HBO
NHB
0.106
0.086
6.771
13.504
18.245
5.446
1.040
0.229
0.845
0.186
SFH = Single-Family Housing
MFH = Multi-Family Housing
CS = Area Reserved for Commercial Use, in 1.000 sq.ft.
OS = Area Reserved for Office Use, in 1.000 sq.ft.
IS = Area Reserved for Industrial Use, in 1.000 sq.ft.
HBW = Home-Based Work Trips
HBS = Home-Based Shopping Trips
HBO = Home-Based Other Trips
NHB = Non-Horne-Based Trips
Trip Generation Rates are regression model coefficients.
Source: 1) OKS Associates
2) ITE Trip Generation Manual (3rd Edition)
2.034
2.560
11.072
2.034
IS
1.686
2.059
1.686
~ ,I'
.
m.
. u
-.-
e
o
N84 The text referenced in this comment does not contain any hidden assumptions.
The text clearly states on page 4-97 that the discussions of roadway segments
with respect to Volume/Capacity ratios follows "buildout of the Draft Plan and
implementation of the Plan circulation system." The title of Table 15 indicates
that the Volume/Capacity ratios on the table are "assuming implementation of
roadway improvements per the Draft Plan." Because the EIR addresses imple-
mentation of the Draft Plan, in analyzing circulation the entire Plan was
considered: both buildout of the land use map with associated trip generation
and the circulation section of the Draft Plan including proposed roadway
improvements. In the bottom paragraph on page 4-97, the text again clarifies this
issue by stating that the capacities indicated on Table 15 used in calculating pro-
jected Level of Service represent capacities after implementation of roadway im-
provements per the Draft Plan. The text continues by pointing out that actual
traffic conditions could be somewhat worse than the table indicates, depending
upon the exact timing of land use development with respect to implementation
of planned roadway improvements.
As indicated in the mitigation section of the traffic analysis, the Plan has ad-
dressed the issue of timing with respect to buildout and roadway improvements.
As indicated in response to comment El, Policy 6.1.1 and Implementation Pro-
gram 6.1 indicate that the City shall annually review the functioning of the street
system as part of the capital improvement program to identify problems and
pursue implementation of improvements identified as needed in a timely man-
ner. This policy and implementation program provide guidelines for the City for
implementing improvements to the circulation systems as needed to respond to
the City's pattern of growth.
N85 As indicated in the bottom paragraph on page 4-97, actual traffic conditions that
would be experienced in San Bernardino could be somewhat worse (or some-
what better) than indicated on Table 15, depending upon the exact timing of land
use development with respect to implementation of planned roadway improve-
~ \1
L
~..
u
II
o
o
ments. The EIR does not discuss impacts related to not implementing specific
parts of the Plan. The Draft Plan was taken as a unit in order to identify the
environmental impacts that would result from its implementation.
The following information will be added to the third complete paragraph on
page 4-97 after the first sentence in that paragraph: "Many of the improvements
(reclassification) indicated on Table 14 can be accomplished without road widen-
ing. Any roads or road segments indicated on the table with the previous
classification of '1ocal" require no physical changes to bring them up to the new
classification. In those cases, the new classification simply reflects the current
functioning characteristics of the street. Reclassification from "secondary" streets
to "major" streets usually involves the prohibition of on-street parking at least
during peak hours and does not involve physical changes to the street such as
widening." With respect to funding mechanisms, the Final EIR will indicate, in
response to comment E1 that Policy 6.1.13 requires that the burden of cost of
roadway improvements including traffic signal installations shall be equitably
distributed among property owners/developers benefiting from new
development and highway users.
N86 The following information will be added to the impact analysis of the Circulation
discussion: '1n all cases, except for five roadways/ segments, the Draft Plan does
not increase load widths from previously adopted plans. The five exceptions are
the Pepper-Linden extension, the Rancho Avenue extension between Foothill
and Highland, relatively short segments of Pioneer, a segment of Lena Road, and
the Route 30 Freeway. In these areas, the adjacent lands are generally not devel-
oped. However, in isolated instances due to existing patterns of development it
is possible that implementation of the circulation plan could require additional
setbacks which would impact existing uses. In general, it is possible that
implementation of the circulation plan, and in particular the five roadways
and/or segments listed above, could result in impacts to biological or archaeo-
logical resources, or be in conflict with geological or soils hazards or limitations.
~h":l
1
41
-
ct:I
.
.
However at the time that the extensions are proposed and specific plans are
drawn and engineered, detailed investigations of potential impacts will be un-
dertaken."
The following corrections will be made to Tables 14 and 15 in the text. On page
4-98.the street segment labeled Pepper Unden-Cajon Boulevard to SR-30 will be
removed from the chart. (The new classification of that segment is "major"
which means that no change will occur and the street segment does not need to
be indicated on the table.) The same is true on page 4-99 for the Rancho Avenue-
Foothill Boulevard to N /0 Baseline Street segment and that segment will also be
deleted from the table. On page 4-100, the final entry on that page ''Fairway
Drive between Mount Vernon and Sperry Drive" will be removed from the table.
The correct capacity for that segment is 15,000 ADT and consequently the V /C
ratio is actually below 1.00. On the third to the fmal entry on page 4-100 "the 210
Freeway" will be corrected to read ''1-10.'' On page 4-101 the first segment, ''Fair-
way Drive between Sperry Drive and Orange Show Road," will be corrected as
follows: The eastbound capacity will be changed to 15,000 ADT, buildout vol-
ume will be changed to 37,300, and the V /C ratio will be corrected to read 2.49.
The westbound direction on that same street segment will be corrected as fol-
lows: The capacity will be increased to 15,000 ADT, buildout volume will be c.or-
rected to read 35,800 and the V /C ratio will be corrected to read 2.39. The next
street segment ''Fairway Drive between Orange Show Road and 1-10" will be re-
moved from the table as such, and will be incorporated into the next listed street
segment as follows: ''Fairway Drive between Orange Show Road and "E"
Street." The eastbound direction of that segment will be indicated with the ca-
pacity of 15,000 ADT, a buildout volume of 15,800 and a V /C ratio of 1.05. The
westbound direction will be indicated with a capacity of 15,000 ADT, a buildout
volume of 14,600 and a V /C ratio of 0.97. On page 4-102 the second segment list-
ed will be corrected to read: "Hospitality Lane West of Waterman Avenue." The
reference on page 4-102 "to Tippecanoe" will be replaced with a reference to
Lena Avenue.
~'Jt
o
o
In conjunction with these corrections the following changes will be made to the
text: The first sentence, last paragraph on page 4-97 will be corrected to read:
"Table 16 lists 47 locations where roadway Level of Service is forecast by the
model to be "E" or ''F' following total project buildout. The following sentence
will be removed from the text from page 4-105: "The most obvious examples of
these would be eastbound Fairway Drive between Mount Vernon and Sperry
Drive (V IC = 2.08) and Fairway Drive between Orange Show Road and 1-10,
both directions (V IC = 5.96 to 6.21)." That sentence will be replaced with the fol-
lowing sentence: "One example of this would be Fairway Drive between Sperry
Drive and Orange Show Road (V IC = 2.39 to 2.49)."
N87 Figure 9 indicates roadways segments where existing Volume to Capacity Ratio
is already greater than or equal to 1.00. The text in question on page 4-103 will be
amended to read as follows: "Figure 9 displays the location of roadway seg-
ments which are currently (1987) operating with a V IC ratio greater than or
equal to 1.00. These segments would be particularly impacted by implementa-
tion of the Draft Plan because they do already operate with a Volume to Capacity
Ratio greater than 1.00. Figure 9 illustrates that these segments of existing con-
cern are located primarily along "E" Street from 1-10 to Baseline Street and south
of 1-10, Waterman Avenue from I-to to Mill Street, plus segments of Sierra Way,
Inland Center Drive, Mount Vernon Avenue, Fairway Drive and Orange Show
Road. Traffic on these road segments would be expected to experience unstable
flow, low operating speeds, severely limited ability to maneuver and possible
queue formation."
N88 Specific policies are identified in response to comment E1.
N89 The reasons for the unfeasibility of providing Level of Service C on all road seg-
ments is related both to the costs that would be associated with developing
enough roadways within the City to maintain a Level of Service C, as well as the
J.'~
[
o
o
constraints with respect to existing land uses. The mitigation of freeway traffic
that passes through the Oty is not within the Oty's jurisdiction. That would be
the responsibility of the appropriate state or federal entity.
N90 See response to comment N89.above and N86.
N91 As with all of the policies and programs contained in the Plan, the Oty will
ultimately be required to implement the complete Plan as appropriate over the
course of future development in the Oty. As indicated in response to comment
N86 above, the EIR does refer to policies and implementation programs which
address funding the proposed roadway improvements. In addition to Policy
6.1.13, Implementation Program 16.1 indicates that the City shall prepare an
annual update to its five-year capital improvement program. Information to be
included in that annual update is a priority ranking of projects and infrastructure
improvements to be implemented over the next five-year period, and identifica-
tion of the available sources of funding to finance implementation of each im-
provement project. Thus while the Plan does not indicate a specific funding
mechanism for each and every proposed improvement to the City's
infrastructure, the Plan does contain mechanisms whereby the City will be re-
sponsible for identifying those funding mechanisms as infrastructure improve-
ments become necessary.
N92 All of the policies described on the referenced pages have been identified by poli-
cy number in response to comment E1. Each policy is part of the General Plan.
Additional mitigation, not currently part of the Plan begins on page 4-111.
N93 The following information will be added to the mitigation discussion on the cir-
culation analysis: "The primary mechanisms through which the facilities shown
on the circulation plan will be implemented are the following: (1) roadways con-
structed as part of development projects (e.g., frontage improvements internal
streets), (2) the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, and (3) the Traffic Systems
~~t:
o
o
Fee. As noted in implementation program 16.8, the Oty shall annually review
the Traffic Systems Fee to determine that it adequately reflects the current cost of
fmancing the traffic network improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic
generated by new developments."
"The Traffic Systems Fee is currently set at $12.00 per vehicle-trip generated by
any new development, or substantial improvement in an existing development,
which results in a net increase in the number of vehicle-trips generated. The fee
shall be adjusted each July 15 in accordance with the change in the Construction
Cost Index. Based on the projected increase in trips documented in the EIR
(1,870,300 new trips over 1987 conditions), the Traffic Systems Fee would
generate $22,443,600 in revenue (in constant dollars) to be allocated to transpor-
tation improvements. The City's current Five-Year Capital Improvement Pro-
gram for the years 1987-88 to 1991-92 includes a total expenditure of $77,258,085
for capital improvements in the Oty. Of that total, $32,576,274 is allocated for
streets, street lighting and traffic control projects."
.
N94 As indicated in response to comment M20, the referenced statement with respect
to 100 trips per day will be changed to read as follows: "Prior to development, a
detailed traffic analysis should be required for projects expected to produce vehi-
cle trips in excess of the threshold to be established per Implementation Program
16.13 and appropriate mitigation measures identified to reduce trip generation
and/or maintain a Level of Service C."
N95 In addition to the policy referenced in this comment, the text, in response to com-
ment El, now references Implementation Plans 16.4 and 16.14 both of which refer
to secondary access. In particular 16.14 indicates that the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer shall develop guidelines, for use in the site plan review
process, which specify the requirements for multiple access routes to
development projects. This indicates that secondary access requirements will
become part of the site plan review process. At that time it will become the
".21
-
o
o
City's responsibility to determine on a project by project basis whether a
particular proposed development is in conformance with the City's adopted
guidelines with respect to secondary access. The potential impact to develop-
ments not served by secondary access will be assessed during the site plan re-
view process and is not an appropriate topic of the EIR.
N96' It is not the intention of the Plan to mandate implementation of the shuttle ser-
vice. It is correct to use the word "pursue." The object is to find out whether im-
plementation of the shuttle service would or would not be economically feasible
and then to make a well founded decision based upon that information.
N97 As indicated on page 4-110 of the text, the Transportation Demand Management
Plan and Ordinance are considered to be one of the key implementation pro-
grams which must be carried out to insure that the circulation system improve-
ments are completed. The Transportation Demand Management Plan and Ordi-
nance can be considered as firm mitigation. Per Implementation Plan 16.22, the
Draft Plan indicates that the City shall develop a Transportation Demand Man-
agement Plan and Ordinance containing specific programs for implementation
by the City as well as specific requirements to be imposed on private develop-
ment as conditions of program approval. The implementation program further
states that the Plan and ordinance shall be consistent with regional policies of
SCAG, San BAG, and the Air Quality Maintenance Board.
N98 As indicated on page 4-105 of the Draft EIR, the requirement that Level of Service
C be maintained over a 24-hour period would expect to result in significant im-
pacts with respect to financial resources, commitment of land, physical impacts
on adjacent land uses and short-term construction impacts. The last sentence in
the referenced paragraph is not a "rationalization", but rather refers to the fact
that the goals of future development of the City of San Bernardino as indicated in
the land use section of the Draft Plan would not be met in full by the down-siz-
ing of buildout that would be required to insure a Level of Service C.
.3 .1~
o
o
N99 The following information will be added to the existing conditions discussion of
the Circulation Section: '''The City of San Bernardino maintains accident records
and submits them to the State of California via the Statewide Integrated Traffic
Reporting System. These records indicate the location, type (cause), and time of
accident. There are no apparent hazardous situations existing in the City, and
Citywide accident statistics are comparable to County of San Bernardino and
State of California averages." The following information will be added to the
Project Impacts Section of the Traffic Analysis: '''The buildout of the land use ele-
ment will likely result in an increased number of traffic accidents due to the in-
creased traffic volumes, but it would not be expected to increase accident rates.
There is nothing proposed in the Circulation Element that would be expected to
cause a traffic hazard." The impacts of implementing the Circulation Element
and associated mitigation measures will be added to the text as indicated in re-
sponse to comment N86 above.
NI00 The Figure 10 indicated on the following page will replace the Figure 10 original-
ly included in the Draft EIR.
NI0l Current daily water demand is indicated on Table 16 of the text, page 4-114.
With respect to meeting fire flow requirements please see response NlOB.
NI02 The final paragraph on page 4-113 will be amended to read as follows: "Ground-
water is the major source of water for the SBMWD, with groundwater currently
being pumped from the Bunker Hill Basin. Water purveyors can pump
quantities of water from the basin up to the safe yield of the basin. When the
basin has been pumped beyond the safe yield, groundwater supplies are supple-
mented with State Project Water in the amount necessary to return the basin to
safe yield. Treated streamwaters are also a normal source of supply for the
Department. The primary source of streamwater currently used by the depart-
ment is Devil Creek from which a maximum of approximately 3,360 acre-feet of
~:l'2t
. I
il ;1
~ ~
~
;i~ ..(
~< !
~ .,.
20 i
>U
oa: I
~~
<... i~
3-43
o
o
water is available annually. The SBMWD also has entitlement to an additional
two million gallons of water per day from Lytle Creek, although this water
source is not presently being used by the Department."
N103 With respect to a map of pressure zones, that information is not within the scope
of this EIR. The following information will be added to the discussion address-
ing East Valley Water District: "The East Valley Water District has indicated that
it does have storage capacity to meet fire flow requirements. However, delivery
of fire flow is dependent upon the transmission facilities infrastructure. Ability
to meet fire flow at a particular location with respect to future development
would need to analyzed on a project-by-project basis."
N104 The information concerning the South San Bernardino County Water District will
be rewritten as follows: "The South San Bernardino County Water District (SSB-
CWD) is composed of two small water systems (North South) separated by the
Santa Ana River. The SSBCWD currently is operating four groundwater wells
from the Bunker Hill Basin. All water supply delivered by the district comes
from the groundwater wells. However, in the event of an emergency (e.g., con-
tamination of groundwater) the district does have the ability to delivery water
supplied by the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department."
N10S On page 4-116 of the Draft EIR, the discussion concerning the Muscoy Mutual
Water System provides adequate information concerning the existing condition
of that water system.
N106 The second full paragraph on page 4-117 will be amended to read as follows:
"The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department and the East Valley Water
District together have a theoretical production capacity to supply approximately
123,000 acre-feet of water per year to the planning area with their existing
facility." In the final paragraph on page 4-117, the next to the last sentence will
be amended to read as follows: "As previously discussed, production capacity
- - -
-
o
o
within the planning area exceeds the 1987 water demand by approximately
SO,OOO acre-feet per year, given existing water purveyor facilities."
N107 Although it is true that industrial growth will result in approximately ten times
the square footage of existing industrial space at full development, the water
demand is based (as indicated in Table 17) on 1.5 acre-feet per acre per year for
industrial land uses and two acre-feet per year per acre for commercial. In other
words, the water demand factors as provided by and confirmed by the San
Bernardino Municipal Water Department are not based on square footage but
rather are based on acres.
N108 The following information will be added to the project impacts analysis in the
discussion of water demand: ''The City of San Bernardino Fire Department has
indicated the following fire flow requirements: (1) for a single-family dwelling,
500 to 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for a two-hour duration, (2) for multi-fami-
ly residential units, 3,500 gallons per minute, (3) for commercial and industrial
use, 3,500 to 8,000 gallons per minute depending upon the use. Fire flow
requirements for commercial and industrial uses can be reduced by 50 percent if
the use contains a sprinkler system installation. Although adequate water sup-
ply exists to provide fire flow requirements, projects would need to be analyzed
on an individual basis to determine whether or not the distribution facilities
would be able to carry the fire flow requirements. For future development, the
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department has stated that the department will
continue to design water reservoirs, mains, transmission lines and production fa-
cilities based on peak demand and fire flow requirements."
N109 The last sentence on page 4-117 will be amended to read as follows: ''This avail-
able capacity is more than adequate to meet projected increased water demand of
16,582 acre-feet/year associated with maximum Plan buildout."
...-" ,
o
o
NIlO As indicated in the top two paragraphs of page 4-120, the demand for additional
water service resulting from General Plan buildout will require construction or
upgrading transmission storage and distribution facilities. The EIR indicates that
secondary impacts associated with the physical construction of the facility could
be of concern. However, at this time specific projects for construction of water
facilities are not being evaluated. When specific facility proposals are submitted
appropriate environmental review will identify specific impacts that could result
from their implementation. The EIR does not indicate that these potential sec-
ondary impacts related to future development of facilities will not be significant.
That determination would be made at the time that projects are analyzed on an
individual basis."
N111 As indicated in response to comment E1, the text has been amended to indicate
that Policy 7.6.2 and associated Implementation Programs 17.2, 17.16 and 117.19
address the construction of upgraded and expanded water facilities to support
existing and new development. Policy 7.6.4 and Implementation Program 17.17
assure that growth will proceed no faster than expansion of water facilities by re-
quiring that adequate water facilities be operational prior to the issuance of cer-
tificates of occupancy.
NIl2 The EIR indicates that ultimate buildout of RSA-29 would be anticipated to re-
quire approximately 153,000 acre-feet of water per year. Due to the potential
double counting of units indicated in the description of the cumulative project in
section 2.0 of the EIR, it is likely that ultimate buildout of RSA-29 would result in
a water demand somewhat less than that indicated. Further information request-
ed in the comment with respect to analysis of each water purveyor for RSA-29 is
not necessary to be included in the EIR. At such time as development occurs in
each of the various jurisdictions in RSA-29, responsible jurisdictions will deter-
mine whether or not adequate water supply and facilities are available on a local
individual basis. With respect to Table 19, see response to comment N107 above.
~2t
jjJ
o
o
N113 The text states that mitigation measures would be identified when future water
system facilities are developed, not achieved as indicated in the comment. The
text makes no statement to indicate the level of impact mitigation that would
occur, nor if any unavoidable adverse impacts would result.
N114 See response to comment N108 above. Information concerning water storage re-
quirements in each pressure zone is not appropriate within the scope of this EIR.
As indicated in the text and in response to comment E1, Draft Plan policies and
programs require the construction of upgraded and expanded water facilities to
support existing and new development and also require that adequate water fa-
cilities be operational prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. These
programs will ensure that the water system is expanded at the same rate as
growth. The potential impacts of expanding the water system are addressed in
paragraph two, page 4-120.
NIlS Please refer to response to comment N120.
N116 The information provided in the third paragraph on page 4-123 is referenced as
being provided by Mr. Dan Forrest of the San Bernardino County Solid Waste
Management Department. The comment presents an opinion with respect to the
County Solid Waste Management Plan. However, the text is correct to say that
the Department did indicate incineration as one of the waste management prac-
tices that is being considered for the Management Plan.
N117 The following information will be added to page 4-123 of the text: "The County
Solid Waste Management Department has indicated that approximately 11 per-
cent of solid waste generated in the County of San Bernardino is currently recy-
cled."
Nl18 "(2,960 cubic yards)" will be inserted into the first sentence on page 4-124.
"(4,100 cubic yards)" will be inserted into the third sentence on page 4-124. The
,,"'c:
o
o
following sentence will be added to the end of paragraph two on page 4-124: "It
should be noted that secondary impacts to air quality will occur as a result of an
increased number of collection trucks hauling the additional solid waste addi-
tional miles."
N119 The following sentence will be added to paragraph one on page 4-124: "Expand-
ed collection services will require expansion of routes and an increase in the
number of collection trucks."
N120 The first sentence of paragraph two on page 4-124 will be amended from "could"
to "will."
Paragraph two on page 4-123 will be amended to read as follow: "Solid waste
collected in the planning area is presently disposed at landfills in Colton and
Fontana owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino. As of December,
1988, the Colton landfill had a remaining capacity of 400,000 cubic yards and the
Fontana landfill had a remaining capacity of 300,000 cubic yards. When these
sites close, solid waste generated in the City will be transported to the San Timo-
teo landfill also owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino. As of
December, 1988, San Tunoteo landfill had a remaining capacity of 10,200,000
cubic yards. 3,689,800 cubic yards of solid waste are currently deposited there
per year."
The following sentence will be inserted into paragraph 3 on page 4-123: "The
County is also currently in search of an additional landfill site."
"Cumulative Impacts" of the Solid Waste Section will be rewritten to read as fol-
lows: ''The Cities and Communities of RSA-29 are currently served by four land-
fills: Colton, Fontana, San Timoteo and the City of Redlands. Projected growth
in RSA-29 will result in the generation of approximately 25.9 million pounds
(25,900 cubic yards) of solid waste per day (Table 19). The San Bernardino plan-
"l ':\ C-
.
o
<t
ning area will contribute 11 percent of this total solid waste flow. Given the clo-
sure of three County landfills in the relatively near future, the need for additional
landf1l1 space and effective waste stream reduction methods should be an urgent
concern."
N121 The mitigation measures discussion on page 4-125 of the text will be amended to
read as follows: "General Plan policies as identified in response to comment El
address provision of adequate solid waste collection to serve the planning area.
In particular Implementation Plan 7.27 requires the Oty to participate in the
regional efforts of the County to undertake an analysis of land fill capacity and
needs, and long-range planning for the provision of adequate land fill capacity to
serve future population of San Bernardino County." The referenced planning for
the provision of adequate land fill capacity will address the needs of the
planning area It is a valid assumption to maintain that these long-range plan-
ning efforts will result in the provision of adequate capacity for the planning area
and consequently no further mitigation measures are necessary. The Draft Plan
indicates further plans and policies to require the Oty to participate in the
development and implementation of recycling programs both local and regional,
to reduce the amount of solid waste that requires disposal. Specific policy num-
bers are indicated in response to comment E1.
NI22 The level of environmental significance discussion on page 4-125 will be amend-
ed to read as follows: "Although short-term impacts could be potentially signifi-
cant as discussed above, no long-term significant adverse impacts with respect to
solid waste collection and disposal are anticipated that cannot be mitigated to a
level of non-significance by policies of the Draft General Plan or the County solid
waste management plan (Class m)."
NI23 This section remains as stated in the text.
"\':l'
o
o
N124 "In the Revised (1983) Santa Ana River Plan stipulates that all wastewater treat-
ment plants discharging to the Santa Ana River provide tertiary treatment up to
a dilation point of 20 to 1 at any time the river is flowing continuously to meet
these discharge requirements, the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
has proposed a Regional Tertiary Treatment System with a capacity of 43-48
mgd."
Nl25 In the top paragraph page 4-127 the following information will be added:
''SBMWD has indicated that there has been no reported degradation of water
quality resulting from the use of septic tanks." The following information will be
added to the text of the EIR page 4-126: ''Sewer sludge is currently disposed of
in area landfills. New sludge disposal requirements are in the process of being
developed and are expected to go into effect in September. The SBMWD will
comply with new sludge requirements when they are adopted." The first
paragraph in the discussion on sewage disposal will be modified to read as fol-
lows: 'Wastewater generated in the planning area (approximately 21.3 million
gallons per day (mgd) in 1987) is treated at the San Bernardino Water
Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) which is owned and operated by the San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department. The reclamation plant currently meets all waste
discharge requirements. The plant treats residential and industrial wastewater
ed, "
generat m: ...
Nl26 Regarding the secondary impacts associated with the treatment plant, the text
states that "these impacts will be identified during the environmental review
process for specific developments..." The following sentence will be added to the
first full paragraph on page 4-128: "In addition, an EIR for the Proposed Region-
al Tertiary Treatment System has been prepared which identifies mitigation mea-
sures for the identified secondary impacts."
The following discussion will be added to "existing conditions" of the Sewage
Disposal section: "The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department fol-
"'~.
o
fJ
lows industrial wastewater pretreatment regulations as stipulated by the EP A
and by local ordinance. All proposed commercial and industrial projects are as-
signed permit conditions which may include the need for pretreatment
apparatus. Because the contribution of industrially polluted water to the waste-
water stream is relatively low, the local ordinance which sets maximum pollutant
levels (in milligrams per liter) for non-categorical (as defined by EP A) uses are
not as strict as in other, more industrial, jurisdictions. However, federal statutes
require review of local discharge limits every five years to assure that local limits
keep pace with any increase in industrial flows."
The following discussion will be added to "project impacts" of the Sewage Dis-
posal section: "The tenfold increase in industrial land uses under maximum
buildout of the Draft Plan will create a proportionate increase in the volume of
industrial wastewater. However, regular review and tightening of the local reg-
ulations will ensure that the resulting pollutants deposited in the total wastewa-
ter stream do not reach unacceptable levels."
Nl27 There are no policies in the Plan which specifically make compliance to the Re-
gional Water Quality Control Board requirements a high priority. However, the
permitting process of the Regional Water Quality Control Board is an effective
way of ensuring that the Board's discharge requirements are met.
Nl28 Information has been added to the text regarding sewage disposal in response to
comments above. The level of significance will remain as indicated in the text.
Nl29 The text will be corrected as indicated in the comment.
N130 The second paragraph in the discussion of electricity and geothermal energy,
page 4-132 of the Draft EIR, will be amended to read as follows: "Approximately
90 to 100 geothermal wells and springs have been identified in the San
Bernardino area, concentrated around the Commercenter, Central City, Tri-City
"\?:l
AI
III
Il!1l
o
o
areas and Norton Air Force Base. No complete survey has been conducted on
the geothermal reservoir and consequently the quantity of geothermal waters
available in unknown at this time. The State of California Division of Oil and
Gas is currently in the process of classifying these geothermal production wells
as being a "Known Geothermal Resource Area." As part of this classification, the
Division will prepare information on reservoir capacity. The San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department is currently operating two geothermal production
wells which can pump and discharge 4,300,000 gallons of hot water per day per
the City's NPDES permit. The geothermal waters are passed through a heat ex-
changer and then discharged into the storm drain system. No chemicals are
added to, or extracted from, the geothermal water. However, due to the high
concentration of fluorine, the geothermal water does not meet requirements for
drinking water. The City's NPDES permit allows the geothermal waters to be
discharged into the storm drain system to Warm Creek and ultimately to the
Santa Ana River. The discharge of geothermal water into the Santa Ana River
provides a beneficial impact to the water quality of the river. The total hardness
for the discharged water is approximately 30 mg/liter. The total hardness of sur-
face water at the discharge point is approximately 200 mg/liter."
N131 The following sentence will be added to the third paragraph on page 4-132: "Ac-
cording to the Sue Noreen, regional manager for Southern California Edison,
SCE will be able to meet this future demand without any additional power plants
in the southern California area for the next 20 years."
N132 The sentence at the top of page 4-133 will be removed from the text. Information
stated in previous paragraphs will remain as it is.
N133 The two sentences in the third paragraph, page 4-134 will be deleted from the
text.
"'~~
,,;
.II[
.J..
oW
o
o
NI34 As indicated in the text, the information in the paragraph being addressed was
provided directly from General Telephone and Pacific Bell. As indicated, tele-
phone service will be extended into these areas according to the company's rules
and regulations.
N135 This section remains as stated in the text.
N136 Information contained in mitigation measures relating to encouraging the use of
tele-commuting will be removed from the EIR. The mitigation measures section
on page 4-135 will be amended to read as follows:. ''No adverse impacts are an-
ticipated to occur to communication utilities in the planning area as a result of
. implementation of the Draft Plan. Mitigation measures for potentially adverse
secondary impacts resulting from the construction of new communications facili-
ties would be identified during the environmental review process or specific
development proposal."
N137 The level of environmental significance will remain as it is stated in the text. As
indicated on page 4-135 of the text, secondary impacts associated with the
physical construction of telecommunications facilities would be addressed dur-
ing the environmental review process for specific development projects.
NI38 The following paragraph will be added to existing conditions of the Police sec-
tion immediately following the fmt sentence, second paragraph, page 4-137:
Central (patrol) Station, located at 655 E. 3rd Street, is generally responsible for
the northeastern and eastern unincorporated areas surrounding the City. A
group of 35 sworn officers and 11 support personnel serve the unincorporated
areas from this station. The Fontana station, located at 17780 Arrow Route in
Fontana generally patrols the northwestern, western and southern unincorporat-
ed areas surrounding the City. Staff at the Fontana station which serve these un-
incorporated areas consist of 45 sworn officers and 10 support personnel. The
following table summarizes activities at these two stations:
"'I ':2lJ
o 0
Central (Patroll Fontana
Calls for Service
Reports Taken
Arrests
66,432
12,236
3,068
28,370
6,692
1,907
Services unique to the San Bernardino Sheriffs Department include a crime lab
and a bomb/arson squad.
''The San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department prefers not to use an officer-
to-population ratio as a standard by which to measure the need for additional of-
ficers: Instead, the Department views the amount of pro-active (self-initiated)
time an officer has during his/her shift as a measure of the need for additional
officers. The ideal goal is 30 percent proactive time per shift (Harper, 1989).
However, currently the deputies which serve the unincorporated areas are oper-
ating with only five to ten percent of their time free for pro-active duties. Thus,
in this respect, the Sheriffs Department is currently understaffed in serving the
unincorporated areas near the City of San Bernardino."
N139 Paragraph three on page 4-137 will be amended to read as follows: "Based on an
approximate 1987 population of 140,851 persons, the City has a sworn officer-to-
population ratio of 1.7 per thousand. However, as indicated in the Technical
Background Report, the number of "calls for servii:e" rose by 102% between 1982
and 1987 to 172,BOO calls (San Bernardino City Police Department). Currently,
the response time to these calls varies between 3 minutes and 1 hour or more, de-
pending on priority (as determined by the Department's CAD System) and the
current workload. Additionally, San Bernardino's Part 1 (homicide, rape, rob-
bery) crime rate rose 11.5% between 1983 and 1986 (California Department of
Justice, 21986) indicating the need for maintaining and improving the level of
service.
.,ac
.
o
o
The California State Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
recommends that at least 33% of an officer's time or duty should be unstructured
time where he/she is free to patrol in a proactive preventive manner. The City
Police Department has recently completed a study which indicates that only
9.67% of their officers' time is currently available for preventive patrol activities.
Based on this study, the Department must add 23 additional officers to meet the
State's minimum staffing level for the current conditions in the City. This study
and its resulting staffing recommendations has been presented to the Mayor and
the Common Coundl and will be considered for approval along with the next
Police Department Budget (Maier, 1989)."
N140 The "project impacts" of the Police section will be rewritten to read as follows:
"Should all unincorporated areas within the sphere of influence be annexed
under maximum buildout of the Draft Plan, the City of San Bernardino's popula-
tion could expand to 260,326, an 85% increase over the 1987 level. Development
will also intensify, and both these factors will, in turn, increase the demands on
police patrol, traffic and associated services. Given the current (1987) ratio of
1.23 calls for service per capita, the annual number of calls can be expected to rise
to 320,201.
As the number of calls increase, the amount of unstructured time available to the
officers for preventive patrol will continue to decrease to an even further unac-
ceptable level. Currently, Police Districts D and E (see Figure 11) share a com-
munity office. The Police Department (Maier, 1989) foresees the future need for
an additional office in the north and, pending civilian development of Norton
Air Force Base, an office in the southeast. >>
N141 The cumulative impacts of the Police section will be rewritten to read as follows:
''The cumulative population in RSA-29 is projected to reach 644,070 persons by
the year 2010. Of the total cumulative population, 28 percent will be contributed
by the City of San Bernardino. Based on a nationally accepted standard of 1.7 of-
121.
o
o
ficers per 1,000 population, a total of 1,(l95 officers composed of both local police
and County sheriffs, would be necessary for adequate police protection. Howev-
er, additional personnel beyond the projected 1,095 officers may be required due
to the fact that an increased crime rate can be expected with increased urbaniza-
tion."
NI42 The General Plan policies related to police protection do not specify or mandate
maintaining a 1.7 officer/population ratio. However, policy 8.1.1 states 'The
City shall maintain a complement of personnel in the Police Department that is
capable of providing a timely response to reported criminal activity and can eq-
uitably protect all citizens and property in the City." Associated Implementation
Program 18.1 states ''The City shall provide the funding necessary to maintain a
police force capable of providing adequate protection and criminal prevention
services to the citizens of San Bernardino and their property. The City shall ad-
here to established state and federal standards for providing public safety
protection." Thus, the General Plan mandates adequate police protection, but al-
lows the Department some freedom in determining appropriate standards, as the
state and federal standards change through time.
Nl43 Both sections of the document referenced in the comment are accurate as current-
ly stated and require no corrections,
NI44 The insertion of "(Figure 13)" will be made in the text as recommended.
NI45 Third paragraph, page 4-141 will be amended to read as follows: 'The San
Bernardino City Fire Department currently operates with a staff of 175 fire safety
personnel (including five safety inspectors), 22 support personnel and 40 emer-
gency vehicles including 11 fire engines, three fire trucks, ten water tenders and
two paramedic squads. A 1974 study of the Fire Department resulted in the relo-
cation of fire stations, which reduced costs and improved response times. How-
ever, portions of the northwest quadrant, specifically the Verdemont area, are
., 'I'
J D
o 0
still beyond the average three-minute response time that the Department
attempts to maintain for emergency services. In 1987, the Fire Department re-
;
sponded to 13,911 calls for service: 2,952 fire calls, 10,456 medical aid calls and
502 special duty calls." No further breakdown by land use type is available.
Nl46 The following paragraph discussing paramedic services will be added to the "ex-
isting condition" of the Fire Protection section: "City paramedic services are pro-
vided by a staff of 30 paramedic personnel, two paramedic squads and two para-
medic engines. The two paramedic squads are located at fire stations #2 and #4.
The two paramedic equipped engines are located at fire stations #6 and #11. The
City Fire Department is currently evaluating its paramedic program because of
the delayed response caused when its two paramedic squads are responding to
other calls. The need for additional paramedics as well as relocation of existing
equipment has been identified by the Department (Knight, 1989)."
The following statement regarding other fire hazards in the community will also
be added to "existing conditions" of the rll'e Protection section: "In addition to
the wildland fire hazard present in the northern portion of the planning area, in-
dustrial hazards exist as well. In the northwest quadrant, one plant which manu-
facturers and handles styrofoam is considered to have a higher risk as are the
manufacturers in the southeast quadrant who handle hazardous materials and
operate dust collection mechanisms."
N147 The "project impacts" portion of the Fire Protection section will be amended to
read as follows: 'The Draft Plan will accommodate a 34% increase in housing
units as well as 300% and 900% increases in commercial and industrial uses,
respectively, over 1987 existing uses. Based on the 1987 ratio of 98.7 calls for
service per thousand population, it is projected that the annual volume of calls
could reach 25,694 at full buildout of the Draft Plan. This would result in a
probable increase in fire service response times, and particularly in the northwest
quadrant, portions of which are currently beyond the average response time,
... ~
o
o
where the greatest amount of new development is expected to occur. To
maintain response times within acceptable levels, the Oty Fll'e Department has
determined that the following equipment and personnel would be required
(Knight, 1989): A new station in the Verdemont area with one engine and one
water tender, two additional engines, one ladder truck, three additional
paramedic squads, one hazmat unit, 76 additional safety personnel and 11
support personnel.
''Expansion of housing into the foothills of San Bernardino and the
corresponding increase in fire sources may be expected to increase the incidence
of wildfires in open areas. In this way, the housing increase in the
unincorporated areas of the northwest quadrant, particularly the 1,688 additional
homes in the Hillside Management Area, have the potential to impact the
California Department of Forestry and the Central Valley Fire District's Fll'e
Services. These and other entities which have joint mutual response agreements
with the Oty of San Bernardino may have to respond increasingly to calls in San
Bernardino's planning area. However, were the unincorporated foothill portions
to be annexed by the City, wildland fire suppression and prevention would
become the sole responsibility of the City (Miller, 1989)."
Nl48 The change from "will" to "have the potential to" will be made as recommended
(refer to response N147).
The "cumulative impacts" section of the Fire Protection section will be rewritten
to read as follows: "As residential, commercial and industrial development
increases in RSA-29, the demand for additional fire protection and emergency
medical aid will increase proportionately. Because the San Andreas Fault scarp
runs along the northern boundary of RSA-29, the hillside areas of the San
Bernardino Mountains are largely excluded from this SCAG study area.
Therefore, the added risk of increased wildfire hazards due to development in
hillside areas will not be a direct concern in most of RSA-29."
... .,c
J"
c
o
N149 The Oty's "high fire hazard" line does not correspond with Greenbelt Program
Area B in Figure 14. The City line was drawn based upon the path of historic
disaster fires, whereas the Greenbelt High Hazard Area circumscribes the foothill
area with a slope between 6% and 30%. For clarification, the sentence on page 4-
144 starting with 'The Program delineates..." will be replaced with "Based upon
planning theories which relate steeper slopes to increased fire hazard, the
Program delineates three different hazard areas (Figure 14): A) slopes greater
than 30%; B) slopes between 6% and 30%; and C) slopes less than 6%." "Existing
conditions" will conclude with this statement: "The City has also adopted by
ordinance a "High Fire Hazard line" (Figure 14) which is based upon the
historical and probable paths of past disaster fires."
N150 Specific policy references are included in the text in response to comment El.
Policy 8.3.1 (among others) does implement effective fire protection mitigation
by stating "Assure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are main-
tained ... by providing adequate funding."
N151 In the Draft EIR, a Class IT level of significant for Fire Protection was determined.
This assessment remains valid given that the General Plan's Policy 8.3.1 and
Implementation Program 8.13 are effective mitigation measures.
N152 The "area" referred to in the text is the planning area. The word "planning" will
be inserted into the text for clarification. . " .
N153 A map depicting schools and school district boundaries, to be denoted as Figure
14B, will be added to the Education section.
NI54 The following statement will be added to the "existing conditions" of the
Education section: "By July 1, 1989, a total of 11 elementary schools in the San
Bernardino School District will be operating a year-round enrollment program to
~"IO
)
en
w
-
a:
<
C
z
~
o
In
I-
o
-en
a:w
1--
aD en !:
~ --'
~ C_
-,0
W 0<
, a: 01&-
! ~ :l:C
. CJ oz
Iii: (/)<
--
illlL
o
- O.H-
..
J!
..
1Il
'0
C
'0 ~
C 0
· In
o
'0 J! '0
'0 0 o. 0
O.c -O.c
s:o ~cau
~(/) ,!a.(/)
.-0.0>-
>- .. .. Ji ..
....!I,g..s
C 1 ~ J.i i
· ~ ~.e E
E . j 5c J!
.!I i :l: Zo W
......~ I
,-,
1_,'\
I "
I
I"
-,
I
,
I
,
I
I
r
-'lit
I
I
"
."
---...
I-
I
L__.,
IS'."'IY
I
,
I
I
I
,
,--
I
.................,
: l~
. ,
: ,..---
: I ......=J
. --I
. r_,
~-------
I :!
I
_ !!, 1:
Ii
.
~
~
0;
.
..
I
I
\
"'--1 ,..1
I l__
!...-
I
"
-,
.-
.-
.-
"
~,
I '-__,
I .....___
,
, ----
r--'" r- I
1._ ,_J I
, I I
I I I
1- _I
_,
......
~.......
~...
..'
.r.-~'
.'
............
'. .
. ..
.
.
.
......
{
1"-
I
I
I
-,
I
I
/'__1
I
,
"
(...'-...~
"
L._,
.0
Jije ~l'
I IS IHcled
.J
0;
;;
~
.
~
3-73
"..,
"I
-~i
I
=~I
=01
~zl
<:
o
j:::;
~
~
8
~
~
:s
as
c
.2
I
o
o
~,
.51'
>
c
W
;;.
.a
"
t
o
UIil
o
o
3-74
..\ .
',~
;
-'.
~
.,2'-12.
o
o
alleviate school overcrowding: Alessandro, Emmerton, Hunt, Lincoln, Lytle
Creek, North Park, Riley, Thompson, Mt. Vernon, Lankershim, and Kimbark."
This statement will open the third paragraph on page 4-148. The existing
opening sentence "To alleviate school..." shall be rewritten to read "All three
school districts plan to reopen dosed schools and open new schools as well as
initiate additional year-round schools."
Regarding the feasibility of new school openings, the point is made in the Draft
Plan (bottom of page 4-148 to page 4-150) that funding is limited.
N155 The second paragraph in the "existing conditions" of the Education section,
regarding School District Capacity will be rewritten to read as follows: 'The San
Bernardino City Unified School District uses Functional Maximum Capacity
(F.M.C.) as its standard for determining which schools are significantly impacted
by over-enrollment. F.M.C. is based not only on the physical capacity of the
classrooms but also the capacity and availability of other equipment and services
which are part of a quality education (Shira, 1989). In the 1987-88 school year,
the following schools were over-enrolled based upon their individual F.M.C.:
Belvedere, Burbank, Highland-Pacific, Kendall, Kimbark, Lankershim, Rio Vista,
Thompson, Urbita and Warm Springs elementary schools; Shandin Hills
intermediate school; and San Bernardino and San Andreas high schools. Overall,
San Bernardino District elementary schools reached 99% of their enrollment
capacity. Intermediate schools were enrolled to 83% of capacity; high schools at
93% of total capacity."
The sentence that starts "In both San Bernardino" will start a new paragraph and
be rewritten to read: "In the Rialto Unified School District, several individual
schools are at or beyond capacity and the additional students are sent to other
schools in the District." The paragraph will conclude with the existing sentence
"Colton Joint Unified.....
...... .
-
c
o
NI56 The following paragraph will be added to the "project impacts" of the Education
section: "Based upon school planning ratios of approximately 600 students per
elementary, 1,000 students per intermediate and 2,200 students per high school
(Shira, 1989), the 14,168 additional students will create the need for the
equivalent of an additional 13.0 elementary schools, 3.2 intermediate schools and
1.4 high schools. The total student population of approximately 49,300 at
maximum buildout of the Draft Plan is accommodated under the San Bernardino
City Unified School District Ten-Year School Construction Plan (Figure 15).
According to this Construction Plan, this future student population can be
accommodated given the opening of an additional 8.5. elementary schools, 3
intermediate schools and 1 high schoo!."
N157 The Technical Background Report prepared by Envicom Corporation in March,
1988 was incorporated by reference into the Draft EIR on page 1-5. Table 48 and
Figure 50 from the TBR will incorporated into "existing conditions" of the Parks
and Recreation section as Table 20A and Figure lSA, respectively (see following
pages). The sentence starting" Of the 40..... shall be rewritten to read: "Of the 40
developed parks and recreational facilities in the City, 13 are neighborhood
parks, 6 are community parks, 3 are regional parks and 18 are mini-parks or
special facilities (Table 20A, Figure lSA)."
With regard to joint-use sites, the sentence starting "In addition, the City..... on
page 4-153, shall be removed and replaced with "In addition, the City has two
joint use sites with San Bernardino City Unified School District for additional
recreation space. These joint use sites are 12-acre elementary school sites
purchased and managed jointly by the City and the District. Currently, the two
schools, Mt. Vernon and Rio Vista, are available for public recreational use after 4
p.m. on weekdays and on weekends and holidays."
,:) 14 &I
o
o
g~ * *
-c
'" w Cl
ia: Ii: II: il: ~
-c '"
li~ ! g ~ 9 '" w
i 9 II: 0 -i= ~ 8
* '" ~ II: 9 :J
:::l w w -c ~ U ~
'" ~ ii: ::I -c lil w 8
Jtiln 0 m {I) I i2 -' 0 w w (!l :::l
~ ~ :I: ~ ili ...
~ -' z '" '" ~ ffi ~ I u ~
w ::l i
'" 5 ::I ~ III W !.l u !12
~ w ~ ~ 0 '" w Z u &l i
II: ~ '" ~ ~ I~ II: ~ Z ::;) ~ ~
~.i:oz'" ;:; ~ ~ is -c ~ u Q i llJ I!!
... :I: ii: Q.
AL GUHINIVERIlEMONT
3ll5O LITTlE lEAGUE I U 21.0
BUCKBOARD PARK U 15.0
BUCKIIClARD AND I<ENlALl 2
HUllSONPARK N . . . . .
PARK DRIVE ANDWNlSOR 3 10.1
BlAIR PARK . . . . . .
1400 W. MARSHAll. BlVD. 4 C 34.0 31
HUCREST 5
550 HILl DRIVE S 1.53
40TH STREET PARK S .51 . .
40TH AND aECTRIC I
NEWMARK FIElD S . .
3m! AND PERSHtIG 7 5.oz 1l
SIERRA PARK 1 S 1.13
3IIlO SIERRA WAY
WUl'NOOD PARK . . . . .
4OTHANDWATE_N C 24.2 .
3L
HORN: PARK 10 . . .
3OTHANDWATE_N N U.
MITCHELL PARKiHARRlSON CANYON .
38TH AND GaDEN II N 1.0 . . .
I
SONORA TOT lOT 12 .17 .
3ttO SONORA STREET S
DEL VALlEJOIAOUlNAS 13 N 1.0 . . . . .
STERlING AND L YNWOOD I
PATTON PARK 14 . .
PACFIC AND ARDEN . R 10.0 5
PEARlS HILl PARK 15 R 14.5 . . . . . . . . . .
r.o7 E. HIGKNlD 2\ ,
PAlM FIELD II S 22.3 11
III E 8TH STREET
NORTH NORTON CENTER 17 S .
24424 MONTEREY
CENTERS FOR INDlVOJALS WITH 11 S . . . .
OISA81.ITIES 8011 PAlM lANE
MU CENTER t. C 14,4 . . . . . . . . .
503 CENTRAL I
CAMPO SANTO MEMORIAL PARK 20 S 5.0
27TH AND E STREET
TABLE J.,OI\
CITY PARKS
AND
RECREATION
FACILITIES
* L - Number Ughted
Compiled by: ENVICOM CORPORA TlON
'_SUI:
"~I
.'"
.
~
dLfCj
:...
.'
CITY PARKS 9z
*
AND ~& *<
io: '" w Cl
RECREATION lr a: z ~
< c '"
~ is S '" w
FACILITIES f"o ...J C a: c E
(,) 5 ...J W a: ~ g
111M * Q. ID W '" .... < 9 :I ~
'" ...J u: ::I! w < ...J al ~
(CONTINUED) :i. VI ?; 0 w w w g
c z ~ ::::l ...J :I: ~ :I: u: Cl ~
~ ...J ID It! z !i.! ;;i '" ~ ~ z
w .... a: ~
'" u: W ::::l ID ID W !.l (,) w 2 '" ~ Cl
~ W ...J " 9 ::I! 8 z c '" Z ... (,) ld ::I! Z z
~~.~~ Ol~ a: ...J i ::I! ::I! z a: w z ::::l Q ~ c
~ ~ :i: 8 l; < 0 " (,) (,) ~ z ~
:5 :I: Q. l!!
... a:uzrn ::::) (,) ... :I: :I: ii: ii: '" '"
SECCOMlIE lAKE PARK R . .
8TH AND LUGO 21 82 21 . . .
MEAIlOI'o9ROC1< PARKMERNANDEZ 22 N 1..1 . . . . . .
CENTER 2ND AND SERRA WAY . .
MEAllC7MIROOK FElD HOUSE AND PARK 23 N ..81 . . . .
RIALTO AND ALLEN 11
COla<< PARK 2. S 3.0
WEIR RCW) AND HERITAGE DRIIIE ;1 .
CUlTURAl. CENTER
531 W I lTH STREET 25 S 1.38 .
PKN:ER PARK
8TH AND E STREET 28 N 5 .
SENIOR CITIZEN SERVICE CENTER
100 W 5TH STREET 27 S .5
DElMANN HEIGHTS COMMlMITY CENTER
291a FLORES 2. C la.l . . . . . . .
1L
WESTSlOE DROP -IN SITE CENTER S
2002 N Mr. VERNON 2a
RIO VISTA
CAliFORNIA AND BASELINE 30 N ... . . . .
2L
GUTIERREZ FIELD
1. TH AND Mr. VERNON 31 S 1.85 . .
1L
JOHNSON HAll
801 WLSON 32 N 5.5 . . . . . . .
1
ENCANTO PARK
1180 W ffH STREET 33 N 8.13 . . . .
2L
ffH STREET PARK
ffH AND GARNER ,. N 3.1 . .
GUADAlUPE FIELD
8TH AND ROBARDS 35 S 2.25 .
LA PlAZA PARK N
7TH AND Mr VERNON 3. 2.0. . . .
NUNEZ PARK C
1717 W 5TH STREET 37 22.0 . . . . . . . . . . .
3L
NICHOlSON PARK N a.5
2737 W 2ND STREET 3. . . . .
2L
LYTlE CREEK PARK
380 S K STREET 38 C 17.a . . . . . . . . . . .
1L
PARK/STRIP GREENBELT .0 S
STERLING AND GREENWOOD
HAMPSHIRE GREENBELT S
HAlAPSHlRE AVENEUE ., 5.'
SAN ANSElMO TOT LOT S
<2 .23 .
MESA AND SAN ANSElMO lL
o
-
.
* L. Number Ughted
Compiled by : ENVICOM CORPORATION
JI/ltJ
o
o
:
-~
(/)
w
E
-'
0
<
u..
Z ...
0 ~
i!! .. '"
i= ll.. ~
< i!! .. '0
W .. ll.. 0 U
a: ll.. !:' 0
0 .c ..
Oi C ~ u..
W :> .8 Oi
~ a: c: E
0 .c U
0 os. E Cll
Qi Q)
z Q) 0 Q.
< a: 0 z (/)
w (/)
a:
:J :0:: .......
a: .
CJ <
u: ll..
~,
, ,
, ---I
, ---
1
r--'" r----"'j
I., j_J I
, J ,
I.J I
~I
-'
,"-
1
,
,
-,
1
"
,/'-_/
\
J
t,_ ,~
, v
"
1
-~
,
"
-,
"
"
"
"
=~
-
CD
.,-
Q)
:c
<II
I-
.5
o
-
'0
JI)
~
~
Q)
-
Q)
~
e
<II
'"
~
Q)
.c
E
:>
z
-
.
_0
I
'Jz I
:2:
o
i=:::
~
o
8:
8
~
~
::s
~
."
eA. ~~
,
1----... r~/1 _I
I ''''1
\._-, ;r7
, -.
I
,
I,
------j
I
,
,
I
I
,
,--
I
,
'''Y Illl'd
IStlll.l,
0;
~
"
o 9
.
ii
.
9
~
;;
.
~
~AV 1'101"
I
" .
,
,1
..,
,
u.. ,_
-,
,
,...,/QU'" !J.
, \
..~ I
,-
A L_..."
-., -
lA, U.....I.M
.
r
-
,-
L
J
hyoq''''tf
---., r
y-
..
.
.
"
1"1
1 ,
,
r
--j'
I,
,
I IlIHcl1d
'__1
c:
.2
i!
~
o
o
E
~
w
.'
z
I
.
..
"
:i
~
3-90
.!-
~ .. 0
! Jl/~:
I
,
o
o
NI58 The first paragraph on page 4-154 will be amended to read as follows: 'The City
of San Bernardino currently provides 521 acres of developed parks. This equals
3.7 acres per 1,000 population; .9 acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000
population. This indicates a shortage of 182 acres based upon standards
discussed above."
N159 The following discussion will be added to the "project impacts" of the Parks and
Recreation section. 'The Draft Plan Land Use Map cannot designate future park
sites because of the legal ramifications of inverse condemnation. However, Plan
policies and programs provide for acquisition of parkland in response to City
growth." (See response to Comments El, and Nl't.)
The sentence on the bottom of page 1-154 which starts" The programs include..."
shall be partially rewritten to read: 'These programs include the preparation of a
comprehensive master plan of parks within three years of adoption of the
General Plan which identifies existing sites to be improved or expanded as well
as target acquisition locations for future parks (19.1); determination of
neighborhoods...". Social services are summarized in the second paragraph on
page 4-154.
N160 A detailed analysis of park facilities and acreage in RSA-29 is not within the
scope of this General Plan EIR.
N161 Specific policy and implementation program references have been added to the
text as indicated in response to comment El. It is appropriate that the acquisition
of parkland is deferred to the future, as the need for parkland is generated in re-
sponse to City growth. The General Plan does provide concrete mitigation to-
wards facilitating Objective 9.1 to provide park facilities to meet the needs of ex-
isting and future residents, including 182 acres to offset the current deficit and an
additional 325 acres for projected population growth. In particular, Policy 9.1.8
requires the City to establish a recreational greenbelt system linking the river and
;'UQ.
o
o
drainage corridors with the mountains. Policy 9.1.9 requires the City to establish
an equestrian trail system along the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.
Policy 9.1.11 requires the City to acquire and develop properties as mini-parks
where it is not feasible to acquire sufficient acreage for neighborhood parks. Pol-
icy 9.1.12 requires that new parklands be dedicated as a part of new residential
subdivisions, unless it is the objective of the City to serve the subdivision at an al-
ternate location, in which case in-lieu fees shall be provided. Several other
policies also exist which clearly require the City to provide the necessary mitiga-
tion to the existing parks and recreational system to meet the objectives stated
above.
N162 See response to comment Nl.&l above.
N163 A map of plant communities will be included in the text. See response to
comment N164.
N164 The figure shown on the following page will be added to the EIR as Figure IS.!.
This figure indicates existing plant communities within the City's boundaries.
Areas with significant plant/wildlife habitat value are included in the Biological
Resource Management Overlay to be added to the text as Figure IS,f, in response
to comments dated April 14, 1989 from the City of San Bernardino Planning De-
partment (see Comment G) (see following pages).
As indicated on page 4-157 of the Draft EIR, a more detailed discussion of the
status and locations for the plant resources referenced in the comment can be
found in the Technical Background Report. As discussed earlier in the EIR, that
Technical Background Report is incorporated by reference in the EIR. Page 4-157
of the EIR will be amended by the inclusion of the following sentence at the end
of the first complete paragraph on the page. ''Figure IS!. indicates the location
of known sensitive elements as listed below." The following information will be
added to the existing conditions discussion for Biological Resources: ''Federally
2Y't
i
II
. ~
m
~
~
3
&>
"8 ;;
il
=:
0
::J
0
'.
o
~
!!
~
;;:
"
..
p..,., St :--L --,:
.,
"
..L_
~
.
.
~
!!
:..r
R.IIC"'. A..
,
,
W.ttflllln Ave
, "
" I
,-,
-I,
'"
\ 1
Ti ,c'I'IQAJA",
I
c
J' _~...
,
,
-,
~ I ~
.. -, !if
o I 0
:;. ----
'-
,--
t__ -I
,
."
Sterlin
1
-=,
"
,
"-I "
Wittoll, Av.
~
..
!!
,,11ft Av.
.
.
G
.
~-~
J
,
, I
,~I
-
E
~
..
.
!!^
'" L..__
i!; ..........
.. -'
:. .,,'
.. .'
:.,.
--.
,-
,-
r'
-,
...
, ,-
,
I
,
,--
,
,
1
,
,
~------
" r
~~ i R
tJJ L J f
:;I'.c-_J f I
j II
I, ,--' J ji
\,l_,
'_J
ii
...
o
o
G
,
",--.....'1
)
\
/_-...,1
I
,
I-
I
,
1
_,I
,~
,-
-,
, "
I I,
I r-I _...
L.____J ___.J
,
---- ,
1__- ,
"
'"
,-
,-
,-
,-
'-
"
,
I
fJ....-1__J
.
:; ,
.. I
(It , ../--------!
- ,- ,
r:....-j II :
---~ :
, .
..., :
, '
~_.._.__..-.-._._..
c;:--...CltUl..WN-f
IHHUJII
htifi}tt
.. :II I ... < .... n ",(
Ii f : iiilf
~i t jifl'
II r ii'lll
all... i" [!'
If.i f i~
I- J. f
II
.
~
z
o
==
z
CI>
m
z
CI>
::j
<:
m
m
....
m
~
m
Z
....
CI>
"TI
C5
c:
:u
'"
111
D>
..
.
a
"
:
,
~ a ;;
~ Al.bI_. 51
~ R
8
:g
~
>
:::!
~
z~
0_
. ~=
1,=
I
I
I
d~O
o
;;
I i1lJ
fr tl f
~,.:--! r. f
,._" f:f~:;:' . ..~<~ r~?,.,...,
f1 ,..' t..w~ 1 .;c"""
im :;:::;':'-::::'t-p:; . .,'.,
"alC" Ave ;:... i::::~': ~1~:::::~~r:',
~r .
, _i..;:;:::*~J
~~
.....
.~;.
I
1-
.:::::::~: ..
...; '''1':.... ~.. _I
. ~,. ::i ~;;:}' -, . ,., ..
fr. .JM~,~:" <<~ ~I I
. "";': _J.,}_
r-;mj- :.:-: :. ..
:~:::: :.... ',' ...
"'''4' n..
,
IIIl1n AM
dtk,
..
.
'"
.
.
.
.
~
~
~
()
o
~
2
)i
a
~
:Iz~
,
! ;;
A.a".. .
Pal. Av.
.
~-
I:
l~=
o
III-r- ...
_Zo i5
~1I O:lln
.;',,;. C
.... r-rn)l-
:II
O~:::I rn
I ~g C):::IO ..
"OZ ~.
0' i'iij ~zo
G i~ :II~'"
i rnon
en c
o :II
:II = C :II
I :II rn
i.::l : ~
i .<
01 )I- ':2
i ia ~ ~
i 'j C)
G ; ~
I rn
i !i
. !i
~ ll' ~
~ !II ~
it Z
~ S 0
'C en "'~.
~ "
o
o
endangered and candidate species located in the subject area are indicated in the
following listings in the code FE, Fl, F2 as explained in the footnote to the
listing."
N165 The following information will be added to the last paragraph on page 4-161:
"Direct loss of wildlife habitat will occur as a result of urban expansion. All of
the approximately 12,000 acres currently (1987) vacant in the planning area are
designated for development per the land use map (Figure 4). It would be
assumed that almost all of this acreage would be lost as Wildlife habitat (this
acreage does not include the approximately 4,500 acres of existing flood con-
trol/ open space use). As a result of this increased urban use and loss of these
segments of habitat, remaining pockets of flood control/open space will become
islands of native fl0ra and fauna. This fragmentation will result in increased
competition and impaired genetic transfer, and eventually lead to a new equilib-
rium with decreased species abundance and diversity."
The following information will be added to the EIR discussion of impacts on
biological resources: "In addition to the conversion of vacant land to residential
commercial and industrial use, the Plan designates mineral extraction in the in-
dustrial extractive ("IE") land uses in the Cajon Wash area. This land use desig-
nation occurs primarily southwest of Cajon Boulevard between Interstate 15 and
the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel. Encompassed in the "IE" designation is
an extensive area of the sensitive Riversidian Alluvial fan sage scrub identified
by the California Natural Diversity Database and mapped in the Verdemont area
plan. Also included in the area designated "IE" is at least one known location of
the federally endangered Santa Ana River Wooly-Star and one location of the
Slender-Homed Spine Flower. Plan implementation would be expected to result
in the direct loss of sensitive habitat and examples of federally endangered plant
species in those areas of "IE" permitted uses. This impact in conjunction with
other permitted uses, such as residential and heavy industrial, in areas where
these species and sensitive habitat are known may precipitate their eventual
~~~
o
o
extirpation from the plan area. General loss of wash habitat (whether from '1E"
or other uses) is expected to negatively impact some federal candidate species of
animals such as the San Diego Coast Homed lizard, the Orange-Throated Whip
Tail lizard, and potentially several birds of prey."
The following information will be added to the mitigation section for biological
resources: "Policy 10.6.2 of the Draft General Plan states: 'Require that mineral
extraction projects mitigate impacts to endangered plants according to the
Mitigation Policy and Guidelines Resarding Impacts to Rare. Threatened and En-
dan~red Plants developed by the California Native Plant Society Scientific Ad-
visory Committee (January, 1988).' The document referenced herein is a policy
statement for the California Native Plant Society whose goal is to 'prevent de-
cline of rare plant species and their habitats, and to ensure that rare plant mitiga-
tion measures are adequate to serve their intended purpose - the conservation of
rare and endangered plants: The Society endorses mitigation concepts listed in
CEQA. The types of mitigation for environmental impacts listed in CEQA (Sec-
tion 15370) are as follows:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and mainte-
nance operations during the life of the project.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources
or eI:1vironments.
~~~
-
o
o
These mitigation measures are not always appropriate to mitigating rare plant
impacts. Of the five mitigation types above (CEQA) the Society fully supports
those which avoid net reduction of population size or species viability. Avoid-
ance of impacts can be accomplished by 1) pre-project planning and design; 2)
reconfiguring already designed projects; and 3) adopting the no-project alterna-
tive. Additional measures may be necessary to secure protection in the form of
open space - or conservation easements, or 'transfer of development rights,' as
are described in Appendix B of the Native Plant Society Mitigation Guidelines.
Each of the other mitigation alternatives included in CEQA involve acceptance of
reduced impacts and/or use of transplantation artificial propagation, seed trans-
fer or habitat restoration, which are generally deemed inadequate by the Society
because they compromise the purpose of mitigation: To fully offset or reduce
significant impacts by allowing net losses of populations or habitat, or, they rely
upon unproven technologies.
The Society does recognize that where such losses are allowed or are deemed un-
avoidable, off-site restoration, compensation, transplantation or other salvage
methods should be attempted to enhance degraded populations or provide for
partial survival of the sacrificed population.
The Society's guidelines discuss the following mitigations other than avoidance:
1. Reducin~ Impacts: Partial avoidance by locating projects in the least
environmentally sensitive areas.
2. Restoration: Used to mitigate projects approved prior to environmental
regulations of those allowed through a 'statement of overriding consider-
ations.'
~<u
-
J
BbL
~
.. 4. ..t.
o
o
3. Reduction Over Time: Control uses of public access by fencing or staking to
prevent accidental encroachment on protected habitat for projects where po-
tential for secondary impacts due to human access exist. Conservation or
open space easements should be considered to implement this measure.
4. Off-Site Compensation: Compensating by protecting substitute resources
may be useful where other alternatives cannot be applied.
Mitigation plans, agreements and contracts must be clearly documented. Oear
criteria should be included in the agreement to determine the condition under
which mitigation measures are to be considered complete or successful."
Nl66 The paragraph in question on page 4-162 of the EIR will be modified to read as
follows: "The net result of these impacts would be to reduce the extent and di-
versity of the existing biological resources, replace these resources with a habitat
typical of an urban environment, and potentially interfere with movement of res-
ident or migratory wildlife species. These impacts on biological resources are
considered to be significant."
N167 The referenced text has been amended to indicate specific policy and implemen-
tation program numbers in response to comment E from the City of San Bernar-
dino Planning Department, April 10, 1989. The following discussion will be
added to the text of page 4-162 of the Em: "Implementation program 110.2 pro-
vides for mitigation, when needed, of impacts to biological resources on a project
by project basis. This is accomplished by a revision to the City's Development
Code to incorporate procedures for environmental evaluation of proposed
projects in the Biological Resources Management Area, and specifications for the
documentation of environmental resources, impact assessments and mitigation
measures, when required."
a5S
-
- -~
J..
.J:..
J
.ill
e
.
Nl68 The subparagraph in question on page 4-163 will be amended to read as follows:
"Attempt to halt further loss of two federally endangered plant species in the
floodplain by requiring assessments, mitigation, and by restricting off-road vehi-
cle use as indicated in implementation plan 110.2." See response to comment
N167 above.
N169 The text has been revised to indicate policy and implementation program num-
bers in response to comment E received from the City of San Bernardino Plan-
ning Department, dated April 10, 1989. The fust sentence in the first full para-
graph on page 4-163 will be amended to read as follows: "The Draft Plan's poli-
cies and programs referenced above attempt to provide safeguards for sensitive
biological elements beyond that of existing state or federal legislative mandates
by requiring adequate and rigorous individual project review and mitigation of
impacts as indicated, particularly in implementation plan 110.2." The subsequent
sentence in the same paragraph will be amended to read as follows: "For exam-
ple, the Federal Endangered Species Act provides no protection whatsoever to
plant species occurring on private land unless they are involved in projects re-
quiring federal approval or funding." The last sentence in this same paragraph
will be amended to read: "In this respect, the Draft Plan's policies establishing
project review and conformance to development standards within the Overlay
Zone are ahead of current legislation in addressing the issue of preserving bio-
logical diversity at the local level." Also, see response to comment N-165.
N170 The following discussion will be added to the cumulative impact analysis on
page 4-163 of the Draft EIR: "Although the exact location of future project
buildout and associated loss of biological resources is not known at this time, it
would be reasonable to assume that cumulative impacts would include the in-
terference with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.
Impacts of cumulative buildout on biological resources would be expected to be
significant."
.3<1..
_ JIlL
o
o
Nl71 The sentence in question will be amended to read as follows: "Even with all of
the Draft Plan's policies and programs relating to biological resources
implemented (policies 10.1.1, 10.21-10.26, 10.3.1-10.3.4, 10.4.1-10.4.3, 10.5.1,
10.6.1-10.6.3, and programs 110.1-110.9), impacts to biological resources will
occur." The following discussion will be added to the first full paragraph on
page 4-164: "Additionally, policy 10.4.1 addresses the feasibility of establishing
open space corridors, policy 10.5.1 addresses the identification of habitats of sen-
sitive fish and makes recommendations for preservation/enhancement, and poli-
cies 10.6.1-10.6.3 require rare plant surveys and mitigation of impacts to endan-
gered plants due to mineral extraction projects."
Nl72 The first sentence in the first full paragraph on page 4-164 will be amended to
read as follows: ''The Draft Plan's policies and programs, while they cannot pre-
vent development of parcels with sensitive biological resources, should nonethe-
less minimize any adverse effects on biological resources by requiring that the
Oty's buildout be rational and cognizant of its biological constraints."
Nl73 This issue is clarified per the response to number N174 below.
N174 The bottom paragraph on page 4-164 will be amended to read as follows: "In
order to assure an adequate assessment of biological resources during the Initial
Study phase of project review, the Draft Plan's implementation program 110.1
should be amended to include: ..." The remainder of information referenced by
this quote is provided on the top of page 4-165.
N175 The following information contained in Section 4.3.1.5 in the Draft EIR will be
deleted from the Level of Environmental Significance discussion and added to
the Project Impacts section, page 4-163: "Because the Draft Plan does not uni-
formly impose project review and design standards over the project area, those
areas outside the identified Biological Resource Management Overlay (BMR) do
not receive the increased level of protection afforded therein. Consequently, im-
'\c:. ~
.It
.L
M
o
o
pacts to previously unrecognized biological resources could occur outside the
BMR, especially if the Initial Study should fail to identify potential impacts."
Section 4.3.1.5, Level of Environmental Significance, will be amended to read as
follows: "The implementation of the Draft Plan would result in the direct loss of
wildlife habitats due to urban expansion as well as the indirect loss in the quality
of remaining wildland habitats as a result of increased human-related activities
within and on the edges of open space due. Fragmentation of habitat cannot be
completely mitigated. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a
Class I level of significance (i.e., some impacts of project implementation are ex-
Pected to be significant and not avoidable within the scope of the project)."
N176 The concerns raised in this comment have been resolved per the response to
comment N175 above.
N177 The sentence in question will be amended to read as follows: "Air contaminants
monitored at San Bernardino for 1985-87 are shown in Table 21." In addition, the
abbreviation for nitrogen oxides in the previous sentence will be corrected to
read "(NOx)". The values in question in Table 21 have been reconfirmed.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District and Systems Applications,
Inc. (1988). Urban Air Toxics exposure model: Development and Application.
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study. Workinl1 Paper No.3. Research Triangle
Park, NC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.
N178 The paragraph in question directly addresses the issue of fugitive dust. To clari-
fy this matter, the discussion will be amended to read as follows: ''During grad-
ing, retrofitting, new construction or aggregate mineral extraction, air quality
impacts would primarily occur as a result of fugitive dust. Fugitive dust is gen-
erated during grading and aggregate mineral extraction and as emissions from
construction vehicles. Activities generating fugitive dust are exPected to take
place in various locations throughout the Clty of San Bernardino. Fine particu-
""~~
o
o
late matter (PMlO), including fugitive dust, can be expected to increase with in-
creased construction and aggregate mineral extraction. Construction activities
(whether construction of land uses or supporting infrastructure) would increase
PM10 levels in the short-term and would be a nuisance to the immediate and sur-
rounding area. Aggregate mineral extraction would generate fugitive dust (and
therefore PMlO) for the lifespan of the mining operation and could also be a nui-
sance to adjacent land uses if not appropriately mitigated (see Section 4.3.4, Min-
eral Resources). In addition, the second sentence on page 4-167 will be amended
to read as follows: "The South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment area for
ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter (PM10 includes
nitrates, sulfates, and dust particles) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)."
Nl79 The following information will be included in the air quality impacts discussion:
"Objective 10.10 of the Draft Plan states that it shall be the objective of the City of
San Bernardino to reduce the emissions of pollutants including carbon monox-
ide, oxides of nitrogen, photochemical smog, and sulfate in accordance with
SCAQMD standards. The phrase 'in accordance with SCAQMD standards' indi-
cates that the City would comply with these measures assigned to local jurisdic-
tions for implementation."
N1BO The following information will be added to the last sentence on page 4-172"
''Industrial sources will analyzed for the potential emission of toxic or hazardous
air pollutants on an individual basis per the CEQA environmental review pro-
cess."
N1B1 Specific policies with respect to air quality have been identified in response to
comment E1. Implementation of the General Plan would alter the nature of the
planning area's jobs/housing balance from that of a net exporter of workers to
that of a net importer of workers. Air quality impacts related to travel distance
will still exist (see response to fmal comments after comment "V".)
__A
-
o
o
N182 The sentence in question will be removed from the text of the EIR.
NI83 It is correct to indicate that Mount San Gargonio is the feature which dominates
the East Valley. Mount San Bernardino dominates the views related to the East
Valley.
Nl84 The first sentence in the third paragraph, page 4-179, will be amended to read as
follows: "The City's broad arterial streets (e.g., Foothill Boulevard, Base line
Street, Highland Avenue, Mount Vernon Avenue, Sierra Way, and Waterman
Avenue) are aligned in a north-south/east-west direction and provide major
view corridors which frame distant views of the surrounding mountains."
NIBS The text will be revised to refer to "Sterling Avenue."
Nl86 The paragraph in question will be amended to read as follows: "The foot-
hill/ canyon zone is important as a scenic resource in that it represents a steep
open space area that has, because of its inherent slope constraints, remained
largely undeveloped. This has left a major portion of the zone in its natural state
containing numerous canyons and ravines that support a variety of native biota.
However, several foothill/canyon zones have been developed. These include
development at the end of Victoria Avenue, on Holcomb Hill, and at the end of
Del Rosa Avenue. Substantial disturbance has occurred in some areas with
isolated hillside scarring."
N187 The text will be revised to indicate that surface water does not flow all year
round in all portions of the Santa Ana River.
NIBS Figure I5~will be added to the text to highlight those locations being discussed in
the text.
~-^
o
c,
-~
""'\ "
J 0
,.. .-
OIl'"
.... 00
w ~..; -
,
a: O~
..
::::> ."
'"' '"
~ " ..
....
- "N
LL ,",00
....
OIl ,
'"'~
"
... "
... CO
" ..
""' "',
~
.
en
>-
<(
~
~
a:
<(
~
-
of.
<l.
m
a:
:J
E9
r-I
1_.,'\
1 \
,--- 1
r 1
I I,.,
I '-I
1 (
_, I
lot "
1 1
:----" r~l -I
L__., rr7
I ..... I
, ,
1
I,
'i
,------
I ---, t_J
1
I
1
1-_1
I
:_.. _._4O _..._ __.4O _.I.,
: L~
. ,
I ...___
: I ,.-
I ...._,_J
~_______r-, Wi
1 I
I -
..
1-
~
,
,
1
1
,
"--
7
I
,
1'--' r'
I L___
-~ .
:.::
....I
lD
~,
II
1 ---I
I --
, --
r--- r----j
L._ ,_J I
" ,
1 I I
1- _,
..J
"-
I
I
1
,
-,
,
,
,1'--/
\
I
t...._ \.
\ v
"
'--,
"-
I
"
-,
,.
,."
.<
....tI. .IJ
/
"--
.
.......:
.' c
.'" ':
.' .
#.- :.;
... i:
_..&................~-
o
E9
=~
_0
,
'lZ
~
~
~
o
8:
8
~
8
s:
a1
,
...-
1
~ ..
'A, _I'"
~ ~
ii
.
-
.
.
..
.
..
JI'.IIqIIW
;;
c
"
..
r'
AY'I.~I
1
" ~
1
1":
1=-
1
H'"
lA,
,
1- I
-_J
"
. ,-- is
5 l_ ..
.. I';;
1-
1_
-' ~
:J
---,
,
..
..
..
u. -:
Cl
r
"
,-
-
J
'AYOq,U..,
,1 -,
, I "
---., r I 1
v;; r
. J~ IS Mdde..
.
::l ii ! '--'
a ..
. i . ;;
.. : ii
~ .. ii ~
E9
--
o
o
N189 In the first line on the first paragraph on page 4-183, the word "forum" will be
changed to read "form" as indicated in the comment.
N190 The referenced paragraph is clear as written. It indicates that on the valley floor
a north-south, east-west grid pattern prevails. As the roadways ascend into the
hillside, that pattern naturally gives way to the contours of the San Bernardino
Mountains.
N191 In the second full paragraph on page 4-183, the first sentence will be amended to
read as follows: "The City's uniform pattern of development is broken by a
number of clusters of high density and land extensive uses (definable districts or
mixed-use projects involving large acreage)."
N192 The statement in question does not indicate that "additional density will accom-
plish the enhancement of existing visual settings." The statement indicates that
given the additional density and development associated with the land use map,
the policies and programs of the Draft Plan will enhance and support the charac-
ter of various districts and sites, through development and infrastructure
improvement standards.
N193 The specific type of landscaping and amenities to be used in pedestrian-oriented
areas will be decided on a project-by-project basis. Policies 5.3.1 through 5.3.14
address establishment of streets cape and landscape standards. However, indi-
vidual tree species and specific location of trees will be determined at the time of
project review. The graphic on page 302 of the General Plan illustrates general
streets cape improvements. No significant adverse impacts will be expected to re-
sult from proposed landscaping other than short-term potential inconveniences
during planting.
Nl94 Districts referred to throughout the EIR are indicated and identified on Figure 4.
~",2
o
o
N195 The referenced paragraph discusses the impact on views of the City from the sur-
rounding foothills and higher elevations. In order to clarify that point, the first
sentence will be modified to read as follow: ''The impact of new development
will be minor or insigniflcant in terms of views of the City from surrounding
foothills and higher elevations;..." The impact of development into the hillsides
from views from the valley floor are discussed in the bottom paragraph on page
4-185.
N196 As indicated in the paragraph beginning on the bottom of page 4-188, the extent
to which changes to the City's physical visual characteristics are signiflcant is de-
pendent upon the individual's perspective. To some individuals, any type of
open space (potentially including even blighted vacant land) is preferable to any
development in all cases. To others, a well designed and well maintained urban
development may be preferable to vacant land characterized by no biological or
visual enhancing characteristics. Unlike other topics addressed in the EIR, the
determination as to whether a particular aesthetic change is adverse or beneficial
is, to some extent, an individual's choice. However, the EIR does indicate those
changes which would substantially alter the existing visual characteristics of the
City and planning area.
N197 Although changes in scale will result with respect to development from imple-
mentation of the Draft Plan, the land use and circulation sections of the Plan pro-
vide that urban parkways will not be directly impacted.
N198 The fIrst sentence in the fourth paragraph on page 4-186 will be amended to read
as follows: '1mplementation of the Draft Plan policies (e.g., 5.3.2, 5.4.1 and 5.4.2)
will result in the increased pedestrian orientation and consequent visual quality
of a number of key commercial districts. These policies discuss the
implementation of streetscape, street furniture, color coordination and other de-
sign features which would enhance the visual attractiveness of the commercial
districts. These districts include the downtown area, Central City Mall, ..."
.,,_ 'l
-
o
o
Nl99 The fInal paragraph on page 4-186 will be amended to read as follows: ''TIle
Draft Plan provides for the revitalization and upgrading of the City's economi-
cally and physically depressed commercial strips; particularly those along Mount
Vernon Avenue and Baseline Avenue. The Draft Plan includes several policies to
improve the physical and visual character of these districts. Such policies
include 1.24.10-36, 1.22.14, 1.22.15, 1.25.10-35,4.17.1,4.17.2,5.3.2,5.4.1, and 5.4.2."
N200 The paragraph at the top of page 4-187 will be amended to read as follows: ''TIle
visual character of the City's overall undeveloped areas (approximately 16,650
acres as of 1987 including vacant areas and flood control/open space) will be sig-
nificantly altered by implementation of the Draft Plan. All 12,146 acres identified
as vacant in 1987 are designated for some type of development per the land use
map (Figure 4). Although exact sites are to be determined in the future, the Gen-
eral Plan specifies a total acreage to be utilized as neighborhood, community,
and regional parks, recreational corridors in the Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek,
and Lytle Creek and 'greenbelt' linkages to the San Bernardino Mountain foot-
hill "
s.
N201 The paragraph in question (last paragraph, page 4-188) is not intended to be an
analysis of impacts, but rather a summary of the mitigation measures discussed
above. As such, it could be seen as redundant and will be removed from the text.
N202 The level of significance on page 4-189 will be amended to read as follows: "As
indicated above in the text, implementation of the Draft Plan will increase the
determination as to whether anyone particular change is or is not an adverse
results, as explained in the text, in an individual's perception of desired urban
aesthetics. Impacts of the Plan related to the increased density can be mitigated
via implementation plans and policies discussed above to an acceptable level by
providing for a high quality urban environment. Consequently this is consid-
ered to be a Class II impact."
~, II
1 _
o
o
Implementation Programs 16.4 and 16.14 both refer to secondary access. In par-
ticular, 16.14 indicates that the Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall de-
velop guidelines for use in the site plan review process which specify the require-
ments for multiple access routes to development projects. This indicates that
secondary access requirements will become part of the site plan review process.
At that time it will be come the City's responsibility to determine on a project-by-
project basis whether a particular proposed development is in conformance with
the City's adopted guidelines with respect to secondary access. The potential im-
pact to developments not served by secondary access will be accessed during the
site plan review process and is not an appropriate topic of the EIR.
N203 Information has been added to the text with respect to projected loss of habitat
from continued mining in the "IE" land use designation. See response to com-
ment N163. The following information will be added to the "project impacts" of
the discussion on mineral resources: "As indicated in this EIR's discussion of bi-
ological resources, the proposed ''IE'' uses in the Cajon Wash area would be ex-
pected to have significant impacts on biological resources of the area, including
impacts to at least two known locations of the federally endangered Santa Ana
River Wolly Star and one location of the Slender Horned Spine Flower. Please
see Section 4.3.1.2 of this document for a more complete discussion of the ''IE''
land use on biological resources currently existing in the planning area." The fol-
lowing information will also be added to "project impacts" of mineral resources:
"Utilization of the ''IE'' designations for mineral extraction could result in visual
impacts to the landscape related to mining and landscaping scars from the
physical extraction of the mineral resources." With respect to mitigation
measures addressing reclamation, the text will be amended to read as follows:
"The third level of mitigation contained in the Draft Plan is to assure adequate
reclamation of mineral resource extraction areas to mitigate the visual impacts
which can result from physically removing the aggregate material. Specifically,
Policies 10.9.1-10.9.5 address the reclamation of land after mining. These policies
_. ,
o
o
require that all resource extraction sites have plans and procedures for land rec-
lamation, conforming to the requirements of the State Mining and Geology
Board, and are to be implemented upon completion of extraction operations at
each site or portion thereof. The policies further state that it will be the City's re-
sponsibility to insure that all mineral reclamation projects are reviewed under
the policies and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
State Mining and Reclamation Act. The Plan requires that permits for mineral
reclamation projects specify compliance with state, federal and local standards
and attainment programs with respect to air quality, protection of rare, threat-
ened or endangered species, conservation of water quality, watersheds and ba-
sins and erosion protection. Additionally to insure that even after conforming to
the local, state and federal requirements stated above, the proposed reclamation
plans meet the level of reclamation desired by the City. Policy 10.9.5 requires
that the Mayor and Common Council have discretionary approval of all reclama-
tion plans. It would be assumed that implementation of Policies 10.9.1-10.9.5
provide an adequate framework for insuring reclamation to mitigate visual
impacts associated with aggregate extraction."
N204 The following information will be added to the first complete paragraph on page
4-193 with respect to the impacts of mineral extraction: "Figure 17A indicates
those areas in which proposed "IE" uses could be in conflict with adjacent land
uses." The last sentence in the first full paragraph on page 4-193 will be amend-
ed to read as follows: ''However, in the Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek area, resi-
dential uses and planned residential areas do border potential extraction areas
and may experience potential impacts from fugitive dust and noise related to fu-
ture mining activities. As indicated in Figure 25A, (see noise analysis Section
4.4.4 of the EIR) noise levels from use of equipment related to mining would
probably be in the 75 to 95 decibel range at 50 feet from the noise source." The
following information will be added to the mitigation section of the mineral re-
sources discussion: "Implementation Program 10.12 indicates that upon receipt
of application for mineral resource exploration or development, the Planning
~')L.I.
EB
o
;; ~ ;!! ~
" : :'
"' s .. ~
. !! :
'--L . "' ~ ~
. i
P'"lrlt ~I' ..
. &
, " "'^
~ '----
" I --,
.L .-
~
,
Raflt.. Awt ,
(
,
-'
,
,
~
:s
~
8
:g
o
~
::::l
~
z~
0_
R-
,.
..
.
&
..
.
&
.
m
:: 0
c.
., -~';.
J
-.
u, .
.. -I ,
"' ,..
..- .._-
,--
'-- -,
l
."
S'erlln
,
_=,
,-1_1,..1
I ,
"
'IClorll AyJ
..
..
AI,bI... SI
!! oJ i
I
-"
"1111 Av. I r
, ,-
Av' I
.,.~\
EB
/
~
.-
,-
"
1
~I
~~-, I
I l__,""
\
I
I
---.,
1
,
,
,
,
"
j :
!! I_J--------!
,_1_- .
-~ I I
--_..I .
, .
~1 I
I'T.. ......__..... ..........1
,
__I
,
1
,
,
,.
,
------
-,
-....-.
,
,
J--} 1...__-
~
",
lJJ
IJ:,
I"
o
!::""
.:ii:~-I
::ifr (.,
.::" .........-....'..
,
I
\
....--'-,'
.-
I
1
I
,
.1
...-
,-
-I
, "
, I I
I r-' _,
L____J ...__J
,
---... f
,--- ,
I,
L~
EB
~mmm
~1!iJ_
;:
j
:u
CD
GO
2=
a
iD
c:
GO
CD
GO
m
)C
i
s-
ID
....
....
fI)
QI
...
....
:u
CD
GO
2=
::s
-
!!!.
c:
GO
CD
GO
:;lit
m
co(
.
in
.
c:
GO
CD
GO
:
...
"g
c:
Ul
<>
Ul
.....
::s
;::l
co
,.,
Il>
...
.....
o
"
...
o
Ol
><
.....
Ul
...
,..
::s
UL~
~
C.
~1
;;
r.:
....
CD
;::l
"
Ul
.....
t'.
(~
::s
...
.....
..
...
c:
Ul
CD
'"
-n
-
G>
C
:0
m
...a.
....,
)>
o
o
Department staff shall contact responsible local, state and federal agencies to es-
tablish development compliance criteria, health hazard safeguards and necessary
on-site monitoring programs to assure mitigation of potential environmental im-
pacts such as approved access, dust, noise and visual."
N205 The following information will be added to the cumulative impacts analysis of
the mineral resources discussion: ''Mining of aggregate resources throughout
RSA-29 could potentially impact local biological resources, aesthetic quality, and
localized air quality related to fugitive dust. The significance of these issues
would depend on the specific physical configuration of each site and associated
quality of biological resources. Land use incompatibilities between the aggregate
mining and adjacent uses could result if the mining sites are located next to sen-
sitive uses."
N206 As the significant mineral resource areas existing within the planning area are
preserved by the Draft Plan for future aggregate production, the loss of any ag-
gregate resource as a result of land uses proposed by the Draft Plan is considered
an adverse but not significant impact (Oass 3). Potential impacts from the min-
ing of aggregate resources permitted in the "IE" use designation areas on the aes-
thetic quality of the sites is considered to be significant but can be adequately
mitigated through implementation of appropriate policies relating to reclamation
of these areas (Class 2). Potential impacts on the biological resources of the i.e.
areas related to future mining of the areas would include loss of habitat and
probable loss of at least three known locations of federally endangered species.
This impact would be considered to be a significant impact that cannot be miti-
gated given maximum implementation of the Draft Plan (Class 1).
., 1_ Cl
o
o
"Although the impact of the proposed project on the mineral resources of the
area is considered not to be significant, the impact of extraction of these resources
as permitted in the Plan would be significant and not mitigable given Plan imple-
mentation. Consequently the level of environmental significance for mineral re-
sources is designated as Oass 1."
The unavoidable adverse impacts section of mineral resources will be revised to
read as follows: ''Potential impacts of mineral extraction as permitted in the i.e.
land use designation of the Draft Plan on sensitive biological resources is consid-
ered to be an unavoidable adverse impact."
N207 The two specific corrections indicated in this comment will be incorporated into
the text of the EIR.
N208 The last sentence in the first complete paragraph on page 4-198 will be amended
to read as follows: "However, more detailed on-site analysis would be needed
before a definite determination could be made as to whether or not these faults
represent potential areas of ground surface rupture."
N209 As indicated in the first paragraph on page 4-196, primary geologic and seismic
hazards in the planning area include ground shaking, fault rupture and potential
liquefaction. All of those primary hazards are discussed in detail in the geology
analysis and figures are provided. Slope instability and erosion are indicated in
that paragraph to be secondary hazards and are consequently not discussed in as
much detail in the geology analysis. As indicated in this paragraph, a detailed
discussion of both primary and secondary hazards is available in the City of San
Bernardino General Plan Update, Technical Background Report which is incor-
porated by reference into the EIR. The City does have an emergency response
plan that can be activated during a major seismic event and the following
information will be added to the discussion of geology and seismicity in the Em:
''For the purpose of responding to a major disaster, the Oty of San Bernardino
_. ....
o
o
has prepared the City of San Bernardino Emergency Plan. The plan details the
responsibilities and interactions of federal, state and local governmental agencies
as well as private organizations in the event of a major disaster. The plan indi-
cates that in the event of a major earthquake the possible effects on lifelines in the
City of San Bernardino includes rupture of petroleum product pipelines and nat-
ural gas transmission pipelines, disruption of operations at the Southern Califor-
nia Edison Plants and substations, disruption of water supply, disruption or ter-
mination of wastewater treatment operations and communication systems, clo-
sure of major surface transportation and potential damage to local airport run-
ways. The City's Emergency Plan establishes actions, policies and procedures for
implementing Section 406 of the Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974."
N210 The following information will be added to the bottom paragraph on page 4-201:
"Any proposed uses within the Alquist Priolo Special Study Zones will be sub-
ject to the Alquist Priolo requirements including a geotechnical study for site spe-
cific development. In addition, no structure can be placed within 50 feet of a
fault within the zone. The Draft Plan recommends that no critical facilities are
placed within 100 feet of a fault. There are areas in the City that are currently ex-
isting that are not designed to withstand potential ground acceleration of future
forecasted earthquakes. Senate Bill 547 requires local jurisdictions to enact struc-
tural hazard reduction programs by inventorying pre-1934 unreinforced mason-
ry buildings and by developing mitigation programs to correct the structural
hazards. Inventories and mitigation plans must be submitted to the state by Jan-
uary 1, 1990. Although the City has not accomplished this inventory at this time,
the City is aware that the inventory must be completed. In addition, policies in
the Draft Plan reflect the necessity to complete such studies."
N211 The following information will be added to the Geology/Seismicity discussion in
the EIR: Slope instability and erosion are addressed in the Draft Plan via Policy
1.14.12 which indicates in the discussion of hillside management residential de-
velopment "reduce the total yield of development if other hillside management
...~
o
o
standards (grading, habitat preservation, slope stabilization, drainage, etc.) can-
not be attained." This policy indicates that before development approval, grad-
ing and slope stabilization would be analyzed and any potential hazards
identified. Mitigation of those hazards, as indicated in this policy, could include
reducing the number of units allowed in various hillside management locations.
In addition, Policy 1.14.33, which encourages the clustering of units in order to
minimize grading and protect properties from hazards. Policy 1.14.34 requires a
geologic study for all sites determining slope stability, locations of faults,
adherence to standards of the ''Seismic Risk Management" overlay, and
prohibition of development on known landslides.
N212 The level of environmental significance discussion with respect to geology and
seismicity will be rewritten as follows: '1mplementation of the Draft Plan will
substantially increase the number of persons exposed to the geologic hazards de-
scribed in the text, including the fact that the planning area can be expected to
experience a large magnitude earthquake sometime during the life of the Draft
Plan or associated structures. Consequently, the level of environmental signifi-
cance would be considered Class I (significant impacts that cannot be mitigated
or avoided). However, it should be noted that mitigation measures are available
to reduce potential effects of a major earthquake, even though the exposure of
greater numbers of people to that hazard could not be mitigated.
N213 & N714
It is not the purpose of the General Plan to provide information in adequate de-
tail to calculate drainage values for individual basins. Drainage values depend
on site specific design (e.g., a lo-story building on a 2-acre site with 50% lawn
will have very different drainage characteristics than a 2-acre parking lot).
Hydrology studies will be undertaken as part of review on a project by project
basis. The text correctly indicates that the Plan will, in general, create additional
runoff and expose a larger population to flood related hazards.
,,~,
e
o
N2l5 The subject text with respect to flooding will be amended to read as follows: "As
stated above, three portions of the planning area are presently subject to flooding
during a lOO-year storm (flows not contained in storm drain facilities) (Figure 2).
These three areas are not currently protected from flows of the lOo-year storm. If
future development were to occur in these areas, that development would also
not be protected from the lOo-year storm flows. Land uses proposed by the Gen-
eral Plan for these areas are: ..."
N2l6 This comment addresses the Draft Plan.
N2l7 See response to comments N2l~ and N2l/f.
N2l8 Policies have been identified in response to comment El. Cumulative impacts
are addressed in general terms in the text. Mitigation will be accomplished on a
site specific basis. On a regional basis, mitigation will be accomplished as
deemed necessary by the County Flood Control District. The subject EIR is not
intended to be a hydrologic study of RSA-29.
N2l9 The correction noted in this comment will be made to Figure 23.
N220 The following information will be added to the top paragraph of page 4-214:
"Although the specific direction of groundwater movement at any particular lo-
cation is not known, it is known that regional groundwater flow in the planning
area is from north to south toward the Santa Ana River and Colton Narrows.
The following information will be added as a new paragraph to the existing con-
ditions section of the hazardous materials discussion: ''The City is currently
treating the groundwater contamination problem through the use of aeration
towers. These towers act as filters through which contaminated water is pumped
and mixed with air. As the contaminants are more prone to adhere to air rather
."~,,
o
o
than water, the contaminants adhere to the air as the water contacts the air inside
the tower. The air is discharged to the atmosphere and the water which has been
cleaned is restored for use. Two groundwater decontamination sites currently
involved in the City's decontamination program are the Newmark site which in-
volves two towers 4S feet tall and 12 feet in diameter at Reservoir 5 and Western
Avenue and the water site involving two towers 45 feet tall and 17 feet in diame-
ter at Waterman and 30th Street."
N221 The following material will be added to the existing conditions analysis of haz-
ardous materials: "Any accidents involving hazardous waste material or con-
taminants are usually handled initially by the police and/or fire departments
serving the area. Those departments can request assistance from the County-
wide Haz Mat Team from the County Environmental Health Department. The
Haz Mat Team includes a minimum of two fire specialists and two
environmental health specialists who are prepared to perform hazard identifica-
tion, risk assessment and control measures when necessary." See responses to
comments NZlO, N222, and N223.
N222 The first paragraph in the project impacts discussion on page 4-214 reflects the
information presented in the comment. That is hazardous materials use by cer-
tain types of new industrial and commercial businesses could result in impacts
associated with proposed Citywide land uses in the Draft Plan.
N223 The following information will be added to the project impact analysis of hazard-
ous materials: ''The draft land use plan designations indicate that the areas
proposed for residential use in the north central and western portions of the City
would be most likely to be affected by existing sources of contamination. Poten-
tial residential land use conflicts would need to be evaluated on a site specific
basis and a determination made as to the safety of the future land use in relation
to the City's attempt to clean up contaminated groundwater."
.:zl~
.
o
o
N224 The word correction noted in this comment will be made to the text of the ElR.
The second paragraph on page 4-217 will be rewritten to read as follows: "The
State Office of Noise Control has developed noise compatibility guidelines for
various land uses (Figure 24). For residential areas in general, 65 dB Ldn is the
maximum acceptable exterior noise level, given conventional building construc-
tion. For the "noise sensitive" uses such as schools, churches and hospitals, an
Ldn value of 70 dB has been established as the maximum acceptable exterior
noise level. Based upon these State guidelines, 65 dB Ldn is used in this analysis
as the threshold criterion."
The heading of the third column on Table 24a will be amended to read "dB(A)
Ldn at 200 feet."
N22S The word correction noted in this comment will be made to the text of the EIR.
N226 The word correction noted in this comment will be made to the text of the EIR.
N227 The bottom paragraph on page 4-219 continuing through the top paragraph on
page 4-226 describes where existing residential uses are currently subjected to
noise levels greater than 65 dB(A).
In response to comment Nm, Table 26 has been amended to indicate street
segments with residential uses which will be subjected to noise levels greater
than 65 dB(A) Ldn given maximum buildout of the Draft Plan. The following
sentence will be added to the second paragraph on page 4-227: "In addition,
Table 26 indicates which street segments contain residential uses which will be
subjected to future noise levels greater than 65 dB (A) Ldn."
JlCf
-
o
o
N228 The sentence which starts 'The noise levels..... will be rewritten to read as follows:
'The following are examples of noise levels for industrial uses in San Bernardino,
obtained by field monitoring:"
The addresses of the industrial sites identified as examples in the Draft Em will
be added to the text.
N229 The attached graphic, Figure 25. .., showing existing and future residential areas
impacted by railway noise levels greater than 65 dB(A) shall be added to
"existing conditions" of the Noise section.
Following the sentence on page 4-219 which starts: ''Table 25 illustrates....., this
sentence will be added: ''Figure 25' indicates areas of residential uses which are
currently impacted by railway noise of 65 dB(A) or greater."
Following the first sentence on page 4-227, the following sentence will be added:
"Figure 25. indicates where railway noise may impact future residential areas."
N230 Table 26 will be amended in the text (see following pages) to indicate (by an as-
terisk) where residential uses would be subject to unacceptable noise levels. In
addition to this change and to the changes indicated on pages 4-228 and 4-229, as
a response to comment E1, the second paragraph describing mitigation measures
will be amended to read as follows: "As discussed above, implementation of
Policy 14.1.3 would not be expected to be extremely effective because installation
of the noise barriers in question would not be economically or physically feasible
in many instances. The concern is the impact of future unacceptable noise levels
generated by future buildout and associates vehicular noise increases on existing
noise sensitive uses. Consequently, it is recommended that Policy 14.1.3 be re-
worded to require that existing housing, health care facilities and other "noise
sensitive" uses located in areas subject to future noise levels of an Ldn of 65
dB(A) or greater be protected from unacceptable noise levels by the installation
~~C\
~.
- "
(/)
I- as
~ CD
as ,6
e .. ...
II: ::l .. CI
== c
I- 0 as CD c
.. ;:
(/) c a: e ., !
z 0 c 'j(
0 0 as ::l
0 a. w ..
0 CD ;: CD ::l
.!! as C 0 II..
W .. ..
0 .. CI .. 0
!l 0 ..
Z ,~ c
a. CD ..
0 CD as E 0 C '-I
Z as c as CD 1_.,',
as .!! - 0 I "
as .. a.. 'l:l as 1---
C III l- e - ,
e :0- 'l:l I I"~
0 CD .. = as e I -,
0 CD 0 .. 1II , ,
l6 as
II: .. CI 4) .. 1II I ,
::! 0 c .2 E 1II C CD I
II.. 4) :J CD as -,
e as '2 ClI E :J lot "
~ 1II II ii I
II: (/) 4) ii
e as as ;: (/) ----~ ,~:
a.. E ;: I
C :0- C I
C 4) as 4) :0- C
Z 0 .. 'l:l II CD l__., rr1
e .. 0 III .! '0 .! 'l:l I ~.
.. -
0 as c ii '0 I
1ft 4) ii I
I- Z ::E as II: CD
N II.. (/) II: II: II: I,
W e 0 I iD . . ------!j
II: II: ~ I ---"
:J 0 . . I
Cl !5 I
0 . . I
ii: e (/) I ,"
,--' ...
, ,
r-...---------..-~ 1- --I
. I, -_J
.
. . .'
. ..--- ;;; I ;;;
. I ; J
. .. ,- !
. --, L_ a
. r-J ;;; I
1-------- .. I-
I ~ 0 ,- . ,
, . .,c- ,
c
-H
_0
"'\JZ
:2:
0
;::::
~
0
8:
8
:E
0
(J
s;
~ ~
~
a; III
.
IL 0 Q
.
Ill" Z
" : Of
... ~ ...
4( ~
It
III
~
...
z
~
_:J _,
o I
...
,
I
,
I
I
I
'----
,
I
,
"--1 I
, L_.Jr
~,
II
I ---I
I --__
I
r--- ,----,
'-- ,-.I I
I, I
I I I
1_ _'
_I
,.-
,
I
I
-,
I
,
,''''--'
\
t
,........ "
, '
,
,
f.._~_
I
l,
-,
,/
,
,
--j"
J~
a;
I IS ,eeleled
'--'
.1. _
.
c
.
1i
;;;
!!
:
,;
i
.
.
~
;;;
i
...2
III III
..-
...~
4(C1
III
::I
III
as
S
J!
8
1II
1II
e
(/)
.:11:
C
'l:l
c
II
E
o
,!,!
>
..
il
~~_ H/
!"'~.-
-
-
o
o
TABLE 26 (Revised)
Estimated Noise Levels (Ldn)
Near Major Roadways
Existing Increase Future
dB(A) Ldn at Plan dB(A) Ldn
Between (at 100 feet) Buildout (at 100 feet)
1986 ADT 30-50,000
Highland Avenue I-215/Rte 30 70 2.0 72
Arrowhead/Sierra
1986 ADT 20-30,000
. Waterman Avenue 40th St./I-lO 66-68 3.5 70-72
. Highland Avenue Pepper/I-215 66-68 1.2 67-69
. 5th Street Pepper/Rancho 66-68 1.6 68-70
Baseline Street 1-215/Waterman 66-68 2.8 69-71
. Del Rosa Avenue Rte 3D/Highland 66-68 4.7 71-73
Mt. Vernon Avenue Baseline/9th 66-68 3.7 70-72
. Mill Street K St./E St. 67-68 4.4 71-72
1986 ADT 10-20,000
. Waterman Avenue 40th St./Sierra Way 64-67 1.9 66-69
Orange Show Rd. at 1-215 64-67 4.4 68-71
3rd Street Tippecanoe/Sterling 64-67 4.8 69-72
. 5th Street Rancho/Waterman 64-67 3.9 68-71
9th Street 1-215/Tippecanoe 64-67 -10.1 54-57
Arrowhead Ave. Orange Show Rd./ 64-67 7 71-74
5th St.
. Baseline Street Waterman/Sterling 64-67 1.5 66-69
Mt. VemonAve. Baseline/Cajon 64-67 5.1 69-72
. Pacific Street Sterling/Victoria 64-66 -7.9 56-58
. Sterling Avenue 5th S.t./Rte 30 ..6U6 5.0 69-71
. University Pkwy. 1-215/N. Park 64-66 5.4 69-71
Redlands Blvd. at Waterman 64-66 4.9 69-71
. 40th Street Electric/Waterman 64-66 2.2 66-68
H Street 5th/9th 64-66 -3.6 60-62
*Street segments with existing (1987) residential uses which will be subjected to noise
levels greater than 65 dB(A) Ldn (see Figure 24) given maximum buildout of the Draft
Plan.
""~~
j
.
o
TABLE 26 (Revised)(Cont.)
Estimated Noise Levels (Ldn)
Near Major Roadways
Existing Increase Future
dB(A) Ldn at Plan dB(A) Ldn
Between (at 100 feet) Buildout (at 100 feet)
It Rialto Avenue Mt. Vernon/ 64-66 4.8 69-71
Arrowhead
It Sierra Way 5th/9th 64-66 7.6 72-74
It Kendall Drive University /E St. 64-66 5.1 69-71
Mill Street K St./E St. 64-66 5.2 69-71
It Pepper Avenue Mill/Foothill 64-66 4.7 69-71
E Street I-10/Highland 68 5.9 74
Pepper/Mt. Vernon
1986ADT 5-10,000
It Rialto Avenue Arrowhead/Waterman 62-64 3.2 65-67
It Rancho Ave. Mill/Foothill 62-64 8.3 70-72
It 5th Street Waterman/Victoria 62-64 6.4 68-70
It Inland Center Drive Mt. Vernon/215 62-64 7.5 70-72
30th Street 62-64 1.1 63-65
3rd Street E St./Tippecanoe 62-64 3.7
9th Street Pennsylvania/I-215 62-64 -1.3 61-63
It E Street Highland/Rte 30 62-64 6.9 69-71
21st Street Waterman/Valencia 62-64 -8.3 54-56
Arrowhead Avenue Highland/5th 62-64 -2.7 59-61
It Sierra Way Mill St./5th 62-64 8.6 71-73
It Cajon Blvd. Palm/Mt. Vernon 62-64 8.0 70-72
It Kendall Drive Palm/University 62-64 3.5 66-68
Medical Center Dr. 62-64 -2.6 59-61
Victoria Avenue Lynwood/Base1ine . 64-65 3.6 68-69
Palm Avenue at Highland 64-65 -1.6 62-63
Methodology: Noise Assessment Guidelines. HUD, Office of Policy Development and
Research, 1979.
Fundamentals and Abatement of Hil!:hway Traffic Noise. Bolt, Beranek
and Newman, Inc., 1973.
~~s
.J!l
-
o
o
of insulation, walls, berms, or other elements with funding and installation to be
the responsibility of the developer(s) of the land uses determined to generate (ei-
ther directly or indirectly) the incremental noise increases resulting in the
unacceptable noise levels. Funding would be via developer contribution. In this
way the use that would create the unacceptable noise level would be responsible
for its mitigation, as opposed to existing uses being held responsible for impacts
created by future uses.
The only other mitigation available to reduce future noise impacts generated by
vehicular traffic would be to substantially downsize project buildout. However,
this would result in a Plan that would be less effective in meeting many of the
City's goals for development.
"Table 26 will be modified in the text to indicate those street segments with
existing residential uses which will be subject to noise levels greater than 65
dB(A) Ldn (see Figure 24) given maximum buildout of the Draft Plan." The re-
vised Table 26 is included here on the following pages."
N231 Paragraph #2 on page 4-228 will be amended as follows: "Based upon the
analysis of aerial photographs, it has been determined that expansion of
residential areas in the northwest quadrant will cause noise sensitive receptors
and industrial noise sources (both existing and future) to be in closer contact. In
all cases, however, setbacks, open space, roadways and I or commercial strips
serve to dissipate or buffer industrial sources from future residential areas. In
fact, the intervening land uses, such as roadways or commercial uses, could
cause a more noticeable noise impact than the industrial uses. Thus, no problems
of incompatibility, with regard to industrial uses alone, are expected. Although
background noise levels can be expected to increase, noise created by industrial
uses and experienced by sensitive noise receptors in new residential areas are not
expected to be above the recommended 65 dB(A) Ldn."
1....0
J
_L 11
.
o
.
N232 The specific policy references have been added in response to comment E1. On
writing the EIR, it is assumed that all policies contained in the Plan would be im-
plemented. Once adopted, the City would not have the option of "pick and
choose" which policies to implement. It is not the purpose of the EIR to address
the consequences of potentially omitting each individual policy from the Draft
Plan. Also, see response to comment N2~, above.
N233 The sentence has been rewritten. See response to comment El.
N234 The specific policy and implementation program references have been included
in response to comment El. These programs call for the City to ''Establish land
use noise compatibility standards in the Development Code..." 014.2); "Develop
and adopt a community noise control ordinance..." (114.9); and "Include in the
development code standards and requirements for parking structures and lots..."
(114.5).
N235 The discussion of the Level of Environmental Significance will remain as shown
in the text. The discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts will be reworded to
read as follows: "Any increases in housing, commercial, or industrial
development will increase the amount of activity with associated increase in am-
bient noise levels. However, given implementation of the Draft Plan's polides
and programs, and mitigation discussed in the text above, no impacts to noise
sensitive land uses would be considered unavoidable."
N236 Paragraph #2 on page 4-231 has been amended to read as follows: .....Between
1946 and 1985, the average annual maximum wind speed was 49 knots (56
mph),.....
N237 The sentence in question, the last sentence in the last complete paragraph on
page 7-1 will be amended to read as follows: '1n order to insure that the City's
infrastructure is adequate to meet City growth demands, the Draft Plan includes
....ft_
tt._
IlIIl
o
o
numerous policies to reweight the timing of infrastructure improvements to the
timing and pattern of City growth. For example, Policy 6.1.1 requires the City to
review annually the functioning of the street system as part of the capital im-
provement program to identify problems and requires the City to actively pur-
sue implementation of improvements identified as needed in a timely manner.
The associated implementation program Q6.1) requires the City to identify the
available sources of funding to finance implementation of each improvement
project. Policy 7.1.2 requires the City to provide for the construction of upgraded
and expanded wastewater collection and treatment improvements to support
existing and new development. Policy 7.1.5 requires that all new development
secure sewer capacity rights for the City's water reclamation plant prior to or at
the time building permits are issued. ( If it is not feasible for development to be
served by the water reclamation facility, the Mayor and Common Council may
choose to allow an alternative method of wastewater disposal provided that ap-
propriate permits are obtained from the California Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Board.) Policy 7.6.4 requires that adequate water supply transmission, distri-
bution, storage and treatment facilities be operational prior to the issuance of cer-
tificates of occupancy. Policy 7.9.4 requires that adequate storm drains and flood
control facilities be in place prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy (the
Mayor and Common Council may permit the construction of interim facilities
sufficient to protect present and short-term future needs if necessary). These pol-
icies insure that development and occupancy of structure will not occur until the
appropriate infrastructure to support the development is in place."
N238 Section 7.0 "Growth Inducing Impacts" does indicate that the Draft Plan would
induce growth in the planning area. In response to comment N235 above, the
text will be amended to include examples of policies that provide for the timing
of infrastructure improvement to be tied to development and/or occupancy of
development. The Em does indicate in paragraph 2 that the capacity of the
proposed plan to induce growth would be considerably less than buildout of the
.,a.1il1.
o
o
previous General PIan. This determination is based upon the analysis of the "no
project" alternative in Section 5 of the text.
N239 The EIR does indicate on page 9-2 that irreversible impacts expected to result
from implementation of the Draft PIan would include fragmentation and degra-
dation of biological habitat leading to a decrease in habitat value and associated
loss of biological diversity. The following information will be added to the risk
of irreversible impacts expected to result from the Plan: "Significant loss of open
space in the conversion of that open space to urbanized uses." The last sentence
on page 9-2 will be amended to read as follows: "Permitted uses withip the City
contain no unusual or extraordinary elements that would be expected to pose a
danger of an accident resulting in irreversible environmental damage."
....~"'
Safety Personnel
3 Auiatant Chief
1 Battalion chief
18 Captains
6!1 Safety
16 Support (non-safetl')
21 Emergency Vehicles
1 Safety p.rsonnel
Battalion Chief
12 Captains
34 Engineer/Fire Fighter
10 Support (non-safety)
12 Emergency Vehicle. (}'B3/
&.It>..
,..lA.....- 6-89 SAT
'3 : 1t::1;2
o
o
~
,"
SAN BERNARDINO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
UIIlL\<. ~~sM-
To: lia .....icho.~d8_U~' DepuL." Cl't'r'A4M.llli:l\.~.~QJ;....
From:
Jim <<night. Deputy fire Chief
m {;.- t;:- r. fl ".
..'f.l I~ I~ - ..
. 7 ~!r; ';~ ,."/ ,.; r--
( 1 "..1 '. ',~; " !
'. . .' i U I
MAY) 3 ~,1,;}- '.,'
. ~
-----------------------------------------------~~~------------
.." ( F{iIJjAV.~f" .
, '4. ."..,.. ..::.
SJi/V 8EI;"'.. g;::.
'~...:"
Subject:
General Plan Draft
Date:
May 2.1989
';':~':
In summary. the Draft Plan. NO Project Alternative. and
Alternatives A. B. C. and H have the following demands for
fire services:
POPULATION
INCREASE
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL &
EOUIPMENT RZOUIRED
DRAFT PLAN
65,070
Safetv P.raonnel
1 As.i_tlnt Chief
1 Battalion Chief
15 captains
S9 Engineer/Fire Fighter
11 Support (non-safety)
15 Emergency Vehicles
NO nOJECT
ALTERNATIVE
232,1&4
ALTERNATIVE A
45.707
P ..-:- 5
(;;:l , '{l,' .........' '
o
4C. _
r'1.=-:t......- 6-8', SAT
":;;t : 03
P.ooS
....
o
o
,
POPULATION ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL i
./\ INCREASB EOUIP~NT RBOUIRED
ALTERNATIVE B 67.472 Safetv Per.onn.l
1 Assistant Chief
1 Battalion Chief
15 Captains
59 En9ineer/Fire Fighter
11 Support (non-safety)
15 Emergen~y Vehicle.
ALTERNATIVE C 130.105 Safety Personn~l \
2 Assistant Chiefs
1 Battalion Chief
15 Captains
65 Engineer/Fire Fighter
16 Support (non-safety)
18 !mergen~y Vehicles
ALTERNATIVE H 79.935 Safetv Personnel
2 Assistant Chiefs
] Ilattalion Chiefs
22 Captain.
70 Engineer/Fire Fighter
16 Support (non-safety)
24 Emergency Vehicles
...~..
o
o
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino Fire Department (dated May 2.
1989)
01 The information presented in this comment will be incorporated into the
appropriate sections of the EIR.
MAY- 6-89 SAT '51: ...213
P. ~17
... 0 0
, p
San lIernardino City Fire Departlllent
Memorandum
lJ, AX. f.. 8tkf1?S 7 tl \;:Lty Adlllinistra~or
To: Ii_ lidla'l"clson. B_.,ul;.Y
From: Jim lCnight, Deputy Fire Chief
Subject: Oeneral Plan Draft -
~ ~.. ~
.....' ,. or: ~ ...,...
" i~
Date: May 2.1989 . " --
;../.
_______~________________________________________~------~7-----
~ -'
'"",
"
'..
..,. ;"
DRAFT
New station in Verd.mont area with one engine and one water
tender, one additional engine at each of two existing
stations, one ladder truck at one existing station, one
parallledie squad at each of three existing stations, one hazmat
unit at one existing station; an additional 76 safety
personnel and 11 support personnel.
NO PROJECT
New station in Verdemont area with one engine and one water
tender, one additional angine at each of three exilting
Itations, one ladder truck at one existing station, one
paramedic .quad at each of three existing stations, one hazmat
unit at existing station; an additional 91 safety personnel
and 16 support personnel.
ALTEI.NA.TIVE A
New station in Verdelllont area with one engine and one water
tender, one additional engine at existing station, one ladder
truck at existing atation. one paramedic squad at each of two
existing stations, one hazmat unit at existing station; an
additional .7 safety personnel and 10 support personnel.
ALTERNATIVE II ,
New station in Verdemont area with one engine and
tender, one additional engine at each of two
atations, one ladder truck at existing station, 1
squad at each of three existing stations, one hazmat
existing atation; an additional 76 safety personnel.
support personnel.
one water
exilting
paramedic
unit at
and 11
....t:l/_
MA.....- 6-89 SAT
'? : "~1 4
P. ..:. E:
~y
o
o
,
ALTEIlNATIVE C
New station in Verdemont area with one engine and
tender, one additional engine at each of two
stations, one ladder truck at existing station, one
squad at each of three existing stations, one hazmat
existing station; an additional 80 ..fety personnel
support personnel.
one water
eXisting
paramedic
unit at
ancS 16
ALTEIlNATIVE H
New station in Verdemont area with one engine and ona water
tender. one engine and two crash trucks at Norton Air rorce
Base. one engine at existing station. one ladder truck at
existing station. ona paramedic squad at eaeh of three
existing stations. one hazmat unit at existing station; an
additional 97 safety personnel and 16 support personnel.
..l9J
"
o 0
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino Fire Department (dated May 2.
1989)
PI The information presented in this comment will be incorporated into the
appropriate sections of the EIR.
~aa
o
STATE OF CALlFORNIA-8U$INESS. TllANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
o
DI'-S //.u-JU-< II'~
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. 00_
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DlSTllICT 8. P.O. lOX 231
SAN SERNARDlNe. CA 92~
roo (714) 383-4iI09
Q
May 3, 1989
08-SBd-Var-Var
SCH #89621308
:":'-..
: i lID
rl:!\Y I) ;11989
~
, ~~
Mr. Vincent Bautista
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
"
.1; )
. ,l.
'~'_.
Dear Mr. Bautista:
~, - 1
.," " " " ;;:"~I'M,:U
~;i~.. ~icA:~.' ,:;D;r~J. CA
We have received both the General Plan for the City of
San Bernardino and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
General Plan and have the following comments concerning the
circulation element of these documents.
The first area of concern is the traffic study on which both of
these documents were based. We can not fully analyze this
General Plan until the following points are clarified and/or
corrected:
o
On Table 11, it would be helpful to have a list of the
assumptions used so that a more complete analysis can
be performed.
o
On Table 13, the percentages appear to have been
miscalculated and it is unclear where the 1.6 million
retail trips have been generated from.
Total build-out of Regional Statistical Area 29 is
stated as 7.1 million trips which is more than all of
Orange County at present. This seems improbable and we
would like to see clarification of how this was
calculated.
o
o
On Page 4-100 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
the future volumes for Interstates 10 and 215 are less
than current Caltrans counts.
o
Throughout both documents the words "trip end" and
"trip" are used interchangeably which is incorrect.
This may have falsely inflated the total number of
trips.
o
Table 13 adds the different land use types which double
counts the trips that are made between different land
uses.
.
\ 1
{2
\3
\4
\5
\ (p
---
o
o
.
Mr. Vincent Bautista
Page 2
May 3, 1989
On page 3.2.1 of the Land Use Alternatives, the segment
of Interstate 10 west of Interstate 215 will not be
adequate and will require 10 lanes. The segment of
Interstate 215 north of the proposed Route 30
Interchange should be 4 existing and will require 8
lanes in the year 2010.
The development of facilities for the state Highway ~ystem and
local roads in San Bernardino City are critical to the success of
the circulation element of this General Plan. In response to
these facilities we have the following comments:
o
t
o The General Plan shall identify truck routes which
shall have 50 foot curb radius at ramp entrances and
interchanges.
o All bus routes should require turnouts and minimum 30-
foot curb radius with prohibition of parking.
o Each project along Interstates 10 and 215 should have
land dedication for future expansion and if
residential, there should be noise attenuation.
o A Ramp Metering Policy for interchanges in the city
should be formed and closely coordinated with the
Department of Transportation.
o The adopted routing for Route 18 between Route 30 and
Waterman Canyon Road shall be reflected in the General
Plan as per Division 1; Chapter 1, Article 2, of the
streets and Highways Code of the California
Transportation Commission.
o Route 66 should be developed as a possible 6-lane
facility with restricted parking.
o Route 330 should have no access points other than ramps
or interchanges.
In addition to facility management, a circulation element must
contain strategies in reference to demand mitigations and
jOb/housing ratio to be effective. In reference to Demand
Management strategies we have the following comments:
...Aft
o
o
Mr. Vincent Bautista
Page 3
May 3, 1989
o Page 4-111 of the General Plan, mentions a
Transportation Management Demand System which is a term
we are not familiar with. If this is a corollary to a
Transportation System Management (TSM) plan, we concur
with that policY because it will efficiently manaqe
large concentrations of traffic.
o Page 4-94 of the General Plan states that bike trails
are an important part of the city: however, the Draft
Environmental Impact Report totally discounts their
effect. We would like clarification of how the City
will use bike trails.
The General Plan states the importance of transit in
Policies 6.4.9, 6.4.10, and 6.4.11, which is contrary
to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan fails
to consider transit in the overall circulation plan of
the City. These inconsistencies should be corrected.
o All transport of hazardous waste in Policy 6.3.5 of the
General Plan should be made during off peak hours and
each carrier should have a plan in case of spillage.
o
B
o Neither document states any specific policy on
ridesharing or demand reduction.
o Both documents omit any analysis of how developers will
participate in the funding of Park and Ride lots.
o Given the large volume of traffic being generated, it
will be necessary to examine which arterials will be
updated to the status of alternate corridors to relieve
congestion and/or reliance on the State highway.
As mentioned earlier, demand management will be an important part
of the Circulation Plan, in addition facilities management which
will effectively manage the traffic in the City.
",a I
o
o
Mr. Vincent Bautista
Page 4
May 3, 1989
Each jurisdiction should effectively manage/reduce traffic I
generated. Another aspect of demand strategy is jOb/housing \
balance. We would like to see some analysis of jobs created in \
the city in relation to those who commute. In addition, it would I
be beneficial if an analysis of the interrelationship between the
Economic Development Element and Circulation were included.
This last section will pertain to funding mechanisms for
transportation facilities:
If policies such as 6.1.11 and 6.1.14 in the General
Plan are needed to maintain an acceptable Level of
Service, then why does the Draft Environmental Impact
Report state how unattainable they are? If this is
true, the City should adopt a policy to fund the
maintenance an acceptable Level of Service.
o Policies 6.1.3 and Implementation 16.3 shall include
State highways with local streets and roads.
o
8
o All new development that significantly effects traffic
should be reviewed by the City as stated in Policy
6.2.7 of the General Plan. Caltrans shall also review
all developments that have a significant effect on
traffic.
We have appreciated the opportunity to review the General Plan of
San Bernardino City and look forward to future communication.
If you have any questions, please call Richard Malacoff at
383-4550.
Very truly yo rs,
Planning
cc: G Smith, DOTP
J Keen, State Clearinghouse
~ql.
o
o
Response to Comments from: California Department of Transportation (dated May 3,
1989)
Q1 The following information will be included as a footnote to Table 11: "Level of
Service criteria were established by the City of San Bernardino Department of Pub-
lic Works in conjunction with DKS Associates based on regional driver perception.
In this analysis, Level of Service "C" is considered acceptable daily service level.
Daily capacities at Level of Service "E" assume some a.m. and p.m. peak period
congestion. The service level ranges used in this analysis are as follows:
A 0.0-0.39
B Q.40-0.54
C 0.55-0.69
D 0.70-0.84
E 0.85-0.99
F 1.00+"
Q2 The percentages on Table 13 have been corrected in response to Comment N_.
The 1.6 million retail trips were calculated based upon 31.9 million square feet of
retail space indicated in Table 2 and the following trip generation factors:
NOTE: TO COME FROM DKS VIA FAX.
Q3 Total trip generation for RSA-29 was calculated based upon the trip generation
factors listed above and the land use description listed in Table 4. The data pre-
sented on Table 4 and in the cumulative analysis of circulation are based on theo-
retical maximum buildout of RSA-29, with some units probably double-counted as
indicated in the ''Note'' included with Table 4.
Q4 The volumes indicated on page 4-100 are directional volumes. When north plus
south are added (and east plus west), the appropriate volume totals result.
.JQ3
o
o
Q5 Although trip generation per se does result in one trip with two trip ends, these
data were used appropriately in the text without double counting trips. The analy-
sis used a gravity model that balances productions and attractions. Thus, when
trips were assigned to streets in the modeling process, one trip correctly involved
two trip ends.
Q6 See the response to Q5, above.
Q7 This comment refers to the "Land Use Alternatives Working Paper." This docu-
ment was published in March, 1988 and is included as Appendix D to the EIR for
reference. It is not the purpose of the EIR to make any changes to that document.
Q8 These comments refer to the Draft Plan itself, and not to the EIR.
~''1
.
~'
STAll Of CAlIfOIlN'A-THE RESOUtlCES AGENCY
o
o
R
UNI (E:7I-,
GEOllGE DEUItMEJ'AN, 00_
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
AN BERNARDINO RANGER UNIT
'>AVID J. DRISCOLL. CHIEF
3800 SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92405
(714) 882-1226
~e-r"_.,
................:.J ./J::C
MAY 1 J iU:J
@
~t.:~-~"fJ
~, . ......~ ~i..
i~.:~
I;)! ',:
, ,
: ~ 1
~i...!
c.......
'. I. : ," ~
. .,.
I;' I
,:.... ".
:-.....1
MAY O!i 19B!;
May 5, 1989
C~7Y :~L...1~.'..::..:.-: ..~:.. : ....~:;;7
;.4~J uE:':~':..:.~:.:;... :.:
Vincent Bautista /
Principal Planner
San Bernardino City Planning Dept.
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 9Z418 '
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive City-Wide General
Plan.
Dear Mr. Bautista:
The San Bernardino Ranger Unit of the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection {CD F) supports the above captioned draft plan's recommendation that
the City's Development Code shall incorporate both the landscaping and construction
provisions of the "Foothill Communities Greenbelt Program" Report (Pg. 4-146).
The general public's safety can be greatly improved in hazardous fire areas only
through the adoption of standards listed in the Foothill Communities Greenbelt
Program Report. Some of these are as follows:
Roofing materials
Fencing materials
Street widths
Cul-de-sac lengths
Availablity of hydrants
Quantity of water flow
House numbers
Dual access into neighborhoods 8< subdivisions. and fuels
Management of vegetation fuels
I
(
i
Requesting all the mutual aid fire equipment in Southern California will not stop I
a Santa Ana wind driven fire, such as the Panorama Fire. The total cost of the
Panorama Fire in 1980 was 58 million dollars with 30 million dollars in property
damage alone within the City of San Bernardino. 3Z5 homes were consumed, 77
serious injuries, and 4 attributed fatalities occurred. The City cannot be dependent
totally on their professional firefighters and their mutual aid agreements. They
must have stricter development standards in hazardous fire areas.
The Draft Plan does not address the potential hazard of flooding following a
catastrophic fire. The mudslides in Harrison Canyon in 1979, inundated 24 homes
and threatened many others within the City. The Draft Plan admits on pages 4-147
that the buildout may result in the increase of wildfire hazards in the wildland/urban
interface; therefore, it can be assumed that watershed vegetation will be consumed
and a potential exists for the increase in flooding and mudslides into areas of City
.-')c~
.
o
-2-
o
jurisdiction.
CDF has the legal responsibility for wildland fire suppression in the unincorporated
Sphere of Influence primarily in the Northwest of the City in the Verdemont and
Devore areas. If these lands are annexed and incorporated into the City, they can
no longer be classified as State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and the City assumes
full financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing all wildland fire occurring
in these areas.
CDF through mutual aid agreements can provide fire engines for wildland suppression
to the City by request, within the City's boundary; however, mutual aid currently
does not include bulldozers, handcrews, helicopters, or air tankers. If these resources
are requested, the City will be billed for their services. The City could contract
with CDF for these services at approximately $5 per acre.
The San Bernardino County Forestry and Fire Warden Department is administered
and staffed by CDF under contract with San Bernardino County, providing year round
fire protection in unincorporated areas bordering the City. Currently, the County
fire station on Baseline has a paramedic squad and one engine, with a second engine
manned by paid-call firefighters. The CDF/County Forestry and Fire Warden
Department's joint station on SielTa Way has one County paid call engine and a
bulldozer. The nearest State fire engines to the City are in Devore and Loma Linda.
As incorporation of County and State Responsibility Areas continue, the availability
of mutual aid fire equipment from CDF and Forestry 8c Fire Warden Dept. will be
reduced.
Should you have any questions, please direct your cOlTespondence to Jim Laughlin,
our Resource Planning Officer at this address, or feel free to call him at
(714) 882-1226.
Best regards,
r
')~~~~t-\1)
DAVIDJ.:~LL
Ranger Unit Chiefl
County Fire Warden
DJD/JRL:jas
~9'''
4..
o
o
ResJ'onse to Comments from: (dated. 1989)
R1 This comment addresses the Draft Plan, and not the EIR.
~q1o
-1.
STATE OF CAUFORN....
o
o
Ei-, VI C(,)11
CAUFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SANTA ANA REGION
8809 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE 200
RIVERSIDE. CAUFORNIA 92508
PHONE: (7141782.4130
GEORGE OEUKME.JIAN. Gov.mo,
s
f~
.... ..
,,' ......
:-"-'
!." ;
May 5, 1989
. , .~, ....
~"'.'" ...
.:' ~:"",!
Vincent Bautista, Principal Planner
San Bernardino City Planninq Department
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN, SCH .89021308
Dear Mr. Bautista:
',We have reviewed the above-referenced report and have the following
comments.
The Draft EIR has indicated that impacts on water supply and
wastewater service will be monitored on a project-by-project basis.
We aqree that impacts on these services should be analyzed early
in the planninq staqes of a project and encouraqe developers to
work with the appropriate aqencies to mitigate any potential
adverse impacts. The City should also continue to work with the
County in developinq a solid waste manaqement plan which benefits
all concerned.
With the tremendous qrowth in population expected in the area
within the next several years, the above stated areas of concern
will be of critical importance, not only to the City of San
Bernardino, but the entire county as well.
We look forward to reviewing any future CEQA documents related to
this or any project within the City.
If you should have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,....,
c/ ~., /
~/1t~, ..... /?,,,~./7
Gary.~eq r, E~;ironme~tal
Requlations Section
Specialist II
cc: John Keene, State Clearinqhouse wISCH form
GLK/2750SBGP.EIR
~'i
o
o
JJ
Response to Comments from: California Regional Water Ouality Control Board (dated
May 5. 1989)
Sl Comment acknowledged.
"\QQ
_ J
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
COMMENTS
POLICE
o
./fi) ~
IF.
'4:.:
c/i 1/ t C C'YJ ,
o
" -
T
~":""
/...,
} i':'
." ;://
,
I,',
'"
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
PAGE 4-137
"".
..
.......
./
The third paragraph cites 1987 population figures, these can now be updated.
January 1988 figures supplied by the Department of Finance, State of Calif-
ornia lists the population as 148,370. This change in population has caused
the sworn officer to population ratio to change from 1.7 to 1.64.
This same paragraph cites the 1.7 per thousand sworn officer ratio as
being "nationally acceptable". In a recently completed study done by
the San 8ernardino Police Department, this method of determining field
officer complement has been cited as antiquated and inaccuarate. This
method assumes that all cities share the same demographics, crime rates,
calls for service, wants and needs. The study insteads basis field
personnel requirements by work load. Officer time is broken into two
categories, structured and unstructured. According to The California
Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training unstructured time,
the time allowed for crime prevention, should equal 33%. A recent study ~
completed in Los Angeles states, unstructured time should equal at least
forty per cent. The Police Department's study determined that currently
our officers only have 9.67% unstructured time, far below the minimum set
by the State of California. With the assistance of the University of
California, San 8ernardino a formula was created to determine the number
of personnel required to reach various percentages of unstructured time.
In order to reach the minimum set by the state would require that the
department hire twenty-three additional field personnel.
The Police Department has presented this study to the Mayor and Common
Council with the recommendation that it be utilized for setting field
personnel levels within the department.
PAGE 4-138 (CITY MAP)
Two community offices (indicated by a fi11.ed.circle) should be removed
from the map;
#1 Foothill and Meridian
#2 Lytle Creek Park (Mill Street east of Mt. Vernon Avenue)
3
Add one new community office: Mt. Vernon Avenue and Mill Street
A short statement should be added to the map as follows:
The number and locations of community offices may be varied
in the future to meet changes in population and the needs of
the community.
., ... '"
o
o
Response to Comments from: City of San Bernardino Police Department (no date)
T1 During the preparation of the Technical Background Report, 1987 was determined
to be the year for which all "existing conditions" data was to be collected. All
"existing conditions" sections in the EIR refer to 1987 conditions. Background in-
formation will not be updated at this time.
1'2 References to the 1.7 officers-ta-population ratio as a City Police Department plan-
ning tool will be removed from the text. Instead, the information provided here
will be incorporated. Please refer to response to comment N139 and N140.
T3 For the reason described in Tl, this updated information will not be inserted into
the Final EIR.
--.
o
":::=111/1 <07/1
:>FFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
_ TlNTH snm
ACRAMlNTO. c:A 95114
.. ,...
TA Tf a c:AlIfOIlNlA-oFFICE OF THE GOYfllNOll
o
U
OEOfIQf DEuICMEJ'AN. ao-,
Nay 12. 1989
00 rn@rnnwrnill
MAY 131989
@
~Ir. Vincent Bautista
City of san Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA 92418
Subject: City of San Bernardino General
SCH# 89021308
em ilANNlt(C G,E?A:rrMENT
SAN fSffWU)lND, C.1
Plan EIR
Dear Mr. Bautista:
.
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed
and the COllllents fran the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. QJ the enclosed
~Iotice of COmpletion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the
agencies that have ...",...""nted. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that
your comment package is complete. If the cCX1ll1ent package is not in order, please
notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's
eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond Pranptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Pubiic Resources COde requires
that:
'"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive
comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are
within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be
carried out or apProved by the agency. '"
Comnenting agencies are also required by this section to support their <:amlents with
specific documentation.
These CO'..."".lts are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you
need more information or Clarification, we recO".....nd that you contact the camenting
agency ( ies) .
-.... ...,......
This letter acknowledges that you have canpliid with the State Clearinghouse revie-II
requirements for draft environmental-documents, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act. Please contact John Keene at 916/445-0613 if you hav3
any q.Jestions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
(I/r/-./~
~"'Y V--
David C. ~enkamp .
Chiefi
Office of Permit Assistance
~
-
Enclosures
CC: Resources Agency
.._~
.
o
o
The ae..ure.. Agency
. Stat ~ 01 California
^i e m 0 ran dum
"- II'R 7 1989
,,, 1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary for Resources
2. Ci ty of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bemardino, CA 92418
Attention: Vincent Bautista
From Deportment" Wo... 1_
Los Angeles, CA 90055
Subject, DElR for City of San Bemardino, General Plan EIR, SCH 89021308
,
,
Your subject dOCUllent has been reviewed by our Department of Water Resources
staff. Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damage
prevention, are attached.
r,
After reviewing your report, we also would like to recommend that you further .i-
consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses
requiring high quality water supplies.
For further information, you mBy wish to contact John Pariewski at
(213) 620-3951. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
report.
Sincerely,
c f.L;R td~
Charles R. White, Chief
Planning Branch
Southem District
Attachments
~'l'-' ,.
~_.
.'
o
o
"
,.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER- RECLAMATION
To reduce water demand. implement the water conservation measures described
here.
Require"
The following State laws require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in
stz:uctures:
I ._.
"After January 1. 1983. all new bUildings constructed in this state
shall use water closets and associated flushOlleter valves. if any. which
are water-conservation water closets as defined by American National
Standards Institute Standard AI12.19.2. and urinals and associ~ted
flushometer valves. if any. that use less than an average of 1-1/2
gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer
valves are exempt from the requirements of this section."
!
I
I
I
I
!
o Health and Safety Code Section 1792l.~ requires lOW-flush toilets and
urinals in virtually all buildings as follows:
o Title 20. California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) (Appliance
Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that give the IJ
aaxillUll flow rate of all new showerheads. lavato.ry faucets. and sink .L../
faucets. as specified in the standard approved by the American National
Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI
A112.18.1M-1979.
o Title 20. California Administrative Code Section 1606(b) (Appliance
Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply
with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in
California that :is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance
with the provisions oC the regulations establishing applicable
effiCiency standards.
o Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-'B07(br
California Enp.r Conservation Standards for New Buildin s prohibits
the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to
the CEC compl,iance with the flow rat~'nllndards.
o Title 24. California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(i) and (j)
address pipe insulation requirements. which can reduce water used before
hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to
steam and steam-condensate return piping and reCirculating hot water
Piping'in attics. garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than
between floors or in interior walls. Insulation of water-heating
systems is also required.
~
""
~... (
",'.c.
~,
..:..,
'10'"
o
o
"
o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of
residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain
conditions are satisfied, Included is the requirement that. in IDOst
instance.. 'the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by
water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned
water.
o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public
tacilities constructed after January 1. 1985. be 'equipped with
self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water.
To be Implemented where applicable
Interior:
-
,
1.
Supply line pressure:
inch (pSi) be reduced
valve.
Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square
to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing
2.
Drinkin~ fountains:
valves.
Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing
3. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms..
Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/Shower.
4. Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used.
5. Restaurants: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray
eaitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be
served upon reques t only..
'6. Ultra-low-flush toilets: 1-1/2-gallon per flush toilets be installed in
all new construction. _
Exterior:.
1.
Landscape with low water-using plants wherever feasible.
2.
Minimize use of'laWn by limiting it t~.tawn-dependent uses. such as
playing fields. When lawn is used. require warm season grasses.
3.
4.
Group plants of ,similar water use to reduce overirrigation of
low-water-using plants.
Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of.low-water-using
landscaping and sources of additional aSsistance.
*The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in
developing these materials or providing other information.
\
.2-
I
,
!
I
i
,
,
I
I
i
I
I
...--
e
o
5. Use aulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of
soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are
often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water
needed to establish replacement vegetation.
7. Install efficient irrigat.ion systems that minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize the water that will, reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation. soil moisture sensors. and automatic irrigation systems
are a few methods of increasing irrigation effiCiency.
. '.
8. Use-pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and to aid in ground water rechargp-.
9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
10. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water. stored
rainwater. or grey water for irrigation.
11. Encourage cluster development. which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious
paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation
of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids gt'ound water
recharge.
13. To aid in ground water recharge. preserve flood plains and aquifer
recharge areas as open space.
...,..--
,
.
i
\
,
,
,
,.
I
I
J-.
-~
,
I
I
!
I
I
'21'\1-
o
o
.'
"
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
In flood-p~ne areas. flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
p~posed development should be based on the following guidelines:
1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground
water should be aitigated.
2. All building structures should be protected against a lOO-year flood.
3. In t.'lose areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood
Boundary and Floodway ~Iap. 'issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the lOO-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the
Envi~nmental Impact Rep~rt.,
Ii.
. ,
At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a l00-year flood.
5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, espeCially for hillside
developments.
6. Revegetation of disturbed or newly constructed slopes should be done as
soon as possible (utilizing native or low-water-using plant material).
7. The potential d_cge to the proPOlled developllen't by mud flow should be
assessed and mitigated as required,
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
''',..~
,
~
'. n
< "
,
(
I
I
'\
\
\
I ;2...;
I ;
! -.
,
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
.,....'"
SlATE Of CALlFOINIA-au5INESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
o
o
,
-'
r-. ,. C'.
GEOItGE DEUlMEJIAN. Go...".".
(', I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
D1STI'CT e. P.O. lOX 231
SAN IfIN"IDINO. CA 92402
TOO (710) 3I~
May 3, 19S9
oS-SBd-Var-Var
SCH 'S962130S
Mr. Vincent Bautista
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 9241S
Dear Mr. Bautista:
We have received both the General Plan for the ,City of
San Bernardino and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
General Plan and have the following comments concerning the
circulation element of these documents.
The first area of concern is the traffic study on which both of
these documents were based. We can not fully analyze this
General Plan until the following points are clarified and/or
corrected:
o On Table 11, it would be helpful to have a list of the
assumptions used so that a more complete analysis can
be performed.
o On Table 13, the percentages appear to have been ,
miscalculated and it is unclear where the 1.6 million
retail trips have been generated from.
"0
o Total bui1d~out of Regional statistical Area 29 is
stated as 7.1 million trips which is more than all of
Orange County at present. This seems improbable and we
would like to see clarification of how this was
calculated.
On Page '4-100 of the Dra~t Environmental Impact Report,
the future volumes for Interstates 10 and 215 are less
than current Caltrans counts.
o
~.
~
\
\
I
I
I
I
I~
I .....I
I
\
I
Throughout both documents the words -trip end" and
-trip" are used interchangeably which is incorrect.
This may have falsely inflated the total number of
trips.
Table 13 adds the different land use types which~~e
counts the trips that are made between diffifr. ~>tin~~
uses. , .Ii
:1/ 'T'~ ~
. ![ ~)' "~~
t 1.(-<':. ,.r~' (t'b
I ~." ""1- .GJpA
", c:'~ V
'~>>.>: '<Ii' J3oi'
"" (. ..,. ,........ "/
'':,'II'"'~:''' '.~;...
o
o
o
Mr. Vincent Bautista
Page 2
May 3, 1989
o On page 3.2.1 of the Land Use Alternatives, the segment
of Interstate 10 west of Interstate 215 will not be
ade~ate and will require 10 lanes. The segment of
Interstate 215 north of the proposed Route 30
Interchange should be 4 existing and will require 8
lanes in the year 2010.
The development of facilities for the State Highway System and
local roads in San Bernardino City are critical. to the Success of
the circulation el_ent' of this General Plan. In response to
these facilities we have the following comments:
o
The General Plan shall identify truck routes which
shall have 50 foot curb radius at ramp entrances and
interchanges.
All bus routes should re~ire turnouts and minimum 30-
foot curb radius with prOhibition of parking.
o'
o
Each project along Interstates-10' and 215 should
land dedication for future eXPansion and if
residential, there should be noise attenuation.
have
o
A Ramp Metering Policy for interchanges in the City
should be formed and closely coordinated with the
Department of Transportation.
o
I
i
The adopted routing for Route 18 between Route 30 and i
Waterman Canyon Road shall be reflected in the General I
Plan as per Division 1, Chapter 1, Article 2, of the
Streets and Highways Code of the California
Transportation Commission.
o
Route 66 should-be developed as a possible 6-lane
facility with restricted..parking.
, '. .
i
!
ramps
Route 330 should have no access points other than
or interChanges.
In addition to facility management, a circulation element must
contain strategi~s in. reference to demand mitigations and
jOb/housing ratio to be effective. In reference to Demand
Mana~ement strategies we have the following comments:
o
.
,"
I .
i.:
\".;
. .
,
. .
\:-:.~~.~~ ~ ~.
'.. Y&'b?
;;. (P
.:~^
- \'.
13
I
\
\
\
. "
'.'
','
.,_Cl
o
o
Mr. Vincent Bautista
Page 3
May 3, 1989
o Page 4-111 of the General Plan, mentions a
Transportation Management Demand System which is a term
we are not familiar with. If this is a corollary to a
Transportation System Management (TSM) plan, we concur
with that policy because it will efficiently manage
large concentrations of traffic.
o Page 4-94 of the General Plan states that bike trails
are an important part of the city; however, the Draft
Environmental Impact Report totally discounts their
effect. We would like clarification of how the City
. will use bike trails.
The General Plan states the importance of transit in
Policies 6.4.9, 6.4.10, and 6.4.11, which is contrary
to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan fails
to consider transit in the overall circulation plan of
the city. These inconsistencies should be corrected.
o All transport of hazardous waste in Policy 6.3.5 of the
General Plan should be made during off peak hours and
each carrier should have a plan in case of spillage.
o
3
o Neither document states any specific policy on
ridesharing or demand reduction.
o Both documents omit any analysis of how developers will
participate in the funding of Park and Ride lots.
o Given the large volume of traffic being generated, it
will be necessary to examine which arterials will be
updated to the status of alternate corridors to relieve
congestion.and/or_reliance on the State highway.
As mentioned earlier, demand management'will be an important part
of the Circulation Plan, in addition facilities management which
will effectively manage the traffic in the city.
.
~In
. -'
o
o
Mr. Vincent Bautista
Page 4
May 3, 1989
Each jurisdiction should effectively manage/reduce traffic
generated. Another aspect of demand strategy is job/housing
balance. We would like to see some analysis of jobs created in
the city in relation to those who commute. In addition, it would
be beneficial if an analysis of the interrelationship between the
Economic Development Element and Circulation were included.
.
This last section will pertain to funding mechanisms for
transportation facilities:
o' If policies such as 6.1.11 and 6.1.14 in the General
Plan are needed to maintain an acceptable Level of
Service, then why does the Draft Environmental Impact
Report state how unattainable they are? If this is
true, the City should adopt a policy to fund the
maintenance an acceptable Level of Service.
o Policies 6.1.3 and Implementation 16.3 shall include
State highways with local streets and roads.
o All new development that significantly effects traffic
should be reviewed by the City as stated in Policy
6.2.7 of the General Plan. caltrans shall also review
all developments that have a significant effect on
traffic.
We have appreciated the opportunity to review the General Plan of
San Bernardino City and look forward to future Dommunication.
If you have any questions, please call Richard Malacoff at
383-4550.
Very truly yours,
'..
Dri&1lIa1 Signed by' "'ar..ey Sayyer
~,...
,
HARVEY SAWYER
Chief, Transportation Planning
Branch B
RM:ldb
cc: G Smith, DOTP
.J Keen, State Clearinghouse
.
\5
\
I
- -
o
o
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN. Gcnemor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
50' VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94}07
April 4, 1989
Vincent Bautista
City of San Bernadino
300 North D Street
San Bernadino, CA 92418
Subject: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Response
to Draft EIR for City of San Bernadino General Plan
(SCH# 89021308)
Dear Mr. Bauti~ta,
.
The California Public utilities Commission's staff has reviewed
the Draft EIR for the above-mentioned project.
Please note that if altering at-grade crossings of rail tracks
requires authorization of the CPUC. In addition, the CPUC
requires that control of signalized intersections within 200 feet
of railroad track crossings be pre-empted by train traffic.
Please call Roy Lathrop (415-557-1429) if you have any questions
about this comment.
Sincerely,
,~~~~.4~~~
/Geo~g~e ~:)Sh
Environ tal Program Manager
Environmental Section
Commission Advisory and Compliance Division
cc: State Clearinghouse
...,...
,
,-_.","\~-~.j!: .,-
i,. " '_,
. , A
'.' 1/" ~
. . ,':Cfivr-
;,tlt 1 ...lJ
., lOOn
'... oJr"r/. ." .
I.Ilt.;o;.'" .
'.
6l<f,h
\-I:..:{,")
4-
'2,.
. -..
-.
o
.0
STATI 01 CAUfOll_
GlOlIGI DEUltMUAN. G__
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARO
SANTA ANA REGION .
1809 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE 200
'EIISIDE. CALIFORNIA 82508
.ONE: 17141782-4130
@
. ",. ;
. . ..>
.......
May 5, 1989
Vincent Bautista, Principal Planner
San Bernardino City Planning Department
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL nmACT 'RBPORT (BIR). FOR THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO GENBRAL PLAN, SCH 189021308
Dear Hr. Bautista:
We have reviewed the above-referenced report and have. the following
comments.
The Draft BIR has indicated that iIIIpacts on water supply and
wast_ater service will be IIIOnitored on a project-by-project basis.
We agree that iIIIpacts on these services should be analyzed early
in the planning stages of a project and-encourage developers to
work with the appropriate agencies to lllitigate any potential
adverse impacts. The City should also continue to work with the
County in developing a solid waste management plan which benefits
all concerned.
r-
":)
With the tremendous growth in population expected in the area
within the next several years, the above stated areas of concern
will be of critical iIIIportance, not only to the City of San
Bernardino, but the entire county as well.
We look forward to revi_ing any future CBQA documents related to
this or any project within the City. j
\
If you should have any questions, please contact me.
-".... .
,
Sincerely, .... ;/'
Arz~~/ --q?-e~/?
Gary KrGeg~~ironmental Specialist II
Regulations Section
cc: John Keene, State Clearinghouse wiSCH form
GLK/27S0SBGP.BIR
]13
e
o
Response to Comments from: State Office of Planning and Research (dated May 12,
1989)
U1 Comment acknowledged.
U2 See Comment B and associated responses.
U3 See Comment Q and associated responses.
U4 In response to comments from the California Public Utilities Commission:
Comment acknowledged. Information concerning the crossings of roadways and
rail lines will be considered on an individual basis with proposal of roadway im-
provements.
US In response to comments from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board:
Comment acknowledged.
~JU
llil
TRANSPORTA TION/FLOOhCONTROL
DEPARTMEN'-
.... TNnI__ . 1M __..... CA "",-0131 . .7141.,,-
~~Qf~
_.; tal '*_
--s.Y ~
7?f~/I'\\'~
May 11,
COUNTY 0' IAN IIiIlNAllOINO
IJMllONMIHTAL
PUIUC WOIlIlI MINCY
KEN A. MILLIII
~
1989
v
city ot San Bernudino
Planninq Department
300 North "D" street
San Bernardino, CA '2418-0001
Attention: c Iraes L. lUger
File: 8CCTYl-12.03
0011,(;:-:.00-:: ~
." -. .,
~ '.... .... "
r. __'
...
MAY 1. 5 1989
C'l-"" ......... ,'- "'E'''T
II n.:.........;. ..Hili 1'1
S'" C"'... "J CA
fUll &=.......l.........
~J
Dear Mr. ~r:
Re: Draft E.I.R. for
City General Plan
Reference i. llUlde to your letter of tranelllittal d.ated March 27,
1989 with accompanyinq Draft E.I.R., and technical Background
Report for the City'S Draft General Plan, requestinq the District's
review and cOllllllen1:s. .
We note that exi.ting tlood.inq potential i. acknowledged by
.~~.ptance ot gAle flood elevation trom the rederal Emerqency
Mana~elllent Aqency Flood Rate Insurance Napa. Aoco~1nq to the
E.I.R., tuture storlll drains are to tollow the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District'. COlllprehensiv. Storm Drain Plans
which apply. The.e plans are guideline. which lIlust be updateci by
current bydrology .tucu... tor tho a&"oa ot concern, anei the _tom
drain size. upgraded a. nec...ary.
Should you have any further questions concerning this llUltter,
ple..e te.l tree to contact Jay J. Johnson of this oftice, or
myself at (714) 387-2515.
''I. .
Very truly yours,
LyQ~ ~iof
Water R..OU~~ Divi.ion
..~ .~ ~":.,;,";~
- :':' IDG:JJJ: alm
..,~~~~;'~.,;J,-."-,_. :.
~~~');.. .~~. ,,;., '
, .... . :~..-~.~;r ~'F-""'-;'~:;' ..:",,~.. -=-~_..,
. - ....:.. ':_'~-'.......~. ~:~: .;:'.;;:~..t.~ii.;;~-;:! . ~~ :~~~,,.2 -:',...
. -"
"::all:5' . ' ,~
.~ .
. .'", 't
.
o
G
Response to Comments from: San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood Control
Department (dated May 11, 1989)
VI This comment discusses the future planning process with respect to flood control
considerations. Comment acknowledged.
~IIA
o
o
The following changes are being made to the text in response to oral comments and
direction provided by the City of San Bernardino Planning Department:
Page 5-1. The first sentence in the project description will be amended to read as fol-
lows: 'The Draft Plan contains each of the seven elements required by State law: Land
Use, Housing. Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise and Safety. In addition,
six permission elements have been prepared to reflect specific issues and objectives of
the City: "
Page 5-8. The first sentence in the first complete paragraph on that page will be amend-
ed to read as follows: "For the purposes of evaluating the cumulative environmental
impacts of the Draft Plan and adjacent regional growth, future conditions were forecast
and are referred to as the 2010 projected growth scenario."
Table 3. Changes to Table 3 will be made as appropriate to summarize any substantial
changes that have been made to the text of the EIR through the public review period.
Page 3-1. The second and third sentences on the page will be amended to read as fol-
lows: "The City is generally bordered by the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains
on the north, Cajon Creek Wash on the northwest and the Santa Ana River on the south.
The eastern boundary follows irregular City limits shared with the adjacent cities of
Highland, Red1ands and to the south, Lorna Linda."
Page 4-30. The last sentence of the first complete paragraph on the page will be amend-
ed to read as follows: "Light industries such as research and development have, large-
ly, been isolated to the Tri-City Commercenter areas in the south along the Interstate
210 corridor." The next paragraph will begin: "Streets and rights-of-way constitute the
second largest use of developed land in the planning area occupying 5,694 acres (23.4
percent) of the land area. Public and quasi-public uses occupy 3,627 acres: or 14.9
percent of the area.
co
c
o
Page 4-31. The following sentence will be removed from the text: "Streets and rights-
of-way constitute the second largest user of land in the planning area occupying 5,694
acres or 23.4 percent of the area."
Page 4-35, Item 7. The first sentence will be amended to read: "A number of older dis-
tricts of the City have experienced the replacement of existing development with higher
density and intensity of uses."
Page 4-35, Item 11. The reference to the Interstate 210 Freeway will be changed to refer-
ence the Interstate 10 Freeway.
Page 4-35, Item 12 will be referenced as follows: "Most of the City's commercial dis-
tricts and corridors are designed for vehicular traffic and do not provide for or induce
pedestrian activity."
Page 4-36, Item 13. The last sentence will be amended to read as follows: '1iowever,
recent federal decisions indicate that the facility will be closed and the future use of this
significant property will have to be determined."
Although no comments were received in writin~ from SCAG. oral comments were re-
layed. Information follows in response:
JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE
In 1987, the planning area had a jobs-to-households ratio of 0.46 (based on 35,950 jobs
and 78,102 households). As a consequence, there is a considerable out-migration of resi-
dents to employment in other communities, increasing vehicular trips and adversely
impacting air quality. This ratio compares unfavorably with the Southern California
Association of Governments' regional standard of 1.2 and San Bernardino Valley stan-
dard of 1.1.
~,Q.
1
o
o
Implementation of the Plan, on full buildout of the Land Use Plan, would result in a
jobs-to-households ratio of 1.59 (166,199 jobs and 104,130 households). As a conse-
quence, the City will be importing employees from adjacent communities, continuing to
impact regional vehicular trips and air quality. These impacts are discussed in the Cir-
culation and Air Quality sections of this EIR.
2.Q
.~
r--
i
~
~
"-,'--I'
( ,
....,. .'
~"'..
..- ....l4
......,..
.;-"'i.~-..,
-
~
<( . MIs--, ~..
.. C>>nllSNy . I
~ , ~.
;.)~ @ , ...
"0 .. @... I .
..... .. ~
~'" ...
-..... ::t J
0 .. @ ~ <ill 1/
!:! .. ..
~ , --
...... I .,
~.......~ .. ... @ ii
. !! !! .. @
....,..~ i.
.. ~ 31 @ ,$I ,.
@ !l! @
, ~
,
@ ... co @ @ I "
!l! ..
---- i
@ !--.I ~ @ i
@ ~
0 2 ..
ri! ..
"l
<> ..
~ :I
~
. ,
.
.
~ ..,', -,
~ Cl ..
g .. ~ W
@ S! ... @, ; I'r"""
"l ~
"l ~ ~-;,....~~
-," ., rr_/ r i 'f
.. II) Cl .,.....
!? @- ~ I
.. ;;
- i "
lID J
5 .
.
iii .
i
.
.~
....
c,,;
...\~
"'1
'.~
:-;.: :_~
,..... .
~~. ,~
"'~.,~.;
. or_:;.
-~. ,',
.'...-.'....:
.-
"-.
j
.....'
I
i
~
:i:
)
<'j
~
i""'~_~_
,...,.
," !'-",
v-9~
$'/:i?"I/4'..9
IT~-J.
.'~ ~..~, .l:.--i:-'.'--~":'~r~~~f-""~',~ -J i, ~.:......~~~-.W- .;:::.JT:....:.--~:.f-;-.:-...;.~~:--:r.-r: -~-~_.:'1i':'.""Fw._-;;i.
c
"".
.. -'!'
~-~~!!IlIS:l1l1::;:'
~....tt,~~!l1ilIS:~~;'~:...
.......;.
PIN.. _ down / J CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Date 2:/ ().. ...i:,L8 9 SAN BERNARDINO. CA
Name :r6..,tut SAt ~ ~ ?J Ar Phonetl3 -1/15- / b Y. / .
Mailing Address 02LL)S fftL,vt AVE. &J. "'11ieR, OJ.. Zip 9 tP6 oj
ReQUestlCommentsJl.ow ~A ~It . VII' ~. ',cfw hAAOrJl/>-h fIrM ~tV\..".~ ,# If .
Cl.. LJ IJlTr ~
<II ~ ~ f-~~' tA1 hi /9~7 oJ hJEI b, 11 ~ ~ tU Mf-~~
rrN tJ.J ~~ tMt"~. jJ. W j}J J-~Jru.U z ~. 9' U,tft"4
- ,rf'/;M . f:; M./ ~JMi-
Location of Property or Area of Concern (p (! Or }J e r tJ /0
JJ B FilUJ R..
",1""'1
"". v'~"".
~Y..- .---...-/>
,":......~~...;t:
.It ~-:-c",~-"":-'.
-,-......-=-~- ~,,-
1II ( ... .-.:..' :C., ,"
',..~ _L~~..."J~,.J).~'
~ ~"."'!"..~..1.,...
0" . __~.J~' ...
.... ---= .
.y.. .a;~,;,-,-:-;-..... :;;.~
,';." ";jill';;;;"" W
""'i"---:--'- ' "'-"-~~
.J,,~...\~Y
CITY OF SAN BE '~l..a A 7ATTAC~~ U
. .,Hlr-1>.f1U'".. "'"
GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM
o rnoornu,m
AUDIT TRAIL
APR 281989
STAFF ONLY BELOW THIS UNE
Existing IPD Designation
Proposed General Plan Designation
Existing Land Use
Existing Zoning
By
Comments
Date of Action
PC
MCC
Action
Comments
,7toOOl cs.-.
. =-:...
.,
~
f
.::;
~