HomeMy WebLinkAbout03- Planning & Building Services r+
CITY OF SAN BERNP%RDINO - REQUEST I-JR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey , Director Subject: Development Agreement No . 91-01 ,
Inland Center Mali Expansion
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date: April 27 , 1993 Mayor & Common Council meeting of 5/ 10/9
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
April 19 , 1993 -- The Mayor and Common Council continued Development
Agreement No . 91-01 to May 10 , 1993 at the request
of the applicant .
93 r Z
8 i 2 0
Recommended motion:
That the public hearing be continued to May 24 , 1993 .
oza,,, �g -
Al Bo ghe ature
Contact person: Al B o u g h e y Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Ward: 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
ouncil Notes
42O
V
3
75-0262 Aaenda Item Nn 3
CITY OF SAN BERDINO - REQUEST i JR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey , Director Subject: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO . 91-01
INLAND CENTER MALL EXPANSION
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
Date: April 9 , 1993 of April 19 , 1993
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
The Mayor and Common Council received public input and continued
Development Agreement No . 91-01 to November 2 , 1992 for staff to
respond to the comments .
9 L3 1 1
11/02192 -- The Mayor and Common Council , at the request of the applicant ,
continued Development Agreement No . 91-01 to December 7 , 1992 .
12/07/92 -- The Mayor and Common Council continued Development Agreement
No . 91-01 to January 11 , 1993 .
01 / 11 /93 -- The Mayor and Common Council continued Development Agreement
No . 91-01 to April 19 , 1993 .
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted .
(Note : There have been no changes to the
Signature
previously distributed staff report dated 11 /30/92 . ) Al Boughey
Contact person: Al R g h Phone: x 5 3 5 7
Supporting data attached: Staff Report , Resolution ward: 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
,� Aaenda Item No_ ��
r
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING
3 THE MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-01 (INLAND CENTER MALL
4 EXPANSION) .
5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
6 SECTION 1. Recitals
7 (a) Development Agreement No. 91-01 was considered by the
8 Planning Commission on September 8, 1992 after a noticed public
9 hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval
10 has been considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
11 (b) An Initial Study was prepared on March 19, 1992 and
12 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning
13 Commission who both determined that Development Agreement No. 91-01
14 would not have a significant effect on the environment and
15 therefore, recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be
16 adopted.
17
(c) The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration received a 30
18 day public review period from March 24 , 1992 to April 23 , 1992 and
19 all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning
20 Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the
21 California Environmental Quality Act and local regulations.
22 (d) The proposed Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program was
23 reviewed by the Planning Commission and Mayor and Common Council in
24 compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and local
25 regulations.
26
27
28
1
1 (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
2 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed Development
3 Agreement No. 91-01 on October 19, 1992 .
4 (f) The adoption of Development Agreement No. 91-01 is deemed
5 in the interest of the orderly development of the City and is
6 consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the existing
7 General Plan.
8 SECTION 2 . Negative Declaration
9 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
10 Mayor and Common Council that the proposed Development Agreement
11 will have no significant effect on the environment, and the
12 Mitigated Negative Declaration heretofore prepared by the
13 Environmental Review committee as to the effect of this proposed
14 Agreement is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
15 SECTION 3 . Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
16 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that
17 the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program is hereby ratified,
18 affirmed and adopted.
19 SECTION 4 . Findings
20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the
21 City of San Bernardino that:
22 A. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the
23 goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
24 B. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the
25 Development Code.
26 C. The proposed Development Agreement will promote the
27 welfare and public interest of the City.
28 ////
2
I SECTION 5. Development Agreement
2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
3 A. Development Agreement No. 91-01 will govern the
4 development of the Inland Center Mall as specifically described in
5 the Development Agreement labeled Attachment 1, a copy of which is
6 attached and incorporated herein by reference.
7 B. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute on
8 behalf of said City, Development Agreement No. 91-01.
9 C. The authorization to execute the above referenced
10 agreement is rescinded if the parties to the agreement fail to
11 execute it within sixty (60) days of the passage of this
12 resolution.
13 D. Development Agreement No. 91-01 shall be effective
14 immediately upon adoption and execution of this resolution.
15 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination
16 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
17 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
18 certifying the City's compliance with the California Environmental
19 Quality Act in preparing the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
20 SECTION 7 . Recordation
21 The developer shall record the Development Agreement in the
22 Office of the County Recorder no later than ten (10) days after it
23 is executed by the parties.
24
25
26
27
28
3
1 RESOLUTION. . . ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION
2 MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-01 (INLAND CENTER MALL EXPANSION) .
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
5 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the
6 day of
1992 , by the following vote, to
7 wit:
8 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
9 ESTRADA
10 REILLY
11 HERNANDEZ
12 MAUDSLEY
13 MINOR
14 POPE-LUDLAM
15 MILLER
16
17 City Clerk
18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day
19 of , 1992.
20
21 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
22 Approved as to
23 form and legal content:
24 JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
25 By
26
27
28
4
GRE AM, VARNER, SAVAGE,
NOLAN & TILDEN
IAW OFIACI:S
ALL I.N B.GRL'SHAM CRAIG O DOBLER OOD N01Ti'll AI7ROM'HEAD AVENUE.. STATE 300
BRUCE D VANNER DARYL H-(ANI.SON W1111.U! OUTB HI 1.(1889.1647)
PHILIP M.SAVAGE.III kICH.A RD D.MAHCA SAN I3ER NA I2 D1N0. CAI.I I'O RNIA n'ti401 DONALD K.JOHIIAN(I{)07-IHBp'
'I'll]
Oil"* C.NOIAN PATRICK G.MITCB ELL JOHN ALD W..RGAN(RETIRED 1D781
M.WILLIAM TILDEN' MICHAEL O.WOLF (714) flfi•1-2171 (714) 824-11(311
JAMES E.GOOD JAY C.EOF.NES
NAMES A OSTOICH PENELOPE ALEXANDER TELFCOMYR (714) 688-2120 RIVERSIDE OFFICE
THOMAS N.JACOBSON TARA REILLY WIRTZ 3737 MAIN STREET,SUITE 800
01
STEPHAN O.SALESON JAMES R.BAXTER RIVERSIDE,CA LIPORNIA (Y23
ROBERT W.RITIER,JR. MICHAEL O.RAMSET
ROBIN BRAMLETT COCRP%N BRENDAN W.BRANDT TELEPHONE(714) NIA g 5
FRANK J.DELANY RONALD D.OETCRET
DUKE D.ROUSE SAUL JAFFE VICTORVILLE OPFICE
JOHN B.MCCAULEY DAVID P.RUTH 1400 PARE AVENUE.SGITF. 140
ERNEST E.RIFFENBC@GH
vICTORVILLE.CALIFORNIA ge3p2
BART W.BRIZZ LE
MICHAEL DAVIS June 1, 1993
I2Z TELL PHONE(Blpj 243.288p
HAND DELIVERED
The Honorable W. R. I Iolcomb and
Members of the Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re: Inland Center Mall Development Agreement
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Council Members:
Enclosed is a synopsis of the facts which support the use of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration in connection with the approval of the pending Inland Center Mall Development
Agreement. We hope it will be helpful in your consideration of the Development Agreement.
Very truly yours,
Mark A. Ostoich
of GRESHAM, VARNER, SAVAGE,
NOLAN & TILDEN
Enclosure
mao/pb
N1 W\SanBdno\CityLtrs\G 193-002
Ye: Inland Center Ma'^xpansion - Support for Use of Mitiga Negative Declaration
Hate: May 26, 1993
M
The test for whether a Negative Declaration provides adequate review under CEQA, is whether
the project may cause a significant environmental impact. If it is clear that no significant environmen-
tal impact could occur, after mitigation is taken into account, then the Initial Study and Mitigated Neg-
ative Declaration are appropriate. 14 CCR Sections 15070 and 15074. The City's Environmental Re-
view Committee concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was sufficient to provide adequate
information regarding the impacts of the Inland Center Mall expansion.
Public Notice: The public notice for the Mitigated Negative Declaration does comply with
CEQA. (See Attachment #1, November 20, 1992 Memo from Henry Empeno on this issue). The
draft Negative Declaration was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse to obtain comments from
State agencies. The necessary 30-day public review period has occurred. 14 CCR Section 15073. In
its November 30, 1992 staff report (Attachment #2), the City Planning staff has adequately responded
to the letter of the Carousel Mall Merchants Association (Attachment #3).
Traffic: Given the proposed traffic mitigation measures, traffic flow will actually improve in
the vicinity of the Inland Center Mall. Changes related to Interstate 215 modifications by CalTrans
have not been analyzed in the traffic study because, at this point, they are remote and speculative and,
therefore, were eliminated from further consideration as allowed under CEQA, 14 CCR Section 15145.
City staff has determined that, because this project's application and CEQA documents pre-date, by
months, the November, 1992 adoption of the Congestion Management Plan, that CMP does not apply
to this project.
Air Quality: Given the increased capture of customers that would normally shop out of the
area, net air emissions would actually be reduced, thereby avoiding significant air quality impacts.
Such air quality and traffic impacts are appropriately viewed in a regional, rather than site-specific,
context, i.e., the traffic and air impacts are merely being relocated, and not increased. Leonoff v.
Monterey County (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337.
Alternatives: An alternatives analysis is not necessary under CEQA, for an Initial Study and
Negative Declaration. That is because, under CEQA, an Initial Study does not need to contain the
same amount of information as a full-blown EIR. 14 CCR Section 15063.
City General Plan and Economic Impacts: The impact of economic development was ad-
dressed in the Inland Center Mall expansion Initial Study which was tiered to and incorporated by
reference information in the General Plan and General Plan EIR. (See page 15 of the Initial Study).
This tiering of the current project CEQA document with the City's General Plan is allowed under
CEQA, 14 CCR Section 15152.
Economic impacts to other stores would not occur, as the City General Plan and General Plan
EIR (1989), specifically envisioned the "intensification and upgrading of Central City and Inland
Center Malls, with new department and ancillary retail stores". (General Plan, page 1-23). The Gen-
eral Plan envisioned an additional 2.2 million square feet of development by the year 2010 at the City's
two malls (page 4-6). The Inland Center Mall expansion would only require 35% of that allocated
square footage. In addition, the Natelson Company, Inc. which prepared the economic analysis for the
City General Plan, conducted an updated analysis (November 25, 1992, see Attachment #4) which
concluded that: "There remains sufficient demand during the period through 2010 to support both the
Inland Center and Carousel Malls as projected in the General Plan market analysis. "
Seismic: A site-specific geotechnical study was prepared for the Mall expansion (September,
1991), which indicated any geologic impacts could be mitigated to below a level of significance.
PGM/kas MEMO/G19--MI/Di
yC; I `TY `1F SAN BERN - RDINO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Shauna Clark, City Administrator
FROM: Henry Empe6o Jr. , Deputy City Attorney
DATE: November 20, 1992
RE: Development Agreement 91-01 Inland Center
Hall Expansion, Mitigated Negative Declaration
We have been informed that a question has arisen as to whether the
above-referenced, pending Mitigated Negative Declaration is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
to the legal requirements regarding public notice and public
review. Currently, the Development Agreement and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration are on the agenda for the December 7, 1992
Mayor and Council Meeting at 2:00 p.m.
On November 9, 1992, The Sun, as requested by the City's Planning
Department, published—a Legal Notice (copy attached) announcing
the Continued Public Hearing of this project for the December 7,
1992 Mayor and Council Meeting. This Legal Notice also provided
public notice of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; the
30 day public review period during which time comments would be
received by the City on the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration; the date, time, and place of the next Council Meeting;
a brief description of the proposed project and its location; and
the address where copies of the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration are available for public review.
This Legal Notice sufficiently complies with CEQA requirements, in
particular, Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092; and
CEQA Guidelines at Title 14 California Code of Regulations,
Sections 15072 and 15073.
Therefore, we conclude that the pending Development Agreement and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Inland Center Mall
Expansion complies with state law regarding public notice and
public review.
.-•.
HENRY EMPENO, JR. ,
Deputy City Attorney
Attachment
cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney
Al Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services
HE:fa(ICM91_01.Mes)
Proot of Publicarion
FL 1: rye D nr
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO iVOU � i`,�,C •
Ci.
DEPART1ji,
NOTICE OF
CONTINUED PUaeIC i
NEARING SEFORE
TTrE .MAYOR AND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, s OAAMO aTY01
County of Stn &rnardine.
SAM aERNARDL
THE PUBLIC NEARING r
berore the Vtaror and
The undersigned hereby certifies as follows: common Caunclt of me
Chr of San cX"Aramo to
consider Oeveloomenr
I am a citizen of the United States• over the age of twenty-one years, and not a Aoreement No. 91-01 has
No-
party to nor interested in the above-entitled matter; I am the principal clerk of the °Mo Cont-rued. 02 to o fn
btr 1.printer of a newspaper, to wit, The Sun: the same was at all times herein mentioned a C unc,l 12,hamo"'ri. C ry
mall.700 No 'O' Sneer.
newspaper of general circulation printed and published daily,including Sunday,in the San rth tsernaroino,a 92414,
Cih Oevelooment AQreemenr of San Bernardino, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; said No.91-01 is a or000sar for
newspaper is so published everyday of the year as and under the name of The Sun,said the f eveloo exoa aeon
newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior �consisi�v ot o to i
Court of the State of California.in and for the County of San Bernardino,by a 'ud - nerna'dr ancndr lenanM
1 g "'a seax+d lever to the Mao
ment of sand Superior Court duly made, filed and entered on June 20, 1952, in the
and R �7n'1e°�aroK'�° so,r�ruecr:
records and files of said Superior Court in that certain proceeding entitled In the Slat- tv n an i`Ye9t1"''"'a°ad
Parcel of Iano conusnnq or
ter of the Ascertainment and Establishment of The Sun as a.News a of General Cir- about 62-5 acres located on
P Pa e+e sours swe of Imam
culation, numbered 3084 in the records of civil proceedings in said Superior Court <<* �* east Of 1-21s
and west of 'E' Sires.
and by judgment modifying the same,also made,filed and entered in said proceeding; Anna
the notice or other process or document hereinafter mentioned was set, printed and Stan RoeouCK a
RtOJCarrer male Stores-
published in type not smaller than nonpaml and was preceded with words printed in ia+aY Co. srorei
black face type not smaller than nonpareil describing and expressing in general terms *w". Im o`°�'!'
the purport or character of the notice intended to be given; and the War= 3
5t017C= ^° :.•^"T IJYD PUBLIC MRINVG Tc rmll Of mo Cryc of san
Isom-ordino wall+roe..MW
.... . .. . . . . .. ...... . .....I................ ................. . .......... Pro c? and cons-der Rr
Mirigatoo NOW-
DS:"= ME 2 7, 1992 GENERAL GROWPsi DEVELOP`�T`7'I', INC. .. `°°0aranon and M,ti_
MOni rbrinW R e"I_
. .. . . . . . . . .. .. .... .. . . . .... ... . ...... . ... .......................... P+ogram.n m"inq'Is
deCShc on RNf Or*Wa.
TTr MOYW and Camnwn
of which the annexed is a true printed copy,was published in ewh edition and issue of 9 1 at R+. en alt San
ardirq reavest ro-x
said newspaper of general circu!ation, and not in any supplement thereof,on each of partlr�oarion
frs MSSeOfa1 You Ye-*$-
the following dates, to wit: 4ometro Soeaa ar Ise
Cax+O rrmervq or a sub.-
Md written cdrww"on_
or to me he+rx+o. Trio 0e-
Yeloorment Agreement,
Mmgatod Negahve Oeca.
ration and Mrtigarion
NOVw46ER or 1992 �docvrnen�rs may
vita-o ar Ise Planning
and 9uiid ng Bar--0e-I
ppartmont, Mondar
' fi�aph Friday. 7.70 a17L
b tJ0 o.m. at 700 Noah.
-D- Sire". It Floor. San
t3ernardrno, CA. 92at�,
Sriano YOU ors" turTflar
A,,2 anon,0'0450 00 not
I eerti under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true atad correct. tlJnGa&a la cad "'w Plan-
fY Pe h' Pal Rgei g t>rng.nd nurlOing servicas
M41394-SO by 0110nif1g
mai na-wfl. _
you C%all
. ;.��„�-iS� r Dom•`,. Htant aC7iOnongeRy ma-for
9 NOVEMBER 92
and Y aSo*ct tn:of n
Executed on the day of ... .. . . 19 at aorwt. You maY Do nmrrea
a rersrq only rhos. suits
San Bernardino, in said County and State. You or someone also 9w.3
rased at Rte oVolc near-
kv drscibed n RNs no.
f%C1, or .fl wr-RM :Aire_
;aOr+OenCa ow-ered'o Rse
PPllaannning and 9uridi'q Ser-
vkws CeOWTment at. or
prlOr r!, the ouchc
JSOL4a1 heerv'q/J Oul 1615
CITY OF Y BERNARDINO - REQUEST 701 OUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Development Agreement No. 91-01
Inland Center Mall Expansion
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of December 7, 1992
REOUEST ND c�cATrON
The applicant/developer requests approval of a Development
Agreement (DA 91-01) to govern the development of a phased
expansion project at Inland Center Mall. The mall is located east
of the I-215 Freeway, south of Inland Center Drive and west of "E"
Street.
k&U-GBD-VWD
At their meeting of October 19, 1992 the Mayor and 'Common Council
continued this item to November 2, 1992 for staff to respond to
concerns raised at the meeting. The applicant requested a
continuance until December 7, 1992 to give staff and the
environmental consultant adequate time to respond to the concerns.
At the meeting of October 19, 1992 Marlene Fox, representing the
Carousel Mall Merchants Association, raised several concerns
pertaining to the review process, primarily focused on the
environmental determination. Her comments included a letter from
the Carousel Mall Merchants Association that she entered into the
record and additional verbal comments.
Staff responded to the general concerns raised by Ms. Fox
(Attachment 1) and Tom Dodson, Tom Dodson and Associates, the
environmental consultant for this project, responded to the
environmental concerns (Attachment 2) . Staff concurs with Mr.
Dodson's responses. Attachment 3 is a review of the General Plan
Market Study relative to the General Plan goals, objectives and
Policies and the Inland Center Mall expansion project. The
assessment was prepared by the Natelson Company, Inc. , the city's
economic consultant for the General Plan.
The staff report to'the Mayor and Common Council from their October
19, 1992 meeting (Attachment 4) is not being redistributed as part
of this report. A revised Development Agreement was received on
October 21, 1992 and is included as Attachment 5 of this report.
The revisions clarify the language in the agreement, as requested
by staff.
• DA 91-01
ICM Expansion 4
November 30, 1992
Page 2
X_.�INTS
The issues raised by Ms. Fox are summarized as follows:
- The environmental review process - the preparation of a
Negative Declaration vs. an EIR
- The public review/input process
- Economic impacts
- The key points relative to the Development Agreement were
identified and addressed in the October 19, 1992 staff
report to the Mayor and Common Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETFRMTNATT(�N
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study and
recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepared. The
proposed Negative Declaration was available for public review and
comment from March 24, 1992 through April 23 , 1992. It was also
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review since it met CEQA
criteria for potential regional significance. Comments were
received from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Bernardino County 'transportation/Flood Control, South Coast Air
Quality Management District and Caltrans, District 8 . The
responses to comments were distributed to the commenting agencies
and no further comments have been received. On June 18, 1992 the
ERC recommended adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
Program.
PL�tNING COMMTasTnN RECO Nn�TTnu
The Planning Commission considered DA 91-01 on September 8 , 1992
and September 22, 1992. They recommended adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring/
Reporting Program and approval of Development Agreement No. 91-01.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCILOPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may approve Development Agreement
No. 91-01 as presented.
2. The Mayor and Common council may continue Development
Agreement No. 91-01 to a date certain and direct staff to
prepare additional information.
�t1 y1-v1
ICM Expansion
November 30, 1992
Page 3
,STAFF RECOMMF.NriTarn►r
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution which adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopts
the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program and approves
Development Agreement No. 91-01.
Staff feels that the Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring/
Reporting Program addresses all of the environmental concerns and
that the public review process provided adequated opportunity for
public comment.
Attachments: 1 - Staff Responses to Comments raised at the
October 19, 1992 Mayor and Common Council
meeting
2 - Tom Dodson, Tom Dodson and Associates,
Responses to Comments raised at the October
19, 1992 Mayor and Common Council meeting
3 - Review of the General Plan Economic
Development Element Market Study, prepared by
The Natelson Company, Inc.
4 - Mayor and Common Council Staff Report dated
October 1, 1992 (this includes the
owner/applicant list, draft Development
Agreement dated September 24, 1992, Initial
Study and Environmental Comments and
Responses) and is not being redistributed
5 - Draft Development Agreement (dated October 21,
1992)
6 - Resolution
Prepared by:
Valerie C. Ross
Acting Principal Planner
for:
Al Boughey, AICP
Director
ATTACHMENT 1 S',-.F- RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RAI 'D AT THE OCTOBER
19, _-92 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL. MEETING
Ms. Fox stated that Planning and Building Services counter
staff told her that the department does not have any CEQA
guidelines.
The department has a CEQA pamphlet, posted in the lobby area,
that gives a general overview of the California Environmental
Quality Act. In addition, Resolution No. 90-217 (adopted June
4, 1990) adopted the California Environmental Quality Act and
established procedures for environmental review.
Ms. Fox questioned the lack of an EIR and the fact that the
Negative Declaration did not address alternatives nor provide
adequate opportunity for public input.
Staff concurs with Mr. Dodson's responses on both issues and
adds additional comment. Prior to formal submittal of an
application, staff met with the applicant several times to
clarify the proposed project and identify areas of concern.
Changes were incorporated into the project to minimize or
eliminate the areas of concern.
As Mr. Dodson noted in his responses, there were several
public meetings and public hearings pertaining to this
project. Development/Environmental Review Committee and
Planning Commission agendas are posted in the lobby on the
first floor of City Hall and at the Planning Division counter
on the third floor of City Hall.
The notices of public hearing before the Planning Commission
and Mayor and Common Council were published in the newspaper
10 days prior to both meetings (September 8, 1992 and October
19, 1992) . Notice was also mailed to the owner/applicant,
interested parties or agencies and all property owners within
500 feet of the project site. The process does not change
pertaining to public meetings and noticing for public hearings
based on the environmental determination.
We followed the public review/notification
Process
proposed Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. for The
opportunity for public input is not decreased when a Negative
Declaration is prepared instead of an EIR.
Ms. Fox noted that there were discrepancies between the
Development Agreement and the Initial Study.
Ms. Fox is correct in that there are differences between the
two documents. Staff requested several changes in the
Development Agreement after it was reviewed in conjunction
With the Initial Study. First drafts of the Development
Agreement included language (later deleted) that Areg
concessions on the part of the City pertaining to application
Off or compliance with, Development Code requirements. I
addition, many of the requested changes were to clarify the
language. The draft Development Agreement that was submitted
to the Mayor and Common Council was revised to include the
recommendations of the Planning Commission. The changes did
not affect the environmental determination.
Ms. Fox also questioned the different dates regarding
Initial Study. g the
Pursuant to the City's environmental procedures, a draft
Initial Study, including the environmental checklist, a
discussion of the impacts and proposed mitigation measures,
was distributed to the Environmental Review Committee prior to
their meeting. The ERC, at their meeting of March 19, 1992,
determined that an EIR was not re
Initial Study and recommended required on the basis of the
Negative Declaration and requested p on reparation of a
Mitigated
the text, as Mr. Dodson noted in his comments of some of
completed the revisions and the Initial Study was submitted son
the State Clearinghouse on March 24, 1992. The copy of the revised Initial Study was not s amped in muntil
March 25, 1992.
Ms. Fox stated that this project should be put on hold until
adoption of the CMP (Congestion Management Plan
questioned the date of preparation of anag ) and
study. project's traffic
When staff first started meeting with the applicant,
was in the draft stage. We requested that the applicant and
their traffic engineer consider the draft CMP
that time) in the preparation of their traffics study.posed at
the traffic study was accepted as complete b When
consensus had not been reached with the draft CMP relative tto
required elements. To hold the project at that time would
have been unreasonable.
The intent of the CMP program is to reduce traffic congestion.
The traffic study prepared for this
to levels of service on Project addressed impacts
and determined that traffic impacts would be and the freeway
this project than with it due t the re greater without
Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration n were
reviewed by Caltrans and their comments were addressed and
included in the environmental documentation.
measures outlined in the Initial Stud The mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring/ Reporting Program and will be omlleted
concurrent with project phasing. p
2
The Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting program also includes
measures relating to trip reduction and travel demand such as
establishing a park and ride facility on-site, establishing an
incentive program to promote the use
providing pedestrian/bicycle access and establishing of f P a
transit,
ride-
share office/coordinator consistent with the intent of the
CMP.
As to the completion date of September 1991 on the traffic
study, staff does not feel that it needs to be updated. The
traffic study addressed existing conditions, projects likely
to occur and projected or anticipated growth. The
environmental setting has not substantially changed since the
study was completed and a new study is not warranted.
3
ATTACHMENT Z
RESPONSES TO MS. MARLENE FOX'S OCTOBER 19, 1..992 TESTIMONY
1. Mr Fox stated that full public Aheowledge about the project cannot be provided without
an EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for a range of
documentation to assure that the public is given adequate information to make a
fully informed decision. On some projects a Categorical Exemption is sufficient; for
other projects a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
may be needed (14 CCR §§ 15063-16070 and 15081). The type of document and the
scope of information required to provide "full public knowledge" of potential adverse
environmental impacts varies with each project, but not every project requires an
EIR. The State CEQA Guidelines contains language that recommends ways to
reduce delays and paperwork. This section of the guidelines (14 CCR § 15006)
states: "Public agencies should reduce delay and paperwork by: ...(e) Using a
Negative Declaration when a project not otherwise exempt will not have a significant
effect on the environment." The City's ERC review process concluded that a
Negative Declaration is sufficient to provide adequate information regarding the
significance of potential adverse impact that would be caused by implementing the
proposed Inland Center Mall expansion. An EIR is not needed to provide full public
knowledge about a project. The conclusion that an EIR is required to provide
sufficient environmental information to make a CEQA determination is not valid.
2. Ms Fox noted that previous EIR's were prepared for other all projects: Tyler Mall
expansion, Montclair Mall expansion; and Moreno galley (new mall). By inference she
concludes that the Inland Center Mall expansion requires an EIR
Each project must be evaluated, given the project's environmental impacts, not on
findings made for other mall projects, which are located in different areas and
involve different proposals. Environmental issues that were potentially significant for
the Tyler and Montclair Mall (traffic and air quality) were not, after mitigation,
considered significant at Inland Center. The Tyler Mall Draft EIR (p. 14) concluded
that the project, as mitigated would have no significant adverse impacts. Given the
proposed traffic mitigation measures, traffic flow will actually improve in the vicinity
of the Inland Center Mall. In addition, increased capture of customers that would
normally shop out of the area would be sufficient to reduce net air emissions below
the existing emissions from mall customers,
impacts. Part of the reason that the circumstances
are different significant
etween he Inland
Center Mall Expansion and the Tyler and Montclair Mall expansions, is the
environmental information available in the City's General Plan EIR which resolved
' i
�� AU 2 ^ - 1
many of the potential impact issues. The Inland Center Mall Expansion ro',ect
Initial Study was tiered off of the City's General Plan EIR in accordance with the
State CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR §15152. Relevant portions of the General Plan
and General Plan EIR are incorporated into the Initial Study where appropriate (see
Sections 6, 10 and 11). The data and analyses in the Initial Study and the General
Plan EIR demonstrate that the proposed project is distinct and should not be judged
by the review process undertaken for those projects.
In contrast to the Inland Center Mall expansion, the Moreno Valley Mall is a totally
new mall project and created a whole new pattern of traffic and other impacts tha
would not be created by the Inland Center expansion. Therefore, it is not
comparable to the proposed project and should not be used as a basis for
determining the potential impacts of the proposed project.
3. Ms. Fox stated that full compliance with environmental laws requires the preparation o
an EMIR f
This statement is not valid. An EIR does not necessarily need to be prepared for a
lead agency to fully comply with the CEQA. CEQA provides the lead agency, in this
case the City of San Bernardino, with the discretion to identify and adopt the CEQA
document that is appropriate for a specific project. In this case the ERC and
Planning Commission chose to recommend to the City Council adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration after extensive review (by the ERC and 30 day State
Clearinghouse review) of the Initial Study. If there is no substantial evidence that
the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, after implementing
proposed mitigation measures, then under CEQA the City
Mitigated Negative Declaration which fully complies with the CEQA (14 CCR adopting a
15070 and 15074). §§
4. Ms Fox stated that a Negative Declaration does not allow adequate review or
project f this
The Negative Declaration process provides for a thorough review of findin
adequate data to make a fully informed decision. The test of whether a Negative
eclaration provides adequate review under CEQA is whether the project may cause
a significant impact. If no significant impacts are identified after mitigation is taken
into account, then the Initial Study and proposed negative Declaration are made
available for a minimum 30-day review, including the State Clearinghouse (14 CCR
§ 15073). The test of adequate review will be met for the proposed project through
the circulation of the proposed Negative Declaration. 711 final step, after several
months of review, is for the City Council to consider adopting the Negative
Declaration and issuing the Notice of Determination after a publicly noticed hearin .
This will complete .a fully adequate review process. g
2
S. Ms. Fox stated that alternatives were not explored in the Negative D
The purpose of examining eclaratron.
project changes that can be implemented to Linder reduce
the CE
QA a Project has no si � QA is to examine possible
gni cant adverse impacts uCe impacts below a si
explore alternatives. nmental ' gnificant level.
Given that the Initial Study demonsPtrated the Inlan need to
Mall expansion as mitigated could be implemented d Center
environmental impacts, it is not necessary without any significant
Initial Study does not need to contain the to eXplore alternatives. Under cant adverse
CCR f 15063). same amount of information aE� an
6. (14
Ms Fox identified two new regional geological studies that hat are available which were not
�e geologic reports referenced by Ms. Fox are re
specific application When the Inland Center Mall was
studies that have no site
sate specific geotechnical studies were re constructed e
after 20+ years and severe earthquakes,p Pared and ' In 1966, detailed,
2, the Inland including the recent nted The result is that
June 199 Center has
experienced an `�thstood all I-and ers earthquake in
were e Y Significant damage. Additional site ground sha�8 and has not
prepare by the applicant for the proposed expansion specific f h echni
Mme• 'These studies are far more detailed and eV xpansi°n of the cal studies
data and reached the conclusion that the a aluated site Specific Inland Center
Mall could be constructed using pansion, including geotechnical
two new studies were prepared Standard geotechni g �e Second story at the
P pared b engineering techniques. The
and construction materials consu] �w�Crandall, Inc, geotechni
Potential:Proposed Inland Center Mall and are titled: cal' eIIV rOnmental
Center Drive San ge
Expansion Interstate 215 Freeway�quefaction
September 1991• rnardino, �O�a for General and Inland
and "Report of Foundation Investigation Proposed f �o�
M� Expansion Interstate 215 Freeway and )man Inc..
of California, Inc." Jana d Center Drive for General Growt Center
specific geotechni arY 1992' The new regional studies do not address an h
detailed cal issues. In addition, a sites e
investigations and 20+ y site
therefore, it is appropriate of experience P cith studies are based on
ppropriate to conclude that potential
a structures onsite;
significant level. hazards at the site can
7• Ms Fax discussed a
Study Procedural inconsistency in the files related revisions to the Initial
The alleged procedural inconsistency identified is
Fox' The Initial Study was prepared in close coo d in
a nusunders tan din b
completing a draft Initial Stud w rdination with the 8 y Ms.
analyst, it was submitted to the hick Included the Staffs ulde'be City independent w and
On March 19, 1992 the ERC found he nvironmental Review Committee d
Initial Stud it a few
(ERC)
Study adequate with a few minor
3
- editorial changes and determined to recommend
City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative tDeclarP]�ng Commission and
changes requested by the ER at�oa
C, the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration were distributed to the State Clearinghouse the
1992). After receiving o , SCH#92Tatio March 24,
Study was augmented mments on the proposed Negative Declaratio the
ERC w 8mented with information responding to comments and returned Initial
which affirmed its determination to the
Negative Declaration (June 1892° to recommend adoption of the
procedure, ) There were no inconsistencies in the ERC
8. Ms Fox cued an rnconliltency between the
Lunal Stud, and those examined in the �`' iden6 ed on the cover sheet of the
Initial Study.
This is an error in reading the Initial Study dome
. Study has a section that requires identification of those The front a
constraint maps which apply page of the Initial
constraint maps in the GeneraltPlan Proposed ro'ect General Plan environmental
P J and project site. The two
geologic' which apply to the project site are seismic and
� The section referred to b
important environmental Y Ms. Fox is not intended to identify the
interested public to the app opriate Genera] p men
t, but serves to reference the
text identifies traffic and air quality lan constraint ma�s.
the most mitigation in order to r dui eat issues re P The Initial Study and
inconsistency P below �e most e evaluation no
cy in the document since the front page of the S level. There is no
a section for identifying
document. The � t dy most
oes contain environmental issues Study not have
§ 15063. all the items re cussed in the
required by CEQA, 14 CCR
9' Ms: Fox stated that the Carousel Mall Merc
Project and the Negative Declaration until 'test
uocian'on wcu not aware of tl:e
> before the City Council hearing
f° Inland Center had ample opportunity to
Center Mai] e P�cipate in the decision-ma'kin
18, 1992 were publicly noti expansion. ERC meetings on March 19 1992 g process
September 8, 1992 and the Mayor the Planning Co and June
1992. Y and Common Council�ean�n hearing held on
In addition, an article was g on October 19,
newspaper, The Sun, discussiln published on October 1, 1992 in the local
weeks notification that the proposed project project. This article provided
on October 19, 1992, P J ct would be considered b the
three
December 7, 1 Finally, the City Council bearing, y City Council
, was noticed in the San Bernardino S hick was continued to
thus, the merchants will have had additional time '� on 'November 6, 1992;
Negative Declaration before it is considered for ad to co
mmhe on the mitigated
option by the City Council,
4
10. Ms. Fox stated that the proposed project is a regionally significant"project and must be
sent to all local cities for review.
The Inland Center Mall project may be deemed a regionally significant project,
however, the State Guidelines (Section 15206) do not mandate that a regionally
significant project shall be sent to all local cities. The actual language states: "A
draft EIR or Negative Declaration prepared b an
described in this section p p Y Y public agency on a project
be submitted also to the appropriate metropolitan State
council Clearinghouse and ��
review and comment." (Emphasis added). The Negative Declaration f governments for
to the State Clearinghouse as required and was circulated to the City of Colton as
a city that would be directly affected by the proposed project.
11. Ms Fox commented on the lack of information on the 1-215 Caltrans project in the
Initial Study.
Caltrans has not made any final decisions on I-215 and the City Traffic Engineer, Mr.
Anwar Wagdy, determined that it was unnecessary to speculate on the future
modifications to I-215 adjacent to the project site. The issue was noted in the traffic
study and the Initial Study and one of the Caltrans alternatives was evaluated, i.e.
retention of the Inland Center Drive offramp. By addressing the existing situation,
the study was able to focus on "real" circulation system impacts that allowed
development of area traffic system mitigation measures. Remote and speculative
impacts were eliminated from further consideration as outlined in § 15145 of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
12. Ms Fox raised the cumulative imps ,issue in a generic sense-
An Initial Study does not necessarily have to analyze
15063. Despite this, relevant cumulative impacts re assessed for this pr ject.CThe
City General Plan EIR addresses cumulative impact issues for all utility and public
service infrastructure topics. These impacts were evaluated for the Inland Center
Mall and determined to be nonsignificant using a reference to the City General Plan
EIR. Two other issues of potential si
cumulative impact context. The traffic evaluation incorporated were evaluated a cumulative traffic
a
growth assumption of 5% annually. This assumption was provided by the City Traffic
Engineer to address cumulative growth in traffic and it is incorporated into all traffic
impact forecasts. Air quality was also analyzed for cumulative impacts using the
South Coast Air Quality Management District's cumulative impact threshold criteria.
The project is forecast to reduce overall basin emissions and, therefore, would not
contribute to a cumulative significant adverse air quality impact. In summary,
cumulative impacts were evaluated in the Initial Study and no cumulatively significant
adverse impacts of any kind were identified.
5
i
13. Fi'a , Ms. Fox raised three Lances that are lucked together with economic impacts as
the main focus, First, she referenced the Bishop/Ingo Co
Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. Coun o In unty court case [biz-,ns
tY f Yo (4th Dist, 172 CaL App.3d 1S,
(217 Ca4RP&' 893)1 as a basis for considering adverse economic efj`ects a a project.
Second, she raised the issue of potential economic impacts to specific commercial areas
in the City (specific areas referenced included Highland Avenue, iLf� Vern
corridor, West Hos ual' n, Baseline
P uY Lane, 40�' Street State College, Commerce Center, Tri•City,
Valley and downtown). The third relaters issue raised in her presentation was growth
inducement
Under CEQA, the economic impacts of a project are not treated as significant
impacts (14 CCR f 15131). However, economic impacts may be analyzed to
determine if they would cause physical impacts to the environment. Therefore, the
CEQA issue here is whether the Inland Center Mall expansion project's economic
impacts would cause physical deterioration of existing commercial sites, i.e., result
in vacant buildings,
The City General Plan and General Plan EIR (1989) contain extensive discussions
Of commercial land uses. The General Plan envisions the City constructing an
additional 35,629,620 square feet of commercial (office and retail) space at Plan
build-out (page 1-25 of the Plan). Expansion of the City's malls as part of this
overall expansion is initially referenced on page 1-18 of the Plan and again on page
1-23 where the following statement is made regarding continuing and strengthening
San Bernardino's region-serving role: "B. Intensification and upgrading of Central
City and Inland Center Malls with new department and ancillary retail stores." More
specifically under Objective 1.15 and its policies, the City outlines its intent to focus
a majority of region-serving retail centers at the two malls and the adjacent area with
a forecasted 2.2 million square feet of development by the year 2010 (General Plan,
P 4-6). The proposed project is fully consistent with this objective, constituting
approximately 776,000 square feet, or about 35 percent of the allocated square
footage. The new square footage at the Inland Center Mall will be developed in
phases, with completion anticipated in the year 1999.
The effect of adding 35,629,620 square feet to the City's stock of commercial land
USe was evaluated in the City's 1989 General Plan EIR. Beginning on page 4-37 and
continuing more specifically on pages 4-43 through 4-45, the EIR evaluated the
addition of this much commercial square footage and concluded that incremental)
adding this amount of commercial area to the City over the 20 year life of the
General Plan would not cause an significant
and forecasts are contained in the Economic]Dev opme t Element Of the is effects
Plan, Chapter 4. This document and its supporting technical data, specifically
indicate adequate capability for growth of the regional commercial market(see pages
4-21 and 4-23 of the Plan) which recommends expa.ndirg the regional malls in order
to remain competitive.
6
Thus, the basis for concluding that the project will not be growth inducing
not cause economic impacts to the City's other commercial areas was established
stabl�bed in
the General Plan and General Plan EIR which concluded that significant adverse
impacts would not result from fulfilling the General Plan commercialsquare footage
growth projections. 'The impact of economic development was addressed in the
Inland Center Mall expansion Initial Study which was tiered to and incorporateby
reference information in the General Plan and General Plan EIR. d of
the Initial Study), This tiering of the current project's CEQA documentawi 15 of
City's General Plan EIR is allowed under CEQA (14 CCR § 15152 the
encouraged because it promotes efficiency in the environmental review process gb is
avoiding the need to re-review previously analyzed issues The data contained in
these documents demonstrates that the proposed Inland Center Mall e uz
within the commercial growth projections made b the City recent Ge on it
Plan and will not include or cause growth beyond that already anticipated sled or General
to occur. P forecast
The final issue is the reference to the court case. The Bishop case was
focused on dividing a project into several smaller projects and then evaluating any
piece separately under the CEQA. The g each
piecemealing of projects and force the decision makers to look at the° address the
project at one time, The City has met this test with its examination of ltheof the
proposed future expansion at Inland Center Mall. The second issues of a total
the potential physical effects of commercial competition has been address�mng
City's General Plan which took the comprehensive (cumulative) view of d uz the
the demand for and impact from development of an additional 35+ won square
feet of commercial space within the City as a whole and 2.2 million square square
regional commercial space to be specifically located at or in the vicinity feet of
malls. Based on these General Plan and General Plan EIR evaluations and
proposed project's consistency with the, the con ty of the two
union that no significant on the
impact will occur was justified. Therefore, approval of this project economic
Physical deterioration of other commercial areas in the City. 1 not result in
7
COMA, ! ^
C A R O U e L M A L L MERCHANT A S S O C I A T I O N
October 26, 1992
a f� ,� I► ��l �� OCT 2 6 S91
The Honorable W. R, "Bob" Holcomb OCT
Mayor of the City of San Bemardino OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
c QTY o s 0n 4A TIME;
TIME:
300 North "D" Street f AN ��
San Bemardino, CA 92418 oEpA� i'��;t;�°StiHJ;�a
Dear Mayor Holcomb:
On behalf of all the merchants at Carousel Mall, we thank you for your support at the last Council
meeting In granting a continuance on Inland Center's Negative Declaration and Development
Agreement.
We very much appreciate your understanding of our serious concerns. From all of the information
presented to the city by the project's proponents, we are unable to determine the impact of this
project on Carousel Mail, downtown San Bernardino, and the rest of the city.
The proposed mitigated Negative Declaration does not adequately address traffic and air quality,
with particular reference to the cumulative Impacts when considering the Cal-Trans 1-210 widening
project and the results of the SANBAG congestion management study for the entire County,
Geologic/design aspects should be re-evaluated In light of studies done as a result of the recent
Loma Prieta and Landers earthquakes. The city's General Plan does not have an economic
element and does not begin to address this project's specific potential economic Impacts,
particularly when the proposed development agreement will now give Inland Center the ability to
attract four major department stores, with no safeguards to prevent them from taking major stores
from other developments throughout the city.
We are reassured to see that you understand that rushing to approve this project without the
proper information is not a good policy for the city to follow.
We also do not believe the loss of May Company is good for the city or Carousel Mall and support
any reasonable effort to find a replacement store, as long as it doesn't critically injure another
shopping area in the city.
We are keeping our merchants Informed of your help and look forward to your continued
assistance.
Yours truly,
June Durr
Director of Marketing
2'15 CARL MSPI. MAT (, �;;�n �tl ictinitl�I,�c►, t nt.l�Ouvin �►;t-u�l (7I :1 889-1 147 FAX (7141 8A5.6893
l
A.
CARO 3 "' )L MALL MERCHAA P ASSOCIATION
MALL
October 19, 1992
The Honorable W. R. 'gob" Holcomb
Members of the Common Council
Go San Bernardino City Clerk
300 North "D" $treat
$ n Bernardino, CA 92418
RE; item #32
Development Agenda #91-01
inland Center Expansion Plan
Deer Mayor and Council:
Today you are being asked to approve a Negative Declaration for a 776,465 square foot
expansion of Inland Center as item #32 on the Development Agenda #91.01 without
adequate information to determine the consequences of your act.
This Is 8 project of major magnitude and significant potential Impact, both positive and
negative, on this community. It is the largest scale, single commercial project in the City of
San Bernardino since 1972. It may be the largest project contemplated in this City since
the adoption of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). it is the type of project envisioned by both national and
state environmental legislation for full evaluation of potential adverse environmental impact.
You have not been provided with any information regarding the potential adverse economic
Impact of this project. These are the most serious times of economic hardship that have
faced retailers since the days of the Great Depression, you are being asked to approve a
Negative Declaration without even considering any of the economic impacts on merchants
in the Highland Avenue retail corridor, the Baseline retail corridor, the Mt. Vernon Avenue
retail corridor, the new Westside Shopping Plaza, the 40th Street and State College
shopping areas, the retail portions of vie Commerce Center, Tri-City and Valley Projects,
and last but not least, the downtown retail core. it is incomprehensible that you are asked
to approve a project of this scope immediately adjacent to the most active earthquake fault
In Southern California with ground water 10 feet below the surface level in an identified
liquefaction zone, and with no data whatsoever regarding economic affects on existing
businesses, and if those businesses are adversely affected, the economic impacts on the
City's tax revenues.
295 CAROUSEL MALL • SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 02401 • (714) 889-1147 - FAX (714) $85.6863
As our legislative leaders, you should take a pro-active role in supporting existing business.
in fact, a resolution from this Council supporting workers compensation reform to the State
Legislature would be helpful to all businesses In the City.
When Tyler Mall recently added a second level and major department stores to their center,
a Full Environmental Impact Report was required by the City of Riverside. Several years
back when Montclair Plaza double-decked and added major department stores, a Focused
Environmental Impact Report was required by the City of Montclair. The City of Moreno
Valley required an Environmental Impact Report for the Moreno Valley Mall and Towngste
Center Project plan. These facts have not heretofore been provided to you. Without the
data required by an Environmental Impact Report, there is no assurance that full public
knowledge of potentially adverse environmental impacts will be achieved, nor that you, as a
decision-maker, will have all the information available to you to make a sound decision.
You should not be asked to make decisions of this magnitude, which affect the public
interest, without full compliance with existing environmental taw and complete knowledge of
the consequences of such action.
Therefore, I request that you continue this matter for a period of 90 days for staff to re-
evaluate whether an Environmental Impact Report should be required based on the
following findings of fact:
1. The expansion plan for Inland Center proposes 776,465 square feet of now retail
area within the City of San Bemardino.
2. Surrounding communities with projects of similar magnitude, such as Moreno Valley,
Riverside and Montclair, have all required Environmental Impact Reports.
3. A Negative Declaration for a project of this scope does not provide the same
opportunity for public comment and input as an Environmental Impact Report.
4. No economic analysis of potential affects on other business areas of the City was
done in support of the Negative Declaration. Therefore, inadequate information
Currently exists on the potential adverse economic impact of this project on the
business community and the City of San Bemardino.
5. Alternatives to this prof act have not been adequately explored as would be required
with an Environmental impact Report.
6. New geologic data essential to the design of this project was not available at the
time of the September B, 1991 liquefaction report.
We respectfully request that you consider the above information when making the for-
reaching decision that is before you.
Your$ truly,
0000 000"
Czc
rosldent, Carousel Mail Merchants Association, Inc,
THE N" "EL SON CONPNNY, INC.
16633 VENfUFoJy `,UWO.SUITE 12M IDIC-4 G4 JFOR U 91436 818 501 3 213/478.5016 FAX 818/784.3679
November 25, 1992
03586 (�
NOV 3 0 1992 _
Ms. Valerie Ross CITY ,,,
DEPART pF PLANNING
City DEPARTMENT Acting Principal Planner Pl.4NNING�
City of San Bernardino BUILDING SERVICES
300 North 'D'Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Reference: Inland Center Mall Expansion Program
Dear Ms. Ross:
The Natelson Company, Inc. conducted the economic analyses for the Economic Development
section of the General Plan, including analysis of projected market support for regional retail
shopping facilities through the year 2010. Pursuant to the request of the applicant, we have
conducted an assessment of the consistency of the Inland Center Mall Expansion Program with the
City of San Bernardino's General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. In that regard, we have
reviewed the General Plan Market Study and the assumptions therein that led to the projection of
market demand for an additional 2.2 million square feet of retail space in the City by year 2010.
We have reviewed updated economic data for its impact on projected retail space demand and the
ramifications new market data may have in light of the General Plan's stated goals.
Summary of Findings
• There remains at this time sufficient demand during the period through 2010 to support
both downtown malls, including Inland Center and Carousel Malls, as projected in the
General Plan Market Analysis;
The goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan emphasizing maintaining and
strengthening the downtown as a major community commercial center remains valid;
• While the competitive threat to downtown from Rancho Cucamonga noted in the General
Plan remains, Tyler Mall, Moreno Valley and Fontana pose
San Bernardino's commercial centers' viability in the absent of anlate, serious threats to
maintain highly competitive facilities. ggressive policy to
Conclusions
It is the conclusion of TNCI that the Inland Center Mall Expansion Program is both consistent
with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino and
serves to facilitate the realization of those goals by virtue of its consistency with the strategic
realities of the contemporary regional retail-serving marketplace.
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS
Ms. Valerie Ross
November 25, 1992
Page 2
Analysis
Inland Center Mall, a major regional shopping center in San Bernardino County was built in 1965
and presently consists of approximately 985,883 square feet. It includes three department stores
that are connected by a one level mall. The site consists of 62.5 acres with 4,400 parking spaces.
The Project Applicant, General Growth Management, Inc. proposes to add 776,465 gross
square
feet to the Inland Center Mall. The additional space consists of 540,000 square feet in up to
three
new department stores and 236,465 square feet in a second level to the mall. Up to fo
structures are included to accommodate required parking. The total gross squ ur parking
are footage upon
completion of the proposed expansion project will be 1,762, 348, with a total of 7,420 parking
spaces. The buildout period will encompass approximately eight years.
The Economic Development Element of the City of San Bernardino's General Plan defines a set of
Policies to assist the City in the formation of deliberate initiatives for the maintenance and
enhancement of San Bernardino's economic development. At that time (1986 - 1987), the
purchasing power of the relevant regional market trade area, consisting of a primary and a
secondary regional market area, was projected through 2010. Purchasing power is a function of
Population and per capita income. Based on then currently available data, an,estimated demand
for 4.6 million square feet of regional shopping facilities was projected for year 2010. Based on
assessments of the currently existing supply of regional shopping facilities, the net increase over
the current regional square footage was estimated to be 2.2 million square feet of regional
shopping facilities by 2010. As was noted in the Economic Development E lement of
Plan, the growth of such regional space will be accomplished largely through expansion of existing the Gene ral
regional malls. The Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan recognize the need to
maintain the competitive position of the City through the maintenance of a vital downtown area
with multiple uses, including a concentration of regional serving retail space. Section 1.15 of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan stater. 'It shall be the objective of the City of San
Bernardino to maintain and enhance Central City and Inland Center Malls and adjacent properties
as the principal region-serving centers of the City of San Bernardino, focusing the additional
demand of 2.2 million square feet in these areas.' The General Plan in Section 1.16, Land Use
Element, goes on to state: 'It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to continue and
enhance the downtown area as the functional and symbolic center of the City of San Bernardino;
Providing a diversity of regional serving uses, allowing the highest intensity use, and
of
establishing well defined linkages to the City's major commercial and ind
residential neighborhoods.' ustrial districts and
TNCI has reviewed the data and the assumptions utilized in the estimation of the projected
demand for an additional 2.2 million square feet of regional commercial retail by Y Year 2010.
Based on updated data for
Population, per capita income and retail sales (based on U.S. Census,
State Board of Equalization and SLAG data), there is no indication that the long term regional
retail space forecast of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan is in need of
substantive revision, current recessionary conditions not withstanding.
Purchasing power of the population in the market area is the primary determinant of retail market
support. The retail demand forecast prepared in 1986-1987 for the General Plan postulated a
2010 population of the primary and secondary market areas for re ional sho
a r p20% facilities located
in San Bernardino of 789,461 based on those areas comprising PDroximately 2096 of total County
Population. The estimated County Population at that time (1986-87) for 2010 was 1.82 million.
Current
Population projections for San Bernardino County by SLAG estimate 2010 population at
Ms. Valerie Ross
November 25, I992
Page 3
2.17 million, an increase of 19% over the population utilized in the origin al stud
releasing new 2010 population figures within a few weeks. It has been suggested b SC will be
that the overall SCAG region 2010 population estimate will be revised upward. If that s ", it is
i
likely that San Bernardino will experience a commensurate share of the upward'revision. With
future population likely higher than that utilized in the original study, market su
estimated 2.2 million additional square feet of regional shopping P for the
Aping facilili ties is reinforccee t d.
In addition to strong projected population growth in the market area
over the long term, should keep , per capita income growth
General Plan analysis. Real growth in San Bernardino aCount 1.596 growth projected in the
1990 averaged 2.48% on an annual basis. The regional retail mar Per et aprea,lincluding from 1987 t
as it does the
major population and employment centers of the County,
County in terms of per capita income. This above average will growths t of per c p behavior
ta i cometfrom
1987 to 1990 will compensate for the likely below average growth in per capita income resulting
from current recessionary conditions. Therefore TNCI concludes that the fundamental outlook
for per capita income in the relevant market area as embodied in the City's General Plan remains
sound and a reliable bass upon which to direct future development activity.
While the market area for retail shopping facilities extends beyond the City's boundaries, the
analysis for the General Plan focused on the City's relatively trop
a measure of the 'capture capacity" of regional shopping y g per capita retail sales levels as
g pping facilities loca red within the City.
Apparel and general merchandise are items traditionally located in regional shopping centers.
Based on 1986 retail sales data, the per capita expenditure on apparel items in the City of San
Bernardino was S423 versus $278 on a county-wide basis. The per capita expenditure in the City
on general merchandise items was 51996 versus $646 on a county-wide basis. A similar pattern was found for home furnishings and 'appliances: City per capita expenditures of 5645 versus $259
for the county.
The relative 'spread" between City and county expenditure levels was maintained in 1990 for the
categories of apparel and home furnishings/appliances. For 1990, per capita
apparel were 5437 for the City versus 5225 for the county. In the home furnishing/appliance a tu
category, City per capita expenditures were 5752 versus 5242 for the coup s
of per capita expenditure are indicative of the ability of the regional shop ty These higher Levels
within the City to capture retail demand residing outside the Ci These ping
apture levels sagged
continuing robust capture capacity in the City.
However, the category of general merchandise exhibits a significant erosion in the relative capture
capacity of the City from 1986 to 1990. Per capita expenditures for general merchandise items in
the City for 1990 were $2,080 versus $1,051 on a county-wide basis, or a ratio of 1.979. The
relative ratio for 1986 was 3.089, based on City expenditures of S1,996 versus county expenditures
of S646. In light of the market strengths based on
categories, this particular development relative to general Population,
se expe
other dtures is sales inal of
Possible erosion of the competitive position of the City of San Bernardino relative to other areas
Of the County.
Another signal of possible relative weakening of competitive market position is the chap e
per capita income relative to county per capita income. In 1987 8 in City
San Bernardino was 88.9% of the level of per capita income of the per
as a whole. In 9900,o he
per capita income of the City had fallen to 80.1% of the county level. This suggests that if the
Ms. Valerie Ross
November 25, 1992
Page 4
City is to maintain and enhance its position in the regional retail market, it must continue to draw
upon areas outside the City since the relative position of per capita income within the City is
declining relative to the region as a whole.
The Economic Development Element of the General Plan on page 4-23 elaborated on steps to be
Pursued to strengthen market opportunities:
"The existing market opportunities will be strengthened and future opportunities
captured,if the City follows an overall practice of intensification of existing
facilities, areas,and corridors. Such intensification creates points of'critical mass*
of economic activity that both build on and protect current successes, while
establishing competitively attractive areas in which new development will locate.
Specifically, the following will enhance the economic development potential of the
City of San Bernardino.
A. Intensification of downtown San Bernardino with governmental and
professional offices, convention facilities hotels, cultural facilities,
supporting retail and restaurants, and high density residential;
B. Intensification and upgrading of Central City and Inland Center Malls with
new department and ancillary retail stores.'
Recent market conditions based on 1990 Census and ancillary data indicate that the fundamental
market demand for an additional 2.2 million square feet of retail space by the year 2010 remains
an appropriate market forecast. The practical issues of implementation are matters of strategy.
Given the declining level of City per capita income and the recent erosion in the City's regional
capture of general merchandise expenditures, the notion of'critical mass' as noted in the General
Plan remains one of paramount importance. If revitalization through intensification does not
occur, and the regional drawing power of concentrated centers is dissipated, future regional
serving space could be lost to other areas of the region outside the City. In that eventuality, the
economic synergy from a critical mass of economic activity, as envisioned by the General Plan
could be lost.
It is the conclusion of TNCI that the Inland Center Mail Expansion Program is both consistent
with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino and
serves to facilitate the realization of those goals by virtue of its consistency with the strategic
realities of the contemporary regional retail-serving marketplace.
Very truly yours,
E NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
...Jay�Natelson(C- At&/A
��(KP>
President
JWN:kp
GENERAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT, INC.
June 2, 1993
Hon. Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
RE: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The following letter regarding the proposed Development Agreement for expansion and
upgrading of Inland Center regional shopping mall is provided for your attention and
for the official record.
Inland Center Seeks Expansion
Today, your honorable body is again scheduled to take up the matter of approval of a
Development Agreement authorizing expansion and general upgrading of the Inland
Center Regional Mall. On the basis of the factual record established below, we urge
you to take approval action today, in the best interests of the City and Inland Center.
Because it has been continued several times since the initial October 19, 1992, hearing
date and has not yet been heard, General Growth is providing this letter to acquaint you
with the major features of this project and its economic and aesthetic benefits to the
City of San Bernardino. Also included is a history of the project to date, including
factual information pertinent to the issues which have been raised in response to this
proposal.
Development Agreement Features Key Improvements and Amenities
The project pending before the City for approval is a Development Agreement which
describes the proposed mall expansion and defines the process for its implementation
and development. The mall expansion will add approximately 776,000 square feet of
gross leasable area to be constructed in up to four phases. Of the total area, 540,000
square feet will provide space for three new department stores.
The improvements also include approximately 236,000 square feet of new mall space
which will be constructed as a second level over the existing mall. This new space is
expected to accommodate up to seventy additional mall stores. The mall improvements
also will include up to four multi-level parking structures, along with aesthetic, archi-
tectural and landscaping enhancements. These improvements are planned to significant-
ly upgrade the quality of the mall and the visual image and character for the southern
"window to the City" from the I-215 Freeway.
Each phase of development will be subject to a Development Permit. Each phase will
15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
(818)907-3400
FAX• 1R1 R1 Q07_QQ/l t
meet or exceed minimum City standards as defined in the Agreement, including sig-
nage, landscaping and parking requirements. At the present time, General Growth is
hopeful that full buildout would occur in less than ten years. However, General
Growth has agreed to a provision which allows the City to make modifications reflect-
ing changing environmental or other external conditions should project construction and
ultimate buildout proceed more slowly than expected. If by the tenth anniversary, the
certificate of occupancy (or equivalent) for Phase I has not been issued, the City may
require the developer to agree to an amendment to the agreement.
Economic Benefits in the First Decade
The planned expansion to the Inland Center Mall has significant economic benefits to
the City and the region. The total investment by General Growth and the mall owners
is estimated at approximately $120 million for the overall project. Within the next ten
(10) years, it is anticipated that Phases I through IV of the mall expansion may be
completed. It is estimated that this will increase the assessed value by $93 million
which will in turn generate $2.0 million additional property tax revenue to the City
over the first ten years. At the same time, this means an additional $8.4 million prop-
erty tax revenue to other area agencies, including $1.6 million to Inland Valley Devel-
opment Agency.
The mall expansion is also projected to add over $100 million in annual retail sales by
the tenth year. This means that the City can expect to receive approximately $10.8
million in additional sales tax revenue during the first ten years of operation. This also
provides an estimated $5.4 million in revenue which can be expended on Measure I
area road improvements.
Employment opportunities will be dramatically enhanced. It is projected that at least
2,000 construction related jobs will be created during this period. When these phases
are completed, the mall will add 1,500 shopping center jobs to the economy. This all
adds up over the next ten years to an additional $26.8 million in new tax revenues and
over 3,500 jobs for the area.
General Plan Mandates Inland Center Expansion
The proposed expansion and upgrading of Inland Center is clearly envisioned by the
City General Plan and would actively implement that Plan. The General Plan was
thoroughly revised in 1989 to meet the requirements of California planning law, and
was the subject of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified by the City
Council.
Under California law (Government Code Sections 65302, et seq.), each city is required
to adopt and maintain a general plan which contains certain mandatory elements as well
as all pertinent policies relating to land use and long-term city development. In Cali-
fornia planning practice, the general plan serves as a guide to appropriate land use and
as a "constitution for development" which must not be violated. A provision of Cali-
fornia law applicable to general law cities undergirds this principle by requiring that
zoning and other land use decisions must be consistent and not conflict with the general
2
plan. As a charter city, the City of San Bernardino has chosen to include a similar
requirement in its own recently adopted Development Code. Therefore, development
decisions in San Bernardino must be consistent with the City General Plan. If the City
chooses to pursue land use decisions or policies that are different and conflict with the
General Plan, then a General Plan Amendment to reflect that policy must be prepared,
publicly reviewed under all applicable state and city laws, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and heard before the Planning Commission and
City Council.
The Inland Center Mall expansion would actively implement the General Plan in a
variety of ways. Not only does the General Plan map designation provide for the
regional shopping center use, but the text contains numerous references specifically
emphasizing that it is the City's policy to actively encourage intensification and upgrad-
ing of both existing regional malls - Inland Center as well as Carousel Mall. The
General Plan text includes general policies encouraging "expansion of lands to induce
development of new employee-generating industries and businesses" (p. 13), "estab-
lishment of strategies to attract new employee-generating jobs to the City" (p. 14), and
"establishment of strategies to sustain the economic health of the City's businesses and
revenue to the community" (p. 14).
Under land use and urban design issues and overview, the text specifically calls out
opportunities for expansion of both existing regional shopping malls - Inland Center
and Carousel Mall (pp. 1-18 and 1-23). Under land use policy, the text states that "it
shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to...maintain and enhance Central
City (now Carousel) and Inland Center malls and adjacent properties as the principal
region-serving retail centers of the City of San Bernardino, focusing a majority of the
additional demand of 2.2 million square feet in these areas" (p. 1-67). Under economic
development implementation actions, the General Plan calls for "pro-active" steps by
City representatives to maintain and enhance existing key commercial uses and attract
new job and revenue-generating uses, specifically including "encouragement of the
owners of Inland Center and Central City Mall to intensify development and improve
the visual character of these sites..." (p. 1-123).
Under the economic development element, the General Plan recognizes that "the two
regional shopping malls, Central City Mall and Inland Center, now serve a larger and
growing market area extending beyond the planning area..." and that "the exact loca-
tion of regional-serving space within the regional market is highly competitive. The
planning area has the greatest potential for increasing its regional activity through
expansion of existing malls..." (p. 4-21). Under economic goals, the General Plan
calls for an "overall practice of intensification of existing facilities, areas and corridors"
creating points of "critical mass." Again, it directs City efforts to "...intensification
and upgrading of Central City and Inland Center Malls with new department and ancil-
lary retail stores..." (p. 4-23). The General Plan treats these two facilities as serving
one regional market area and competing together to bring a larger share of regional
shopping center sales to the City, to reverse the trend toward increased leakage of sales
activity and tax revenue income to other communities and regions.
While the General Plan does not refer to competing malls outside the San Bernardino
3
planning area directly, it refers indirectly to sites in Montclair, Riverside and Moreno
Valley where malls have been recently upgraded or established, as well as to future
competitive sites, such as in Fontana, Redlands and Rancho Cucamonga. General Plan
policy can be accurately characterized as directing the City to counter external compe-
tition and bolster the City's overall competitive position through expansion and upgrad-
ing of both Inland Center and Carousel Mall. In response to a City Council request,
the economic validity of this policy was recently reconfirmed by the economist who
prepared the economic development element of the General Plan. A letter from
economist Jay Natelson to this effect is part of the hearing record.
In short, the General Plan directs the City to encourage Inland Center expansion. Any
action other than approval would be in direct conflict with this policy.
Inland Center Conditions Deteriorating
The existing Inland Center Mall was first constructed in 1965 and consists of 883,829
square feet. It currently includes facilities for three department stores connected by a
100-store single level mall on a 62.5 acre site. It fronts on the I-215 Freeway and
Inland Center Drive and is bounded on the east by the Lytle Creek Flood Control
Improvement. Since its original construction, the mall has been continuously upgraded
and there has been one major interior and exterior remodeling in recent years which
created a new entrance, together with introduction of skylights to brighten the mall.
Subsequent to May Company's departure, there has been an increase in mall shop
vacancies at Inland Center. Until February, 1993, when Robinsons/May closed its
department store facility following company-wide cutbacks, mall shop lease occupan-
cies were averaging about 97 per cent. However, subsequent to that change three
months ago, occupancies have dropped to 85 per cent and a continued drop is a pos-
sibility. General Growth and the mall ownership are concerned about further decline in
occupancies.
Development Agreement Value and Functions
Approval of the Development Agreement is critically important to the City's as well as
Inland Center's well-being. Commercial land use is an uncertain feature in today's
economy. Presently, and for the foreseeable future, it is a "buyers" market for pros-
pective tenants, both major anchors and small businesses which occupy mall space. We
perceive unentitled projects to be of less interest to future tenants. Also, without the
assured prospect of a substantial further upgrading and expansion of mall improve-
ments, prospects for quickly attracting new tenants to Inland Center are diminished.
What the Development Agreement Does and Doesn't Do
The Development Agreement approval would avoid certain procedural pitfalls and
accomplish a number of important functions.
Positive functions it would serve include the following:
4
1. It would sanction the overall development concept, subject to detailed plans for each
phase controlled through development permit process per City Code;
2. It would establish procedures to protect the City against Development Code short-
comings which would otherwise allow piece-meal project approval without overall
review and approval;
3. It would let all parties know where they stand on this project as it proceeds forward
into the future;
4. As noted before, it would include a 10-year review provision to allow for considera-
tion of changing environmental conditions if development proceeds at a slower than
expected pace;
5. It would meet all applicable City and State requirements, including general plan
statutes and CEQA;
6. It would successfully implement the City General Plan mandate to expand Inland
Center.
Among, the pitfalls it would avoid are the following:
1. It would not fix development fees;
2. It would not change permitted land use for the site;
3. It would not short circuit existing approval processes;
4. It would not circumvent CEQA.
History of Inland Center Expansion Request
This project was initiated two years ago as a good faith effort by General Growth on
behalf of the mall ownership to work with the City of San Bernardino in pursuing
approval of this project. In so doing, General Growth made every effort to observe the
spirit as well as the letter of every state and local regulation applicable to this project.
The initial nine months were taken up with responding to staff discussion and requests
for preliminary information, including a traffic study, together with determination of
the most suitable entitlement vehicle under the recently adopted Development Code.
Although a development permit application could have been submitted earlier for one
or more phases, General Growth agreed with a Planning Department staff recommenda-
tion that the Inland Center expansion request be submitted as a development agreement.
While this meant more initial work for both parties, it also had advantages. For
General Growth, it represented an "umbrella" authorization assuring General Growth
and the mall owners that the major features of the overall project would continue to be
acceptable to the City in the long-term. For the City, it provided a definitive procedure
by which adequate regulation of specific project details would be assured as each phase
5
progressed, through the development permit process.
Planning Commission Approved Project
The subsequent nine months involved submittal of the Development Agreement re-
quest, followed by review and approval by the staff Environmental Review Committee
and Development Review Committee. In September, 1992, the City Planning Com-
mission recommended approval of the development agreement.
Throughout this initial year and one-half period, City staff from all involved depart-
ments handled this review professionally, with clear guidance and straightforward
communications. Issuance by the Environmental Review Committee in March, 1992,
confirmed that it was the concerted staff view that any environmental concerns asso-
ciated with this project could be handled by mitigation measures reflected in Develop-
ment Agreement conditions. This outcome was assisted in substantial part by the quali-
ty of the General Plan and its related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which this
project is following.
Approval by the Development Review Committee, together with the positive recom-
mendations of both the Planning staff and Planning Commission, without objection
from the City Attorney, confirmed general support for the Inland Center expansion as a
beneficial project and the staff view that the project had been handled correctly in rela-
tion to all applicable state and city laws and policies governing environmental and
development review, including CEQA, California general plan law, and the San Ber-
nardino City General Plan and Development Code.
To General Growth and the mall ownership, the fact that staff and the Planning
Commission were supportive, that CEQA concerns were adequately addressed, that the
project implemented the City General Plan, and that no objections had been voiced
from any member of the public were significant reasons to believe that the Develop-
ment Agreement could be promptly and reasonably approved.
Progress Impeded by Prolonged Delays
At the initial October 19, 1992, hearing on the Inland Center Development Agreement
a series of primarily environmental issues were raised by Carousel Mall. These issues
were essentially raised "at the 11th hour" despite ample prior opportunities for public
input during the preceding year and one-half. Rather than proceed, the City Council
continued the matter to seek information regarding issues raised. Now, nearly eight
months later, the Inland Center expansion Development Agreement hearing has still not
been held, due to continuances sought in response to concerns raised by Carousel Mall.
Staff has responded fully to both the environmental and economic issues, providing
expert information from Tom Dodson on the environmental questions as well as from
the City's General Plan economist, Jay Natelson.
City's Regional Economic Competitive Position in Jeopardy
Indefinite delay of Inland Center expansion would contradict General Plan policy direc-
6
tion, since it directs the City to actively encourage expansion and upgrading of both
existing regional malls and there is nothing in the General Plan text to support indefi-
nite deferral of expansion of one mall in favor of the other. Economically, such a
policy would weaken the City's competitive position regionally. It is fully evident
from the present situation that the City has a financial stake in upgrading both malls.
General Growth understands the City's concern for the viability of Carousel Mall in
relation to its ownership stake created years ago through a long-term redevelopment
agreement. We also recognize the more general concern for downtown revitalization.
The General Plan implicitly recognizes the competition which exists within the City
between these various commercial concentrations, but rather than favoring one over
another, emphasizes the need to underscore the City's overall competitiveness by
expanding and upgrading both existing regional mall sites. The General Plan does not
place extra weight on investment in Carousel Mall and downtown vs. Inland Center,
but rather emphasizes equally the expansion of both malls. Inland Center is seeking to
upgrade and expand as competing malls have done in the region (Montclair Plaza,
Galleria Mall). With the loss of May Company, conditions are now deteriorating at
Inland Center Mall. Further deterioration of conditions will simply add to the City's
cumulative loss of retail competitiveness within the region.
In addition to competitive threats from previously recognized regional mall rivals out-
side the City and within the Inland Empire, another competing mall site has recently
been announced, less than a mile away along the 215 freeway, in the City of Colton.
This announcement is for a 1.2 million square foot regional mall titled the L.A. Metro-
politan Project along the 215 Freeway just south of Inland Center between Cooley
Drive and the Reche Canyon flood control channel.
The City needs to actively pursue a regionally competitive approach, as identified in the
General Plan. It cannot afford to ignore external threats such as the foregoing. Nor
can it deny economic opportunities to others on behalf of any single commercial inter-
est. Most importantly, it cannot afford to continue to lose prospective opportunities to
benefit the entire City reflected in the proposed Inland Center Development Agreement.
Carousel Mall should be encouraged by the City to upgrade and expand its facility, in
accordance with the General Plan. If economic conditions continue to deteriorate
within the City and if the upgrading needs of anchors and other tenants at both malls
are not allowed and encouraged to be met, anchors and other tenants alike will have
little other recourse than to leave the City altogether for more attractive sites within the
regional market area. Reinvestment in both malls is paramount to the City's continued
economic viability.
General Growth Can Help
The contemplated FEDCO move to Inland Center would be useful for both malls in
providing an immediate occupant to fill the May Company vacancy and lessen the
possibility of an immediate move of a Carousel Mall anchor to Inland Center. General
Growth is communicating with the FEDCO ownership directly. Inland Center is will-
ing to assist and facilitate in every way possible.
7
Inland Center Has Gone the Extra Mile
Nevertheless, delays and uncertainty experienced with regard to this proposal have been
very costly. It should be emphasized that a total of $754,000 has been expended on
this project to date. Project sponsors are now concerned that additional delays may
extend this figure to the $1 million mark. Moreover, Inland Center has awaited a full,
fair hearing before the City Council for nearly eight months now. Inland Center has
made a good faith effort to communicate with the Carousel Mall ownership regarding
their concerns.
General Growth and the Inland Center owners are concerned about reasonable response
and resolution. Depending upon the outcome of this hearing, the owners may reeval-
uate their interest in this project. If there is too much delay, the City stands to lose the
project entirely. It is General Growth's opinion that most San Bernardino City taxpay-
ers would not want see the City lose this project.
General Growth rightly feels Inland Center is entitled to a full, fair hearing with an
uninterrupted presentation opportunity. We deserve full consideration of the project's
merits and expect Councilmembers' own evaluations. On the basis of the preceding
points and the entire record, therefore, we respectfully urge the Mayor and Common
Council to approve the Development Agreement, finding that:
a. expansion would improve the City's competitiveness within the region;
b. the project provides major economic and aesthetic benefits;
c. the Development Agreement is the best approval mechanism;
d. all applicable state and local requirements have been met;
e. the City General Plan directs expansion of Inland Center;
f. approval is consistent with the City's best interests;
g. delay or denial would violate the General Plan.
We appreciate your thoughtful attention to the preceding information and urge you to
proceed with an approval action.
Respectfully Submitted,
GENERAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT, INC.
AOrvalF. n n Parma?a
Vice President, Development General Manager, Inland Center Mall
cc: K. Anderson
S. Spey
P. Weirzel
p�O�L
CENTRAL CITY COMPANY
295 CAROUSF,I.MAIL • SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92401
MALL TELEPHONE(909)884-0106 • FAX(909)885-6893
June 2, 1993
The Honorable Mayor W. R. "Bob" Holcomb
Members of the Common Council
c/o City Clerk
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Inland Center Development Agreement and
Negative Declaration
Public Hearing
June 2, 1993
Dear Mayor and Council:
I have reviewed the letter dated November 25, 1992 from the Natelson Company, Inc., to Ms. Valerie
Ross, Acting Principal Planner. It is very important to note that the only conclusion drawn by the Natelson
Company, Inc. in the letter is that the Inland Center Mall Expansion Program is consistent with the General
Plan. Nowhere in the writer's conclusion or in the balance of the letter is an opinion offered as to whether
or not this data is adequate for a proper environmental review of the project or whether or not an
Environmental Impact Report should be required.
I believe that the Natelson Company did a good job for the City in preparing the General Plan six years
ago. However, they have been put in the difficult position of being asked to support the Planning
Department's recommendation for a Negative Declaration for this project by transforming general data
used in preparing the General Plan into site specific data for a massive project with specific potential
economic impacts on the City in today's market.
I offer the following comments for your consideration.
The General Plan is by definition general in nature. It is not intended to provide the specific information
necessary for individual project approval. If such logic were to be followed, a mere finding that a project
conformed to the General Plan would eliminate the need for planning and environmental reviews and
approvals, and only require the issuance of building permits. Such an argument is ludicrous on its face.
Let us consider the facts as they relate to the Natelson Company, Inc. letter dated November 5, 1992.
1. The retail demand forecast for the General Plan was prepared in 1986-87. This date is now six
years old and could not have taken into account the major changes that have occurred in retailing
in general, and the shopping center industry in specific during that period.
2. The letter reiterates goals, policies, and objectives in the General Plan to:
a. Maintain the competitive position of the City through the maintenance of a vital downtown
area with multiple uses, including a concentration of regional serving retail space.
b. Maintain and enhance Central City and Inland Center Malls and adjacent properties as the
principal region-serving centers of the City of San Bernardino.
C. Enhance the downtown area as the functional and symbolic center of the City of San
Bernardino.
If the City approves the Development Agreement with no specific information regarding the impact
on downtown retail-dependent uses it is, in effect, violating the goals, policies and objectives of the
General Plan.
3. The letter states that based on the 1986-87 retail demand forecast it was estimated that a demand
for 2.2 million additional square feet of regional commercial would exist by the year 2010. The data
was forecast for a 23 year period which would indicate an annual absorption rate of 95,652 square
feet per year. It recognizes that the total demand will not occur in the first years of the forecast
period but over the entire 23 year period. It is important to note that 17 years of the forecast period
remain and that the proposed expansion of Inland Center would consume 776,465 sq. ft. or 35.3%
of the entire regional commercial allotment for the 23 year forecast.
4. We are currently six years from the 1986-87 retail demand forecast the General Plan was based
on. The letter does not indicate how much regional commercial square footage has been added
during these six years. There have been large areas of regional commercial developed during that
time in the Rancon and South Valley Projects, the State College Project, the Wal-Mart Project, the
Westside Plaza, the Auto Center, and other projects throughout the City. Has commercial
development during the past six years exceeded the annual absorption rate of 95,652 square feet?
How much of the 2.2 million sq. ft. is left to absorb over the next 17 years? Has all or most of the
2.2 million sq. ft. already been built? How many square feet are currently in the planning and
approval processes? Was Inland Center's last expansion considered in the 2.2 million sq. ft.?
None of these questions have been answered by this letter, or any other source that I am aware of.
5. The letter refers to a relevant regional market trade area consisting of a primary and secondary
regional market area. This again is based on 1986-87 data. Both Inland Center and Carousel
Mall's market trade area cover areas much larger than the City of San Bernardino. A mall's market
area is dynamic. It is constantly changing with the construction of new regional commercial product
and a variety of other factors. During the six year period since the base data was compiled, major
changes have occurred in the market area. Five new Wal-Marts have been built; Tyler Mail double
decked and expanded; Moreno Valley Mall was built; and outlet, off-price and power centers have
been built or are on the drawing boards. The letter addresses regional market trade area demand
projected to the year 2010 but once again does not address the real world of the supply that has
occurred within that market area over the last six years in a fast-paced retail environment. In other
words, demand has not been adjusted by supply in a currently over built market. Therefore, we do
not know where we are currently at and no valid conclusions can be drawn.
6. Perhaps the most significant point that the letter does not address is the unique and specialized
market forces that exist between enclosed regional shopping centers and the major department
stores that anchor them. The dynamics of these forces are specific to the shopping centers
2
a.r
involved, to the specific majors that occupy them and their current economic health, to common
ownership interests, to the constantly changing characteristics of their market trade area, the
dependency of a number of other businesses on their economic viability and a number of other
factors.
The letter does not address the critical economic issues facing the City of San Bernardino in
achieving the goals, policies and objectives stated in the General Plan for the downtown, i.e., "A.
Intensification of downtown San Bernardino with governmental and professional offices, convention
facilities, hotels, cultural facilities, supporting retail and restaurants, and high density residential."
Critical unaddressed economic concerns are:
Retaining the Radisson Hotel; retaining the Cal-Trans headquarters; retaining the Bankruptcy
Courts; retaining the Appellate Courts; retaining and expanding County office facilities; retaining
regional banking facilities; and retaining office uses that depend on and support these uses. The
letter does not address the competition from other cities and counties for these facilities and the
economic impact (and the damage to the cities image) that the loss of these interdependent
facilities would cause the City.
I appreciate very much your careful consideration of these comments and your inclusion of them in the
public record of this hearing.
Yours truly,
Salvatore F. Catalano, CSM
General Manager
SFC:rIt
3
LAW OFFICES OF MABLENF. A. FOX
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
rnAR�eNE n. Fox 2031 ORCHARD DRIVE, SUITE 200
SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, CA 92707
(714) 975-8444
FAX (714) 975-8447
HAND DELIVERED May 31, 1993
Mayor W. R. Bob Holcomb LETTER OF OPPOSITION
and Members of the San Bernardino
Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Development Agreement No. 91-01
Council Hearing Date: June 2, 1993
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Agenda Item: 3 - Continued Public Hearing
Our File No. 09450
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the Common Council:
I . INTRODUCTION
This Office represents the Carousel Mall Merchants
Association and respectfully submits this Letter of Opposition to
Development Agreement No. 91-01 and its associated Negative
Declaration, on behalf of our client.
The Carousel Mall Merchants Association represents over 100
merchants that have employed over 1, 800 people for over 20 years
at the Carousel Mall (formerly known as the "Central City Mall" )
in the City of San Bernardino downtown area. The Carousel Mall
is located just one mile away from the Inland Center Mall just
off the I-215 San Bernardino Freeway, at Second Street. Carousel
Mall is a one-million-square foot regional shopping center, with
over 100 retail stores.
Our clients have a direct and substantial interest in the
environmental effects of the proposed project on the City of San
Bernardino area, in general, and on the regional area which will
be impacted by the proposed project, in particular. Accordingly,
the purpose of this letter is to address the application of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) to the
proposal before you (Development Agreement No. 91-01) and to
discuss our clients ' concerns with regard to the potential
environmental effects of the proposal. A Negative Declaration
has been approved by the environmental consultant retained by the
project proponent. City staff recommends approval of the
� i
6
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
Sari Bernardino Common Council_
May 31, 1993
Page 2
Negative Declaration, arguing in essence, that the project will
not have a significant individual or cumulative adverse effect on
the environment . As will be shown herein, the procedures
embodied in CEQA and its .implementing Guidelines designed to
assure adequate public participation and to assure an informed,
intelligent analysis and decision regarding the environmental
effects of a proposed project, have not been properly observed.
Further, we respectfully submit that the preparation and
consideration of an environmental_ impact report, rather than mere
adoption of a Negative Declaration, is required by law.
Before citing the specific violations of CEQA, the State
Guidelines and the City of San Bernardino CEQA Guidelines
(Resolution No. 90-217 ) , a brief review of the history of the
project is appropriate in order to place the matters to be
presented herein in proper perspective.
Ii . HISTORY OF THE PROJECT
At the outset it is appropriate to note that the facts set
forth herein are based upon the records existing in the City
files made available to this Office in response to our specific
requests.
In September 1991 the applicant, General Growth Development,
Inc. , filed a preliminary environmental description form with the
City Department of Planning and Building Services, for the
proposed project. The project was described as the expansion of
the Inland Center Mall . In general terms the expansion was
described as the construction of a second level (double-deck) for
the existing Mall which was built in 1965, facilities for up to
three additional major department stores and three to four
parking structures . At that time the expansion was to consist of
in excess of 662, 000 square feet of retail space, nearly doubling
the square footage of the existing Mall as well as doubling the
number of employees.
It is clear from a review of the preliminary environmental
description form that it was contemplated as early as September
1991, that the environmental documentation for the proposed
project would be a Negative Declaration and not an EIR. Page 5
states that mitigation measures are identified in attached
traffic and geoter_hnical reports . The project was assigned to a
planner November 6, 1991 and the Project Evaluation Checklist
includes under the Section entitled, "Environmental Factors", the
following:
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 3
"Liquefaction: Yes, within area of high
liquefaction.
Subsidence/Slide: Yes, within area of
potential subsidence.
High Groundwater: Yes, Avg. G. W. Table
0-10 feet. "
The study also indicates the applicant submitted the following
reports:
I . Liquefaction Study - submitted 11/6/91 ;
2 . Traffic Study - submitted 11/6/91 (Revised) ;
and
3 . Initial Study - submitted 3/6/92.
The project evaluation checklist describes as design issues
the following:
1 . Traffic/Circulation;
2 . Noise;
3 . Aesthetics ;
4. I-215 Freeway.
The checklist provides the identification of agencies to contact
for comments as:
1 . Caltrans ;
2. San Bernardino County Flood Control;
3 . California Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) .
It should be noted that the 62. 5 acre site for the Inland
Center Mall is located adjacent to the I-215 Freeway at 500
Inland Center Drive, in the CR-1, Commercial Regional, Land Use
District.
® On December 18, 1991 Caltrans notified the City of San
Bernardino that approving a development agreement prior to
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 4
preparation and certification of an EIR on the project would be
inappropriate, particularly since the site plan for the Mall_
included in the Development Agreement package did not .reflect any
of the plan changes to State Route 215. Notwithstanding the
December 18, 1991 notification from Caltrans, the City Traffic
Engineer on February 17, 1992 advised the Senior Civil Engineer
that the Traffic Report for the Inland Center Mall Expansion had
been reviewed and accepted subject to certain mitigation measures
and indicates that the proposed project is estimated to generate
close to 15, 000 additional Average Daily Traffic Trips.
As stated above, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared by Tom Dodson & Associates, a consultant for the
applicant and submitted to the City.
On April 10, 1992, Brian C. Otter, Environmental Health
Specialist II of the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health Services, notified the City that all food
facilities proposed for the shopping center_ expansion would be
under permit from the County DEHS . In addition, the applicant
would be required to apply for one or more of the following:
1 . A hazardous materials handler permit; or
2 . An underground storage tank permit and/or;
3 . A hazardous waste generator permit.
Notwithstanding that notification from the County, no provision
was ever made to address the issues involving hazardous
materials, underground storage tanks and/or hazardous waste
generator permits by the City in the Initial Study for the
proposed project or in the subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
On April 22, 1992 the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) notified the City that the District concluded
that the proposed project would generate significant construction
and operation related adverse air quality impacts due to its
size, location and character and that the use of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration in this particular_ case, is inappropriate
because the application of the identified mitigation measures
will not be sufficient to reduce the impact below the level of
significance, as required by CEQA. The analysis provided by
SCAQMD described the air quality setting for the area, identified
® construction related air quality impacts and operation related
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31 , 1993
Page 5
air_ quality impacts . On page 3 of its analysis under the heading
"Cumulative" (impacts ) it states:
"The Mitigated Negative Declaration did not
provide an analysis of cumulative impacts.
An analysis should be done to assess the
collective or combined effect of the project,
the existing plus project and other nearby
projects . Due to the regional nature of the
Inland Center Mall, the project could create
significant cumulative impacts . Identifying
the cumulative impacts from other similar
projects as required by CEQA will_ assist in
identifying appropriate mitigation measures . "
(Emphasis Added. )
At the time the City received the comments from the SCAQMD,
Development Agreement No. 91-01 was scheduled for a second
ERC/DRC meeting on April 30, 1.992. The .item was pulled from the
April 30, 1992 Agenda because of the AQMD comments.
Thereafter on May 4, 1992 the City Planning and Building
Department received a letter dated April 30, 1992 from Caltrans,
stating more specifics regarding their objections to a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Inland Center Mall Expansion
Development Agreement. Caltrans advised that the MND lacked
adequate disclosure relative to both direct project and
cumulative traffic .impacts, in addition to a number of other
specific comments relating to traffic and circulation. Caltrans
again took the position that a Negative Declaration is
inappropriate for the proposed project and that an EIR is
required.
Tom Dodson, the environmental consultant For the applicant
then undertook the task of preparing responses to the comments
the City received from SCAQMD and Caltrans . Reduced to its
simplest form, the Dodson responses simply advised Caltrans that
it (Caltrans ) is incorrect in its analysis.
In a similar vein, Mr. Dodson advised SCAQMD that it is
incorrect in its conclusion that the Inland Center Mall MND fails
to address the cumulative impacts. Ile argues in Response 4-5,
that it would be inappropriate for the City to address the
existing operation of the Inland Center Mall as a "part of the
project" and therefore as a part of the "cumulative impact" .
Astonishing as that statement seems, it nevertheless is the
proposition proffered by Mr. . Dodson in Response 4-5 to the
Mayor_ Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 6
SCAQMD. Mr. Dodson ' s response reflects a serious misinter-
pretation of the requirements of CEQA. While that is riot the
only astonishing, inadequate and incorrect .response offered in
the ".responses" prepared by Mr. Dodson and apparently,
subsequently accepted by the City, it is nevertheless, a good and
telling example.
In early June 1992 Mr. Dodson finalized the responses to
SCAQMD and Caltrans and advised Paul Scroggs of Planning and
Development Services :
"I have attached 1.5 copies of the responses
to comments, which when combined with the
Initial Study complete the review process for
issuing a Negative Declaration. "
Mr. Dodson ' s letter suggests that the ERC could finalize the
Negative Declaration when addressing the item at a June meeting.
The proposed project was addressed by the F.RC, for a second time
(the first time was in December 1991 ) on June 18, 1992. The
action taken by the DRC/ERC was to "clear_ the item onto the
® Planning Commission. "
Thereafter on July 9, 1992, the attorney for the applicant
drafted a Notice of Public Hearing and submitted same to the
City, advising that the Notice must be posted and/or mailed and
have concurrent publication in a newspaper. The attorney,
Patrick G. Mitchell of Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan & Tilden
requested that lie be provided with a draft version of the Notice
prior to its formal publication. Thereafter, the environmental
consultant, Tom Dodson, provided the City with the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program intended to support the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
On August 21, 1992, the City had an official Notice of
Public Hearing published in San Bernardino newspaper, to-wit:
The Sun, advertising a meeting to be held before the San
Bernardino Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 8, 1992 at
7:00 p.m. A copy of the Proof of Publication of said official-
Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit "J" . The Notice (Exhibit J)
does not make any reference to CEQA compliance and/or the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Agreement No. 91-
01 . The Notice does riot advise the public if the Mitigated
Negative Declaration is available for public review or if or
where said document could be examined. The Notice is simply
silent with regard to any mention of CEQA and/or environmental
®
impacts or evaluation. Significantly, the Notice which appeared
in The Sun on August 21, 1992 was the first public Notice to
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 7
appear in the newspaper on the Inland Center Mall Expansion
Development Agreement.
The Staff Report prepared for the September 8, 1992 Planning
Commission hearing, page 8, addresses the CEQA status of the
proposed project. The Staff_ Report states:
"The ERC recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the document was made
available for public review from March 24,
1992 through April 23, 1992. " (Emphasis
Added. )
The Staff_ Report does not however_ indicate how the public was
made aware that there was a proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration available for public review between March 24 and
April 23, 1992 . In fact, there was no published notice and there
is nothing in the City file to indicate that the property was
posted. In fact, there is not anything in the entire file that
would corroborate or support the statement that the Mitigated
® Negative Declaration was available for public review for 30 days
between March 24 and April 23, 1992.
Of equal_ import is the fact that the Staff Report does not
advise the Planning Commission that the traffic and air quality
impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance as a
result of the proposed mitigation measures. In .fact, the Staff
Report is silent on that issue. It simply states that the
comments received and responses to those comments are included as
Attachment "E" to the Staff Report and that additional analysis
and/or mitigation measures were included where deemed
appropriate. Staff_ does riot advise the Commission that all
potential_ impacts can be eliminated or mitigated to a level of
insignificance. Moreover, the Planning Commission packet does
not include a copy of the Proposed Negative Declaration. The
packet includes a document with a cover sheet identified as the
"Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration" dated March 23,
1992, date stamped received March 25, 1992 by the City Department
of Planning and Building Services . That document consists of the
following:
1 . Initial Study;
2 . Environmental Impact Checklist and
substantiation;
i
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
Sari Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 8
3. Traffic Impact Study dated September 6, 1991 ;
4. Letter dated February 5, 1992 from Bar_ton-
Aschman Associates, Inc. ;
5. Letter dated April 14, 1992 from Donald
Frischer & Associates re Inland Center
Traffic Impact Study and Technical_
Appendices;
6. Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for
mitigation measures identified in Negative
Declaration; and
7. Letters from public agencies and responses
thereto.
The document specifically does not include a document entitled
either Negative Declaration or Proposed Negative Declaration or
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. In fact, independent
® reviews on three separate occasions of City files reveals that a
document entitled "Mitigated Negative Declaration" simply does
not exist in the City _files for Development Agreement No. 91-01 .
On September 8, 1992 the Planning Commission approved in
concept the proposed Development Agreement and the associated
Negative Declaration. Thereafter the applicant made a number of
changes to the Development Agreement, including language relating
to the I-215 Improvement Project by Caltrans and access between
the Inland Center_ Mall and any collector-distributor road which
is developed as part of the 1-215 Freeway expansion. A number of
other changes were made to the Development Agreement relating to
traffic, circulation and parking impacts .
In a subsequent Staff Report dated September 18, staff
advised the Planning Commission that previous concerns had been
addressed by certain changes in the Development Agreement that
enabled staff to recommend Planning Commission approval and
recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Development Agreement No. 91-01 . The
recommendation was subsequently acted on by the Planning
Commission on September 22, 1992, recommending approval of the
revised Development Agreement and Mitigated Negative Declaration
to the Mayor and Common Council.
On or about October 8, 1992 official notices of a public
hearing before the City Mayor and Common Council were sent to
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
Sari Bernardino Common Counci- 1_
May 31, 1993
Page 9
certain neighboring property owners . Attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "M" is a true and correct copy of
the Official Notice that was disseminated by mail to certain
property owners on or about October 8, 1992, advising of a public
hearing on Development Agreement No. 91-01 which would occur
before the Mayor and Common Council on October 19, 1992 at 2:00
p.m. Exhibit "Di" identifies the subject matter of the public
hearing as Development Agreement No. 91-01 . The Official Notice
does not refer to or mention a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or
a Negative Declaration and/or_ CEQA and/or environmental impacts
or environmental_ evaluation. There is nothing on Exhibit "M" to
indicate to the public or to the recipient of the Official Notice
that the Mayor and Common Council will address the environmental
aspects of the proposed project.
On or about October 1, 1992 the Director of Planning and
Building Services, Al Boughey, prepared a Staff Report for the
Mayor and Common Council regarding Development Agreement No. 91-
01 for the Council meeting of October 19, 1992. The October 1
Staff Report is for all intents and purposes, identical to the
previous Staff Reports in that the Council_ is advised that the
Caltrans I-215 improvement project DEIR has not yet been
completed and since its alternatives will have some impact on the
Inland Center Mall Expansion, this creates an awkward situation
for Development Agreement 91-01 since the extent of the impacts
are as of this time, unknown. See Staff Report, DA 91-01, page
3.
With regard to CEQA status, the Council is advised on page
6, that the key areas of concern were traffic and circulation and
air quality. Further, that mitigation measures essentially
reduce those concerns to levels of insignificance. No mention is
made in the Staff Report to the fact that the proposed project is
in an area of high liquefaction or within an area of potential
subsidence or within an area with the average groundwater table
at 0 to LO feet.
Finally, the Staff Report recommended that the Mayor and
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and authorize
execution of Development Agreement No. 91-01 .
The October_ 19, 1992 Council meeting was continued to
December 7, 1992. Thereafter a Revised Notice was mailed to
certain property owners and interested parties indicating that
Development Agreement 91-01 would be addressed by the Mayor and
Common Council on December 7 and that consideration would also
include the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 10
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program associated with the
project.
On November 6, 1992 a Notice of Continued Public Hearing was
published in The Sun Newspaper_ . Attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit "K" is a copy of the Proof of Publication from
the November 6, 1992 published notice. Exhibit "K" for the first
time indicates for the benefit of the public that the Mayor and
Common Council will consider the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program and that
those documents were available for review by the public at the
City.
Thereafter the matter was continued on several occasions and
then finally set for hearing before this Honorable body on
Wednesday, June 2, 1993 .
It should be noted at this point that while there was some
opportunity for the submittal of comments to -the Council on
October 19, 1992, the hearing was of an "abbreviated nature" , on
the basis that the comments submitted would require certain
® responses from the City and that therefore it was unwarranted and
unnecessary to devote indepth discussion on this proposal before
the Council at that time. Attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit "G" is a copy of the Court Reporter Certified
Transcript of proceedings from the October 1.9, 1992 Mayor and
Common Council meeting.
At the October 19 meeting, the Mayor and Council directed
Staff to respond to certain comments regarding the failure to
comply with the provisions of CEQA, made by this attorney on
behalf of our client, the Carousel Mall Merchants Association.
In its Staff_ Report of November 30, 1992, Staff, concurring with
the applicant 's consultant, Tom Dodson, essentially took the same
position with regard to the comments we raised as they did with
regard to the comments raised by both Cal-trans and the SCAQMD.
In effect, both Mr. Dodson and staff have concluded that like
Caltrans and the SCAQMD, our position has no merit and that the
City has taken all necessary steps to comply with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act. The purported
responses are overly general, conclusory in nature and are
unsupported by empirical data. For the most part the purported
responses constitute nothing other than subjective opinion
heavily biased in favor- of project approval and against the
suggestion that the appropriate environmental documentation be
prepared, evaluated and circulated for public review.
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 1.1
III . THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA, THE STATE GUIDELINES
AND CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CEQA GUIDELINES HAVE NOT BEEN
FOLLOWED.
CEQA was enacted by the Legislature in response to growing
concern over the protection of the environment. The basic
purposes of CEQA have been identified in Section 15002 of the
State Guidelines as:
( 1 ) Informed governmental_ decision-makers and the
public about the potential, significant
environmental effects of proposed activities.
( 2) Identify ways that environmental damage can
be avoided or significantly reduced.
(3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the
environment by requiring changes in projects
through the use of alte.rna�ives or mitigation
measures when the governmental agency finds
the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a
governmental agency approve the project in
the manner_ the agency chose.
There are a host of leading California supreme Court
decisions that proclaim that CEQA was intended to be interpreted
in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to
the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
language. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission ( 1975)
13 C. 3d 263, 274; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors
( 1972) 8 C. 3d 247, 259.
The Court has held that a purpose of CEQA is to insure that
the long-term protection of the environment sliall_ be the guiding
criterion in public_ decisions . The EIR requirement is the heart
of CEQA. The environmental impact report acts as an
environmental "alarm bell" whose purpose is to alert the public
and officials to environmental_ changes before they have reached
ecological points of no return.
Moreover, the EIR serves riot only to protect the
environment, but also to inform other governmental agencies and
the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed
project, and, just as importantly, to demonstrate to an
apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 1.2
considered the ecological implications of its actions . Based on
strong public policy as pronounced by the Legislature in the
statute, the courts have required strict compliance with CEQA by
public agencies . Procedural requirements imposed by CEQA "are
not inherently flexible, indeed they establish a strict standard
of compliance. "
The clear legislative intent of CEQA is to provide
environmental protection, complete empirical analysis and full
public disclosure. With those goals and parameters in mind, it
is indisputable that in the case of Development Agreement No. 91-
01, the City of San Bernardi-no thus far has opted to ignore CEQA
and to treat it as a mere statutory nuisance.
The Initial Study is the preliminary analysis conducted in
order to determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration or
an EIR and, in some cases, to identify the impacts to be analyzed
in the EIR. When the Initial Study concludes that no ETR is
necessary, the preliminary documentation must also provide
documentation of the factual basis for the conclusion that a
Negative Declaration will suffice. Given those general concepts,
it must first be noted that CEQA requires a lead agency to first
consult informally with any responsible or trustee agencies prior
to preparation of the Initial Study. In other words, in this
case, the City was obligated to solicit comments from other
agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration would be
proper.
As stated above, the City was advised early on in the
process by Caltrans, that it would be inappropriate to approve
the Development Agreement for the expansion of the Inland Center
Mall, without first preparing an EIR. Notwithstanding that
comment by Caltrans, the City nevertheless pressed forward and at
the suggestion and request of the applicant, accepted a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
The various staff reports, discussed above, refer to the
Caltrans I-215 improvement project and the fact that there are a
number of unknowns associated with that improvement project which
will impact the Inland Center Mall Expansion. There is
significant discussion regarding the fact that at the time the
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, the I-215
improvement project impacts were unknown. At this time the DEIS
for the I-215 improvement project between the I-10 and SR 30 in
San Bernardino, is available . The public hearing process has
begun and the .impacts of that improvement project on the current
project will be identifiable within the next several_ months.
Environmental documents supporting the Development Agreement for
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 13
the expansion of the Inland Center Mall should incorporate,
consider and evaluate impacts of the I-215 improvement project on
the expansion of the Mall in order to reveal the true range of
impacts that will be experienced. Without that information, the
City is dealing with substantial_ unknowns that could have
disastrous environmental effects on the City and its
transportation facilities for a long time to come.
All of the documents for the proposed project agree that
Development Agreement 91-01 contemplates a project of regional-
wide significance. Public Resources Code §21092. 4(a) mandates
that lead agencies approving projects of regional or area-wide
significance, must also consult with "transportation planning
agencies" and "public agencies" which have transportation
facilities within their jurisdictions which could be affected by
the project. Such "transportation facilities" include "major
local arterials and public transit within 5 miles of the project
site and freeways, highways and rail transit service within 10
miles of the project site. (PRC §21092.4(b) ) .
As the proposed project is one of regional and area-wide
significance, the City must consult with the County of San
Bernardino Transportation Agency and the Cities of Highland,
Redlands, Colton, Loma Linda, Riverside and Realto regarding the
proposed project to determine if those agencies have
transportation facilities which will be impacted by the proposed
project. Those public agencies must be given an opportunity to
review the environmental documentation for the proposed project
and to comment on that documentation regarding the project ' s
anticipated impacts on its transportation facilities. In this
instance, the City did not consult with any of those public
agencies. Moreover, the City failed to consult with County and
the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) regarding
the impact of the County Congestion Management Plan on the
proposed project and conversely, the impact of the proposed
project on the CMP.
The City was obligated to provide the consulted
transportation agencies with all environmental documents
pertaining to the project for the purpose of obtaining
information concerning the project 's effect on major arterials,
public transit, freeways, highways and rail transit service
within the consulted agency's jurisdiction.
Staff has consistently asserted that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration responds to issues raised by Caltrans. That
assertion is factually incorrect. Attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" is a Report prepared by WPA
Mayor_ Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 14
Traffic Engineering, Inc. , signed by Weston S . Pringle, P.E. , a
Registered Professional Engineer. and Traffic Engineer in the
State of California. Mr. Pringle reviewed the various City Staff_
Reports, the Traffic Studies, Initial Study, Caltrans comments
and .responses thereto and the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Caltrans I-2.15 Improvement Project. In his
Report Mr. Pringle points out that the Initial Study Checklist
Substantiation, page 20, indicates that the proposed project does
not cause any adverse traffic impacts beyond those addressed in
the City General Plan Circulation Element and indicates the
conclusion lacks substance.
In addition to the comments in Exhibit "B" regarding that
statement, it should also be pointed out that the City of San
Bernardino General Plan EIR was prepared in March 1989, more than
4 years ago and the General Plan was adopted in June 1989, 4
years ago. The level of analysis in those documents although
general, was sufficient analysis for a general plan but does not
constitute sufficient analysis for a site specific project,
particularly one proposed 4 years later and one which will be
phased in over a 10 to 20 year period. It is incredible that
anyone would suggest that a 1989 General Plan EIR and policy
discussion could adequately identify the environmental impacts
that can be caused by a project of the magnitude of the Inland
Center Mall Expansion which will occur 5 to 15 years after the
General Plan documentation was prepared. Certainly the applicant
and the City can appreciate the significance of the lapse in time
between the adoption of the General Plan and the actual
construction of the project and the difference in the
environmental setting and traffic counts and needs that will
exist at those future dates .
The WPA Traffic Engineering Report goes on to discuss the
F.rische.r. Traffic Study and the Intersection Level of Service
Conditions . The WPA Report comments on the inconsistencies
between the project size as describe(] in i_n the Staff Report, the
Traffic Study and the Initial Study and concludes that the
differences in the three reports could affect the traffic impact
analyses . (See WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Report, page 3. )
Both Caltrans and WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. have
submitted empirical data and information to the City which
constitutes substantial evidence that the project may cause a
significant effect on the environment. The proposed Mitigation
Monitoring Program, as argued by Caltrans does not either
eliminate or .reduce to a level of insignificance, those
significant environmental impacts clearly identified by both
Caltrans and WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.
r
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 15
Guidelines §15063 provides that all phases of project
planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the
Initial Study of the project. While the proposed project in this
instance is Development Agreement 91-01, the Development
Agreement contemplates the construction, implementation and
operation of an expansion to the Inland Center Mall that will
nearly double both the square footage in the Mall and the number
of employees at that regional facility. It is the actual
construction, implementation and operation of the Mall that must
be addressed in the Initial Study as the Development Agreement
clearly provides that once executed, the DA will be in lieu of
any and all future permits that might be required for that huge
construction project. Accordingly, in order to prepare a
Negative Declaration for Development Agreement 91-01, the Council
must state that there is no substantial evidence that the project
or any of its -aspects, may cause a significant effect on the
environment. Guidelines 15063 (b) ( 2) . )
It must be remembered that one purpose of the Initial Study
is to provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding
in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a
significant effect on the environment. It is an accepted
practice for an Initial Study to identify environmental effects
by use of a checklist, matrix or other method.
In addition, it must also be remembered that as soon as the
lead agency has determined that a Initial Study will be required,
the Lead Agency shall consult informally with all Responsible
Agencies and all Trustee Agencies responsible for resources
affected by the project to obtain the recommendations of those
agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be
prepared. In this instance, at a minimum, the City should have
consulted with:
1 . The Cities of Highland, Redlands, Colton,
Loma Linda, Riverside and Realto;
2. Caltrans;
3. SCAQMD;
4. County of San Bernardino Department of
Transportation;
5. County of San Bernardino Department of
Environmental Health Services;
6. San Bernardino Association of Governments;
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 16
7. San Bernardino County Public Works
Department.
Of those responsible and trustee agencies cited, the City
consulted only with Caltrans and the SCAQMD. Most conspicuously,
the City failed entirely to consult with any other neighboring
local jurisdictions, notwithstanding their statutory obligations
to do so.
The Initial Study prepared in this instance is inadequate.
The Guidelines provide that the I .S. shall contain a description
of the project including the location and an identification of
the environmental setting. There is no attempt in the Initial
Study prepared for the proposed project to identify the
environmental setting of the Inland Center Mall. Moreover, the
Environmental Impact Checklist signed by Larry E. Reed and dated
March 19, 1992 on behalf of the ERC, is both inaccurate and
inadequate, as set forth in detail below.
Checklist, page 1, paragraph B. 1-Earth Resources - The
Checklist is inaccurate in that it responds "No" to questions D
and E and indicates that the "yes" response to question G can be
satisfactorily mitigated to "no significance" . The Checklist
Substantiation on pages 2 and 3 purport to clarify those
responses. The Checklist Substantiation information is fraught
with generalizations and sweeping conclusions and not based on
scientific, factual data. Among the most glaring problems are
the responses to 1 G under Earth Resources referring to
development within an area subject to landslides, mud slides,
liquefaction or other similar hazards, etc. The Checklist
Substantiation states on page 3 that the developer has had
prepared a detailed Liquefaction Report dated January 1992 by
Law/Crandall Inc. Further that the Report summarizes results
from soil borings and analysis of materials encountered beneath
the project site and concludes that the potential for significant
liquefaction at the site is considered low.
The Checklist Substantiation goes on to offer a mitigation
measure and states that geotechnical hazards to affect future
structures can be mitigated to nonsignificant levels by complying
with the engineering measures identified in two January 1992
Reports cited on page 4 of the Checklist Substantiation. This
Office has engaged in substantial efforts to obtain copies of the
documents referred to in the Checklist Substantiation material
relating to the January 1992 evaluation of Liquefaction
Potential, etc. Report and the January 1992 Report on Foundation
Investigation, etc. As of this date, we have been unable to find
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 17
any evidence that either of those two cited Reports exist in the
files for this Project at the City of San Bernardino or, in fact
have ever existed. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit "A" is a Declaration executed under penalty of perjury by
Kelly S. Ringer, a Paralegal employed by this Office. As the
Declaration states, Ms. Ringer reviewed the City files for
Development Agreement No. 91-01 at the Planning and Development
Services Department in both October and December 1992. During
the course of her review, Ms. Ringer made a list of each and
every document in the files and was unable to locate either of
the two documents referred to on page 4 of the Checklist
Substantiation relating to geologic conditions at the Inland
Center Mall and/or a foundation report, dated January 1992.
Moreover, Ms. Ringer made a specific request to the Planner
in charge of the project, Valerie Ross, requesting copies of
those documents or the right to at least inspect the documents.
That exchange and communication with Ms. Ross is set forth in
detail in Exhibit "A" . Ms. Ringer was told that Ms . Ross had
researched this matter before and that she had been unable to
locate either of the two documents that are referred to in the
Mitigation Measure, relating to geotechnical constraints of the
property and dated January 1992. Finally, Ms. Ross advised Ms.
Ringer that she would research that matter further by
communicating with Tom Dodson, the consultant for the applicant
and when she had information on the documents, she would contact
Ms. Ringer here at this Office, and so advise her. As of this
time and date, we have had no further communication from Ms.
Valerie Ross relating to either of the two documents identified
as:
1 . "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
Proposed Inland Center Malt Expansion
Interstate 215 Freeway and Inland Center
Drive, San Bernardino, California, for
General Growth of California, Inc. , January
' 92" ; and
2. "Report on Foundation Investigation Proposed
Inland Center Mall Expansion Interstate 215
Freeway and Inland Center Drive, San
Bernardino, California, for General Growth of
California, Inc. , January ' 92. "
It should also be noted that the Checklist Substantiation
material states that the two cited documents were reviewed and
approved by the City Building Department. Surely if the
documents were reviewed and approved by the City Building
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 18
Department, there would be some evidence of their existence in
the City files . If_ the documents do exist, then they have been
withheld from this Office and have precluded our client and our
client 's representatives from reviewing that technical data in
order to provide comments thereon to the Council. CEQA does not
sanction such concealment of information as such a maneuver would
be contrary to public policy declarations in the statute that
provide for adequate public participation and review.
In light of the foregoing, it is interesting to note that on
page 1 of the Checklist signed by Larry Reed, it states:
"Environmental Constraint Areas: Geologic
and Seismic" .
That notation is in addition to the Project Evaluation Checklist
discussed above which provides that the project is within an area
of high liquefaction, is within an area of potential subsidence,
adjoins a 100 year flood zone and has high groundwater, with an
average groundwater table of 0 to 10 feet. Note that the two
City documents addressing the geotechnical environmental factors
that are issues with this project, are both City employees and
that the Initial Study and Checklist Substantiation was prepared
by the consultant for the applicant, and not by the City Staff.
Moreover, on October 19, 1992, at the hearing before the Council,
this attorney questioned the validity of the Law/Crandall, Inc.
Report on the basis that the Report was prepared and is dated
September 6, 1991, nearly one year before the significant Landers
and Big Bear earthquakes of June 28 and 29, 1992. In that
regard, we brought to the attention of the Council, substantial
documentation that has been prepared and pertains to this issue
and the location of this property since the Landers and Big Bear
earthquakes of 1992. Clearly this is an issue that cannot be
swept under the "proverbial rug" by use of sweeping, conclusory,
general statements such as those contained in the Checklist
Substantiation with references to nonexistent technical reports,
allegedly site specific.
The proposed project includes addition of a second story or
"decking" to the existing Mall. A tragic example of what can
happen in a severe earthquake with regard to "decking" was
graphically and painfully demonstrated several years ago during
the October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in Northern California
with the collapse of the double-deck freeway in Oakland,
California. To treat this matter in such a cavalier fashion as
to say it cannot happen here under the facts and circumstances,
constitutes a callous disregard for the health, safety and welfare
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 19
of the citizens and people who will patronize and visit the
Inland Center Mall facilities after expansion. Given these
circumstances it is imperative that the matter be adequately
presented and that the public have an opportunity to review the
most current, scientific and available information, and more
importantly that this Council have the most current, scientific
and reliable information available before issuing the blanket
approval for this project as contemplated by the proposed
Development Agreement. In addition to the documents cited on
October 19, 1992, attached hereto as Exhibit "F" is an article
which appeared in the EERI Special Earthquake Report of August
1992, entitled "Landers and Big Bear_ Earthquakes of June 28 and
29, 1992", providing more updated information. Attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit "I" is a document obtained
from the California Department of Conservation entitled "Future
Seismic Hazards in Southern California, Phase I : Implications of
the 1992 Landers Earthquake Sequence", published by the United
States Department of the Interior, the California Office of
Emergency Services and the California Department of Conservation.
Exhibit "I" was prepared and published in November 1992.
Note that a Phase II report which will contain more complete
analysis of future earthquake probabilities in greater Southern
California will be available in approximately two to three months
from now. Note the statement on page 24, Exhibit "I", at the
bottom, in a discussion involving the Southern San Andreas and
Northern San Jacinto Faults, it states:
"If the San Bernardino Mountains segment
should fail in the next few years, its
complex fault geometry suggests that the
coseismic deformation will also be complex;
the event would probably be well over M7" .
(magnitude of 7 on the Richter Scale) .
In addition to the documents included with this Letter of
Opposition, we refer the City to a document published by the
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology, dated 1992 identified as DMG Open-File Report 92-1,
entitled "Peak Acceleration From Maximum Credible Earthquakes in
California", which also provides more current geotechnical and
seismological information about faults, earthquakes and
characteristics of strong ground motion which has accumulated
rapidly since 1974.
The Checklist, Question 2 relating to air resources, again
indicates that the proposed project will not result in
substantial air emissions or an affect upon ambient air quality
0
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 20
as defined by the AQMD or create objectionable odors. Attached
hereto as Exhibit "D" is a Report prepared by Hans D. Giroux,
Senior Scientist of Giroux & Associates, commenting on the
Negative Declaration and the failure to recognize and address the
significant air quality impacts that will be created by the
proposed project. Mr. Giroux points out in his Report that there
are substantial deficiencies in the available information and in
fact that there is inadequate information to reach the
conclusions City and Applicant have reached regarding no
significant impact on air emissions. Mr. Giroux points out on
page 3 of his Report that the project ' s relationship to the I-
215 Freeway Improvement is a particularly critical concern in
light of the findings in the I-215 Improvement Draft EIR. The I-
215 Improvement DEIR shows the Inland Center Drive/I-215 Ramps to
operate at LOSF for all improvement alternatives except
Alternative 3.
In addition to the foregoing Mr. Giroux points out that the
air quality analysis ignores the recently revised/adopted AQMD
CEQA Handbook which modified existing thresholds of significance.
Further, that if an EIR is required for this project, as it
should be, the EIR will be required to conform to the new
significance standards, not those used in the current
documentation.
Mr. Giroux also points out that the proposed Development
Agreement specifically requires that the Inland Center Mall
Expansion will be exempt from all future participation in the
Congestion Management Program to be adopted and in force in the
County. This is incredible since the ICM is an anticipated trip
generator of 44, 200 trips per day. Exemption of the ICM facility
from the CMP is contrary to air quality improvement objectives in
the regional air quality management plan (AQMP) .
Finally, Mr. Giroux concludes that there is insufficient
data in the Initial Study, including the purported Checklist
Substantiation, to confirm the contention that air quality
impacts are at less than significant levels.
There are a number of other deficiencies in the
Environmental Checklist and in the Checklist Substantiation.
Specifically, the conclusions in the Checklist relating to water
resources, biological resources, noise, man-made hazards,
housing, transportation/circulation, public services, utilities,
and aesthetics are unsupported by factual, empirical data and the
statements in the purported Substantiation, amount to overly
broad, conclusory statements, including numerous non-specific,
general references to the City of San Bernardino 1989 General
i
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 21
Plan and 1988 General Plan Update Technical Background Report.
The level of discussion in an EIR for a General Plan and in the
General Plan itself, is by definition general and not "site
specific" with regard to environmental impacts. However, the
State Guidelines do allow for incorporation by reference of all
or portions of another document which is a matter of public
record and is generally available to the public. Where such
other document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated
part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where
possible or briefly described if the data cannot be summarized.
Further, the relationship between the incorporated part of the
referenced document and the Checklist or Negative Declaration
shall be described. The Guidelines provide that in order to rely
on material outside the document at hand (the Environmental
Checklist and/or the Checklist Substantiation) , the City must
notify the public of its intent to rely on said material, and the
specific information in the other material that the City is using
to support its decision.
Although the Checklist Substantiation makes numerous
references to the General Plan and the General Plan Update
Technical Background Report, as well as several other Reports,
there is no attempt whatsoever to identify the specific
information in those reports that the City is using to support
the conclusions set forth in the Environmental Checklist. On
that basis, there is no way that the public can review the
Environmental Checklist and/or the Checklist Substantiation and
identify the source of the information on which the City relied
to draw the conclusions in the Checklist that the proposed
project would not have a significant impact on air resources,
transportation/circulation, earth resources, water resources,
man-made hazards or any of the other questions and issues raised
in the Checklist.
It is respectfully submitted that the Environmental
Checklist and the purported Checklist Substantiation does not
contain sufficient scientific data to support the conclusions
reached in the Checklist of non-significance of the proposed
project and therefore the Initial Study fails at its basic
purpose to provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in the Negative Declaration that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
Guidelines §15064 (a) (1) provides that when a Lead Agency
determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment, the Agency shall
prepare a Draft EIR. As stated above, the determination of
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 22
whether the project may have a significant effect calls for
careful judgment on the part of the Agency, based to the extent
possible on scientific and factual data and not on sweeping and
overly broad conclusory statements, unsupported by facts .
When evaluating the significance of the environmental effect
of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or
direct and secondary or indirect consequences . Primary
consequences are immediately related to the project whereas
secondary consequences are related more to the effects of the
primary consequences than to the project itself. Examples of
consequences deemed to be significant are set forth in Appendix G
to the State Guidelines . Appendix G states that a project will
normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will:
(1 ) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system;
(n) Encourage activities which result in the use
of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy;
(p) Increase substantially the ambient noise
levels for adjoining areas;
(r) Expose people or structures to major geologic
hazards;
(u) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community;
(x) Violate any ambient air quality standard,
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation, or expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations . "
It is our contention that the proposed Inland Center Mall
Expansion will have a significant effect on the environment as
that term is defined and found in Sections (1) , (n) , (p) , (r) ,
(u) and (x) of Appendix G to the State Guidelines.
Note also that while economic and social changes resulting
from a project are not treated as significant effects on the
environment, such economic or social changes may be used, to
determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a
significant effect on the environment. Where a physical change
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 23
is caused by economic or social effects of a project, the
physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the
same manner as any other physical change resulting from the
project. See Guidelines §15064 (d) , (e) and (f) . See also
Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bisho Area v.
County of Inyo 1985 172 C.A. 3d 151 and Citizens for Quality
Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 C.A. 3d 433.
The proposed Inland Center Mall Expansion is analogous to
the situation in the Citizens Association for Sensible
Development of Bishop Area case. In that case the Court agreed
with the plaintiffs and ruled that the County of Inyo must
require an EIR which should consider the physical deterioration
of the downtown area to the extent that potential is demonstrated
to be an indirect environmental effect of the proposed shopping
center. The Inland Center Mall Expansion could have a
substantial and adverse impact on other areas of the City of San
Bernardino, if the Inland Center Mall attracts businesses
currently located in the Highland Avenue retail corridor, the
base line retail corridor, the Mount Vernon Avenue retail
corridor, the new Westside Shopping Plaza, the 40th Street and
State College shopping areas, the retail portions of Commerce
Center, Tri-City and Valley projects, and last, but not least,
the downtown retail core. Attracting existing businesses from
the downtown business core, including but not limited to
businesses from the Carousel Mall, could potentially cause a
blight of downtown San Bernardino such as that which existed in
the City in 1965. If the proposed project would deprive the
downtown business district of necessary revenue, forcing business
closures and eventual physical deterioration of the downtown
business are, this would be a secondary consequence more related
to the effect of the Inland Center Mall Expansion than to the
expansion itself. That fact notwithstanding, the economic change
that may result means that a physical change shall be regarded as
a significant effect on the environment where the physical
change, such as the deterioration of the downtown business area,
is caused by the economic effects of the project.
CEQA provides that a decision as to whether a project may
have one or more significant effects shall be based upon
information in the record of the Lead Agency. If the Lead Agency
is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall
prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other
substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant
effect. See Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward ( 1980) 106
C.A. 3d 988 and No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 C. 3d
68.
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 24
In the instant case, the communications with Caltrans, the
AQMD, the Giroux Report, the WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.
Report, the substantial current data on the geotechnical hazards
relating to earthquakes and geotechnical hazards in the San
Bernardino area and the potential economic impacts which will be
created by the proposed project as submitted by our client,
clearly demonstrate that a fair argument has been presented to
the City of San Bernardino that the Inland Center Mall Expansion
project may have a significant effect on the environment and that
an EIR is required. Moreover, it is clear that there is
disagreement between experts over the significance of the effects
on the environment. In such a case, Guidelines §15064 (h) ( 2)
provides that the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as
significant and shall prepare an EIR. As stated above, in the
Introductory portion to this Letter of Opposition, CEQA
procedures are mandatory and not flexible to be inconsistently
applied at whim, when convenient. It is beyond question that in
the instant case, preparation of an EIR is required.
Item 14 on page 5 of the Environmental Checklist requires
that the Lead Agency make certain mandatory Findings of
Significance pursuant to §15065 of the State Guidelines.
Specifically, CEQA provides that if any one of four questions can
be answered "yes" or "maybe", the project may have a significant
effect on the environment and an EIR shall be prepared. See
Public Resources Code §21083 (b) and (c) . It cannot be seriously
argued that a construction project of the size and scope of the
Inland Center Mall Expansion will not have impacts that are
cumulatively considerable. Without a doubt, by definition, given
the increased number of daily vehicular trips, the anticipated
air emissions, the potential to negatively impact the downtown
business core of the City, the impact on public services and the
potential exposure of human beings to severe geological hazards,
that the project will have a significant cumulative impact on the
environment. Clearly the response to questions 14 (c) and (d)
should have been answered with a resounding "yes" .
Note that the purported environmental impact Checklist
Substantiation makes no attempt to address Item 14 on page 5 of
the Environmental Checklist or to justify the conclusions and
answers to the four questions requiring a mandatory finding of
significance.
In addition to the foregoing, the City failed to comply with
the requirements for processing the Negative Declaration.
However, we submit that a detailed discussion of those failures
is unwarranted at this point because the evidence that
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 25
there is a fair argument that the project will cause a
significant impact on the environment is overwhelming and an EIR
should be required prior to project approval. Suffice it to say
at this point that Guidelines §15070 (a) or (b) provides that if
there is any substantial evidence before the Lead Agency that the
project as proposed or revised may have a significant effect, an
EIR must be prepared. Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward,
supra; Running Fence Corp. v. Superior Court 1975 51 C.A. 3d
400.
Although it is our contention that a negative Declaration
for this project is inappropriate, much has been made by staff
and the project proponent 's representatives, that our client as
well as the public at large had adequate opportunity to review
the proposed Negative Declaration in the spring of 1992,
purportedly after it was proposed by the ERC. In fact, in each
of the staff reports to the Planning Commission and the Council,
staff has continued to reiterate that there was a 30-day public
review period of the Negative Declaration, during which the
public could comment on the proposed document.
® In that regard, PRC §21092 (a ) provides that a public agency
preparing a Negative Declaration shall provide public notice of
that fact within a reasonable period of time prior to final
adoption of the Negative Declaration. The notice shall specify
the period during which comments will be received on the Draft
Negative Declaration and shall include the date, time and place
of any public meetings or hearings on the proposed project, a
brief description of the proposed project and the address where
copies of the Negative Declaration are available for review.
Notice must be given by publication by posting where the project
is to be located and by direct mailing to owners and occupants of
contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment
roll.
Notwithstanding all of the statements in the Staff Report
and the arguments by staff and the applicant to the contrary, the
only notice ever given of the Negative Declaration according to
City files, was the Notice that was given in early November. 1992
when the Council hearing was continued from November 2nd to
December 7, 1992. That was the first and only notice that was
ever published that addressed the proposed Negative Declaration.
As discussed above in the Introductory portion of this
Opposition Letter, although there were several earlier notices of
public hearings, the notices contained no references whatsoever
® to CEQA compliance or to a proposed Negative Declaration. On
that basis and on the basis that the Council as final
ASVAk
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 26
decisionmaker in this instance has an obligation to independently
review and evaluate the City ' s CEQA compliance and the proposed
Negative Declaration, comments on the Negative Declaration at
this time are not inappropriate. In fact, Guidelines §15074 (b)
mandates that the decisonmaking body of the Lead Agency shall
consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process, prior to
approving the project.
In addition to the .failure to comply with CEQA and the State
Guidelines, a review of the City file reveals that there has been
a failure to comply with the City ' s own Guidelines as set forth
in Resolution No. 90-217. Specifically, Section V.C. discussing
the procedure for the preparation of initial studies, provides
that a Draft Initial Study shall be prepared by the Department
presumably the Department of Planning and Building Services,
based on information supplied by the application and consultation
with City Departments and Responsible Agencies. That section
also provides that during the Initial Study there shall be
consultation with any known agencies and/or individuals that
might be affected by a proposed project in order to identify any
significant adverse impacts. Clearly in this case the Draft
Initial Study was prepared by the environmental consultant for
the Applicant and not by the City and there was no consultation
with known agencies and/or individuals that might be affected by
the proposed project.
Section V, F, again discussing consultation procedures
provides that consultation with other public agencies, City
departments and the public shall be done for all Initial Studies,
Negative Declarations and EIRs. The Department and ERC shall be
responsible for assuring that consultation does take place as
required by State CEQA Guidelines.
With regard to the proposed Initial Study and the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Inland Center Mall
Expansion Development Agreement, City Guidelines V. , F. mandating
consultation was ignored.
Section V. , H. , entitled Evaluation and Response to Comments
Received provides that when the City is the Lead Agency, the
Department shall evaluate any comments received on an Initial
Study and recommend environmental determination of a project.
This procedure was not used with regard to Development Agreement
91-01 . The comments received from Caltrans and AQMD were
evaluated and responded to by the consultant for the Applicant.
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 27
IV. STAFF AND APPLICANT RESPONSES ARE INADEQUATE AS A MATTER OF
LAW AND DO NOT ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR AN EIR.
OPR summarized the requirements of CEQA in responding to
comments as follows:
"Comments must be addressed in detail, giving
reasons why the specific comments and
suggestions were not accepted and factors of
overriding importance warranting an override
of the suggestion. Responses to comments
must not be conclusory statements but must be
supported by empirical or experimental data,
scientific authority or explanatory
information of any kind. The Court (Cleary
v. County of Stanislaus ) further said that
the responses must be a good faith, reasoned
analysis. "
The comment and response procedures of CEQA ensure a vital
function by furthering the policy of public input underlying the
Act. Comments cannot be ignored or superficially addressed,
because a detailed, good faith, reasoned response "helps to
insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding
stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the
rug. " County of Inyo v. Yorty (1975) 32 C.A. 3d 795, 807.
The responses by Staff and the Applicant to the many
concerns raised on behalf of the Carousel Mall Merchants
Association are superficial at best. For example, many comments
raised the issues of geotechnical hazards relating to
liquefaction, and a high groundwater table. Responses simply
indicate that the September 1991 geotechnical report from
Law/Crandall indicates that significant impacts can be mitigated,
without any further specifics.
Other responses also lacked the requisite analysis. For
example, with regard to the issues relating to the degradation of
air quality in the area as raised by the AQMD, the response is
almost nonsensical. The response states:
"Given the increased capture of customers
that would normally shop out of the area, net
air emissions would actually be reduced
thereby avoiding significant air quality
impacts . "
There is not an iota of evidence in the record to substantiate
Mayor Holcomb and Members of the
San Bernardino Common Council
May 31, 1993
Page 28
the theory that there will be an increased capture of customers
that would normally shop out of the area. This response wholly
fails to state any basis for the contentions stated and is
insufficient as a matter of law.
The response also ignores the point of requiring an EIR
where there is serious public controversy over the environmental
effects of a project . The CEQA Guidelines require the
preparation, analysis and consideration of an EIR whenever there
is serious public controversy. This requirement cannot be short-
circuited by imposing mitigation measures on a Negative
Declaration, especially in the situation where no empirical data
is identified or exists to support the Staff "contentions" that
the mitigation measures are adequate.
In summary, the Staff responses are inadequate as a matter
of law and totally fail to alleviate the necessity of preparing
an EIR for this project.
V. CONCLUSION
It is respectfully submitted that an EIR is required to
address the environmental effects which would be identified in
the event the City prepares an objective and substantiated
Initial Study for the project. A project the size and scope of
the Inland Center Mall Expansion clearly needs the scrutiny that
would be provided by a .full and complete EIR.
On behalf of our client and this Office we thank the Mayor
and Council for the opportunity to submit this Letter and to
apprise you of our concerns . Should any member of the Council
have any questions or .require additional information, this Office
would be pleased to respond in any way possible.
Thank you for your anticipated consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF MARLENE A. FOX
By
MARL NE A. FOX
MAF/Lgl
Attachments
cc: Carousel Mall Merchants Association
0
LIST OF EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO
MAY 31, 1993 LETTER IN OPPOSITION
TO APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-01
SUBMITTED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COMMON COUNCIL ON BEHALF
OF CAROUSEL MALL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT A - Declaration of Kelly S. Ringer and attachment re
review of City files on Development Agreement No.
91-01 .
EXHIBIT B - May 27, 1993 Letter from WPA Traffic Engineering,
Inc
EXHIBIT C - Resume and credentials of WPA Traffic Engineering,
Inc. and Weston S. Pringle, Registered Professional
Engineer
EXHIBIT D - May 28, 1993 Letter from Hans D. Giroux, Senior
Scientist, Giroux & Associates
EXHIBIT E - Statement of Qualifications of Giroux & Associates
Hans D. Giroux
EXHIBIT F - Article entitled Landers and Big Bear Earthquakes
of June 28 and 29, 1992 which appeared in the August
1992 EERI Special Earthquake Report
EXHIBIT G - Copy of Court Reporter Certified Transcript of
October 19, 1992 Common Council Hearing on
Development Agreement No. 91-01
EXHIBIT H - Article on Inland Center Mall Expansion Plans which
appeared in the San Bernardino Business Magazine,
published by the San Bernardino Area Chamber of
Commerce, Volume VI No. 7, November 1992
EXHIBIT I - November 1992 Publication entitled Future Seismic
Hazards in Southern California, Phase I :
Implications of the 1992 Landers Earthquake
Sequence, published by the United States Department
of the Interior, the California Office of Emergency
Services and the California Department of
Conservation
0
0
EXHIBIT J - Proof_ of Publication of Notice of Hearing before
San Bernardino City Planning Commission of
Development Agreement No. 91-01
EXHIBIT K - Proof of Publication of Notice of Hearing before
Mayor and Common Council of Development Agreement
No. 91-01
EXHIBIT L - Article entitled When "Big One" hits S.B. - What it
Might Do which appeared in The Sun newspaper on
February 7, 1993
EXHIBIT M - San Bernardino Official Notice of Public Hearing
Before the City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common
Council for October 19, 1992 2:00 p.m. meeting
2.
1
2
3
4 BEFORE THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
5 FOR THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
6
7 IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
PUBLIC HEARING: ) DECLARATION OF KELLY S.
8 ) RINGER, ATTACHED AS
EXHIBIT "A" TO LETTER
9 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ) OF OPPOSITION SUBMITTED
NO. 91-01 TO GOVERN THE ) BY CAROUSEL MALL MERCHANTS
10 DEVELOPMENT OF A PHASED ) ASSOCIATION
EXPANSION PROJECT AT )
11 INLAND CENTER MALL )
12
13
14 DATE AND TIME: MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1993 , 2 P.M.
15
16 DECLARATION OF KELLY S . RINGER
17
I, KELLY S. RINGER, declare:
18
1 . I am employed as a Paralegal by the Law Offices of
19
Marlene A. Fox, a Professional Corporation.
20
2 . My responsibilities as a Paralegal for the Fox Firm
21
include frequently reviewing files at various public agencies, to
22
r search for documents and to summarize file contents .
23
3 . On October 16, 1992 I went to the Department of
24
Planning and Building Services at the City of San Bernardino
25
located at 300 North "D" Street and asked to review the file on
26
the Inland Center Mall expansion project (Development Agreement
27
No. 91-01 ) .
28
1 4. My employer, Ms. Marlene A. Fox, specifically
2
instructed me to search the file for copies of documents relating
3 to the Negative Declaration and for the following two specific
4 documents:
5 (a) Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Proposed
6 Inland Center Mall Expansion Interstate 215
7 Freeway, etc. , dated January 1992; and
8 (b) Report on Foundation Investigation Proposed
9 Inland Center Mall Expansion, etc. , dated
10 January 1992.
11 5 . On October 16, 1992 I conducted a thorough review of
12 each and every document contained in the file made available to
13 me by the Planning and Building Services Department and was not
14 able to locate either one of the two aforementioned described
15 documents dated January 1992.
16 6. On November 30 and December 1, 1992 I made a series of
17 telephone calls to the Department of Planning and Building
18 Services of the City of San Bernardino, attempting to communicate
19 with Planner Valerie Ross for the purpose of obtaining a Staff
20 Report for the December 7th Common Council meeting and to make an
21 appointment to review the City files on the Inland Center Mall
22 Expansion, without success .
23 7 . Finally early in the morning on December 2, 1992 I was
24 able to reach Valerie Ross and secured an appointment to review
25 the City files .
26
27
28
2 .
1 8. On December 2, 1992 I arrived at the City of San
2 Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services at
3 approximately 11: 25 a.m.
4 9. I was directed to a Boardroom by Mr. John Burke to
5 review the DA 91-01 File which was in that room on a table.
6 10. I reviewed the City file on the Inland Center Mall
7 Expansion from approximately 11 : 25 a.m. to approximately 3:00
8 p.m. on that date and during the course of my review made a
9 detailed, verbatim list of each and every document and paper
10 contained in the City file.
11 11 . During the course of my review of the file, Valerie
12 Ross came into the Boardroom and introduced herself. Ms . Ross
13 gave me the original of a letter regarding our telephone
14 conversation earlier that morning and stated that she had FAXed a
15 copy of her letter to our Office.
16 12 . Since I had been unable to locate a copy of the January
17 1992 LeRoy Crandall & Associates Report entitled "Evaluation of
18 Liquefaction Potential Proposed Inland Center Mall Expansion,
19 etc. , " I asked Ms. Ross where I could locate a copy of that
20 Report.
21 13. In response Ms. Ross said she would research the matter ,
22 and get back to me with an answer. She also said she believed
23 she had researched that matter before.
24 14. In addition to requesting a copy of the LeRoy Crandall
25 January 1992 Liquefaction Report, I asked Ms . Ross where I could
26 find a copy of the January 1992 Report on Foundation
27 Investigation Proposed Inland Center Mall Expansion, etc. Again
28
3.
Q1 Ms . Ross said she would have to research that matter and get back
2 to me.
3 15 . Later during the course of my review of the file, while
4 still at the City on December 2, 1992, Ms . Ross came back to the
5 Boardroom. At that time she told me she had contacted Tom
6 Dodson, the Environmental Consultant, and that when she received
7 a reply from Mr. Dodson, she would advise me of that fact and
8 answer the questions regarding the two Reports dated January
9 1992. Further, Ms. Ross said if she received this information
10 after I left the City Hall on December 2, that she would call me
11 at our Office in Santa Ana Heights .
12 16 . I was never given nor shown copies of the two January
13 1992 Reports referred to in Mitigation Measure #6, page 8,
14 Exhibit "G" to the Development Agreement 91-01 while I was
15 reviewing the file at the Department of Planning and Building
16 Services in the City of San Bernardino on October 16 or December
17 2, 1992.
18 17 . At no time have I received a follow-up call from
19 Valerie Ross subsequent to our discussions at the City of San
20 Bernardino on December 2, 1992 . Nor have I received any kind of
21 written response to my questions regarding the existence or
22 nonexistence of the January 1992 Liquefaction or Foundation
' 23 Reports.
24 18. When I returned to our office on December 2, 1992,
25 pursuant to my instructions from my employer, I prepared a
26 detailed Memo regarding what transpired during my visit to the
27 Department of Planning and Building Services and a verbatim list
28
4 .
1 of each and every document contained in the City of San
2 Bernardino Planning and Building Services ' file on Development
3 Agreement 91-01 . Attached hereto and incorporated herein is a
4 copy of the three-page list which I prepared after returning from
5 reviewing the file in San Bernardino.
6 19 . I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
7 is within my personal knowledge, is true and correct, and if
8 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify
9 thereto.
10 Executed this 6th day of January, 1993, at Santa Ana
11 Heights, California.
12
13
E Y RINGER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 .
12/2/92 City Hall San Bernadino
The following is a list of items found in the DA file 91 -01 :
Notice of continuance
Proof of Publication
Ltr to Mayor and Council from Pres. Carousel Mall
Official notice public hearing 10/19/92
Fax from Fox ' s office 10/28/92 to Mr. Reed
y Ltr to Mayor 10/26/92 form June Durr
Council Summary and Agenda 10/19/92
j Request for Council Action 10/1 /92
Staff Report
Resolution
Development Agreement between City of SB and Mano Mang. Co. INc. ,
Includes Exhibits:
A Depiction of Parcels
B Depiction of Parcels
C Site Plan
D Phasing Plan
E Permitted Uses
F Filing Requirements
G Mitigation Monitoring Program
H Existing and Proposed Signage and Landscaping
I Public Improvments
J-1 Caltrans Design Alt. #3
J-2 Developers Concept of Impact of I-215 freeway Design alt.
K Certificate of completion
Attachment D Initial Stuey and proposed Neg. Dec. , Inland Center Mall
Expansion Development Agreement
Environmental Impact checklist and Substantiation
Traffic Impact Study Donald Frischer and Ass.
Appendix #4 Barton Aschmann and Ass. Inc.
Attachment #C Ltr. 4/14/92 From Frischer to City SB Public Works
Attention Mr. Abarikwu Ass. Traffice Engineer
Technical Appendix Addendum April 14 , 1992
Ltr 6/2/92 Dodson and Ass. to Paul Scoggs.
Ca. Regional Water Quality Control Board 4/16/92 Responses to Ltr #1
Attention Scoggs.
Transportation Flood/ Control Dept. 4/22/92 Responses to Ltr #2 Att.
Scoggs
12/2/91 Scoggs comments
4/30/92 DOT Response Ltr. #3 Scoggs
DOT 4/30/92 Concerns Neg. Dec.
SCAQMD 4/22/92 comments on Neg. Dec.
Mitigation Montor Report Aug. ' 92
Initial Study Proposed Neg. Dec. 3/23/92
Law Crandall Inc. Geotech, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential 9/6/91
Ltr Frischer and Ass. 4/14/92 to Mr. Abarikwu
Report Traffic Impact Study 10/21 /91 by Frischer and Ass.
1
i
Drawings Altoon and Porter Architects 1991
Set of labels
City SB Requirements Fire department Hearing 12/5/91
City SB Requirements Engineering, water quality, environmental, sewer
3/18/92
Exhibit J-2 blueprint
Fuscoe Williams Lindgren and Short Civil Engineers bllueprints 10/29/91
Chase Investors Blueprints
Dodson Ltr of Transmittal 7/20/92
Final Agenda 6/18/92
Meeting Date 4/30/92
Environmental and Dev. Review Committe meeting 3/19/92 Pg. 5
Final Agenda 12/5/91
Ltr. From City SB 6/10/92 to Richard Donavin General Growth Dev. Co.
Ltr CSB to Cindy Greenwald SCAQMD 6/5/92
LTR CSB to Harvey Sawyer Chief Transportation 6/5/92
Ltr 6/2/92 To Scoggs From Dodson
SCAQMD Responses to comment Ltr##4
Ltr To Scoggs From Governors office Planning and Research 4/23/92
CSB Environmental Doc. Transmittal Form Recd. 4/2/92
Ltr. Transmittal 5/27/92 Dodson to Amvar/Olona
Ltr. From DOT 4/30/92 to Scoggs Responses to Comment Letter ##3 DOT Dis .
8 Calstrans.
Ltr of Tansmittal to Scoggs From Dodson 5/28/92
Inter - Departmental Mimo From Al Boughey To Scoggs
Table 4 Inland Center Expansion
Traffic Impact Analysis
Intersection
Table 7 Intersection levels
Ltr DOT 4/30/92 to Scoggs
Ltr CSB 4/27/92 To Donavin
Ltr SCAQMD 4/22/92 To Scoggs
SCAQMD Staff Assesment
Ltr CRWQCB To Scoggs 4/16/92
Ltr CSB 4/21 /92 To Donavin
Ltr Trans Flood/ Control 4/22/92 To Scoggs
Ltr Trans Flood/ Control 12/2/92 To Scoggs
Business Card Brian Otter Environmental Health Specialist
Agency Comment Sheet
Interoffice Memo 2/17/92 To Grubbs from Wagdy Re: Traffic Mitigation
Ltr DOT 12/18/91 To Scoggs
Draft Record 12/13/91 Inland Center Mall Expansion Phase I & II
Ltr DOT 12/2/91 to Scoggs
Agency Comment Sheet RECD. 11 /18/91
SBd-I-215 Project Briefing Sanbag Conference Room 11 /12/91
Project Review Pouting 11 /14/91
" Evaluation checklist 11 /6/91
Inter office memo To Mayor From Hardgrave 9/26/91 RE: Extension of Orane
Show Rd. or Central Avenue
Handwritten Notes
Ltr. Gresham, Varner, Savage Nolan and Tilden To Rachel Clark 10/29/92
Ltr CSB 10/21 /92 To Mano Mng.
Ltr CSB 10/14/92 to Mano Mng.
Cert. of Mailing
2
Statement of Official Planning Commision Action Meeting 9/22/92
Ltr GVSN&T to Valerie Ross 9/24/92
Ltr CSB To Donavin 8/21 /92
Proof of Publication 10/8/92
to of 12/21 /92
Cert. Of Mailing 8/25/92
Notice of Hearing 9/8/92
Ltr GVSN&T 9/21 /92 to Ross
Ltr. " 9/18/92 To Ross
Ltr. " 9/18/92 To Ross
Ltr. 9/17/92 To Ross
Ltr. " 7/24/92 To Scoggs
Ltr. 7/9/92 To Scoggs
Notice of Public Hearing 8/4/92
Ltr GVSN&T 6/17/92 To Scoggs
Inland Center Mall Pro-Forma Analysis 4/14/92 Report by General Growth
Ltr Jaquess and Ass. 4/8/92 To Scoggs
Project Review Routing RECd 3/13/92
Ltr CSB 3/11 /92 To Donavin
Interdepartment Memo To Hardgrave From Boughey RE: Revised DA as of1 /10/92
Interdepartment Memo To Scoggs From Empeno Re; Revised DA as of 1 /10/92
Ltr. GVSN&T 3/6/92 To Scoggs
Preliminary Environmental Description Form 10/22/91
Letter of Authorization 10/24/91
Preliminary Peport From First American Title Insurance Co. 10/9/91
Drawings Rancho San Bernadino
Receipts $325 to Planning Dept. form General Dev. and Jaques & Ass.
Blueprints Fuscoe WL&S
Draft Second Agreement Amendidng Dec. of Establishment of Restrictions
& Covenants Affecting Land 10/8/65
CSB Memorandum 9/18/92 To Planning Commission From Boughey
CSB Building Services Summary Agenda Item ##4
3
i
w * : 0
V P 0% WPA
' -
A Traffic Engineering, Inc.
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
May 27, 1993
Ms. Marlene A. Fox
Law Offices of Marlene A. Fox
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 200
Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707
SUBJECT: INLAND CENTER MALL EXPANSION
Dear Ms. Fox:
We have reviewed the various documents provided by you relative to the subject project.
This includes the City Staff Report, traffic studies, initial studies, comments from other
agencies, responses, the Draft EIS for I-215 Widening, and similar information. The
review was conducted to evaluate the need for an EIR in place of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
The "Inland Center Mall Development Agreement (1992), Initial Study, Environmental
Impact Checklist Substantiation", Page 20, indicates that the project does not cause any
adverse traffic impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan Circulation Element
and the General Plan EIR. This conclusion is questionable for several reasons.
1. The General Plan traffic analyses were based upon daily
volume/capacity comparisons, in order to evaluate the
adequacy of the circulation system. While this is an
appropriate level of analysis for a General Plan, it is not for
a specific project. Peak hour analyses are necessary for
project evaluation.
680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 • FAX:(714) 871-0389
^' _2_
2. Policy 6.1.14 of the General Plan states that Level of Service
'
C '
is to be provided. The Technical Background Report"
for the General Plan states, on Page 3-14, that the City has
established Level of Service "C" as an acceptable level of
service, but that Level of Service "D" could be tolerated on
some portions of the network for limited periods of time.
The Draft EIR for the General Plan, on Page 4-81, states that
the City has established Level of Service "D" as the criteria for
maintaining an acceptable level of service and that Level of
Service "E" can be tolerated on some portions of the network
for limited periods of time.
The "Traffic Impact Study, Inland Center Expansion", prepared by Donald Frischer &
Associates, September 6, 1991, on Page 28, states that City Staff considers mitigation
necessary where future traffic operations are worse than Level of Service "E". This is not
consistent with the General Plan. The analyses indicate that in 1998, with traffic growth
and Phase I of the project, one intersection operates at Level of Service "E" and two at
Level of Service "It". These conditions deteriorate as further development occurs, as
noted in the study. No mitigation is stated possible at one of the intersections (E
Street/Mill Street/Inland Center Drive) and mitigation to Level of Service "E" is
recommended at E Street/Orange Show Road.
The Frischer Traffic Study indicates that the intersection of Inland Center Drive and the
I-215 Southbound Ramps operates at Level of Service "D" or better for all conditions,
except Condition 8 (Table 2, Page 14). Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all incorrectly show no
left turns from Inland Center Drive to the southbound on-ramp and right turns onto the
off-ramp (wrong direction on a one-way street). Since the calculations for this
intersection are not included in the study, there is no way to validate the conclusions in
Table 2.
-3-
If any of the volumes for the westbound approach to the intersection, as indicated on
Figure 7, are left turns, the existing single left turn would be inadequate. The widening
of Inland Center Drive to accommodate multiple left turn lanes should be addressed in
the study and is not.
The CalTrans letter of April 30, 1992, also notes the Level of Service "F" condition. In
response, the City states that the problem would exist without the project and that
impacts are reduced with the project and street improvements. Level of Service "F" is
Level of Service "F" and should be mitigated under any scenario.
There are inconsistencies between the project size, as contained in the Staff Report,
Traffic Study, and Initial Study. The differences could affect the traffic impact analyses.
The following data are provided:
Staff Report: Additional 776,465 SF, TOTAL 1,762,348 SF
Traffic Study: Additional 645,301 SF, TOTAL 1,529,130 SF
Initial Study: Additional 776,465 SF, TOTAL 1,660,294 SF
If the areas in the Staff Report are correct, the daily trip generation would be 49,250 trip
ends. This is 5,050 more than indicated in Table 3 of the Traffic Study and raises the
net increase in daily trips to 10,600 trip ends. This difference should be clarified and the
Traffic Study revised to reflect the increased trip generation.
There are two major changes to the area circulation system that are being studied, but
were not considered in the project analyses. These are the widening of I-215 and the
extension of Central Avenue. Both or either could have significant impacts upon
circulation in the vicinity of the project. It would be appropriate for these to be discussed
in the traffic analyses.
The "Draft Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the Widening of I-215", on Page 1-9,
identifies a major deficiency of the existing facility (I-215) in its inability to meet
transportation demands. It further states that the deficiency is particularly true at
;�.
-4-
present, south of Inland Center Drive, where exiting traffic interferes with the normal
freeway operations. Additionally, it states that as future traffic volumes grow, congestion
will worsen and traffic will seek alternate routes through the local street system. These
statements further indicate the need for a thorough evaluation of impacts related to the
doubling of the Inland Center. If the freeway is not widened, what are the impacts of
expanding the center? Can the local roads accommodate diverted freeway traffic and the
center traffic?
In summary, the proposed expansion of the Inland Center Mall would be equivalent to
building a new regional mall, based upon an addition of 776,465 gross square feet. A
project of this magnitude must be carefully evaluated and all future scenarios examined.
Since the identified impacts do not conform to General Plan Policies and Criteria, the
study should also address these issues.
We trust that these comments will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565
WSP:ca
#921480
w * : 40N
�a P ft
A Weston Pringle & Associates
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Weston Pringle and Associates is a consulting firm providing traffic and
transportation engineering services. The firm has served both public and
private clients in traffic and transportation planning, operations, safety, and
design. A partial listing of assignments completed by the firm is contained
in the attached information.
I
Our experience includes evaluation of traffic impacts of development;
I A
planning circulation systems for development and redevelopment;
Circulation Elements of General Plans; traffic signal, striping, signing,
lighting, and construction traffic control plans and specifications; accident
analyses; parking studies; and similar assignments.
Mr. Weston S. Pringle, P.E. is the Firm Principal. He has over 30 years of
experience in traffic engineering and has been responsible for numerous
projects. Mr. James J. Sommers is a Senior Engineer and has extensive
experience in traffic operations and project management. Mr. Steven S.
Sasaki is a Senior Engineer with a wide range of experience in
transportation planning and project management. Mr. Todd A. Fagen is
an Associate Engineer and has experience in transportation planning and
land development. Resumes of their experience and background are
enclosed for further information.
680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 • FAX:(714) 871-0389
*A 0
P d1b Weston Pringle & Associates
A
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Weston StewaA Pflngk
Rnn Pflndpa�
Registered Professional Engineer State of California, Civil and Traffic Engineering
Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers and Member, American Society of Civil Engineets.
Institute of Transportation EVneers AcWties: International Director, Presiden4 District 6, Presiden4 Southern
California Section;Delegate, Program Detelopment Conference;Member, Special Publications Committee,Member,
International Admissions and Transfers Committee;SeniorEditor, 'TechnicalNotes",-Member, Parking Facilities for
Industrial Plants Committee;Member, Traffic Improvement Data collection Guidelines Committee, Member, Traffi-c
Characteristics and Considerations for Tomorrow's Airports Committee;Member, Impact Analysis of Proposed New
Development Committee;Member, Employment Center Parking Facilities Committee; and Member, Guidelines for
Transportation Impact Assessment of Proposed New Development Committee.
Mr. Pringle has been listed in "Who's Who in Engineering'and 'Who's Who in the West".
Mr. Pringle has had a varied experience in both the planning and operational fields of traffic engineering. Some of
the projects with which he has been involved include:
.TRANSPORTA77ONPIAMV17VO-circulation and transportation elements of general plans for cities, freeway
location & impacts studies, access, circulation and parking systems for industrial plants, airports, central
business districts, colleges, shopping centers and other developments; traffic impacts analysis for
environmental impact reports.
77Z4FFIC OPERA77OX5-TOPICS areawide plan studies for eleven cities; traffic signal and traffic signal
system design; parking studies; street and parking lot lighting designs; school safety programs, access,
circulation and parking studies for commercial, residential, and public developments.
Mr Pringle has also provided traffic engineering services related to litigation for both the plaintiff and defense. This
involvement has included both deposition and court testimony.
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:California state Univeisity-Fresno,Bachelorof Science of Civil Engineering 1960;
Certificate, Municipal Public Works Administration, Guest Lecturer in Transportation and Traffic Engineering,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
From 1960, Mr. Pringle has been Civil Engineering Assislan4 City of West Covina;Assistant Traffic Engineer, Trafflic
Engineer and Associate Civil Engineer, City ofDowney;Principal Engineer, WilburSmith andAssociates, Consulting
Engineers, Los Angeles; Vice Presiden4 Lampman and Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Pomona, Vice
President, Crommelin-Pringle andAssociates, Inc., Placentia and ownerof 4eston Pringle andAssociates since 1976.
REGISTRATION
Registered Civil Engineer No. CE 16828
Registered Tra/fic Engineer No. TR 565
680 Langsdorf Drive 9 Suite 222 9 Fullerton, CA 92631 o (714) 871-2931 e FAX:(714) 871-0389
W + w
P A Motu PV** a4d A68uiafa
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES
FLUOR SITE PLANNING STUDY - Irvine, California. Welton Beckett & Associates
Analysis of access and parking requirements for Fluor Corporation Irvine site
of 105 acres with an ultimate employment of 10,000. Assistance was provided
in the layout and design of the parking facilities and internal road system.
ORANGE COUNTY FAIR MASTER PLAN - Costa Mesa, California. Caudill, Rowlett &
Scott; POD, Inc. ; Economic Research Associates
Provided traffic and transportation engineering input to Feasibility Analysis
and Master Plan for development of the fairgrounds. This included analysis of
traffic factors of alternate uses, parking requirements and layout, and overall
circulation system.
UNIVERSITY TOWN CENTER TRANSPORTATION STUDY - Irvine, California. The Irvine
Company
Prepared analysis of transportation needs for the University Town Center
Development which included the development -
P 1 ment of a micro-area -
p rea multimodal trans-
portation model. Modes included in the analysis were walk, bicycle, auto,
tram and transit. The analysis will serve as a basis for planning the overall
development.
VILLAGE OF WOODBRIDGE - Irvine, California. The Irvine Company
A traffic study was conducted to determine the impacts and traffic requirements
for this planned community of approximately 30,000 persons. Commercial as well
as residential projects were included. This report served as the traffic impact
portion of the EIR for this study. Follow-up studies were completed as develop-
ment occurred.
AERONUTRONIC-FORD TRAFFIC STUDY - Newport Beach, California. DAON Corporation
A traffic analysis was completed to determine the potential for future development
of approximately 100 acres of this site. The analysis included future growth of
the existing on-site development and off-site developments. Follow-up studies
were completed as required for approval of a development plan for the site.
ANAHIEM HILLS - Anaheim, California. Willdan and Anaheim Hills, Inc.
Prepared an analysis of the traffic requirements for the Anaheim Hills General
Plan. The development includes over 4,000 acres of various land uses including
residential, commercial and recreational. Problem areas were identified and
mitigation measures recommended.
AW-
OXNARD SEWER EXTENSION - Oxnard, CAlif. Envista, Inc.
Analyzed the traffic impact of the land development which could result from
the availability of sewer facilities. Impacts upon traffic during construction
were also included in the analysis.
ORCUTT GRADE SEPARATION - San Luis Obispo, Calif. City of San Luip Obispo
Analysis of alternate plans for a railroad grade separation including future
traffic services needs. Prepared a draft EIR for the recommended project.
VENTURA HARBOR MASTER PLAN - Ventura, Calif. Donald Cotton and Associates
Traffic analyses were completed for the ground transportation requirements of
the Ventura Harbor Master Plan. Potential traffic impacts were identified
and mitigation measures recommended. The examination of specific development
proposals was included in the study.
GREENWOOD INTERCHANGE - Monterey Park, Calif. Envista, Inc.
Traffic studies were completed to evaluate the need and potential impacts of
construction of an interchange on the Pomona Freeway (Route 60) at Greenwood Ave-
nue. The analysis considered future development in the area and the impacts
without the interchange. This traffic analysis became a part of the EIR for the
project.
ORANGEFAIR MALL - Fullerton, Calif. Westec Services, Inc.
Prepared traffic and parking analyses sections for the redevelopment of a
regional shopping center. Study included analysis of traffic impacts of
depressing a major street (Harbor Boulevard) and constructing a mall over the
street.
CORAL BAY - Huntington Beach, Calif. Westec Services, Inc.
Traffic circulation, design, safety and parking characteristics were evaluated
for a planned community residential development. This project was within the
Coastal Zone and required presentation to the Coastal Commission.
NEWPORT CENTER - Newport Beach, California. The Irvine Company
Studies were conducted to analyze on a project-by-project basis the traffic
impacts of commercial, hotel and residential development. A computer model
was developed to determine individual and cumulative impacts upon critical
intersections by 33 separate projects including a 1.2 million square foot
regional shopping center.
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CENTERS - San Diego County, California. Project Design
Consultants
Traffic and parking analyses were completed for two County regional centers.
These centers contained court and enforcement facilities as well as other
County Departments. Recommendations were developed relative to access and
parking requirements and the traffic impact of the projects quantified.
PHILLIPS RANCH - Pomona, California. POD, Inc.
Traffic analysis and development of design criteria for the Phillips Ranch
Specific Plan. The project will contain approximately 4,000 dwelling units
with a commercial center, schools and other facilities. As a part of the
work, individual development plans were reviewed and recommendations rela-
tive to their adequacy made to the City of Pomona.
SANTA ANA COMMUNITY PLANS - Santa Ana, California. Archiplan
Prepared traffic circulation analysis and recommended improvements for the
development of community plans for three areas of the City of Santa Ana.
Analysis included both major circulation elements and neighborhood improve-
ments. A team approach including architects, landscape architects, planners,
economists and others was utilized for the overall studies.
RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN - Carlsbad, California. The Planning Center
Analyzed circulation needs for an 846 acre Master Plan including both on-site
and external traffic needs. The land uses included residential, commercial
and industrial sites. A major part of the circulation planning was consi-
deration of two major arterials that intersect within the site.
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN - Rancho Cucamonga, California. The William Lyon Co.
Traffic studies and analyses were completed for the preparation of a plan for
the development of 2,150 acres. The studies included analysis of internal
circulation needs and potential traffic impacts upon adjacent roadways. A
regional shopping center along with office and related uses are planned in
addition to residential uses. The traffic analysis was utilized in the pre-
paration of an EIR for the project.
W + (:�b
-r P -W WoW PVM& ad A56uiafa
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY - Los Angeles, Calif. Ultra-
systems, Inc.
Analyzed impact of proposed residential and hotel/office development on
current studio property. Major land use revisions were considered. The
EIR was challenged in court and found to be adequate.
VARIOUS TRAFFIC STUDIES - Irvine and Newport Beach, Calif. The Irvine Company
We have analyzed the traffic impact of a variety of residential, commercial,
and industrial as part of the development of the Irvine properties in Orange
County. These studies were input to the Environmental Impact Reports prepared
by others.
MICHELSON DRIVE EXTENSION - Irvine, Calif. Environmental Feasibility Studies
The traffic impact of the extension of Michelson Drive including the construc-
tion of a bridge was analyzed. A detailed analysis of the potential impact on
adjacent residential areas was included. Mitigating measures were thoroughly
examined, including the no-project alternative.
NELLIE-GAIL RANCH - Orange County, Calif. The Presley Company of So. Calif.
The traffic impact portion of an EIR for the proposed development of a resi-
dential community of 1400 acres. This study included both on-site roads needs
and the impact upon the serving street system.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1 - Newport Beach, Calif. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc.
A traffic impact analysis was completed which covered a General Plan Amendment
for the expansion of Newport Center. The potential traffic impact upon 23
intersections was examined with consideration given to other committed projects
and regional traffic growth. Various mitigation measures were examined including
the construction of major arterial roads as bypass routes.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY _ Carson, California. City of Carson
A Highway Safety Program study was conducted to develop a pedestrian and
bicycle safety program. Each elementary school was evaluated and safe route
to school maps prepared. Recommendations were made for a continued pedestrian
and bicycle safety program.
IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX-WEST SIGNAL STUDY
Evaluated future traffic signal needs for the ultimate development of a 4,000
acre industrial area. Future traffic projections were developed for planned
land use and combined with existing development to synthesize future traffic
conditions. Intersections were evaluated to determine signalization require-
ments including phasing.
Adow
W C5b
r P 14VW Wealm Tlk*fe ad A53viala
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
ROUTE ALIGNMENT AND DESIGN STUDIES
ALICIA PARKWAY ALIGNMENT STUDY - Orange County, California.
This study examined the traffic factors related to the alignment of Alicia
Parkway between Portola Parkway and Plano Trabuco Road. Alternative con-
figurations for the Alicia Parkway and Portola Parkway intersection were
examined utilizing projected vehicle turning movements.
LOS MONOS ALIGNMENT STUDY - Carlsbad, California
Traffic factors related to three alternative alignments of an arterial
highway (Los Monos) were examined. The study included the evaluation
of traffic impacts upon parallel and intersecting routes. Consideration
was also given to impacts upon future development in the area serve by
Los Monos.
CORONA EXPRESSWAY TRAFFIC STUDY - Pomona, California
Future traffic operational needs were examined to determine lane requirements
and interchange/intersection needs. Recommendations were developed for
planning the road to serve planned development as well as regional travel
needs. Both interim and long range improvement needs were identified.
GREENWOOD AVENUE INTERCHANGE - Monterey Park, California
Potential impacts of converting an existing overcrossing to a full interchange
of Greenwood Avenue with the Pomona Freeway (Route 60) were examined. The
analysis included geometric and operational impacts upon the freeway. A
weaving analysis was completed to evaluate freeway impacts of the interchange.
W * ;
cma A
Weston Pringle & Associates
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE STUDIES
SADDLEBACK COLLEGE - Irvine, California
Analyzed alternative campus locations with respect to traffic characteristics. After site
selection, an analysis was made of the traffic impacts and parking requirements for the
new campus.
RANCHO SAN'T'IAGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE - Orange, California
A traffic study was completed for the proposed Orange Canyon Campus of the Rancho
Santiago Community College District. This study included on-site circulation, site access,
and potential impacts upon adjacent roadways. The study was utilized as a part of the
EIR for the project.
WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE - Culver City, California
A traffic analysis was completed to evaluate the ability of the serving street system to
accommodate an expanded enrollment. Potential problem areas were identified and
mitigation measures recommended.
LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGE - Los Angeles, California
Examined traffic and parkin; impacts related to a planned expanded campus. Studies
completed to satisfy City or Los Angeles traffic impact analysis procedures.
680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 • FAX:(714) 871-0389
W � �
,,a P 01;b
Weston Pringle & Associates
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGN
Weston Pringle and Associates provides an extensive background in traffic signal and
signal systems design. The combined experience of Weston S. Pringle and James J.
Sommers exceeds 50 years and 2,000 individual signal improvement projects.
Intersection designs range from simple pre-timed to multi-phase full actuated operation.
Many of the design projects required interconnect and a few required systems master
central units.
Presently, Weston Pringle and Associates is involved with projects in Orange, Los
Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. We are
providing contract design and plan checking services for the City of Anaheim and
contract design services for the County of Orange, County of Riverside, and Port of Long
Beach.
The following is a brief list of recent clients:
1. City of Anaheim
Prepared traffic signal designs for over 150 intersections,
including many modifications.
Contact: Mr. Steve Cyra (714) 254-5183.
2. City of Anaheim
Prepared plans for traffic signal communications trunk line
interconnect between the City's master and various major
arterials.
Contact: Mr. Steve Cyra (714) 254-5183.
680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 • FAX(714) 871-0389
3. City of Carlsbad
Prepared several traffic signal improvement plans along El
Camino Real and the airport and industrial areas.
Contact: Mr. Bob Johnson (619) 438-1161.
4. County of Orange
Prepared several traffic signal, striping, and interconnect
designs in the southeast portion of Orange County for the
Rancho Santa Margarita Company and the Mission Viejo
Company.
Contact: Mr. Ignacio Ochoa (714) 834-3484.
5. County of Los Angeles
Prepared traffic signal improvement designs and system
timing for Telegraph Road, involving over 40 intersections.
Contact: Mr.John Hill (818) 458-5905.
We presently employ Autocad Version 11 software to prepare plans. Our Assistant
Engineers and their support staff are very capable and produce the highest quality plans.
Preliminary designs are produced in draft format using pencil plotting techniques. Final
plans are ink plottings on mylar for highest quality. Duplicate drawing files are
furnished, on request, to the appropriate agency.
Those concerned are encouraged to contact Weston Pringle and Associates and any of
the references listed above. We would be pleased to answer questions regarding our
design capabilities and to provide a sample plan, if desired.
RECENT PROJECTS - REFERENCES
1. La Habra Hills, La Habra - Pacific Coast Homes, a division of Chevron
Land & Development.
References: Tom Moseley, Project Manager, (714) 960-4351.
Lee Risner, City Manager, La Habra, (213) 905-9708.
2. Watson Corporate Center, Carson - Watson Land Company.
References: Jerry Weeks, Vice President, (213) 775-3486.
3. McDonnell Centre, Huntington Beach - McDonnell Douglas Realty.
References: Merle Pautsch, Client, (714) 833-2154.
Bruce Gilmer, City Traffic Engineer, (714) 536-5525.
4. Anaheim Hills Festival, Anaheim - Anaheim Hills Festival (Taubman).
References: Brad Geier, Development Director, (714) 282-6590.
REFERENCES
1. Mr. Alfred Yalda Related Projects: Circulation Plan for
Traffic Engineer Anaheim Hills, Traffic Signal Design,
City of Anaheim and various traffic impact analyses.
P.O. Box 3222
Anaheim, CA 92803
(714) 999-5183
2. Mr. Richard Edmonston Related Proiects: Traffic Impact
Traffic Engineer Studies including analysis of future
City of Newport Beach traffic needs and development of
Newport Beach, CA 92663 circulation improvement
(714) 644-3344 recommendations,traffic signal design.
3. Ms. Pat Temple Related Proiects: Traffic impact
Environmental Coordinator analyses for EIRs.
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(714) 644-3225
4. Mr. Allen Holden Related Projects: Traffic impact
Deputy Director, Traffic Engineering Div. analyses and traffic signal design.
City of San Diego
1222 First Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-7181
5. Mr. Art Rangel Related Proiects: Traffic impact
Director of Community Development analyses and circulation element
City of Downey preparation.
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241-0607
(213) 869-7331
r^ Giroux & Associates
Environmental Consultar
May 28 , 1993
Law Offices of Marlene A. Fox
A Professional Corporation
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 200
Santa Ana Heights , CA 92707
Dear Marlene,
We have reviewed the materials on the Inland Center Mall that
you provided. Given that this project has major traffic
impacts and associated potentially significant air quality
impacts, we are very surprised that an EIR has not been
required. The SCAQMD as a commenting agency has stated that
the project will create significant air quality impacts. The
project is one with a reasonable expectation of public
controversy. It certainly seems to us that CEQA criteria for
the preparation of an EIR have been met.
There is insufficient information presented in the initial
study for us to confirm that air quality impacts are not
significant as stated in the initial study. The deficiencies
in the information presented are as follows:
1 . The air quality and transportation discussion are based
on standard ITE trip generation factors related to
shopping center size. The development agreement is for
a specified square footage of retail space. If the
tenant mix at ICM changes in response to new market
trends , the trip generation could be substantially
different than assumed. With May Co. leaving ICM, with
Sears retailing reportedly in financial difficulty, with
Carter-Hawley-Hale emerging from Chapter 11 , the "majors"
as we know them today may not survive. The whole traffic
and impact analysis is based on "majors" utilizing 800 of
the gross leasable area in the expansion. If the majors
do not come, then other more successful high volume
tenants will be sought. Trip generation for a discount
store is about two times the regional shopping center
rate. Given that the development agreement only covers
footage and not trips, there is no guarantee that any of
the traffic and subordinated air quality impact analysis
is in any way accurate or adequately protects City of San
Bernardino residents.
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 210, Inane, California 92714 - Phone(714)851-8609 - Fax(714)851-8612
-2-
2 . We find the statement in the response to AQMD comments
regarding construction activity levels a little hard to
believe in Response 4-3 which states:
"Construction of . . . a new department store would require
several months. . . "
The construction duration is grossly understated as
evidenced from construction duration at a number of other
area malls such as Tyler Mall or Montclair Plaza.
3 . There is no cumulative analysis between emissions from
construction of future phases and traffic serving already
completed phases of the project. Emissions calculations
from construction activities, from vehicular sources,
from energy consumption are all segregated which
trivializes their impact.
4 . No analysis of any microscale air quality "hot spots" has
been performed. The traffic analysis proudly proclaims
that only four of the eight major intersections will
operate at Level of Service "F" , while only two of the
eight will operate within the design goals of the
Circulation Element of the general plan. Given that the
worst future intersection involves the Northbound I-215
off-ramps with a 135 second aver_ aq_e delay (some shorter,
some longer) , we foresee traffic backing up the ramp and
stalling the freeway. The traffic analysis is based on
an average weekday in a peak month. Impacts on a peak
weekday could be worse. Stagnation induced by off-ramp
queuing will affect not only shoppers , but all other non-
project traffic on the freeway. The lack of any
microscale analysis in an area of major congestion
potential further invalidates the ability to conclude
that the project will have not significant air quality
impact.
5. The cumulative interaction of the proposed expansion with
the existing mall is not analyzed because "CEQA is
designed to address changes in the baseline physical
environment that are caused by a proposed project. . . The
existing mall is not closely related. . .
CEQA Guidelines in Section 15355(b) state "The cumulative
impact . . . results from the incremental impact of the
project when added to other closely related Past, present
and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. "
-3-
If the existing mall is not a closely related past
project to the expansion, we are not sure what
constitutes a "closely related past project" .
6. Because the initial study is not held to EIR standards,
it presents no air quality impact analysis of
alternatives. It purports that construction of an
additional three-quarters of a million square feet of
retail space will be an air quality benefit to the South
Coast Air Basin. In the absence of definitive
information on the source of this conclusion or on
growth/decline of other shopping facilities in the San
Bernardino area, we are unable to accept this statement
at face value, especially given the fact that the South
Coast AQMD as a commenting agency disputes this
contention.
7. There is no analysis of project interaction with I-215
improvement plans. Given that the most seriously
impacted roadway intersection at project buildout
involves the northbound I-215 ramp, it is premature to
conclude that the project has no adverse air quality
impacts given that future roadway configurations are not
known at present. The project's relationship to I-215
improvements is a particularly critical concern in light
of the findings in the I-215 Improvement DEIR. The DEIR
shows the Inland Center Dr./I-215 Ramps to operate at LOS
F for all improvement alternatives except Alternative 3 .
Even under this most intrusive build alternative, this
ramp will still be the worst ramp on the freeway in terms
of congestion on an average weekday. During high sales
volume periods, the back-up may extend far into freeway
travel volumes. The I-215 Improvement impact analysis is
based on traffic distributed all along the "Regional
Opportunities Corridor" . Concentration of traffic by
focusing the proposed level of growth at one location may
invalidate the assumptions of the I-215 Study. This
potentially significant impact should be evaluated in an
EIR.
8. The air quality analysis ignores the recently
revised/adopted AQMD CEQA Handbook which modified
existing thresholds of significance. If an EIR is
required for this project, the EIR will be required to
conform to the new significance standards, not those used
in the current documentation.
-4-
9. The proposed development agreement specifically requires
that ICM will be exempt from all future participation in
the congestion management program (CMP) . As an
anticipated trip generator of 44 , 200 trips per day,
exemption of the facility from CMP seems contrary to air
quality improvement objectives in the regional air
quality management plan (AQMP) .
We believe that if we, as air quality/environmental analysts
with many years of experience, find the initial study
deficient in data by which to confirm the contention that
impacts are at less than significant levels, then City staff
and the City Council likely will be even more handicapped in
this regard. We believe that an EIR must be prepared to
overcome these deficiencies and resolve existing points of
controversy.
Sincerely,
Hans D. Giroux
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Associates
HDG:ai
I
E
�.. Giroux & Associates
Environmental Consultants
r ,
.f
di
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
GIROUX & ASSOCIATES
fw ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS
17744 Sly Perk CJrcle, Sure 210, Iruae, Celi/ornia 92714 - PZune(714)851-8,609 - Feu (714)8514612
i- Giroux & Associates
Environmental Consultants
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
. J
I
J7744 Sky Park QrrJc,Suite 210, kiioe, CALforn,a 92714 - Pbo4e (714)8S1-8oW - Fa-r (714),014612
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. General Company Qualifications
j
II. Detailed Project Listings
A. Air Quality Impact Analyses
1. Land Use Planning
2. Conunercial Development
i 3. Industrial Project,
4. Institutional E1Rs
5. Recreational Facilities
6. Residential Developments
B. Meteorology/Windflow
1. Meteorological Monitoring Activities
2. Windflow Studies
3. Complex Terrain
4. Atmospheric Dispersion and Tracer Studies
5. Geothermal Development
C. Infrastructure Projects
" 1. Roadway Impact
2. Landfills
3. Wastewater and Odor
4. Airports
D. Acoustical Impact Studies (Noise)
E. Airborne Toxics
,I
III. Personnel Resumes and References
i
IV. Current Fee Schedule
i
GENERAL COMPANY QUALIFICATIONS
i
1
l
q
----
Giroux & Associates
, r
Environmental Consultants
r
CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS
Giroux & Associates (G&A) has been providing aerometric assessment services (air quality,
acoustics, meteorology, airborne hazards/toxies and airborne nuisance such as dust and
odors) for almost twenty (20) years. Within the last two decades, the firm has participated
it in over 500 environmental investigations. Specialized services include ambient pollution and
noise monitoring, computerized air pollution and noise dispersion modeling,emissions source
testing, inert tracer gas Geld studies, APCD/AQMD permit preparation and processing,
expert witness testimony and regula{pry agency liaison.
General environmental program areas and specific types of experience include the following:
LAND USE PLANNING - Prepare air quality and noise sections for EAs, EIRs, NDs;
develop impact mitigation and compliance monitoring plans; provide consistency analyses
with regional air quality plans and applicable General Plan Noise Elements.
i ROADWAYS &AIRPORTS - Perform air quality monitoring and modeling from line and
area sources; evaluate transportation and air quality planning consistency; perform noise
l monitoring and impact modeling; evaluate noise abatement criteria and develop noise
reduction plans through barriers or structural insulation requirements.
9
ESSENTIAL SERVICES - Analyze air quality and acoustic impacts from wastewater
treatment plant and landfill operations; perform odor impact studies and certification of
odor removal efficiencies in packed column scrubbers in wastewater treatment processes;
perform risk screening analyses for treatment plants and landfills and for siting schools and
i hospitals in possible air toxic environments.
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS - Perform computer dispersion estimates from industrial fuel
combustion sources; prepare Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) applications;
prepare APCD/AQMD applications for Authority to Construct; perform noise standard
compliance monitoring and modeling; assist in design of acoustical insulation and barriers
' for industrial sources such as rock plants, concrete block plants, liquid blending operations,
steam ejectors from cooking evaporators; operate air quality monitoring stations near
industrial sources such as mines and nulls to determine mitigation effectiveness.
i RECREATION PROJECTS - Prepare analyses and impact mitigation plans for nuisance
sources such as equestrian activity dust and odor; noise control from competitive activities
such as racing, golf tournaments, tennis stadiums; prepare indirect source analyses for major
tourist attractions; identify and mitigate air and noise impacts in pristine environments.
17744 Sty Pxrl- Circle, Suite 210, lr�Tae, Caldomia 92714 - Pboae(714)651-8609 - Fur 0141 S514612
I�
l
i
DETAILED PROJECT LISTINGS
f
E AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSES
74
LAND USE PLANNING STUDIES - prepared air quality impact analyses for multi-
) land use developments, related land use elements to air
j qualit y management ment planning,analyzed GPA impacts, wrote EIRs, perform ed data acquisition.
Oxnard AFB Conversion, Camarillo, CA
• Santa Maria/Orcutt Master Plan EIR, Santa Barbara County, CA
ti
• South Orange County Local Coastal Plan (LCP), Newport Beach, CA
Bay Boulevard Redevelopment Plan EIR, San Diego County, CA
• Lake Arrowhead Village Redevelopment, San Bernardino County, CA
• Peters Canyon Development Study, Orange County, CA
• Carroll Canyon Development Study, San Diego County, CA
Irvine Industrial Complex • East (IIC-E), Phase II, Irvine, CA
• Weir Canyon Development Study, Orange County, CA
North Ford Project, Newport Beach, CA
Indian Wells Development Study, Riverside County, CA
Oceanside Plaza Renewal Study, Oceanside, CA
• Janal Ranch (Eastlake) Master Plan, San Diego County, CA
J
IMED Research Park, 'Vista, CA
• Cooley Ranch Development Study, San Bernardino County, CA
California City Phase II Development, Kenn County, CA
1
• River Park Industrial Park Development, Lompoc, CA
• Rancho Carmel Development Plan, San Diego County, CA
• Tejon Ranch Long-Range Development Master Plan. Kern County, CA
Lancaster Signal Landmark Properties EIR, Los Angeles County, CA
• Mojave B Range Removal Study, China Lake, CA
Colorado River Recreational Development Plan, AZ, NV, and CA
• Rancho del Oro, Oceanside, CA
• City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Air Studies, Newport Beach, CA
I
� The Irving Company Office Complex, Irvine, CA
i
LAND USE PLANNING STUDIES - Page 2
Edna/Islay Neighborhood Development Plan, San Luis Obispo, CA
i
Brittany Village Multi-Use Development Plan, La Jolla, CA
San Jacinto Recreational and Residential Complex, San Jacinto, CA
i South Orange County LCP Update, Orange County, CA
Eastlake Development Plan RAQS Consistency Analysis, Chula Vista, CA
Rancho Carillo Business Park, Carlsbad, CA
North City West Litigation Fkpert Witness, San Diego vs. Del Mar, CA
I
I Irvine Coast LCP Revisions, Orange County, CA
Village 12 Preliminary Study, Irvine, CA
Buena Vista Business Park, Vista, CA
Ventura County AQMP Analysis for the BIA, Ventura County, CA
Irvine Industrial Complex - East (IIC-E), Phase III, Irvine, Ca
Bear Valley Road Area Development Plan, Vietorville, CA
San Marcos Industrial Park, San Marcos, CA
City of Irvine AQMP Compliance Analysis, Irvine, CA
Half Moon Bay Climatic Constraints Study, Half Moon Bay, CA
Chino Hills Master Plan EIR Update, Cluno, CA
Wiltern Theater Complex Redevelopment, Los Angeles, CA
Bommer Canyon Development, Irvine, CA
Tri-City Redevelopment Study, San Bernardino County, CA
Santa Fe Properties Redevelopment Plan, San Diego, CA
i
lCastaways Project, Newport Beach, CA
El Dorado Hills Development Plan, Placer County, CA
City of Irvine GPA18 Impact Analysis, Irvine, CA
Cordelia Redevelopment Plan (Waterman Ranch), Cordelia, CA
Woodlake Project, Corona/Chino/Norco, CA
t�
LAND USE PLANNING STUDIES - Page 3
Talega Valley, San Clemente, CA
• Vincent/Glendora Redevelopment Plan, West Covina, CA
California Oaks, San Jacinto, CA
'i Crow-Michelson Development, Irvine, CA
Hunte Properties (Northside) - Mission Valley - San Diego, CA
Napa Airport Area Master Development Plan, Napa County, CA
. Barranca/Garvey Redevelopmerj Plan, West Covina, CA
! Bressi Ranch Development, Carlsbad, CA
Navy Field Convention Center Site, San Diego, CA
Seaside Shores Complex, Seaside, Ca
. 4-S Ranch Development, Rancho Bernardo, CA
Forster Ranch, San Clemente, CA
Airport North Business Park EIR, Camarillo, CA
• Oakley Area Master Development Plan EIR, Contra Costa County, CA
Ojai Valley Master Environmental Assessment Update, Ojai, CA
Chancellor Park Development Plan EIR, La Jolla, CA
T Paramount Place Master Plan EIR, Paramount, CA
City of Maywood Redevelopment Plan EIR, Maywood, CA
Berkeley Waterfront Development EIR, Berkeley, CA
Serramonte Park Plaza Development, Daly City, CA
Stoneerest Master Plan EIR, San Diego, CA
a
Tujunga Valley Business Park EIR, Sunland, CA
• Cannery Village Specific Plan EIR, Newport Beach, CA
Irvine Village 34 Development Plan, Irvine, CA
j Jungleland Property Development Plan EIR, Thousand Oaks CA
.f
. Rancho Calleguas Master Plan EIR, Camarillo, CA
.Ii
LAND USE PLANNING STUDIES - Page 4
Northgate Station Specific Plan EIR, Sacramento, CA
Culver City Redevelopment Area No. 1 EIR, Culver City, CA
Woodbridge Mixed-Use Air Quality Impact Study, Irvine, CA
Sunset Redevelopment Plan EIR, Salinas, CA
La Cuesta Fontana Specific Plan EIR, Fontana, CA
"Heart'of San Marcos" Community Plan EIR, San Marcos, CA
Centre City Redevelopment Plan MEIR Update, San Diego, CA
Bethel Island Master Plan Air Quality Setting, Contra Costa Co., CA
Lee Lake/Temescal Valley Infrastructure Dev. EIR, Riverside Co., CA
Tierra Alta Community Plan EIR, West Covina, CA
Clearwater EIR/Odor Constraint Study, Paramount, CA
Carroll Center II EIR, San Diego, CA
t
1 111 Capitol Mall Project EIR, Sacramento, CA
San Juan Hills Development Plan EIR,
Belmont, CA
V
Otay Rio Business Park EIR, Chula Vista, CA
Santa Cruz Redevelopment Plan EIR, Santa Cruz CA
Mori Point Conference Center Project, Pacifica, CA
Santa Monica City Zoning Ordinance ce Air Quality EIR, Santa Monica, CA
i
Santa Fe Railway Right-of-Way Development EIR, Hermosa Beach, CA
Haven/Ontario GPA 86-2, Ontario, CA
Greenleaf Avenue Redevelopment Project EIR, Whittier, CA
l Sacramento Convention Center Area Development Plan EIR, Sacramento, CA
Town Center II Redevelopment Plan EIR, Chula Vista, CA
Pitts Ranch Development Study, Camarillo, CA
.a
4-S Ranch Specific Plan Update, Rancho Bernardo, CA
1
IDM Development Microscale Air Quality Impact Analysis, Orange, CA
LAND USE PLANNING STUDIES - Page 5
Irvine Coast LCP Update Air Quality Impact Analysis, Newport Beach, CA
i Bakersfield 2010 Plan General Plan Update EIR, Bakersfield, CA
Los Alamitos General Plan Update Traffic Impact Study, Los Alamitos, CA
City of Los Angeles Sewer Permit Allocation - Growth Management Plan
City of Placentia Redevelopment Plan EIR, Placentia, CA
Sierra Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIR, Fontana, CA
1 h
City of Highland General Plan Development EI
� p R
+ South Berkeley Community Plan EIR
Air Quality Element Development Program, Stanton, CA
i Culver City Redevelopment Area No.l Plan Update EIR, Culver City, CA
Mid-Bayfront LCP Revision/Update EIR, Chula Vista, CA
i}}
f
i
,s
ti
i
1
,
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS - prepared stationary and mobile source impact
.i analyses, modeled roadway pollutant dispersion patterns, calculated local line and area
source impacts, wrote EIRs.
Irvine Center (Golden Triangle) Development, Irvine, CA
1� Wilshire Blvd. High-Rise Office Complex, Santa Monica, CA
Prudential Office Tower, Newport Beach, CA
San Luis Mall, San Luis Obispo, CA
Rio Vista Office Complex, Sau Diego, CA
Higuera Commercial Park Master Palm EIR, San Luis Obispo, CA
Home Improvement Center Preliminary Study, Irvine, CA
. Monrovia Mall Redevelopment Project, Monrovia, CA
North Ford Development, Newport Beach, CA
Harbor Gateway Project, Costa Mesa, CA
i
Irvine Center Phase II Preliminary Study, Irvine, CA
Irvine Company Office Complex, Newport Beach, CA
Koll Center, Newport Beach, CA
Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park, Carlsbad, CA
' ► Holiday Inn Expansion, Costa Mesa, CA
Main/Jamboree (Hilton Hotel) Complex, Irvine, CA
i
Center City Development Plan, San Diego, CA
Newport Dunes Expansion, Newport Brach, CA
Continental Center, City of Orange, CA
Koll Center - Irvine - Development, Irvine, CA
J
Newport Center Expansion (GPA 81-3), Newport Beach, CA
. California "6" Motel Focused EIR, Carlsbad, CA
Newport Center Expansion Plan Revision, Newport Beach, CA
Foodbasket Shopping Center, Vista, CA
K-Mari Center, Goleta, CA
M
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS - Page 2
South Pocket Office Park, Sacramento, CA
Woodbridge Restaurant Cooking Odor Imp. Analysis, Irvine, CA
Southwest Office Park/Greenhaven, Sacramento, CA
Twin Oaks Quarry Expansion EIR, San Marcos, CA
Marriott Hotel Development, Irvine, CA
Wrather Corporation Hotel, Anaheim, CA
i
Price Club Store, Chula Vista, LA
Ramada Inn, San Diego, CA
International Hotel, San Diego, CA
1234 Wilshire High-Rise, Los Angeles, CA
Crow-Michelson Development, Irvine, CA
Sheraton Hotel Expansion, Newport Beach, CA
Vincent/Glendora Commercial Redevelopment, West Covina, CA
Marriott Hotel Development, Irvine, CA
Ethyl Site Office Building, Los Angeles, CA
15 Motel/Mini-Storage Project, San Diego, CA
South Coast Plaza Expansion, Costa Mesa, CA
Montclair Plaza Expansion, Montclair, CA
K-Mart Plaza, Woodland, CA
4 Seasons Hotel EIR, Newport Beach, CA
DVM Office Building, Costa Mesa, CA
Tujunga Valley Business Park, Sunland, CA
Brea Mall Expansion, Brea, CA
Atlas Hotels Complex, San Diego, CA
East Irvine Historical Site, Irvine, CA
Marina Place Office Park EIR, Culver City, CA
i
14
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS - Page 3
One Pacific Plaza Development, Fremont, CA
Beverly Hills Mercedes Benz Dealership Expansion, B.H., CA
West Covina Fashion Plaza EIR , West Covina, CA
Brea Mall Expansion EIR Revisions, Brea, CA
Beverly Hilton Hotel Expansion EIR, Beverly Hills, CA
' Y
Del Mar Plaza EIR, Del Mar, CA
i
Atlas Hotels Master Plan Update, San Diego, CA
Antelope Valley Mall EIR, Palmdale, CA
Snow Summit Snowmaking Equip. Imp. Study, Running Springs,CA
` Del Mar Fairgrounds Master Plan Update EIR, Del Mar, CA
Del Mar Grand Prix EIR, Del Mar, CA
Xerox Center Phase V EIR, El Segundo, CA
Woodbridge Mixed-Use Project EIR, Irvine, CA
The Gallery Mixed-Use Project EIR, San Clemente, CA
{ Palmdale Promenade Commercial Development EIR, Palmdale, CA
20th & S Shopping Center Project EIR, Palmdale, CA
Monument Plaza Visitor Comm. & Retail Project, 29 Palms, CA
V' Pickwick Center Commercial Redevelopment EIR, Burbank, CA
Gateway Center Office and Retail Project EIR, Glendale, CA
1
i
Vrr!tt,'
t
1
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS -performed on-site data acquisition, prepared emissions off-
set (trade-oft) and PSD increment analyses, prepared permit support data, including
dispersion modeling, wrote advisory regulatory documents, feasibility studies, and
EIRs/EISs. Representative project experience includes:
SOHIO Project Vapor Recovery Feasibility Study, Port of Long Beach, CA
i Pier D Bulkloader Modernization Study, Port of Long Beach, CA
ECO Petroleum Oil Re-refining Permit Analysis, Signal Hill, CA
�pyard
Rohr Marine Surface Effects Sl ' p
;# Ex ansion EIR, Chula Vista, CA
Holly Sugar Bulkloader Impact Study, Vancouver, B.C. Canada
Brown
Field Jet Engine Test Stand Expansion Study, San Diego County, CA
Union Oil Pt. Conception Drilling EIS, Santa Barbara County, CA
t Redwood City Cement Clinker Project EIR, Port of Redwood City, CA
DOE Power Plant Siting, PSD and Off-Set Study, 10 California Sites
Pataya Natural Gas Storage and Compressor Station, Red Lake, AZ
Mentmore Coal Preparation Plant Air Permit Calculations, Gallup, NM
P-0295 No.4 (Champlin) Well EIS, San Pedro Channel, CA
Border Highlands Gravel Extraction Site Impact Study, San Diego, CA
Marukan Vinegar Plant Odor Dispersion Study, Irvine, CA
R.R. Donnelly Printing Plant EIR, Oxnard, CA
{ Silicon Systems Inc. Custom Chip Manufacturing Facility, Tustin, CA
` Rail/Barge Coal Transfer Station Dust Impact Study, Panama City, FL
y
Cotton Gin Trash Energy Recovery Impact Analysis, Tonopah, AZ
U.S. Gypsum Board Manufacturing Plant, Port of Sacramento, CA
South Coast Asphalt Products Dust Impact Study, San Marcos, CA
Frito-Lay Bakery and Snack Foods Plant EIR, Buttonwillow, CA
Sacramento River Channel Widening EIS, U S A C E, Sacramento, CA
Hester Granite Ready Mix/Asphalt Hot Plant Impact, El Cajon, CA
Mesquite Goldfields Authority to Construct, Glamis, CA
d
1
1
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS - Page 2
Fourth St. Rockcrushers Ready Mix Plant, San Bernardino County, CA
Day Creek Sand & Gravel Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Matlack Trucking Company Conditional Use Permit, Carson, CA
Pala Mesa Hardrock Mine EIR, Fallbrook, CA
GATX Terminal Expansion EIR, Carson, CA
Beaumont Concrete Quarry Expansion EIR, Cabazon, CA
7-Up Bottling Company Gasoline Spill Site Remediation, Vernon, CA
II
C S U Campus Sand & Gravel Plant Impact, San Marcos, CA
i
Arrow Paint Company Relocation, Cudahy, CA
City Concrete AQMD Variance Processing, Walnut, CA
Tujunga Wash Rock Extraction/Processing EIR, Sunland, CA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Desilting Project, Duarte/Irwindale, CA
1
! OSCO Hazardous Waste Transfer & Storage Station EIR, Azusa, CA
Dawson Canyon Sand Plant Use Permit/EIR, Temescal Valley, CA
Old Webster Quarry Project (Tri-City Aggregate) EIR, Redlands, CA
Hogg Brothers Manure/Sludge Co-Composting Project EIR, Adelanto, CA
c
Silver State Aggregate Quarry Develop. Constraint Study, Las Vegas, NV
WyCal Natural Gas Pipeline Project EIR/EIS, Wyonvng-California
s
Padre Transit Mix Quarry Expansion EIR, Poway, CA
1 Route 67 Concrete/Asphalt Recycling Plant EIR, Lakeside, CA
Asbestos/Serpentine Rock Processing (AB2588), SoCal Rock Proe. Assn.
Tunnel Drilling Asbestos Air Emissions Risk Screening, San Francisco, CA
i
i
1 �•t
INSTITUTIONAL EIRs AND STUDIES
sensitive receptor sites, wrote EIRs -
Performed pollutant impact analyses near
, performed ventilation studies.
Saddleback College Chem. Bldg. Fume Hood Stud
y, Mission Viejo, CA
Saddleback Valley Comm. Church Worship Center School, El Toro, CA
�I
Mercy Hospital Expansion EIR, San Diego, CA
University Hospital Labs and Cancer Center Expansion, San Diego,1 g CA
Hoag Hospital Expansion Master Plan EIR, Newport Beach, CA
jy.
Rancho Santiago District Orange Canyon Campus Development, Orange, CA
} Irvine Medical Center Complex Extended Initial Study,y, ne, CA
UCLA Long Range Development Plan EIR, West Los Angeles, CA
UCLA Lot 32 Parking Structure Impact• P Analysis, West Los Angeles, CA
1
Federal Center (Office, VA Clinic, Jail) Expansion EIR, Los Angeles, CA
UCLA Hospital & Clinics Expansion (Lot 1), West Los Angeles, CA
Santa Ana Firefighting Training Facility & City Yard EI
;4� Y R, Santa Ana, CA
Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital Helipad Siting, Los Angeles, CA
a
John Muir Hospital Modernization EIR, Walnut Creak, CA
Hoag Hospital Cancer Center Development EIR, Newport Beach, CA
New High School Campus Development EIR, El Centro, CA
. Placer County Government Center EIR Tahoe!„ City, CA
Civic Center Modernization/Redevelopment EIR, City of Brisbane, CA
UCLA NW Campus/Master Plan EIR
• , Los Angeles, CA
Stanislaus County Jail/Sheriffs Station Siting Stud /EIR� Si Y , Modesto, CA
San Bernardino County Detention Facility EIR, Fontana/Cucamonga, CA
Kaiser Med Center Expansion EIR Air & Noise Impact Analyses, Fontana, CA
AME Medical Center Project EIR, Palmdale, CA
• High Desert Hospital Relocation Air & Noise Studies, Lancaster, CA
• San Bernardino County Med. Center Relocation EIR (3 sites), CA
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES - performed air Pollutant an
from facility use and recreational user exposure to unhealthful pollution, wrote reports and
EIRs, performed on-site noise and dust data acquisition.
Mineral King Ski Development (Walt Disney Project), Porterville, CA
Aero World Theme Park Development, San Diego, CA
t
1 Palm Springs Equestrian Center Odor Impact Study, Palm Springs, CA
• Universal Studios Tour Facilities Ex
� pansion, Universal City, CA
• Sierra National Forest Recreational User Impact, Shaver Lake, CA
Macario Park Development, Carlsbad, CA
i
Del Mar Fairgrounds/Racetrack Expansion, Del Mar, CA
Balboa Fun Zone Demolition, Newport Beach, CA
Bonelli Park/Puddingstone Reservoir (Raging Waters), San Dimas, CA
4 Juniper Ridge (Chair 15) Ski Development, Mammoth Lakes, CA
! Dodge Ridge Ski Area Expansion, Pinecrest, CA
Oak Tree West Golf Course Developments La Quinta, CA
Sycamore Canyon Cycle Park Dust Study, San Diego County, CA
Ojai Valley Inn Expansion EIR, Ojai, CA
r
Holtville RV Park Feedlot Odor Constraint Study, Holtville, CA
Aquanga RV Park EIR, Aquanga, CA
• Spanish Bay Golf Course Sand Stabilization Study, Pebble Beach, CA
Riverside Raceway Relocation Study, Prado & Glen Helen Parks, CA
Sherwin Bowl Ski Area Development Initial Study, Mammoth Lakes, CA
Ram's Hill Golf Course & Residential Dev., Borrego, Springs, CA
• Del Mar Grand Prix EIR, Del Mar Fairgrounds, CA
Snow Sununit Snowmaking Equipment Impact pact Study, Running Springs, CA
T.V.I. Golf Course Development Impact Study, Sunland„ CA
• Old Ranch Road Destination Golf Resort Air
Quality Study, Poway, CA
Ball Ranch Golf Course Development Air Study, Fresno, CA
• Whitney Canyon Off Road Vehicle Park Impact Study, Canyon Country, CA
. P r
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS -calculated mobile and stationa ry source impacts,
,
modeled mobile source dispersion patterns on surrounding land uses, evaluated potential
land use conflicts between proposed residential nuisance, wrote EIRs.
l
ORANGE COUNTY:
Ahmad Ranch
Top-of-the-World
San Miguel Triangle
Village 10
Woodbridge Southeast Quadrant
1
Orangetree Park ro
Bear Brand Ranch
Baywood Townhomes
Kellogg Terrace
Laguna Beach TT 10541
Crescent/Ponderosa Site
Mola Property Townhomes
Northwood Phases II and III
Santa Ana River Mobile Homes
Pine Creek Apartments
Shorb Wells Mobile Home Park
Enclave 7, Turtle Rock
PCH Frontage Parcel
Cameo Shores
River bend Park
Cameo del Mar
SAN DIEGO COUNTY:
Mission Gorge North City West
Tierrasanta Brittany Village
High County East Robertson Ranch
Carlton Estates Pendelton Marine Base Housing
i Fuerte Knolls
Palo Verde Ranch
Lyon's Mira Mesa
Eastridge
East Valley Annexation
Bonita Meadows Mobile Homes
Navy Replacement Housing
roll
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS - Page 2
LOS ANGELES COUNTY*
1 Morrison Ranch
Hacienda Heights
Canyon Country
Mountain Meadows
Gilbert Lindsay Village Green
$ Villa Roma Seniors Housing
a �
1
OTHER CALIFORNIA:
Rancho Matilija, Ojai
Oreutt Street, Santa Maria
Hitchcock Ranch, Santa Barbara
Edna/Islay, San Luis Obispo
Starlight Homes, Palm Springs
Seven Palms, Desert Palms
Oreutt Heights, San Luis Obispo
Covington, Calimesa
Marborough, Sunnymead
Deutsch Properties, Banning
Milliken-Highland, Cucamonga
Tierra Rajada, Simi Valley
West End Master Plan, Fontana
;y GPA 84-03-A, Rancho Cucamonga
M Franciscan Ojai Seniors
j Madera Village, Simi Valley
Prairie Pacific, Santa Paula
7
i
j
fi
i
DETAILED PROJECT LISTINGS
METEOROLOGY/WINDFLOW
F.,
I
ire
1
I METEOROLOGICAL/AIR QUALITY MONITOR
and performed aerometric data acquisition tasks, installed equipment e - Managed
J performed quality assurance and calibration procedures q P t, reduced data,
summaries, developed monitoring plans and protocols, supervised ed monitoring technicians.
ns.
• San Joaquin Nuclear Project Meteorological Data Acquisition, Wasco CA
• might's Valley (Republic Geothermal) Data Acquisition, Sonoma Count
• NCPA/RFL Meteorological Program and Dispersion Testin L Y, CA
• Ormond Beach Tracer Studies Data Su g' ake County, CA
Support, Oxnard, CA
Michelson Wastewater Treatment Plant Baseline Data Program, Irvine, CA
Conroek Fugitive Dust Impact Study, San Diego, CA
• Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Dust Generation Study for BLM, 5 Desert Sites C
• Central Valley Pollution Dynamics Study, San Joaquin Valley, CA A
• Sierra Upslope Transport Study, Sequoia National Forest, CA
• Geothermal Demonstration Plant Aerometric Program, North Brawle , CA
• OII Landfill Odor and Hydrocarbon Transport Study, Monterey Park,, CA
• Anaheim Transit Center CO Baseline Measurements, Anaheim, CA
• Pataya (Red Lake) Gas Storage Pre-PSD Monitoring Program, Kingman,
• Baca Geothermal Monitoring and Tracer Protocols, Valle Calder AZ
. a, NM .
Villa Balboa Parking Structure CO Measurements, Newport Beach CA
Owens Lake Dust Stabilization Study - Phase I, Owens Valle y, CA'
Orange County Civil
f N, Aviation Siting and Wind Study, Ora
nge County, Ca
• Gilbert Lindsay Village Green CO Baseline Monitoring, Los Angeles, CA
a ' Mola Toxic Landfill Removal Wind
Monitoring Support, Huntington Beach, CA
Lincoln/Beach Landfill Wind Monilorin
� g, Anaheim, CA
Pine Mtn. Baseline Meteorology Study, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties CA
� Owens Lake Solar Pond Feasibility Stud
Y y Instrumentation, Owens Valley, CA
i�. Malibu Mesa Treatment Plant Wind and Odor Study, Malibu, CA
PCH Widening Baseline CO M
y!� onitoring, Newport Beach, CA
s.
l�,
METEOROLOGICAL/AIR QUALITY - Page 2
;-� Ocean Dune Stabilization Study, Pebble Beach, CA
Tejon Ranch Lodge Siting Microscale Weather Monitoring, Lebec, CA
Koch Carbon Petroleum Coke Dust Dispersion Study, Carson, CA
Gardena Valley 182 Landfill Testing Meteorological Support, Carson, CA
Coil Compact Landfill Testing Meteorological Support, Carson, CA
Moreland Property Hydrogen Sulfide Dispersion Study, Goleta, CA
Goldfields, Mesquite TSP and PM-10 Dust Monitoring Program, Glamis, CA
Monterey County Wind Energy Feasibility Study, King City, CA
North San Diego County Landfill Siting Study 3 Sites
North Orange County Landfill Alternative Technology Study - 4 Sites
Orange County Landfill Pre-SWAT Air Monitoring - 4 Sites
Power Plant and Refuse Incinerator Emissions Test, Kwajalein Atoll
Raiders Stadium Relocation Wind Study, Irwindale, CA
McVieker Canyon Dust Transport Study, Lake Elsinore, CA
Martin Container/Harbor Landfill Wind Monitoring, Wilmington, CA
Monarch Butterfly Microclimatic Habitat Study, Laguna Beach, CA
6
a
I,
V I.
�i
WINDFLOW STUDIES - Performed microseale airflow studies for building ventilation
and rooftop wind jetting effects, analyzed regional data for wind energy potential and
',_.:regional pollution dynamics, developed siting rationales for power plants, wastewater
treatment and landfills based on wind currents.
Goldstone Tracking Station Wind Energy Utilization, Mojave Desert, CA
Tejon Ranch Wind Energy Potential Siting Analysis, Kern County, CA
Saddleback College Airflow Studies, Mission Viejo, CA
'I Geysers Micro-Meteorological Network Analysis, Lake County, CA
Baca Geothermal Airflow Studies, Redpndo Canyon, NM
San Bruno Mountain Windflow Constraint Study, South San Francisco, CA
Owens Lake Dust Control and Revegetation Studies, Lone Pine, CA
San Diego County Wind Energy Monitoring Site Evaluation, CA
Caspers Park Wind Generator Speed Validation, San Juan Capistrano, CA H
Sea Breeze Interference Study, Dana Point, CA
Topo Ranch Wind Energy Monitoring Program, King City, CA r
Office Building Indoor Air Quality/Ventilation Monitoring, El Cajon, CA
Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat/Wind Interaction, Palm Desert, CA
Rooftop Helipad Siting Study, Presbyterian Hospital, Hollywood, CA
Renaissance Tower Wind Tunnel Flow Modeling, Sacramento, CA
Redevelopment Area No. 1 Wind Tunnel Flow Modeling, Culver City, CA
California Desert Regional Windflow/Dust Dispersion Study, Fort Irwin, CA
Convention Center Area Windtunnel Airflow Modeling, Sacramento, CA
Santa Ana Canyon Road Widening Wind Tunnel Modeling, Anaheim, CA
Ocean Blvd. High-Rise Wind Jetting Study, Long Beach, CA
River Tower High-Rise Wind Tunnel Modeling, Sacramento, CA
Hollywood Hills Mass Grading Wind Modification Study, Los Angeles, CA
"•OMPLEX TERRAIN METEOROLOGY/AIR QUALITY ACTIVITIES -managed
.' performed aerometric data acquisition tasks, installed equipment, reduced data,
ibrmed quality assurance and calibration procedures, prepared reports and data
summaries, developed monitoring plans and protocols, supervised monitoring technicians.
Mineral King Ski Area Suitability Study (project abandoned), Sierra N.F.
• Knight's Valley (Rep. Geothermal) Data Acquisition, Sonoma County, CA
NCPA/RFL Meteorological Program and Dispersion Testing, Lake County, CA
Sierra Upslope Transport Study, Sequoia Vational Forest, CA
Pataya (Red Lake) Gas Storage Pre-PSD Monitoring Program, Kingman, AZ
Baca Geothermal Monitoring and Tracer Protocols, Valle Caldera, NM
Owens Lake Dust Stabilization Study - Phase I, Owens Valley, CA
Orange County Civil Aviation Remote Siting Wind Study, Orange County, CA
Pine Mtn. Baseline Meteorology Study, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, CA n
Tejon Ranch Lodge Siting Microscale Weather Monitoring Lebec, CA
Goldfields/Mesquite TSP and PM-10 Dust Monitoring Program, Glamis, CA
Dodge Ridge Ski Area Expansion Impact Study, Pine Lake, CA
Sherwin Bowl Ski Area Development Study, Mammoth Mountain, CA
Chair 15 Expansion/Lodge Develop.Impaet Analysis, Mammoth Mountain, CA
r
San Diego County Mtn Wind Energy Feasibility Study, Peninsular Range, CA
Tehachapi Mountain Wind Energy Development Study, Tejon Ranch, CA
Coastal Range Wind Energy Development Feasibility Study, King City, CA
Remote Landfill Siting Wind Monitoring Program, Palomar Mountain, CA
ed
MWD Pipeline No.6 Construction Air Quality & Noise Impact, San Diego, CA
Palo Verde 500 kv Transmission Line Impact Study, Blythe - San Diego, CA
El Dorado Natural Gas Pipeline Construction Study, Bakersfield, CA
.ty
0
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND TRACER STUDIES - Performed inert tracer
p,,r 'mainly sulfur hexalluoride and selected halocarbons) dispersion studies, performed
.r air wind data acquisition, coordinated meteorological support for tracer programs,
srrved as release technician, gas chromatograph operator, and quality assurance supervisor,
wrote final program reports.
• Walt Disney Co. Ski Area Vehicular Exhaust Studies, Mineral King, CA
Ormond Beach Generating Station Tracer Studies, Oxnard, CA
Montezuma Hills Industrialization Impact Study, Sacramento River Delta, CA
Exxon Refinery Plume Dispersion Study, BVicia, CA
ARB Central Valley Pollution Dynamics Study, San Joaquin Valley, CA
Sierra Upslope Transport Study, Sierra National Forest, CA
San Joaquin Valley Westside Oilfields Ventilation Studies, Lost Hills - Taft
Cobb Valley Tracer Studies, The Geysers KGRA, CA
In
Exxon Refinery Plume Dispersion Study, Billings, MT
i
Harry Allen Powerplant Tracer Studies, Las Vegas, NV
E •
Baca Geothermal Project Tracer Study Protocols, Valle Caldera, NM r
'• El Segundo Generating Station Nox Impact Studies, Los Angeles Basin, CA
EPRI Plume Model Validation Study, Oak Ridge, TN
EPA Complex Terrain Study Tracer System Quality Assurance Program, Reno, NV
Coldwater Creek (CCPA No. 1) Tracer Studies, Geysers KGRA, CA
Southern California Air Quality Study (SCAQS), South Coast Air Basin
(supplemental met station deployment, mobile site upper air technician)
ed
l
t
i
AY
i
i
----
ar -\'''HERMAL - performed on-site data acquisition, tracer tests, modeled dispersion
)a,-----s from wells and power plants, wrote EIRs, presented written and oral testimony to
Searing Boards and state regulatory agencies.
Geothermal Impact Assessment Baseline Document, Lake County APCD, CA
NCPA/RFL (NCPA #1) Data Acquisition and EIR, Cobb Valley, CA
Shel NCPA #2 Monitoring Equipment Siting Consultation, Sonoma, County, CA
Cobb Valley Tracer Studies (McCullich, Aminoil, PG&E), Lake Count CA
Knight's Valley (Republic Geothermal) Monitoring Program, Sonoma C '
ounty, CA
Wellfield Impact Modeling (Thermogenics, Ford Flat, Thurston), Lake Co., CA
LCAPCD Hearing Board Testimony on NCPA #1, Lake County, CA
Ten IOMW Demonstration Plan EIR, North Brawley, CA
MAPCO Wellfield Development EIR, Westmorland, CA
n
Salton Sea IOMW Power Plant EIR, Niland, CA
Fl Centro Alternate Geothermal Resource Use EIR, El Centro, CA
yser-Cobb Valley Impact Study Data Analysis, Lake County, CA
NCPA/Shell Tracer Study Data Analysis, Geysers KGRA, CA
South Brawley Wellfield Development EIR, Imperial County, CA
Baca 45MW Geothermal Project Meteorological Monitoring, Valle Caldera NM
I.T. Corporation Geothermal Waste Landfill EIR, Imperial County, CA '
Geysers KGRA Micro-Meteorological Network Data Analysis, Geyers KGRA, CA
Unit 18 Abatement Requirement Study for CEC, Geysers KGRA, CA
L'Esperance Leasehold Wellfield Development EIR, Lake County, CA ed
North Brawley Aerometric Monitoring Program, Imperial County, CA
Salton Sea KGRA Development Master Plan EIR, Imperial County, CA
State Lands Commission Widow Creek Lease EIR, Lake County, CA
Camelback Ridge EIR, Lake County, CA
Ay
Heber Baseline Monitoring Program Plan Development, Heber KGRA, CA
Mountain Meteorological Monitoring, Sonoma & Mendocino Counties, CA
C- -THERMAL _ Page 2
• -''�West Wildhorse Creek Environmental Assessment, Sono
• ma County, CA
Shell B-2 Wellsite EIR
Sonoma County, CA
• Brawley/Niland Long-Range Development Plan EIR, Imperial C
South Brawley Development Computer Impact Modeling, County, CA
Phillips/Mt. Hannah Exploratory Project EIR, Lake y, CA y, CA
State Land Commission Cobb Mountain Le, e e County, CA
Wildhorse Steamfield Development EIR � EIR, Lake County, CA
, Sonoma County, CA
Coldwater Creek Powerplant (CCPA No. 1) EIR & NOI, Caldwell
Davies/NatOmas 25 MW Powerplant EIR, Lake Count C Pines, CA
Bottle Rock Power Plant Wellfield Expansion EIR L y' A
Anadarko (Klau Mine) ake County, CA
ne) Exploratory Well EIR, Lake County, CA
MCR Francisco Leasehold Wellfield Expansion EIR, Lake Cou a
T'awaii Geothermal Aerometric Instrumentation, Hilo nly, CA
, Hawaii
ed
Ay
DETAILED PROJECT " LISTINGS
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
n
i
ed
r.
i
ity
4
r
ROADWAY IMPACT STUDIES -modeled CO dispersion patterns based on California
source dispersion (CALINE) and emissions (EMFAC) models, performed on-site CO
`,_anitoring, performed regional pollution burden analyses, wrote EIRs.
Brookhurst Street Widening, Anaheim, CA
Division Street Widening, National City, CA
Rose Canyon Roadway Construction, Orange County, CA
Culver Bridge Widening, Irvine, CA
Harvard Avenue Extension and Freeway Overcrossing, Irvine, CA
Alton Avenue Interchange Construction, Irvine, CA
Bonita Canyon Roadway Widening, Irvine, CA
SA680 Extension, Poway/Rancho Bernardo, CA
Anaheim Transit Center Study, Anaheim, CA
Moulton Parkway Realignment Study, Tustin, CA
Superior Avenue Extension, Newport Beach, CA
Eugene Parking/Circulation Study, Eugene, OR
Tapo Canyon Overhead Construction Impact Analysis, Irvine, CA
Huntington Beach Transit Center, Huntington Beach, CA
San Clemente Roadway Alternatives Study, San Clemente, CA
Irvine Center Circulation Impact Analysis, Irvine, CA
MCA-Hollywood Freeway Overcrossing, Universal City, CA
Bachman Canyon Roadway Alignment Study, San Diego, CA
Carlsbad Boulevard Widening, Carlsbad, CA
Encinitas Boulevard Widening, Encinitas, CA
Long Beach Transit District Maintenance Facility, Long Beach, CA
Paradise Valley Traffic Impact Analysis, Fairfield, CA
Wilshire Corridor Metrorail Project, Los Angeles, CA
Pacific Coast Highway Widening, Newport Beach, CA
Santa Ana Transportation Corridor (SATC), Orange County, CA
�t ;AY IMPACT STUDIES - Page 2
Sacramento Transit Center Developments, Sacramento, CA
Shoemaker Overpass Impact Study, Cerritos, CA
Fairview/Calle Real CO Impact Modeling, Santa Barbara, CA
Via Rancho Parkway Widening, Escondido, CA
Santee Lakes Boulevard CO Impact Screening Analysis, Lakeside, CA
Warner Avenue Widening, Huntington Beach, CA
Tapo Canyon Road EIR Update, Simi Valley, CA
Leisure World (Moulton Parkway) CO Impact Studies, Laguna Hills, CA
Irvine Center Drive/I-405 Roadway Widening, Irvine, CA
Culver Drive/I-405 Roadway Modifications, Irvine, CA
Arbor Vitae Roadway Widening, Westchester, CA
Fisherman's Channel Bridge Widening, Mission Bay, CA
erial Highway Widening, Brea, CA
r/
Bancroft Road Widening, Walnut Creek, CA
Madera Road/Simi Freeway Interchange Construction, Simi Valley, CA
Jamboree/I-5 Interchange Feasibility Study, Tustin, CA
Irvine Center Drive/I-405 Interchange Modifications, Irvine, CA
Oak Road Widening Project, Walnut Creek, CA
Pelican Road EIR, Orange County, CA
Westminster Avenue Widening/Improvement, Santa Ana, CA
Birch Street Widening Project, Brea, CA
Lambert/State College Intersection Improvement, Brea, CA
Myford/Jamboree Extension to I-5 Freeway, Tustin, CA
I-5 Widening, SR 91 to SR 22 Freeways, Anaheim & Orange, CA
Fairmount Avenue Realignment Study, San Diego, CA
R` Parkway/I-5 Confluence Study, Lake Forest, CA
NEW
NDFILL STUDIES -Performed odor, particulate, litter an d
made on-site odor and meteorological measurements ease vector dispersion
Board testimony, evaluated resource recovery project impacts, wrote EIIRs QdD reports.
ports.
• Bee/Round Canyon Replacement Site for Coyote Canyon, Orange o Count
• Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill Odor Impact Study, Mont y' CA
• West Miramar Landfill Expansion EIR, San Die C Monterey Park, CA
Diego, A
• I. T. Corporation Class II Landfill Development, Imperial County, CA
• BKK Landfill Master Plan and Alternatives Study, West Covina, CA
Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas (LFG) Recovery Constraint Study, Irvine, CA
• SANDER Resource Recovery Project Alternate Site Study, National City, CA
Otay Landfill LFG Recovery Project EIR, Otay Mesa, CA y
Coyote Canyon Master Plan EIR, Irvine, CA
Milliken Landfill Odor & Waste-to-Energy Plant Imp. Studies, Ontario, CA
California AB3374/AQMD Rule 1150.1 Compliance Plans, Orange Count y' CA
West Sinn Valley Landfill Hazardous Em t'
Emissions Impacts, Simi Valle CA
Sunnyvale Landfill Gas Recovery Project Impact Studies, Sunnyvale, '
Bee Canyon Landfill EIR Update, Irvine, CA CA
North Orange County Landfill Replacement Study, Orange County, CA
OII Landfill Fenceline Toxics Emiss. Impacts, Montebello, CA
BKK Site Re-Use Master Plan (Tierra Alta) EIR, West Covina, CA
N. San Diego County Landfill Siting Study, Fallbrook, Pala & Warner, CA
Harbor Landfill AB3374 Air-SWAT Testing, Wilmington, CA
San Marcos Waste-to-Energy Plant Supplemental EIR, San Marcos, CA
Adams Landfill Lawsuit Expert Witness (Air Emissions), Carson, CA
Designated Waste Class I Site Air Review, Newberry Springs, CA
Eagle Mountain Project Air Quality Analysis Review, Desert Center, CA
i
ROADWAY IMPACT STUDIES - Page 3
.. Laguna Seca Papal Visit Roadway Closure Impact Stud
•
Cypress "Superstreet Overcrossin Y► Monterey, CA
g Impact Study, Cypress
• Foothill Transportation Corridor Final Impact Stud '
• Richards Avenue Extension/1-80 Connection
I-8 Overcrossing Microscale s y' Ort+nge County, CA
acramento, CA
Quality•
r
.�; SR-73 Widening Air Y Impact Study, El Centro, CA Impact Analysis, Newport Beach, CA
Yale/I-405 Overcrossing Sensitive Receptor Impacts, Irvine, CA
Mitchell Road Widening (FAU Project) Impact Study, Cer
I-405 Access Improvements Mieroscale Impact Study,
Route 30 Freewa Y� Costa Mesa, CA
Y Impact Analysis, Claremont to Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Sierra Avenue/I-10 Interchange Improvements, Fontana, CA
Avenida Vista HermosalI-5 Interchange Impact Analysis, San
Ulric Road1SR163 Interchange Improvement Study, S Clemente, CA
� an Diego, CA
' NDFILL STUDIES -Performed odor, particulate litter
;Les, made on-site odor and meteorological measurements,and disease vector dispersion
Board testimony, evaluated resource recovery project impacts, wrote EdIRs�ndrreHorts ng
P
• Bee/Round Canyon Replacement Site for Coyote Canyon, Orange Count y' CA
• Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill Odor Impact Study, Monterey ark
• West Miramar Landfill Expansion EIR, San Diego, CA y CA
• I. T. Corporation Class II Landfill Development, Imperial Count
• BKK Landfill Master Plan and Alternatives Study, West y' CA
Y Covina, CA
Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas (LFG) Recovery Constraint Study, Irvine, CA
SANDER Resource Recovery Project Alternate Site Study, National City, CA
Otay Landfill LFG Recovery Project EIR, Otay Mesa, CA
Coyote Canyon Master Plan EIR, Irvine, CA
Milliken Landfill Odor & Waste-to-Energy Plant Imp. Studies, Ontario, CA
California AB3374/AQMD Rule 1150.1 Compliance Plans, Orange County, CA
West Simi Valley Landfill Hazardous Emissions Impacts, Simi Valley, C
Sunnyvale Landfill Gas Recovery Project Impact Studies Sunnyvale,
unnyvale CA
Bee Canyon Landfill EIR Update, Irvine, CA
North Orange County Landfill Replacement Study, Orange County, CA
OR Landfill-Fenceline Toxics Emiss. Impacts, Montebello, CA Y
BKK Site Re-Use Master Plan (Tierra Alta) EIR, West Covina, CA
N. San Diego County Landfill Siting Study, Fallbrook, Pala & Warner, CA
Harbor Landfill AB3374 Air-SWAT Testing, Wilmington, CA
San Marcos Waste-to-Energy Plant Supplemental EIR, San Marcos, CA
Adams Landfill Lawsuit Expert Witness (Air Emssions), Carson, CA
Designated Waste Class I Site Air Review, Newberry Springs, CA
Eagle Mountain Project Air Quality Analysis Review, Desert Center, CA
Landfill Project Air Quality Impact Assessment Experience:
Project : North County Class III Landfill
Client : Subconsultants to:
The Butler/Roach Group, Inc.
Attn: Trish Butler
1660 North Hotel Circle, Suite 606
San Diego, CA 92108
Period of Performance: 1990-91
Responsibilities : Prepared air quality impact assessment for
three candidate landfill sites including the following scope of
services : review of available aerometric data; review of all
relevant scoping comments ; multiple site visits,
meetings
APCD staff to evaluate baseline data suitability and to with
coordinate supplemental data acquisition; deployment of wind
monitoring stations; data collection, analysis and reporting;
impact analysis for airborne dust , odor„ airborne toxics ,
airborne disease vectors , vehicular emissions, and LFG combustion
emissions ; documentation of mitigation potential and
effectiveness ; and response to voluminous comments .
Project : North Orange County Landfill Alternatives & Tech
Study (NOCLATS) Technology
Client : Subconsultants to:
Michael Brandman & Associates
Attn: Dana Privitt-Arita
2530 Red Hill Avenue
Santa Ana,. CA 92705
Period of Performance: 1988-91 (ongoing)
Responsibilities : Phase I Study - developed air quality impact
evaluation matrix to screen impact potential for 12 candidate
landfill sites; documented screening procedure rationale; applied
screening analysis to candidate sites to establish relative
quantitative impact preference. Phase II Study - deployed wind
monitoring instrumentation at four canyon sites to assess odor
transport routes and Santa Ana wind funneling effects ; expanded
impact assessment matrix and applied analysis criteria to site
specific access , land use and landfill profile patterns;
evaluated air quality impacts from alternative disposal
technologies; analyzed air-SWAT air toxics data for applicability
to new landfill sites; detailed impact mitigation potential .
Project : North County Resources Recovery Associates Supplemental
EIR
Client : Subconsultant to:
S .T.A. Planning
Attn: Lauren Jue
550C Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Period of Performance: 1990-91
Responsibilities : Reviewed San Marcos General Plan, waste-to-
energy plant impact documentation and other previously
prepared
environmental studies ; coordinated SEIR air analysis with
concurrent San Marcos Landfill vertical expansion EIR; reviewed
W-T-E health risk assessment ; documented all new impact findings
prepared since previous EIR completion; analyzed cumulative
project impact in light of the King 's County Farm Bureau vs .
of Hantord (1990) decision; compiled materials into an updatedity
setting, impact and mitigation analysis .
Project : Coyote Canyon Closure/Bee Canyon Landfill EIR
® Client : Subconsultant to:
P & D Technologies,
Inc.
Attn: Sylvia Salenius
1100 Town & Country Road, #300
Orange, Ca 92668
Period of Performance: 1978-79, 1984-85 , 1989-90
Responsibilities : Evaluated air quality impact for five
candidate sites to replace Coyote Canyon; performed detailed
literature search on landfill activity impact
Potential
Coast Field Station, ornamental plant nurseries oand avocadoSouth
groves ( root rot spreading) ; analyzed emissions differences from
multiple haul road, transfer station and freeway access options;
assessed air quality impacts from delay of final closure from
vertical expansion; documented revisions in air quality
regulatory requirements (AQMD Rule 1150 .1) ; coordinated site
Placement of permanent wind and air toxics monitoring stations as
part of Rule 1150 . 1 compliance plans
and new Bee Canyon Landfills , for existing Coyote Canyon
prepared updated air
assessments for Bee Canyon openin quality impact
g; analyzed impact changes
associated with revised air
quality regulations .
2
w,.-,,�roject : Eagle Mountain Landfill Project EIR Review
Client : Subconsultant to:
Converse Environment West
Attn: Nick Allen
9471 Ridgehaven Court , Suite C
San Diego, CA 92123
Period of Performance: Currently in progress
Responsibilities : Reviewing air qualit
1 analyses for rail haul of 20 ,000 ton/day ofdsolid®wastecto Eagle
Mountain Mine on behalf of Riverside County Waste Management -
including document review, site visit , detailed written comments
and recommendation for DEIR/DEIS revisions .
the comments was that the DEIR/DEIS anal sis is perhaps general tenor of
conservative and tends to downplay some of the more perhaps overly
aspects of this solid waste disposal alternative. positive
1
I
3
v
TEWATER DISPOSAL/FRESHWATER TREATMENT IMPACT
A- 4-siYSIS - prepared air and noise studies for master plan facilities development;
evaluated sludge management option impacts; performed impact analyses and characterized
probable odor impact limits from wastewater treatment and industrial odor sources;
evaluated pathogen transport routes; determined optimum treatment plant locations;
analyzed growth-inducing impacts; performed on-site odor and wind monitoring; performed
on-site noise monitoring in freshwater plants; analyzed construction impacts;wrote EIRs and
reports.
Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant Variance Study, Oxnard, CA
Goleta Wastewater Reuse Impact Study, Goleta, CA
Pima County "208 Plan" Air Quality Impact Analysis, Tucson, AZ
IRWD Master Plan Environmental Assessment, Orange County, CA
Leucadia County Water District Facility Expansion, Rancho la Costa, CA
Pomerado Water Dist. Pump. Station Odor Imp. Study, Rancho Bernardo, CA
LA/OMA Sewage Sludge Disposal Alternatives Analysis, Orange County CA
California "8" Motel/Encina Treatment Plant Odor Conflicts, Carlsbad, CA
Las Virgenes District Treatment Plant Siting, Los Angeles County, CA
Malibu Mesa Treatment Plant Expansion/Odor Impact Analysis, Malibu, CA
San Mateo WQCF Facility Expansion EIR, San Mateo, CA
Marukan Vinegar Plant Odor Impact Analysis, Irvine, (IIC-E), CA
OCSD Sludge Disposal Alternatives Study, Fountain Valley, CA
Frito Lay Chip Plant Wastewater Odor Impact Analysis, Buttonwillow, CA
Del Obispo Park/Treatment Plant Co-location Imp. Analysis, Dana Point,CA
Moreland Property 112S Odor Transport Study, Goleta, CA
Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitor./PSD Modeling, Tucson, AZ
Chiquita Treat. Plant Odor Control System Test, San Juan Capistrano, CA
Paramount Industrial Odor Land Use Compatibility Study, Paramount, CA
Lee Lake Water District Infrastructure Installation, Temescal Valley, CA
Fiesta Island Sludge Drying Operations Relocation, West Miramar, CA
.STEWATER DISPOSAL/FRESHWATER TREATMENT IMPACT
FACILITIES - Page 2
Palm Desert Treatment Plant Odor Scrubber Certification, Palm Desert, CA
Croix Blanche Winery Settling Pond Odor Dispers. Study, Napa Valley, CA
San Jacinto Treatment Plant Odor Scrubber Efficiency Study, Hemet, CA
La Salina Treatment. Plant Odor Scrubber Efficiency Test., Oceanside, CA
Tapia WWTP EIR Preparation and On-Site Wind Monitoring, Las Virgenes, CA
Chino Basin Regional Plant No.4 EIR, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Sewage Sludge/Cattle Manure Composting Project EIR, Adelanto, CA
Henrico County In-Vessel Composting Odor Scrubber Study, Richmond, VA
Clean Water Program System Improvement EIR, San Francisco, CA
Sludge Management Master Plan (Air Drying, In-Vessel Composting,
Facultative Lagoons, Windrow Composting, Direct Injection), Three Sites,
San Diego, CA
Vallecitos District Treat. Plant, Outfall and Reservoir, San Marcos, CA
San Joaquin Reservoir Cover & Filtration Plant Impact, Newport Beach, CA
Wastewater Flow Equalization Project EIR (Odor & Noise), Lakeside, CA
EBMUD Freshwater Treatment Plant Upgrade Air & Noise Studies, Orinda, CA
Olivehain MWD Gaty Filtration Plant/Reserv. Project EIR, San Marcos, CA
Chino Basin MWD Cattle Manure/Sewage Sludge Co-Compost. Proj., Chino, CA
Southern California MWD Pipeline No.6 EIR, Lake Skinner - Pala, CA
LVMWD Filtration Plant Chlorine Spill Risk Assess., Westlake Village, CA
Rancho California Treatment Plant Odor Scrubber Cert., Temecula, CA
y
P . IRs, cleared aircraft on weather clearances, taught aviation"R"ORTS - modeled pollution dispersion patterns, performed on-site data monitorin
weather courses, gave
public hearing testimony before the CAB, evaluated candidate airport/helipad landing sites
ind prepared analyses for possible legal challenges for airport master plans at two sites.
Staff Weather Forecaster, U. S. Air Force, Madison, WI
Division Staff Weather Officer, Air Defense Command, Tacoma, WA
Range Weather Analyst, Pacific Missile Range, Point Mugu, CA
Orange County CAB Hearing Testimony, Route Authority, Orange County, CA
Noise Studies for Rolls Royce Equipped L-101 1,s, Palmdale Airport, CA
LAX Cargo Facility Expansion EIR, Los Angeles, CA
Brown Field Static Engine Test Stand EIR, San Diego County, CA
LAMPS Mark III Helicopter Squadron Deployment, North Island NAS, CA
University Hospital Helipad Negative Declaration, San Diego, CA
Civil Aviation Siting Study Data Acquisition Program, Orange County, CA
CLahului Airport Expansion Master Plan EIR, Maui, Hawaii
j
urbank/Glendale/Pasadena Master Plan EIR, Burbank, CA
Agadar Airport Siting Evaluation, Agadir, Kingdom of Morocco
John Wayne Airport/Santa Ana Heights Master Plan, Orange County, CA
146th TAW Relocation Study, Van Nuys, Pt. Mugu, Norton, Palmdale, CA
Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital Helipad Siting Study, Los Angeles, CA
Air Cal Route Additions Focused EIR, Lindbergh Field, San Diego, CA
Jet America Guymas, LAX Flight Additions Emissions Cales, LAX, CA
BGPA Site Plan Change Supplemental EIR, Burbank, CA
BAe-146 Service Implementation, John Wayne Airport, Orange County, CA
USMC Runway Modification EIR, 29 Palms, CA
Chino Airport Master Plan Update, Chino, CA
Airport Area Specific Plan Baseline Study, San Luis Obispo, CA
na Airport Area Development Plan EIR, Napa, CA
PORTS - Page 2
.` Air Alaska & Braniff Route Authority EIRs, Lindbergh, San Diego, CA
Lindbergh Field Master Plan EIR, San Diego, CA
New Austin Airport Air Quality Analysis per FAA FAR-150, Austin, TX
E.
y
4COUSTICAI., IMPACT STUDIES (NOISE)
4
't
}
� 1
tl
i
R
"A
.. A
t� t.
performed on-site baseline noise surveys, calibrated and ran the FHWA noise
mon.. evaluated noise impact mitigation measure effectiveness.
Milliken-Highland Development Freeway Noise Study, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Jamboree Residential Noise Set-Back Constraint Study, Newport Beach, CA
West End Development Plan Master EIR, Fontana, CA
Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas Recovery Noise Constraint Study, Irvine, CA
Bancroft Road Widening (FAU Funds Project), Walnut Creek, CA
Serramonte Development Aircraft/Freeway Noise Assessment, Daly City, CA
John Muir Hospital Modernization Noise Study, Walnut Creek, CA
Oakley Area General Plan Noise Element Update, Oakley, CA
Stonecrest Development Noise Monitoring/Impact Modeling, San Diego, CA
Oak Road Widening Noise Impact Study, Walnut Creek, CA
Berkeley Waterfront Development Monitoring/Impact Study, Berkeley, CA
One Pacific Plaza Noise Impact Modeling, Fremont, CA
Fontana Rail Noise Impact/Mitigation Study, Fontana, CA
I
Mori Point Development Plan Noise Study, Pacifica, CA
i.
San Juan Hills Development Master Plan, Belmont, CA
Placer County Government Center Noise Impact Studies, Lake Tahoe, CA
Northgate Station Development Freeway Noise Exposure, Sacramento, CA
Paul Masson Winery Property Noise Impact Study, Saratoga, CA
Otay Rio Business Park Noise Monitoring/Impact Study, Chula Vista, CA
Blue Diamond Recycling Plant Baseline Monitoring, Mission Viejo, CA
City of Whittier Downtown Redevelopment Noise Study, Whittier, CA
Sunset Redevelopment Project Noise Study, East Salinas, CA
La Cuesta Fontana Specific Plan Noise Impact Analysis, Fontana, CA
r
234 Pico Redevelopment Noise Impact Monitoring, Santa Monica, CA
i�*nbert Avenue Widening Roadway Noise Impact Study, Brea, CA
i
NOISE PROJECT EXPERIENCE - Page 2
-,:JATX Chemical Products Terminal CUP Noise Impact Analysis, Carson, CA
Birch Street Widening/Extension Noise Impact Study, Brea, CA
Redwood Road Truck Noise Calculations, Oakland, CA
San Sevaine Master Plan EIR, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Cypress Superstreet Overcrossing Noise Impact Assessment, Cypress, CA
Lee Lake Water District Facilities Noise Impact, Temescal Valley, CA
Jungleland Property Development Noise Impact, Thousand Oaks, CA
Bayview Point Development EIR Rail Noise Study, City of Pinole, CA
Martin Luther King Community Center EIR Noise Studies, Richmond, CA
Richmond Downtown Redevelopment EIR Noise Studies, Richmond, CA
Marsh Creek Marina EIR, Contra Costa County, CA
Bethel Island Noise Planning Constraint Study, Contra Costa County, CA
Etiwanda Highlands Residential Set-Back Noise Impacts, Cucamonga, CA
_Aarinita Commercial Development EIR Noise Analysis, Ojai, CA
USAAC of E Santa Ana River Master Plan Construction Noise Study, So. CA
T.V.I. Golf Course Rock Crushing/Grading Noise Impact, Sun Valley, CA
Port Hueneme Harbour Noise Mitigation Design Plan, Port Hueneme, CA
San Bernardino County Detention Facility Noise Impact, Fontana, CA
L.A. Open Golf Tournament Spectator Noise Study, Pacific Palisades, CA
Castro Heights Development EIR Noise Study, San Francisco, CA
Wavecrest Redevelopment Project EIR Noise Study, Half Moon Bay, CA
Agua Dulce Airpark Aircraft Noise Monitoring Program, Agua Dulce, CA
Coast Ranch Development Noise Impact Study, Carmel, CA
Etiwanda/Day Creek Noise Wall/Setback Siting Study, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Pitts Ranch Development Train/Roadway Noise Analysis, Camarillo, CA
Town Center II Redev. Project Noise Impact Analysis, Chula Vista, CA
N"TgE PROJECT EXPERIENCE - Page 3
`W--'Del Sur Ranch Noise Impact Study, Lancaster, CA
4-S Ranch Development EIR Update Noise Studies, Rancho Bernardo, CA
Krikorian Theater Complex Noise Impact Assessment, San Bernardino, CA
Off-Shore Oil Drilling Noise Whale Migration Pattern Impact, CA
Concrete Batch Plant Residential Noise Impact Monitoring, Lomita, CA
Alameda County Fairgrounds Area Development EIR, Pleasanton, CA
Jafari Winery Compressor Noise Impact Monitoring, Napa Valley, CA
Stonehedge Winery Compressor Noise Impact Monitoring, Napa Valley, CA
Rancho San Diego Golf Course Loudspeaker Noise Imp. Study, El Cajon, CA
Azusa Rock, Owl Rock Haul Road Noise Impact Calculations, Azusa, CA
Stoneridge Master Development Plan EIR, Moreno Valley, CA
Richards Blvd. Extension Noise Impact Modeling, Sacramento, CA
Rancho de Mayo Road Development Noise Study, Carlsbad, CA
-,3akersfield 2020 General Plan Update Noise Element, Bakersfield, CA
Chilcote Rock Products CUP Appl. Noise Monitoring, Rancho Carmel, CA
Orco Block Company Residential Noise Impact Assessment, Stanton, CA
Saddleback Valley Community Church EIR Noise Impact Study, El Toro, CA
Tabata Property EIR Noise Study, Carlsbad, CA
Otay Valley Road Widening EIR Noise Impact Analysis, Chula Vista, CA
Paramount Refinery Residential Noise Impact Monitoring, Paramount, CA
T.T. 46493 Development EIR Noise Study, Sunland/Tujunga, CA
Casa Blanca Community Plan EIR Noise Assessment, Riverside, CA
Dawson Canyon Sand Plant Noise Impact Analysis, Temescal Valley, CA
Compost Recycling Project EIR Noise Impact Analysis, Adelanto, CA
Alta Laguna Park/Playground Noise Impact Study, Laguna Beach CA
8950 Sunset Commercial Center EIR, West Hollywood, CA
NOJQE PROJECT EXPERIENCE - Page 4
Ir 7
Schubert Commercial Center Noise Impact Studies, Encinitas, CA
. Surfside Auto Body Shop Expansion Noise Impact Analysis, Encinitas, CA
Coin-Operated Car Wash Residential Noise Impact Studies, Lakewood, CA
Chino-Hills Kraemer Property Noise Study Updates, Chino, CA
Mid-Bayfront Redevelopment Plan EIR Noise Studies, Chula Vista, CA
Concrete/Asphalt Recycling Project Noise Monitor., Poway & Lakeside, CA
Route 67 Woodside Road Intersection Improvement Noise Study, Santee, CA
Border Highlands Agg. Plant EIR Noise Impact Analysis, Tijuana River
West Hills Specific Plan EIR Noise Analysis, Belmont, CA
Church Street Agg. Plant Noise Monitoring, San Bernardino County, CA
Padre Transit Mix/Quarry Expansion EIR, Poway, CA
Pick-Your-Part Automobile Recycling Fac. Impact Analysis, Anaheim, CA
Richmond Addition Sewerage Project Noise Studies, San Francisco, CA
�! Asphalt "Hot Plant" Noise Standards Compliance Study, El Toro, CA
T.T. 14747 Rail Noise Impact Study, Fontana, CA
Haul Road and Materials Conveyor Noise Study, Azusa, CA
Desert Bighorn Sheep Rocket Launch Noise Nuisance Study, White Sands, NM
Diesel Power Plant Noise Impact Study, Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands
Apostolic Church Neighborhood Noise Nuisance Study, Fallbrook, CA
Desert Coast Apartments Rail Noise Impact Study, San Diego, CA
Sloan Canyon Sand Plant CUP Ext. Noise Imp. Study, San Diego County, CA
T.T. 13846 Noise Impact Analysis, San Juan Capistrano, CA
Commercial Center Redevelopment Plan EIR Noise Study, Placentia, CA
!,
Hollywood Hills Grading Freeway Noise Exposure Mod. Los Angeles, CA
Plunge Creek Quarry Noise Impact Study, Highlands, CA
S.B. County Medical Center Relocation, Colton, Ont., San Bernardino, CA
6
f
I
NOISE PROJECT EXPERIENCE - Page 5
_,,coyote Hills East Development EIR, Fullerton, CA
Gramercy Park Apartments Noise Exposure Study, Anaheim, CA
Jackson Drive/Sr52 Interchange Noise Study, San Diego, CA
Kaiser Permanente Medical Office Bldg. Project EIR, Fontana, CA
Ocean Promenade Tower EIR Noise Study, Long Beach, CA
School Siting Noise Impact Study (3 Sites), L.A. Unified School District
Old Orchard Residential Project EIR, Morgan Hill, CA
Old Topanga Canyon Road Widening EA, Calabasas, CA
Requeza Street Residential Project Freeway Noise Study, Encinitas, CA
Ritter Park Development Master Plan EIR, Palmdale, CA
S.D. Pipeline No.6 EIR, Riverside & San Diego County, CA
School Siting Noise Study (2 Sites), Los Angeles USD, South, CA
South Bayfront Local Coastal Plan Revision EIR, Chula Vista, CA
Sunset Acres Residential Project EIR, Imperial, CA
Westminster Commercial Center Noise Abatement Study, Westminster, CA
Soka University Expansion EIR Noise Study, Calabasas, CA
Vallecitos Water District Master Plan Implementation, San Marcos, CA
Nogales Street Park and Ride Facility EIR/EA, Hacienda Heights, CA
Foothill Blvd. Park and Ride Facility EIR/EA, La Verne, CA
Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Noise Studies, Orinda, CA
Hunt-Wesson Plant Upgrade Noise Studies, Davis, CA
South Sutter County GPA (New Town) EIR, Pleasant Grove, CA
River Tower Highrise Project Noise Impact Studies, Sacramento, CA
Villa Santiago Site Development Noise Monitoring, Orange CA
Beverly Manor Convalescent Home Noise Impact Monitor., Laguna Hills, CA
Stonebridge Development Noise Impact Study, Grass Valley, CA
PROJECT EXPERIENCE - Page 6
.'.Jrth Etiwanda Specific Plan Adoption Noise Imp. Study, R. Cucamonga, CA
SF General Hospital Park. Structure Noise Imp. Study, San Francisco, CA
4-S Ranch Specific Plan Revision EIR„ Rancho Bernardo, CA
Crossroads Parkway Park-and-Ride Noise Imp. Study, City of Industry, CA
Sierra Blvd./I-10 Ramp Modification Noise Study, Fontana, CA
High Desert Hospital Relocation EIR, Lancaster, CA
Gilman Road Widening Noise Monitoring, Moreno Valley, CA
Mill Stream Seniors Community Noise Abatement Study, Claremont, CA
La Vina/Lineoln Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Altadena, CA
Downey Redevelopment Areas 5A, 5B & 5C, Downey, CA
Barton/Waterman Comm. Site Develop. Initial Study, S. Bernardino, CA
Third Rose Canyon Sewer Addition Noise Impact Study, San Diego, CA
AIRBORNE TOXICS
AIRBORNE TOXICS - performed ambient monitoring for airborne to
indoor air quality studies related to health complaints xics, performed r pus waste site fen impacts,im P � Prepared compliance plans, analyzed —"'—
P' , prepared risk assessments.
Implementation Plans - AB-3374/1150.1 Compliance, Orange Count G
Contractor Lab SO y ASNVMP
Q and Selection for 3374/1150.1, Orange County GSA/WMP
Tierra Alta Master Plan (B ' ' Landfill Final Re-Use), West Covina
Toxics Ambient Monitoring Project (OII Fenceline), Monterey CA
Villa Roma Dev, Plan Risk Assessment, BKK Landfill, ey Park, CA
Irwindale Waste to Energy Plant Microsc dl' West Covina, CA
ale Wind Study, Irwindale, CA
Milliken Landfill Waste to Energy Toxics Impact Evaluation, Ontario
San Marcos Refuse Incineration Toxics Impact, San Marcos CA
Redwood City Refuse Incinerator Wind Studies, Redwood CA
Landfill Gas Toxics Grab Sampling Program, Coyote Canyon, Irvine, CA
ood City, CA
Liquid Haz. Waste TransferlTreatment Station E
IR, Orange County, CA
Chemical Hauler Truck Terminal Venting Risk Assessment, Carson
J-mical Storage & Transfer Emissions Impact Stud CA
State Office Building Indoor Air unlit Y (GATX), Carson, CA
Quality Monitonng, El Cajon, CA
Chemical Fume Hood Building Ventilation Study, Mission Viejo, CA
Treatment Plant Foul Air Scrubber Study, San Juan Capistrano, CA
Hazardous Materials Excavation Wind Monitoring, Huntington Beach,
Fuel Spill Site Remediation Wind Monitoring, Smith Too] Irvine, CA
, ine, CA
Cyanide Heap Leaching Operation Emissions Impact Study, Glamis, CA
West Simi Valley Landfill Hazardous Emissions Study, Sin>j Valley, CA
Insecticide (Diazinon) Spray Drift Impact Evaluation, Downey, CA
Herbicide (2,4-D) Drift Agricultural Impact, Yakima Valley, Washington
7-Up Bottlin 8
g Co., Gasoline Spills Removal Risk Assessment, Vernon, CA
Air SWAP (Calderon Bill) Monitoring - Six (6) Orange Count Landfills
Harbor Landfill Air-SWAT Monitoring, Wilmington, CA y ]s
nT lndfill Superfund Study Risk Assessment, Montebello, CA
Hidden Valley Resources Designated Waste Repository, Newberry Springs,Y P gs, CA
PERSONNEL RESUMES AND REFERENCES
i
i.
Giroux & Associates
Environmental Consultants
HANS D. GIROUX
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
EDUCATION:
Bachelor of Arts in German Literature, University of California, 1965.
Bachelor of Science in Meteorology, University of Utah, 1966.
Graduate studies in Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, 1967-68.
Masters of Science in Meteorology, UCLA, 1972.
Candidacy for Doctorate in Meteorology, UCLA, 1974.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Weather Forecaster, U.S. Air Force, Truax AFB, Madison, WI, 1966-67.
Staff Weather Officer/Chief Forecaster, McChord AFB, WA, 1968-69.
Teaching Assistant, Basic Meteorology/Advanced Dynamics, UCLA, 1969-71.
Research Assistant, California Marine Layer Structure, UCLA, 1971.
Research Assistant, Remote Air Pollution by Satellites, UCLA, 1972.
Research Assistant, Climatic Change - Aircraft Pollution, UCLA, 1973.
Instructor, Basic Meteorology, Cal State Northridge, 1972-74.
Air Pollution Meteorologist, S-Cubed, LaJolla, CA 1973-75.
Senior Meteorologist, Meteorology Research, Inc., Altadena, CA 1975-77.
Instructor, Weather for Flight Aircrews, Orange Coast College, 1976.
Instructor, Basic Meteorology, Golden West Community College, 1976-81.
Instructor, Basic Meteorology, Orange Coast College, 1977-81.
Consultant, Atmospheric Impact Processes, Irvine, CA, 1977-present.
17744 Sty Prim CY'rdc, Sure 110, Ir►,joe, California 92714 - Pbooe(714)851-8609 - Rax 17111 RV-9.0
OWN
HANS D. GIROUX Page 2 _
RINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES*
J
Military: Performed operational weather forecasting for jet aircrews; trained new
personnel; responsible for ground safety, security, records administration,
quality control,forecasting methodology research, and liaison with other base
units; air defense battle staff weather officer; and deputy detachment
commander.
University: Conducted laboratory sessions; instructed students in the use of
meteorological instrumentation; demonstrated weather analysis techniques;
supervised student weather observation programs; gave lectures and tests.
Private: Prepared air quality impact assessments for coal-fired, oil-fired, nuclear,
geothermal and wind energy power generation systems; prepared impact
assessments for transportation systems, industrial emissions sources,
wastewater treatment plants, landfills, toxic disposal
Air Quality: sites, oil processing facilities, mining operations, commercial, residential,
institutional and recreational land uses, airports and harbors; conducted
atmospheric gas tracer experiments;developed numerical airflow analyses;and
conducted numerous meteorological and air quality data acquisition programs
with a very strong emphasis in and environments, geothermal development,
odors and nuisance and in regional pollution impacts from Southern
California urbanization.
Noise: Developed impact assessments for roadways sources,construction equipment,
sand and gravel plants, wineries, industrial equipment, gas recovery plants,
railroads, recreational activities and oil refineries; monitored ambient noise
levels from above sources, calibrated highway traffic noise model (FHWA-
RD-77-108), and calculated sensitive receptor noise exposures; wrote
community noise ordinances, purchased monitoring equipment and trained
city staff; performed noise mitigation studies including barrier design,
location, equipment noise control, and residential building retrofits.
PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES
Dr. Don B. Blumenthal, President, Sonoma Technology, Inc., 707-527-9372
Mr. Tom J. Lockhart, CCM, Meteor. Standards Institute, 206-549-2179
Ms. Sylvia Salenius, Director, Env. Studies, P&D Technologies, 714-835-4447
Mr. Mike Tolmasoff, Director, No. Sonoma County APCD, 707-433-5911
Mr. Harry Dillon, Deputy Director, Imperial County APCD, 619-339-4314
Dr. Alan Eschenroeder, President, Alanova, Inc., 617-259-0886
Mr. Frank R. Bowerman, Director, Orange County Waste Mgmt. Program, 714-568-4160
Mr. Ken R. Richards, Senior Engineer, Consoer-Townsend Assoc., 615-244-8864
4
Giroux & Associates _
Environmental Consultants
TERESA M. KOZLOWSKI
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
S�.
ED 7 .ATIOIVAI BACKCUK(lub m
1987-91 Bachelor of Arts in Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine.
Specialization in Environmental Health and Planning.
PROFESSIONAL FXPE IFJl C
1988 Research Assistant, UCI Personality/Stress Research
1991 Administrative Intern, City of Westminster Planning Department
1989-91 Associate Planner, Giroux & Associates
PROJECT F.XPF-RIFNCF,
San Bernardino panty Air u',11 t 1 mPnt - mapped daily wind patterns for Ontario,
Riverside and San Bernardino; graphed total and mobile county emissions;plotted stationary
�•ces; calculated percentages of basin emissions.
Downey Redevelopment Plan Am ndments FIIs' - drafted noise and air quality sections for
EIR study; evaluated three areas considered for redevelopment; calculated noise,
construction and mobile source impacts; operated computer models for analysis; researched
land uses, local regulations and existing conditions.
Sa„ n Dieg.Pi li ne No 6 -visited and recorded specific site noise and land use data in San
Diego and Riverside Counties; presented and discussed environmental conditions at team
meeting; mapped land uses and locations of sensitive wildlife to focus analysis; drafted
sections of air quality and noise reports.
North County I andfill and Alt rnative Technologies Study-compiled and reduced
wild data for four sites in North Orange County, generated Wind Rose tables and graphs,
presented data results at team meetings.
Wboa Fun 7one - conducted facility design analysis in team project; prepared and led
research plan; identified potential problems in social spaces and facility performance; made
recommendations for improvements; made oral and written presentations.
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 210, Ire ae, CA]Yornid 92714 - Pbonc(714)S51-6609 - Ra(714)S51-M12
Giroux & Associates
Environmental Consultants
SEAN P. WILLIS
SENIOR AEROMETRIC TECHNICIAN
EDUCATIONAL. I3ACKG ROUND
1986-87 Porterville Community College
1987-91 University of California, Irvine
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1987-88 Research for Hire, Pesticides Application Researcher
;�. 1989 Soil Remediation Services, Laboratory Analyst
1989-91 Giroux & Associates, Aerometric Program Field Manager
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Harbor Landfill Air Solid Waste Assessment Test (AIR-SWATI - designed and built
instrumentation to acquire air samples for ambient air toxies testing, extracted gas samples
from landfill gas collection systems,deployed and serviced wind monitoring stations, reduced
wind data, transferred samples to/from analysis laboratory and reviewed lab results.
Sierra Avenue/I-10 Interchange Freeway/Arterial/Rail Noise Baseline Study-deployed noise
monitoring instrumentation, abstracted noise data, performed monitoring/modeling noise
model calibration.
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Microclimatology Study-modified instrumentation for acquiring
vertical profiles of temperature and humidity within tree canopies, deployed nine towers for
data acquisition, performed 250 profile tests, reduced data.
Lake Hollywood Ridgeline Grading Noise and Wind Dispersion Study - performed on-site
noise monitoring at six representative residences with possible noise modification due to 100-
foot ridgeline reduction, built wind-tunnel physical model of before and after configuration,
modeled wind patterns for pre- and post-grading scenario, prepared contour maps of wind
speed isopleths.
Beaumont Concrete Corp. Dust Monitoring Program - modified Sierra-Anderson standard
High Volume (Hi-Vol) particulate samplers with Wedding Associates critical orifice dust
sampler assembly, deployed upwind-downwind dust samplers at quarry-batch plant,
performed flow calibrations.
17744 Sky Perk Circle,Suite 210, Irvine, California 9:714 - Phone(714)851-8609 - Far(714)851.8612
i tES
1 ti
EERI SPECI.._ EARTHQUAKE REPORT- AUGUST 1992
Landers and Big Bear Earthquakes of June 28
& 29 , 1992
damaged, were slightly less than
Double Event Shakes Southern California $1 million.
What these damage figures fail to
Southern California was jolted by a allowing individuals and public show is the good performance of
double earthquake on Sunday, agencies to apply for federal buildings designed and built to the
June 28, 1992. It began at 4:58 disaster assistance. requirements of modern codes.
am with a magnitude 7.4 earth- Damage to unreinforced masonry
quake centered in the Landers area As of July 3, 1992, the California buildings and unanchored modular
north of Joshua Tree (34.217°N, Office of Emergency Services re- and mobile homes was as ex-
116.433°W). This was the largest ported 1 death, 25 serious injuries, pected. The lack of widespread
earthquake to occur in California and 372 other injuries as a result damage to post-1960's structures
since 1952. Three hours later, at of the series of earthquakes. In is especially encouraging given the
8:04 am, a magnitude 6.5 earth- San Bernardino County 77 homes magnitude and duration of the
quake occurred on a separate fault were destroyed and 4,369 were event.
near Big Bear Lake (34.167 0N, damaged, with losses estimated at
1 16.817°W). The second epicen- $47.5 million. Twenty-seven EERI did not appoint a special
ter was less than 45 km from the businesses suffered major damage Reconnaissance Team to investi-
first. Numerous aftershocks or destruction, and an additional gate these events. Many EERI
followed, several in the M4.4 to 139 suffered lesser amounts of members inspected the earthquake
M5.3 range. damage, resulting in losses area and submitted preliminary
estimated at $17 million. Public reports to EERI that have been
On July 1, 1992, Governor Wilson sector damage, including water incorporated into the summary
requested that the President and sewer damage and damage to report that follows.
declare the Counties of San public buildings was estimated at
Bernardino and Riverside major $26.6 milion. Damage estimates The publication and distribution of
disaster areas. President Bush for Riverside County, where 24 this report was funded by NSF
signed the declaration on July 2, residences and 7 businesses were Grant #CES-8822367.
Landers Strong Motion Data Provides Records and 14 km, respectively). While
durations are long for this event,
From Largest Magnitude Yet Recorded in US peak accelerations are not parti-
cularly high for an event of this
The California Strong Motion Long Duration. The most unusual magnitude.
Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) aspect of the records from the
of the Division of Mines and Landers earthquake, compared to Amplitudes in Direction of Rupture.
Geology has recovered over 250 most records obtained in Califor- Stations to the north and east
records from the Landers and Big nia, is their long duration. The have relatively high peak acceler-
Bear earthquakes, collected at over record from the Joshua Tree sta- ation values, which may be due to
150 stations. The Landers earth- tion for the Landers event (0.29 g the propagation of the rupture
quake is now the largest event peak acceleration, about 30 sec. northward from the epicenter near
with an extensive set of strong duration) can be compared to that Landers.
motion recordings. The map in recorded in the M6.1 earthquake
Figure A-1 shows the locations of of April 22, 1992 (0.3 g peak Big Bear Lake - Civic Center
the two epicenters and of selected acceleration, about 5 sec. dura- Grounds. A peak acceleration of
CSMIP stations. Some highlights tion). The epicentral distance for 0.55 g during the Big Bear event
of these records include: the two events is comparable (20 continued on page 2
0
EERI SPECIAL EARTHQUAKE REPORT- AUGUST 1992
Sc,l,
�% CSMIP �_ 10, T° •' earthquake, centered about 69 km
_— ! l. '° distant.
J 1
— — — Ahk, ...o,e -- — •1- -
U.S. Geological Survey National
�.� -'. <`"1°": _ I _ ..,"•.•• _ Strong-Motion Program (NSMP)
a •
,ls "°` ,• '�'i �� � T;,,., r instrumentation at more than 175
`°""`.. stations was triggered by the two
f 'w I earthquakes, including those at
three well-instrumented structures
1. 9u� _ _ V • _ in the San Bernardino area. Peak
�w..- �' — " µms'- " -5-wa-,c t--1-^c3Pw t• E�
1_ l•- accelerations were recorded at
--a_L " '�=--� {rr��' .•• !•�=-•o �� "•P°• Indio, 0.29 g, during the Landers
earthquake, and at Forest Falls,
0.30 g, during the Big Bear
,L`
earthquake.
. w I q
rL An accelerometer in the Lucerne
y: •� % "..� 4��! a-r--� ---L `, 1 -'f1 - - P Valley area adjacent to the Camp
r? ;=16' Rock-Emerson Fault near the north
end of the rupture recorded the
Landers earthquake. Preliminary
Figure A-1 Selected CSMIP stations(dots) that recorded the June 28, 1992 earthquakes near peak acceleration readings from
Landers and Big Bear Lake, in southern San Bernardino County. Locations of Landers and Big
Bear epicenters are shown as stars. (CDMG CSMIP) the accelerogram, maintained by
the Southern California Edison
was recorded at an epicentral Law & Justice Center. This Company, were in the range of 0.8
Jistance of 10 km (Figure A-2). building is located approximately g to 1.2 g. The duration of strong
106 km from the Landers motion was in excess of 20
Palm Springs - 4-Story Hospital. epicenter. The peak acceleration seconds.
Steel-frame building 43 km from at the f reef ield site was 0.12 g.
the Landers epicenter. A peak The peak acceleration at the (Information included in this report
acceleration of 0.07 g was foundation level below the provided by CDMG CSMIP, USGS
recorded on the ground floor and isolators was 0.1 1 g; the peak NSMP, and an EQE International
0.23 g at the roof. Larger acceleration at the roof was 0.19 investigation team. EQE
acceleration (over 0.60 g) and g. These peak accelerations are investigators include Ray Kincaid,
shorter duration were recorded at similar to those during the 1990 Mark Pierepiekarz, Jack Wiggins,
this building during the 1986 North Upland earthquake. This is the Ron Eguchi, Tom Roche, Charles
Palm Springs earthquake. longest duration record obtained at Scawthorn, Doug Honegger, Hope
this building. Peak accelerations Seligson, Craig Van Anne, Carl
Rancho Cucamonga - Base Isolated were lower for the Big Bear Nelman, and Mike Salmon.)
Big Bear Lake - Civic Center Grounds
(CSMIP Station 22561) Record 22561-00302-92181.09
_ __ _...._ _ Max.
270°.._- — 0.48 g
UP 21
3G0" _ v r��.,�(l �.Mr1�,�V�W'��W�nrJ4NVti, " ..�,..... ,.. r......H,- U 55 g
---------------�1—�--Y---------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 Sec.
Figure A-2 Strong ground motion record of Big Bear earthquake recorded at CSMIP station on Big Bear Lake Civic Center Grounds, 10 km
epicentral distance (CDMG CSMIP)
EERI SPEC EARTHQUAKE REPORT- AUGUST 1992
Landers & Big Bear Earthquake Characteristics
(This report was submitted by Paul
Somerville, Woodward-Clyde Consul-
tants, with the following note: "This
article summarizes the available infor-
mation about these two events col-
lected at the time of this writing. This
information was gathered from a large 9
number of sources, in addition to the
authors, including press releases and �b
personal interviews with geologists, 90 0 6 12
seismologists, and engineers from the
U.S. Geological Survey, California Di- 10, �A' �s SCALE,mile:
vision of Mines and Geology, California : OFFSET G<T 16'OFFSET
Institute of Technology, nd other NEAR
gy � BES ii DR MINE
organizations. Current ongoing investi-
gations by many of these individuals �F9s
will undoubtedly produce refined and 0
more specific data and information 34 30' uPP�R
+ VALLEY : r 34.30.
t
regarding the Landers and Big Bear � JOHNSON
earthquakes than presented here.
\ EMERSON LAKE
Geologic Setting Soy
The Landers earthquake occurred
along a series of north- to north- \
west-trending faults located in the
western portion of California's : a ;
Mojave Desert Physiographic Pro- : y'�,
Vince. Primary ground rupture : 3a ,5' 34 15' ����LANOERS
initiated along the Johnson Valley . . • . + +. . . . .
fault and ro a ated to the north BLACK
P P 9 MOUNTAIN
along the Homestead Valley, Emer-
son, and Camp Rock faults. These
faults are part of a series of north-
west-trending faults located east YUCCA •JOSHUA TREE
•VALLEY
of the San Andreas fault and \
between the east-west-trending
Garlock fault on the north and the
east-west-trending Pinto Mountain •MORONGO VALLEY
fault on the south.
The Big Bear earthquake occurred
beneath the steep forested terrain Figure B-1 Preliminary map of the Landers earthquake surface rupture. (K. Sieh, Caltech)
of the San Bernardino Mountains.
No primary ground rupture has Earthquake Sequence 1975 M5.2 Galway Lake earth-
been reported in this event. How- quake; the 1979 M4.9 Homestead
ever, aftershock data and focal The region of the Landers earth- Valley-Johnson Valley earthquake,
mechanism solutions are consis- quake has a history of seismic acti- which also resulted in ground
tent with predominantly strike-slip vity. Earthquakes in the region rupture; and the 1986 M6.1 Palm
faulting on a northeast-trending have included the 1946 M6.5 Springs earthquake. Since 1986,
rupture plane. Desert Hot Springs earthquake; the this region of southern California
3
r
EERI SPECIAL EARTHQUAKE REPORT- AUGUST 1992
has seen an increased amount of near Yucaipa toward the Camp The western Mojave Desert has
seismic activity relative to the Rock and Emerson faults. The also experienced an increase in
preceding historical record. rupture zones of the two earth- seismic activity, including an M5.1
quakes form a triangle about 70 earthquake on July 11, 1992, near
Most recently, a precursor to the km on a side, with the Landers the junction of the Garlock and
Landers event was the M6.1 Josh- rupture on the right side, the Big Sierra Nevada faults.
ua Tree earthquake that occurred Bear rupture forming part of the
on April 22, 1992 (see EERI News- left side, and two strands of the
letter, May 1992). The Joshua San Andreas fault (the Mission Surface Faulting in the
Tree earthquake ruptured north- Creek and Banning faults) on the Landers Earthquake
ward from its epicenter east of base (Figure B-2).
Desert Hot Springs on the southern The total length of surface faulting
extension of the Johnson Valley The aftershocks of the Landers extended approximately 70 km,
fault, but was apparently stopped earthquake have extended south of from west of Landers to the Rod-
by the east-west Pinto Mountain the Pinto Mountain fault as far as man Mountains. Minor faulting
fault, which offsets the northern the San Andreas fault. The after- was also noted by the CDMG and
Johnson Valley fault about 2 km to shocks of the Big Bear earthquake USGS south of the east-west Pinto
the west. have extended southwest as far as Mountain fault. Sympathetic
the San Andreas fault, where a faulting has also been reported on
The Big Bear earthquake was not magnitude 4.4 earthquake occured the Lenwood, Calico, Pisgah, Old
preceded by any precursor events near Yucaipa. This earthquake's Woman Springs, and Superstition
similar to those preceding the focal mechanism is consistent with Hills faults. In addition, 18 mm of
Landers event. strike-slip faulting on the San creep was triggered on the San
Andreas fault. Andreas fault in the Durmid-Mecca
The Landers earthquake had an Hills area.
unusually shallow preliminary focal Immediately following the Landers
depth of 1-3 km. The earthquake earthquake, there was a substan- Primary ground rupture occurred
began on the north side of the tial increase in the rate of occur- along a nearly continuous series of
Pinto Mountain fault, resuming the rence of small earthquakes in the right-stepping, northwest-trending
northward rupture of the Johnson Long Valley Caldera at Mammoth en echelon faults, in most places
Valley fault but with a 2 km west- Lakes and in other regions on the connected by a north- to north-
erly off-set relative to the Joshua east side of the Sierra Nevada, and east-trending fault (Riedel shears).
Tree rupture. The Landers rupture at Lassen Peak and Mt. Shasta in
propagated northward on the the Cascade Range further north. The main disturbance zone of the
Johnson Valley fault, but then
began a series of easterly steps
across to the Homestead Valley,
Emerson, and Camp Rock faults, to. ..............1
Y
with the strike of each successive MACS\ 1' °
0 00*
fault bending further to the west, 35°
as shown on Figure B-1 (K. Sieh, +,,� w �� MAUNITUI)f
Caltech►.
- •1 11 00♦
50•
Aftershocks closely follow the 40 `R��i `�^tii very 4'
trend of the surface faulting, as ° °°° '96 ❑a s.o.
0+
seen on Figure B-2 (E. Hauksson, 30' '`fr a'4 F gs° ' 5.0♦
Caltech, and L. Jones, USGS). hrtP° "`�,,�r ys E• 0 ,4� 6.0'
The epicenters of the aftershocks Io ` a-°. Pq;,d r
form a continuous north- to north- ,mss\ " " `�'
west-trending line extending from 10• "�% � m °
hc�y"11"y INTO yp'TAµ9_rA '
the San Andreas fault on the south '�: FA
to the Camp Rock fault on the 34°
BANNNG e
north. zo ISM 4t s . F4 dl luj� luE CUy T
FA _
The Big Bear earthquake occurred 30• 20• 10• 117° 50' 40' 30' 20' 10' 116. 50' 40' 30'
at a focal depth of about 10 km Figure B-2 Location map of Landers and Big Bear epicenters (large stars) and aftershocks.
and ruptured northeastward from (Caltech/USGS Pasadena)
EERI SPEC. :ARTHQUAKE REPORT- AUGUST 1992
ground rupture was approximately
3 to 40 m across. Even where the Rupture Model of the
fault trace was narrow without Landers Earthquake
significant steps, subsidiary
faulting and cracking appeared in From the analysis of both regional
several places extending about 7 and worldwide seismograms, it ap-
to 15 m from either side of the pears that large bursts of seismic
fault. Primary ground rupture was energy were released at two loca-
right-lateral strike-slip with an tions: one in the epicentral region
average of approximately 3 meters near Landers, and the other (and
of horizontal movement along most largest) 40 km northwest of the
of the ruptured fault length, and epicenter on the Emerson Fault,
t with a maximum of about 6 to 7 m coinciding with the largest surface
X of strike-slip movement on the offset. These two rupture events
Emerson fault across a road near are separated in time in worldwide
Bessemer Mine Road, as shown on seismograms. The second event
Figure B-3. Oblique and vertical had a seismic moment about three
displacement of about 1 m oc- times as large as the first; the total
curred mainly where the fault seismic moment was about 1 x
bends. 1027 dyne-cm. The change in
strike of the fault rupture from
Across the area west of Landers, northerly in the first event to about
the fault cut across a broad allu 30 degrees west of north for the
vium plain. North of Landers, fault second event is also apparent in
rupture largely coincided with the worldwide seismograms.
mountain fronts, older fault scarps
in alluvium, and other indicators of The distribution of slip along the
'y geologically recent fault activity. fault inferred by waveform in-
+ 'w About 80 percent of the surface version of seismograms from the
:¢ , a.p rupture generally coincided with TERRAscope network is shown in
„ X �; . a previously mapped fault traces. Figure B-4 (H. Kanamori, Caltech).
The remaining 20 percent that was It is practically identical to the
previously unmapped was mainly measured surface slip. It shows
in alluvial filled valleys. large slip beginning about 3 km
E 8 Slip along the Fault
4
!!r'' Z 2
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90
Distance (North from the Epicenter), km
Figure B-3 Road near Bessemer Mine Road
shows an offset of 5.5 m caused by fault
slip. (T. Freeman, Woodward-Clyde Figure B-4 Distribution of slip along the rupture zone of the Landers earthquake inferred by
Consultants) waveform inversion from the TERRAscope array. (H. Kanamori, Caltech)
5
EERI SPECIAL EARTHQUAKE REPORT- AUGUST 1992
north of the epicenter on the shown as a function of closest of the attenuation trends of the
Landers fault and dying out distance to the surface rupture in Landers and Loma Prieta earth-
abruptly about 18 km north of the Figure B-5. The peak acceleration quakes, more damage might have
epicenter. Large slip resumes on attenuates smoothly to a value of been expected at large distances
the Homestead Valley fault about about 0.1 g at about 50 km, but from the epicenter in the heavily
27 km north of the epicenter, and then has a more gradual decay populated regions of southern
continues on the Emerson and from 50 to 150 km before rapidly California, as occurred in San
Camp Rock faults, extending to attenuating again (the most distant Francisco and Oakland during the
about 60 km north of the values are from digital TERRA- Loma Prieta earthquake. However,
epicenter. These two regions of scope recordings). The shape of the Landers and Big Bear earth-
large slip correspond closely in this attenuation function is like the quakes did not rupture toward the
time separation and strength with one observed in the 1989 Loma population centers, as happened in
the two pulses seen in the Prieta earthquake in the San the Loma Prieta earthquake, but
worldwide seismograms. Francisco Bay area. The slow instead ruptured toward the
decrease in the ground motions desert. Also, soft soils (like those
Strong Ground Motions between 50 and 150 km may be on the edges of San Francisco
due to the effect of waves re- Bay) that amplified relatively small
Peak accelerations from subsets of flected from the base of the crust. rock motions of the Loma Prieta
stations from the CSMIP, USGS, earthquake are less prevalent in
and TERRAscope networks are Given the similarity in the shapes southern California.
Soil Failure
Apart from ground cracks caused
by surface fault ruptures, instances
of significant soil failure were
1 7 7 almost non-existent. The only
significant reported earth structure
+ damage has been limited to cause-
-------____ ways constructed on Big Bear Lake
b o where lateral spreading was
observed.
tZ off +
v Q
p,o+q® q, The only known instances of soil cm
0.1 , + ooCID 7 liquefaction occurred near
0 0 40 Converse Flat and the east Baldwin
o',o o Lake area near the Big Bear
o ®o0 epicenter. The incidence of rock
p ® slides was lower than expected,
N especially near the Landers
xQ earthquake, suggesting that the
near-fault ground motions may not
a o.ol o have been very severe in most
locations. Surface faulting or I
other forms of ground failure
caused significant amounts of
O Landers M7.4 structural damage.
+ BiS Bees M8.5
M7.4 Joyner and Boore,1B88 ,
(individuals involved in compiling
information for this article include Paul
Somerville, Yoshi Moriwaki, Tom
o.00l 1 to loo Freeman, Dave Schug, and O.S.
Closest Distance (km) Ghuman of Woodward-Clyde
Consultants; and Gary Rasmussen of
Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates.
Sandy Gwinn provided valuable
Figure 8-5 Peak horizontal acceleration shown as a function of closest distance to the surface administrative support.)
rupture. (P. Somerville and N. Smith, Woodward-Clyde Consultants)
a
CERTIFIED
COPY
BEFORE THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
IN RE THE MATTER OF : )
PUBLIC HEARING: )
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT )
NO. 91 -01 TO GOVERN THE )-
DEVELOPMENT OF A PHASED )
EXPANSION PROJECT AT )
INLAND CENTER MALL )
DATE AND TIME : MONDAY, OCTOBER 19 , 1992 , 2 : 10 P .M.
PLACE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL
300 N. D STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
REPORTER: BETH C. DRAIN, RPR, CSR
CERTIFICATE NO. 7152
BRS FILE NO. : 13367
r ser)zce
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive, Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806
(714)666-2226 . (800)622-6092 . FAX(714)666-1155
2
APPEARANCES
ESTHER R . ESTRADA . COUNCILMEMBER
JACK R . REILLY , COUNCILMEMBER
RALPH HERNANDEZ . COUNCILMEMBER
MICHAEL MAUDSLEY . COUNCILMEMBER
W. R . "BOB" HOLCOMB , MAYOR
TOM MINOR , COUNCILMEMBER
V . POPE- LUDLAM, COUNCILMEMBER
NORINE MILLER , COUNCILMEMBER
LARRY REED, CITY STAFF
HENRY EMPENO, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
SPEAKERS FROM THE PUBLIC
MARLENE A . FOX
TOM DODSON
MARK OSTOICH
1065 North PacitiCenter Drive GarrZ�s'�er�S"
Suite
Anaheim,C itornia 92806 r�cr � service
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-602 1
3
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
1
2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3 MONDAY , OCTOBER 19 , 1992
2 : 10 P .M.
4
5
6 COUNCILMEMBER MILLER : WE DO HAVE A QUORUM NOW.
7 AND WE ' RE BACK IN SESSION . IT ' S 2 O' CLOCK, AND WE WILL
g BE TURNING TO PLANNING MATTERS , NO . 32 , A PUBLIC HEARING,
9 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO GOVERN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
10 PHASED EXPANSION PROJECT AT INLAND CENTER MALL .
11 OKAY . BY A REQUEST , WE ' RE GOING TO TURN
12 BACK TO 29 .
13 (THE COUNCIL THEN RETURNED TO ITEM 29 ,
14 WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED NOR HEREIN TRANSCRIBED. )
15 COUNCILMEMBER MILLER : ITEM 32 .
16 MR . REED: I ' LL READ THE STAFF REPORT . THIS IS
17 A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91 - 01 , INLAND CENTER MALL .
18 THE APPLICANT AND DEVELOPER REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A
19 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO GOVERN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
20 PHASED EXPANSION AT INLAND CENTER MALL . THE MALL IS
21 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 1 -215 FREEWAY , SOUTH OF
22 INLAND CENTER DRIVE AND WEST OF E STREET .
23 STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE MAYOR AND
24 COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION WHICH ADOPTS THE NEGATIVE
25 DECLARATION , ADOPTS THE MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORT
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrafnrs'
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re�Gr 1r1� �er�ZCe
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1 c�
4
1 PROGRAM, AND APPROVES THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
2 91 - 01 .
3 THE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND: THE
4 DEVELOPER PROPOSES
TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL
776 , 465 SQUARE
5 FEET , CONSISTING OF 540 . 000 SQUARE FEET IN UP TO THREE
6 NEW ANCHOR DEPARTMENT STORES AND 236 , 000 SQUARE FEET IN A
7 SECOND LEVEL TO THE MALL , AND UP TO FOUR PARKING
g STRUCTURES ARE ALSO INCLUDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEED FOR
9 REQUIRED PARKING.
10 INLAND CENTER MALL WAS BUILT IN 1965 AND
11 CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 985 , 883 SQUARE FEET . IT WILL
12 INCLUDE THREE DEPARTMENT STORES THAT ARE CONNECTED BY A
13 ONE- LEVEL MALL . THE SITE CONSISTS OF 62 . 5 ACRES WITH
14 4 . 400 PARKING SPACES . THE TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET UPON
THE PROJECT COMPLETION WILL BE 1 , 762 , 348 . AND A TOTAL OF
15
16 7 . 420 PARKING SPACES .
17 THE INLAND CENTER MALL CONSISTS OF FOUR
18 PARCELS . PARCEL 1 CONTAINS SEARS , SEARS AUTOMOTIVE
AREA . PARCEL 2 CONTAINS THE BROADWAY
19 CENTER , AND PARKING
20 AND THE PARKING AREA. PARCEL 3 CONTAINS THE MALL PORTION
21 ITSELF AND THE RELATED PARKING. PARCEL 4 CONTAINS THE
22 MAY COMPANY ., THE THEATER COMPLEX . AND THE REQUIRED
23 PARKING. THERE IS A RECIPROCAL EASEMENT OVER ALL THE
24 PARCELS . THE APPLICANT AND DEVELOPER OWNS PARCEL 3 AND
25 INTENDS TO UPGRADE AND EXPAND THE MALL PORTION AND UP TO
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrafez-,.r
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 rej0r /07 &rplce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 / C�
� 5
1 TWO MAJOR DEPARTMENT STORES .
2 THE DEVELOPER ALSO INTENDS TO USE THEIR
3 BEST EFFORTS TO INDUCE THE OTHER PARCELS TO UPGRADE AND
4 REMODEL AND TO CONSTRUCT A THIRD MAJOR DEPARTMENT STORE
5 ON PARCEL NO. 2 .
6 THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A COMMITMENT FROM
7 THE CITY IN TERMS OF APPROVAL OF THE EXPANSION PROJECT.
8 THIS IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO SOLICIT COMMITMENTS
9 WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW DEPARTMENT STORES AND IN- LINE
10 TENANTS ; HOWEVER , THEY ARE NOT TO THE POINT OF HAVING ALL
11 THE SPECIFICS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A
12 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT . SOME OF THOSE SPECIFICS WOULD CHANGE
13 BASED UPON THE FUTURE TENANT NEEDS , ESPECIALLY THE MAJOR
14 DEPARTMENT STORES . AND WILL BE DEFINED IN EACH PHASE .
15 STAFF WAS UNABLE TO APPROVE THE PROJECT
16 WITHOUT HAVING THESE SPECIFICS ; THEREFORE . THE
17 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE MOST
18 APPROPRIATE TOOL TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE COMMITMENT
19 THEY NEED FROM THE CITY , WHILE GIVING THE CITY THE
20 COMFORT LEVEL THAT THE PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH
21 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS .
22 THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INCORPORATES BY
23 REFERENCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE . THE
24 MAIN ISSUES ARE SUMMARIZED IN THIS REPORT .
25 ANALYSIS : THE MALL IS DESIGNATED CR- 1 .
1065 North PacifiCenler Drive farrafe7_'r
Suite 150 ,,�,
Anaheim. California 92806 r 5GrfZn 5erP1ce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
6
1 COMMERCIAL REGIONAL . THIS DESIGNATION WAS ESTABLISHED
2 SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THE TWO MALLS IN THE CITY . THE
3 GENERAL LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS , OBJECTIVES . AND POLICIES
4 ADDRESS INLAND CENTER MALL AND CENTRAL CITY MALL AS
5 PRINCIPAL REGIONAL- SERVING RETAIL CENTERS AND THE NEED TO
6 ENCOURAGE INTENSIFICATION AND UPGRADING.
7 THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
8 PROJECTED THE NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO MILLION PLUS
9 SQUARE FEET OF REGIONAL AND SUBREGIONAL SPACE BY THE YEAR
10 2010 . THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE ALMOST 800 . 000 SQUARE
11 FEET IN REGIONAL RETAIL SPACE .
12 THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT GOALS ,
13 OBJECTIVES , AND POLICIES ADDRESS THE PROVISION OF
14 REGIONAL MALL SPACE AS NECESSARY TO HELP THE CITY RETAIN
15 ITS ROLE AS A REGIONAL-SERVING CENTER .
16 THE GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATES A FLOOR AREA
17 RATIO OF 1 . 5 WITH A HEIGHT OF FOUR STORIES OR 52 FEET FOR
18 DEVELOPMENT IN CR- 1 . THE ULTIMATE PROJECT HAS A FLOOR
19 AIR RATIO OF . 65 WITH A HEIGHT NOT EXCEEDING 52 FEET .
20 THE DEVELOPMENT CODE PERMITS LOT COVERAGE OF 75 PERCENT.
21 AND THE ULTIMATE PROJECT IS APPROXIMATELY 65 PERCENT LOT
22 COVERAGE .
23 THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS PROPOSED FOR A
24 THIRTY-YEAR TERM. THE INTENT IS THAT THE MALL WILL
25 CONTINUE AS A LEGAL CONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR THAT PERIOD
1065 North PacitiCenter Drive ��lrrle) er�
Anaheim, California 0
92806 re er n �erT�lce
( i
714 666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
7
1 OF TIME .
2 THE ACTUAL EXPANSION IS PROPOSED AS FOUR
3 PHASES RANGING FROM 1994 TO THE YEAR 2000 . EACH PROJECT
4 BY PHASE WILL BE PROCESSED THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
5 CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED PROCESSING PROCEDURES .
6 AT THAT TIME THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS
7 WILL BE ADDRESSED. EACH PHASE WILL INCLUDE THE NECESSARY
g IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS PARKING, LANDSCAPING . ETC . OTHER
9 APPLICATIONS SUCH AS PARCEL MAP OR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS
10 MAY ALSO BE PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY .
11 ALTHOUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
12 ADDRESSES THE PROPOSED TIME FRAMES FOR DEVELOPMENT BY
13 PHASE (APPROXIMATELY AN EIGHT-YEAR BUILDOUT) , ADDITIONAL
14 LANGUAGE HAS BEEN INCLUDED THAT COMMITS THE APPLICANT TO
15 SHOW SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS TOWARDS ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT
16 WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME .
17 THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR
18 COMPLETION OF PHASE I WITHIN TEN YEARS OF APPROVAL OF
19 THIS AGREEMENT AND PULLING OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR PHASE
20 II WITHIN 15 YEARS OF APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT.
21 THIS SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE ACTUAL
22 DEVELOPMENT OCCURS WITHIN A RELATIVELY TIMELY MANNER AND
23 THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REMAIN VALID.
24 THIS PROJECT IS ALSO IMPACTED BY THE 1 -215
25 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROPOSED BY CALTRANS . SEVERAL
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrafnrs
Suite 150 '
Anaheim, California 92806 r�ar 1r1� service
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 CJ
7 8
1 ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, BUT THE ANALYSIS OF
2 THE IMPACTS HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED. THIS PRESENTS AN
3 AWKWARD SITUATION FOR THE PROJECT SUCH AS INLAND CENTER
4 MALL EXPANSION WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO OCCUR OVER SEVERAL
5 YEARS . ALL THE ALTERNATIVES HAVE SOME IMPACT ON THE
6 MALL , BUT THE EXTENT IS NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME .
7 THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTAINS LANGUAGE
8 THAT COMMITS THE CITY TO SUPPORTING AN ALTERNATIVE THAT
9 PROVIDES DIRECT ACCESS TO THE INLAND CENTER DRIVE AND/OR
10 FROM ANY COLLECTOR DISTRIBUTOR ROAD. STAFF CONCURS THAT
11 THE 1 -215 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SHOULD NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT
12 ACCESS AND THE ULTIMATE FUNCTIONING OF THE MALL AND
13 SUPPORTS THE LANGUAGE IN THIS AGREEMENT .
14 AN EXAMPLE OF AN ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED BY
15 THE APPLICANT IS ALSO INCLUDED. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A
16 COMMITMENT TO THE APPLICANT ' S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NOT
17 BE MADE AT THIS TIME .
18 THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE PARKING BY
19 PHASE . IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT,
20 PROPOSED PARKING, ADDED TO THE EXISTING PARKING, WILL
21 EXCEED CODE REQUIREMENTS AT BUILDOUT . THE DEVELOPMENT
22 AGREEMENT CONTAINS LANGUAGE AND ADDRESSES THE LOSS OF
23 PARKING DUE TO FREEWAY WIDENING AND PROVIDES FOR ITS
24 REPLACEMENT , IF NECESSARY . IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT
25 THE FREEWAY WIDENING WILL REMOVE PARKING TO THE EXTENT
1065 North PacifiCenler Drive farrzxfer�-
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r 1�0r Z5 service
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
9
1 THAT IT FALLS BELOW THE CODE REQUIREMENTS .
2 ONE OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED IS
3 ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNDRED PARK AND RIDE FACILITY IN THE
4 MALL PARKING LOT . WITH APPROXIMATELY 370 EXTRA PARKING
5 SPACES AT BUILDOUT , THIS WILL NOT IMPACT PARKING.
6 LANDSCAPING: THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
7 INCORPORATES PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
8 PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS . EXISTING
9 LANDSCAPING WILL BE MAINTAINED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND
10 COORDINATED WITH NEW LANDSCAPING . MATURE TREES THAT HAVE
11 TO BE REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE
12 RELOCATED ON-SITE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE .
13 THE MALL MAINTAINS LANDSCAPING ALONG THE
14 EASTERN PERIMETER OF THE PARKING LOT THAT IS LOCATED ON
15 THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY . THE DEVELOPMENT
16 AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF
17 LANDSCAPING AND PARTIAL CREDIT FOR MEETING THE OVERALL
18 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS .
19 THIS PROPOSAL IS ALSO IN THE FREEWAY
20 CORRIDOR OVERLAY . CHAPTER 19 . 14 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
21 CONTAINS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE PROPERTIES
22 THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE FREEWAY . THE INTENT OF THE
23 FREEWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY WAS TO ENSURE THE PROJECTS
24 ADJACENT TO THE FREEWAY PRESENT A PLEASING VIEW TO THE
25 FREEWAY TRAVELERS . THE KEY REQUIREMENTS ARE SIGNAGE AND
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive ��lrrlc� erc�
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 15/107 Z0 �S'erJZCe
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
j 10
WON
1 LANDSCAPING .
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSES THE
2
3 PROVISION OF A 25 - FOOT LANDSCAPED SETBACK ALONG THE
4 FREEWAY CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND
5 KNOWLEDGE THAT THE LOCATION OF THE BUFFER COULD IMPACT
6
THE MALL PERIMETER ROAD AND/OR PARKING, DEPENDING ON THE
7 ULTIMATE FREEWAY WIDENING PROJECT SELECTED - - ALTERNATIVE
g SELECTED.
9 IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE CITY WILL NOT
10 UNREASONABLY WITHHOLD APPROVAL OF PLACING THE BUFFER ON
11 PUBLIC PROPERTY ACCOMMODATION AND/OR A COMBINATION OF
12 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY .
13 STAFF CONCURS WITH THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE WE
14 WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE BUFFER IS COMPLETED WHILE NOT
® ING PROJECT CIRCULATION . CIRCULATION BEING THE
15 IMPACT
16 PRIMARY FACTOR . WE FEEL THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH
17 THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE .
18 ANOTHER ASPECT WE LOOKED AT WAS TRAFFIC AND
19 CIRCULATION . THE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT
20 IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION .
21 SEVERAL SUBSTANTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES WERE IDENTIFIED
22 TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE .
23 THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE REQUIRED AT EACH PHASE OF
24 DEVELOPMENT AND SOME CONTINUE AFTER BUILDOUT .
25 THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTAINS LANGUAGE
1065 North PacitiCenter Drive farrafnr�-
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 Tlcrf,07 �S'er�lce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1 155 1 (800)622-609
11
1 PERTAINING TO A POSSIBLE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF CENTRAL
2 AVENUE . WHILE STAFF WOULD NOT - - WHILE STAFF WOULD
3 PREFER THAT ALL REFERENCE TO CENTRAL AVENUE BE DELETED
4 FROM THE AGREEMENT . THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT
5 REQUIRE COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE CITY .
6 THE PERIMETER ROAD AROUND THE MALL IS
7 PROPOSED TO REMAIN UPON ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT , WHICH STAFF
8 CONCURS WITH . THE ROAD PROVIDES ACCESS TO ALL AREAS OF
9 THE MALL AND PARKING LOT . IT MAY BE IMPACTED BY THE
10 FREEWAY WIDENING; HOWEVER . THE EXTENT IS NOT KNOWN . AS
11 ADDRESSED IN THE 1 -215 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SECTION OF
12 THIS REPORT . STAFF CONCURS THAT THE CITY SHOULD SUPPORT
13 AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH HAS THE LEAST OVERALL IMPACT . WE
14 FEEL THE PERIMETER ROAD IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION .
15
SIGNAGE : THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PROCESS
16 AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO
17 SIGNAGE IN CR- 1 . COMMERCIAL REGIONAL LAND USE DISTRICTS .,
18 AS ADDRESSED IN EXHIBIT H OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT .
19 THE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN USES
20 WITHIN THE FREEWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND DOES NOT
21 DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CR- 1 AND OTHER COMMERCIAL LAND USE
22 DISTRICTS .
23 STAFF CONCURS THAT THE INLAND CENTER MALL
24 CAN BE LOOKED AT DIFFERENTLY FROM FREEWAY ADJACENT USES
25 BECAUSE OF ITS REGIONAL-SERVING FUNCTION AND ITS SHEAR
1065 North PacitiCenter Drive
farrzxferx-
Suite 150
Anaheim. California 92806 re 0rfjn &1-y)zce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1 155 1 (800)622.6092
12
1 SIZE . STAFF ALSO CONCURS THAT SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
2 CR- 1 DESIGNATION SHOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER
3 COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS . THE CHANGES BEING CONSIDERED
4 HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME : HOWEVER .
5 STAFF WOULD SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE REQUIREMENTS
6 WITHIN REASON .
7 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OR
g CEQA STATUS : TOM DODSON AND ASSOCIATES PREPARED THE
9 INITIAL STUDY FOR THIS PROJECT . THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
10 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT
11 THEIR MEETING ON MARCH 19 , 192 . THE INITIAL STUDY AND
12 PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WERE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
13 REVIEW FROM MARCH 24 , ' 92 . THROUGH APRIL 23 . ' 92 .
14 THE KEY AREAS OF CONCERN WERE TRAFFIC AND
15 CIRCULATION , AS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED , AND AIR QUALITY .
16 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE
17 INITIAL STUDY DUE TO THE OVERALL POOR AIR QUALITY IN THE
18 AREA. THE MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM CONTAINS
19 SUBSTANTIAL MEASURES THAT ADDRESS CONSTRUCTION RELATED
20 IMPACTS AND PROJECT IMPACTS .
21 THE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS
22 SUBMITTED TO THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE FOR REVIEW SINCE IT
23 MET CEQA CRITERIA FOR POTENTIAL REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE .
24 COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE CALIFORNIA
25 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD , SAN BERNARDINO
1065 North PaciliCenter Drive farrisfei-.r
Suite 150 �erpZce
Anaheim. California 92806 rl�c 1
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
13
1 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT
2 PERTAINING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A NPDES PERMIT . THE
3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ALSO COMMENTED ON DRAINAGE .
4 COMMENTS WERE ALSO RECEIVED FROM CALTRANS ,
5 DISTRICT 8 . QUESTIONING THE ADEQUACY OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY
6 AND ITS CONCLUSIONS .
7 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
8 SUBMITTED COMMENTS QUESTIONING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT
9 ANALYSIS .
10 THE COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES ARE
11 INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT E TO THIS REPORT . ADDITIONAL
12 ANALYSIS AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES ARE INCLUDED WHERE
13 DEEMED APPROPRIATE . COPIES OF THE RESPONSES WERE
® 14 DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMENTING AGENCIES , AND NO FURTHER
1l 15 COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE CITY .
16 A MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM
17 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PREPARED AND IS ADDRESSED IN THE TEXT OF
18 THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT G OF
19 THIS AGREEMENT .
20 CITY REVIEW: THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS
21 BEEN REVISED THROUGHOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS TO INCLUDE
22 RECOMMENDATION OF THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS . THE
23 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL .
24 NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED OTHER THAN THOSE
25 ADDRESSED IN THE CEQA STATUS SECTION OF THIS REPORT .
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrz�fers-
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r��r Zr1l/ ;serpzce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
14
r
1 STAFF ' S CONCLUSION : THE PROPOSED
2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS .
3 OBJECTIVES , AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN THAT IT
4 PROVIDES REGIONAL SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES AND WILL HELP
5 THE CITY TO MAINTAIN ITS LEADING ROLE IN THE INLAND
6 EMPIRE . IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY
7 INTENSIFICATION POLICIES AND DESIGN POLICIES AS SET FORTH
8 BY THE COUNCIL IN THE CITY ' S GENERAL PLAN .
9 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS
10 CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
11 IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE . COMPLIANCE WITH THE MITIGATION
12 MEASURES WILL ENSURE THAT ALL POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
13 WILL BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE .
14 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ON
15 SEPTEMBER 8 , ' 92 - - HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 8 ,
16 ' 92 , TOOK PUBLIC INPUT, APPROVED THE PROJECT IN CONCEPT,
17 AND CONTINUED TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO REVISE THE
18 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO INCORPORATE STAFF ' S
19 RECOMMENDATIONS .
20 ON SEPTEMBER 22 . ' 92 . THE PLANNING
21 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE
22 DECLARATION , MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM. AND
23 APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE CITY
24 COUNCIL .
25 AND WITH THAT. I ' LL CONCLUDE THE STAFF
0 1065 North PacitiCenter Drive farr i c s 2 cers�
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r5/107-160 �'ervlce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
15
0
1 REPORT .
2 MAYOR HOLCOMB : COUNCILMAN MINOR .
3 COUNCILMEMBER MINOR : I HAVE ONE QUESTION . I
4 WONDER , THE COURT REPORTER HERE TAKING THE MEETING, I
5 WONDER WHAT ' S THE NECESSITY OF THAT . THE REASON .
6 MR . REED: I KNOW THAT THERE ' S A COURT REPORTER
7 HERE . I KNOW THERE ' S AN ATTORNEY WITH THE COURT
8 REPORTER . WHAT STATUS OR WHY THEY ' RE HERE . I DON 'T HAVE
9 ANY INFORMATION . IT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I FELT IT
10 WAS NECESSARY TO READ MOST OF THE REPORT .
11 COUNCILMEMBER MINOR : I UNDERSTAND THAT . I 'M
12 JUST CONCERNED THAT USUALLY WHEN THERE ' S SOMETHING LIKE
13 THAT. THAT INDICATES THERE ' S A PROBLEM SOMEPLACE ALONG
14 THE LINE . IF THERE IS , I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT AHEAD OF
15
TIME .
16 MAYOR HOLCOMB: NOT NECESSARILY . IT ' S NOT
17 UNCOMMON ON ANY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT TO GET THE BEST RECORD
18 POSSIBLE . AND IT ' S JUST AN OUNCE OF CAUTION SOMETIMES
19 BECAUSE YEARS FROM NOW SOMEONE TRYING TO SORT OUT THE
20 RECORD MIGHT HAVE DIFFICULTY . BUT IF YOU HAVE A
21 REPORTER ' S TRANSCRIPT. THERE ' S NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT
22 THAT .
23 OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING - -
24 COUNCILMEMBER MILLER : THE APPLICANTS .
25 MR . REED: THE APPLICANTS AND HIS CONSULTANTS
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farraferc '
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 relar ,5 &rvace
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 l cJ
WK
16
1 ARE HERE .
- 2 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO
3 HERE . FIRST OF ALL , ANYONE WHO ' S OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT
4 OR ANYTHING IN THE RESOLUTION , LET ' S HEAR IT FROM THE
I
5 OPPOSITION . ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO OPPOSE THIS
6 RESOLUTION PLEASE COME FORWARD , STATE YOUR NAME AND
7 ADDRESS , AND YOUR JOB , AND WHAT YOU ARE OPPOSING.
8 - MS . FOX : MR . MAYOR , MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL , MY
9 NAME IS MARLENE FOX . I 'M AN ATTORNEY . MY OFFICE ADDRESS
10 IS 2031 ORCHARD DRIVE IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS . AND I
11 REPRESENT THE CAROUSEL MALL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION .
AND. MR . MAYOR , I 'M NOT TERRIBLY FAMILIAR
12
13 WITH YOUR PROCEDURE , BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING
14 THE APPLICANT ' S PRESENTATION .
15 MAYOR HOLCOMB: NO. WE GO BY THE - - FIRST BY
16 OPPOSITION . WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION , AND WE WANT
17 TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE AGAINST THAT RECOMMENDATION .
18 MS . FOX : OKAY . I ' D LIKE TO START BY FIRST
19 SAYING THAT THE OPPOSITION THAT ' S BEING REGISTERED TODAY
20 IS BASED ON AN ABSENCE OF INFORMATION . BY THAT I MEAN IT
21 IS OUR FEELING, AFTER SUBSTANTIAL REVIEW. THAT THERE IS A
22 GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION , THAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO
23 MAKE THIS DECISION . THAT IS MISSING.
24 MAYOR HOLCOMB : LET ' S TRY TO CURE ONE THING AT A
25 TIME . HOW MUCH TIME YOU THINK YOU NEED TO GET THIS
0
1065 North PacifiCenler Drive
Suite 150
Anaheim,California 92806 re��r Zr1l/ �'ervzce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
t00%" ® 17
1 INFORMATION?
2 MS . FOX : NINETY DAYS AT LEAST .
3 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WHY 90 DAYS?
4 MS . FOX : BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF - - THERE ' S
5 A LOT OF MATERIAL HERE THAT ' S MISSING.
6 MAYOR HOLCOMB : FOR EXAMPLE?
7 MS . FOX : GEOLOGICAL AND SEISMICITY ISSUES ,
8 TRAFFIC INFORMATION . AIR QUALITY INFORMATION .
9 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WHY WOULD THAT BE A CONCERN - -
10 MS . FOX : HYDROLOGY .
11 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WHY WOULD THAT BE A CONCERN TO
12 CENTRAL CITY MALL?
13 MS . FOX : BECAUSE THEY ' RE IMPACTED BY ANYTHING
14 THAT GOES ON IN THE CITY , MR . MAYOR .
- 15 MAYOR HOLCOMB : NOT THE - - THE ENVIRONMENTAL
16 ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN LOOKED AT VERY CAREFULLY , AND
17 THIS SOUNDS AS IF YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO STALL AND DELAY
18 FOR - - TO TRY TO - - BECAUSE OF COMPETITION THAT ' S
19 PRESENT.
20 MS . FOX : I DON 'T THINK YOU HAVE ANY WAY TO KNOW
21 WHAT WE ' RE TRYING TO DO UNTIL YOU GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY
22 TO SPEAK .
23 MAYOR HOLCOMB : I JUST WANTED TO KNOW HOW MUCH
24 TIME YOU NEED TO GET INFORMATION . THAT SEEMS LIKE AN
25 UNUSUALLY LONG TIME FOR ANYONE AS INTELLIGENT AS AN
1065 Norl!: PacifiCenter Drive farrixfers"
Suite 150
Anaheim. California 92806 151:10,r-f,57 er�Jlce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
18
1 ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE CENTRAL CITY MALL 1 KNOW WOULD
2 BE .
3 MS . FOX : MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION , MR . MAYOR . 1
4 REPRESENT CAROUSEL MALL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION . THOSE ARE
5 ALL THE RETAIL SHOP OWNERS IN THE MALL .
6 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WHAT OTHER GROUNDS ARE YOU
7 OPPOSED TO THIS OTHER THAN LACK OF INFORMATION?
g - MS . FOX : WELL , WHY DON 'T I START WITH READING A
9 LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION. DO I HAVE PERMISSION TO DO
10 THAT? IT' S ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCIL .
11 MAYOR HOLCOMB : YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT? MIGHT
12 MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER .
13 MS . FOX : I DO HAVE COPIES , YES , I DO, AND I ' D
14 LIKE TO READ THIS INTO THE RECORD.
15 MAYOR HOLCOMB : GIVE US COPIES AND THEN WE CAN
16 FOLLOW A LITTLE EASIER .
17 MS . FOX : THIS LETTER IS WRITTEN BY THE
18 PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, MR . ROSAS , AND IT ' S
19 ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE W. R . "BOB" HOLCOMB , MEMBERS
20 OF THE COMMON COUNCIL , CARE OF CITY CLERK , REGARDING ITEM
21 32 , THE DEVELOPMENT - - SAYS AGENDA. SHOULD SAY - -
22 AGREEMENT 91 -01 ON THE INLAND CENTER EXPANSION PLAN .
23 "DEAR MAYOR AND COUNCIL : TODAY YOU ARE
24 BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
25 776 , 465 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF INLAND CENTER AS ITEM 32
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive far7-zsfe7-x-'
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r�0r ,5 AerTlZCe
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 l
19
1 ON THE AGENDA WITHOUT ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO DETERMINE
.,.� 2 THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACT .
"THIS IS A PROJECT OF MAJOR MAGNITUDE AND
3
4 SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL IMPACT . BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ,
6 ON THIS COMMUNITY . IT IS THE LARGEST SCALE SINGLE
6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SINCE
7 1972 . IT MAY BE THE LARGEST PROJECT CONTEMPLATED IN THIS
g CITY SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
9 PROTECTION ACT . NEPA, AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
10 QUALITY ACT , CEQA .
11 " IT IS THE TYPE OF PROJECT ENVISIONED BY
12 BOTH NATIONAL AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION FOR
13 FULL EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
14 IMPACT .
--- "YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY
15
16 INFORMATION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ECONOMIC
17 IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT . THESE ARE THE MOST SERIOUS TIMES
18 OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP THAT HAVE FACED RETAILERS SINCE THE
19 DAYS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION . YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO
20 APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING
21 ANY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON MERCHANTS IN THE HIGHLAND
22 AVENUE RETAIL CORRIDOR , THE BASELINE RETAIL CORRIDOR .
23 MOUNT VERNON AVENUE RETAIL CORRIDOR . THE NEW WESTSIDE
24 SHOPPING PLAZA, THE 40TH STREET AND STATE COLLEGE
25 SHOPPING AREAS , THE RETAIL PORTIONS OF COMMERCE CENTER .
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farraferr
Suite 150
Anaheim. California 92806 Tlcr-fZ57 Aeroice
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1 155 1 (800)622-6092
20
1 TRI -CITY AND VALLEY PROJECTS . AND LAST . BUT NOT LEAST ,
2 THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORE .
3 " IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT YOU ARE ASKED
4 TO APPROVE A PROJECT OF THIS SCOPE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT
i
5 TO THE MOST ACTIVE EARTHQUAKE FAULT IN SOUTHERN
6 CALIFORNIA WITH GROUNDWATER 10 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE
7 LEVEL IN AN IDENTIFIED LIQUEFACTION ZONE AND WITH NO DATA
8 WHATSOEVER REGARDING ECONOMIC EFFECTS ON EXISTING
9 BUSINESSES AND. IF THOSE BUSINESSES ARE ADVERSELY
10 AFFECTED , THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON THE CITY ' S TAX
11 REVENUES .
12 "AS OUR LEGISLATIVE LEADERS , YOU SHOULD
13 TAKE A PROACTIVE ROLE IN SUPPORTING EXISTING BUSINESS .
14 IN FACT , A RESOLUTION FROM THIS COUNCIL SUPPORTING
15 WORKERS ' COMPENSATION REFORM TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE
16 WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ALL BUSINESSES IN THE CITY .
17 "WHEN TYLER MALL RECENTLY ADDED A SECOND
18 LEVEL AND MAJOR DEPARTMENT STORES TO THEIR CENTER , A FULL
19 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF
20 RIVERSIDE . SEVERAL YEARS BACK WHEN MONTCLAIR PLAZA
21 DOUBLE-DECKED AND ADDED MAJOR DEPARTMENT STORES , A
22 FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS REQUIRED OF THE
23 CITY OF MONTCLAIR . THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY REQUIRED AN
24 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MORENO VALLEY MALL
25 AND TOWNGATE CENTER PROJECT PLAN .
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive Garr1� er�
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re`JGr 1r1� xervice
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1 155 1 (800)622-6092 -L (:J
"7
21
1 "THESE FACTS HAVE NOT HERETOFORE BEEN
2 PROVIDED TO YOU . WITHOUT THE DATA REQUIRED BY AN EIR .
3 THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT FULL PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF
4 POTENTIALLY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL BE
5 ACHIEVED , NOR THAT YOU , AS THE DECISION MAKER , WILL HAVE
6 ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO YOU TO MAKE A SOUND
7 DECISION . " AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT A SOUND INFORMED
8 DECISION .
9 "YOU SHOULD NOT BE ASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS
10 OF THIS MAGNITUDE WHICH AFFECTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST
11 WITHOUT FULL COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
12 AND COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH
13 ACTION . THEREFORE , I REQUEST THAT YOU CONTINUE THIS
14 MATTER FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FOR STAFF" - - THAT ' S CITY
15 STAFF
- - "TO REEVALUATE WHETHER AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
16 REPORT SHOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS
17 OF FACT:
18 "NO. 1 , THE EXPANSION PLAN FOR INLAND
19 CENTER PROPOSES 776 , 465 SQUARE FEET OF NEW RETAIL AREA
20 WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO .
21 "NO. 2 , SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES WITH
22 PROJECTS OF SIMILAR MAGNITUDE , SUCH AS MORENO VALLEY ,
23 RIVERSIDE , AND MONTCLAIR . HAVE ALL REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL
24 IMPACT REPORTS .
25 "NO. 3 , A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farraferx-
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r �r Zr1lj �er�ZCe
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1 C�
F
22
1 PROJECT OF THIS SCOPE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE SAME
2 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND 114PUT AS AN
3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .
4 "NO. 4 . NO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL
5 EFFECTS ON OTHER BUSINESS AREAS OF THE CITY WAS DONE IN
6 SUPPORT OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION . THEREFORE ,
7 INADEQUATE INFORMATION CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE POTENTIAL
8 ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT ON THE BUSINESS
9 COMMUNITY AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
10 "NO. 5 , ALTERNATIVES TO THIS PROJECT HAVE
11 NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY EXPLORED AS WOULD BE REQUIRED WITH AN
12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .
13 "NO . 6 , NEW GEOLOGIC DATA ESSENTIAL TO THE
14 DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF
15 THE SEPTEMBER 6 , 1991 , LIQUEFACTION REPORT BY LAW
16 CRANDALL .
17 "WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER
18 THE ABOVE INFORMATION BY MAKING THE FAR-REACHING DECISION
19 THAT IS BEFORE YOU. YOURS TRULY , PRESIDENT. CAROUSEL
20 MALL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED. "
21 AND I HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT I WOULD
22 LIKE TO ADD TO THAT DISCUSSION , MR . MAYOR . FIRST , I ' D
23 LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION AND GIVE YOUR CITY
24 ATTORNEY AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE NOTE OF THE CASE CITIZENS
25 ASSOCIATION FOR SENSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF BISHOP AREA VS .
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive G�rr1� er��
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r710r_, 172 &rmce
(714)666-2226 FAX,714)666-1155 1 (800)622-609'2 1
�.r
o • �!
0
0
0
23
A
1 THE COUNTY OF INYO . IT ' S A 1985 CALIFORNIA APPELLATE
2
COURT CASE . AND THIS CASE DISCUSSES A REGIONAL SHOPPING
3 CENTER . AND ONE OF THE POINTS THAT WAS PERSUASIVE TO THE
4 COURT IN THE BISHOP AREA VS . COUNTY OF INYO CASE WAS THE
5 LACK OF ECONOMIC DATA THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ASSESS THE
6 IMPACT OF THE NEWLY PROPOSED REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER ON
7 ALREADY EXISTING RETAIL AREAS IN THE COUNTY .
8 IN ADDITION TO THAT ., I WOULD LIKE TO SAY
9 THAT I HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS . I FIND A NUMBER OF
10 INCONSISTENCIES WITH REGARD TO THE INFORMATION THAT
11 EXISTS IN THE RECORD . AND IT ' S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT - -
12 SOME OF IT I FIND DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW. BUT I ' LL DO THE
13 BEST I CAN .
14 AND BEFORE ANYBODY ASKS . I WOULD LIKE TO
15 SAY I SPOKE JUST VERY BRIEFLY TO MR . DODSON WHEN I CAME
16 IN BECAUSE WE KNOW EACH OTHER VERY WELL . MR . DODSON DID
17 SOME WORK IN THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE , AND FOR A LONG
18 TIME I WAS SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE ,
19 AND FOR THREE YEARS I WAS THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FOR
20 THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE . SO I MENTIONED TO HIM THAT 1
21 CAME TO COMMENT ON SOME OF HIS HANDIWORK . AND HIS
22 COMMENT - - HIS RETORT BACK TO ME WAS . "WELL . YOU
23 CERTAINLY HAD ENOUGH TIME . "
24 1 WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT MY CLIENT WAS
25 UNAWARE OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE PROJECT UNTIL
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r 1 CJ�Gr ,57 &rvlce
171 eI aaa-9991; FAX 17141 666-1 155 1 (8001622-6092
24
1 AN ARTICLE APPEARED ON OCTOBER 1 , 1992 , IN THE SUN . AND
2 1 HAVE A COPY OF THE ARTICLE HERE THAT SAYS . " INLAND
3 CENTER TO EXPAND . " AND IT REFERENCES THE CITY COUNCIL
4 REVIEW DATE OF OCTOBER 19TH . BECAUSE I °M SURE THAT ' S A
5 QUESTION THAT WILL COME UP BECAUSE . NO . WE DID NOT APPEAR
6 BEFORE YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE . I DON 'T KNOW
7 IF THAT ' S A PUBLIC HEARING . I 'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH
8 YOUR PROCEDURES . BUT , NO . WE WERE NOT THERE . AND . NO, WE
9 DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION ON
10 SEPTEMBER 8TH . AND I UNDERSTAND, FROM THE DOCUMENTATION
11 THAT I 'VE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN JUST IN THE LAST FEW DAYS .
12 THAT THE SEPTEMBER 8TH HEARING WAS CONTINUED TO THE 18TH .
13 SO BEFORE THAT BECOMES AN ISSUE . I ' D LIKE
14 TO JUST DISPOSE OF THAT .
15 MAYOR HOLCOMB : IF THAT ' S THE ISSUE . YEAH . 1
16 THINK THE MAIN ISSUE IS DO WE RESPOND TODAY TO THIS
17 LETTER , OR ARE YOU GOING TO NEED SOME TIME?
18 MR . REED: I CAN RESPOND IN PART .
19 MS . FOX : I `M NOWHERE NEAR FINISHED .
20 MAYOR HOLCOMB : I ° D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE
21 CONTINUE THIS MATTER AND ASK STAFF TO RESPOND TO THIS
22 LETTER . YOU CAN MAKE ANY OTHER POINTS . BECAUSE YOU CAME
23 IN COLD WITHOUT ANY FOREWARNING. WE ' RE NOT PREPARED TO
24 THOROUGHLY RESPOND. I 'M SURE WE CAN RESPOND TO SOME OF
25 THE ISSUES . BUT 'NOT TO ALL OF THEM. I THINK IT ' S GOT
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re�Cr 1r11/ �er�ZCe
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
25
1 SOME GOOD ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESPONDED TO . SO IN THE
2 INTEREST OF TIME AND ORDERLY PROCESS . I 'M GOING TO
3 REQUEST THE COUNCIL CONTINUE THIS .
4 HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO RESPOND?
5 MR . REED: I WOULD THINK WE ' D NEED AT LEAST 30
6 DAYS .
7 MAYOR HOLCOMB: CONTINUE THIS FOR 30 DAYS UNLESS
8 THERE ' S SOME REAL STRENUOUS OBJECTION . I 'M HOPING NOT
9 BECAUSE THE ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED HERE , I THINK , HAVE TO
10 BE THOROUGHLY RESEARCHED BY OUR ATTORNEY AND BY OUR STAFF
11 TO BE PROPERLY INFORMED.
12 COUNCILMEMBER ESTRADA : LARRY . NOT KNOWING THE
13 FULL EXTENT OF THE INQUIRIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE BY
14 MERCHANTS LEGAL COUNSEL . HOW CAN WE ASCERTAIN HOW MUCH
15 TIME WE NEED?
16 MR . REED : WELL , I HEARD WHAT THE MOST OF HER
17 COMMENTS - -
I
18 COUNCILMEMBER ESTRADA: SHE ' S NOT THROUGH YET.
19 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WE NEED A PROFESSIONAL RESPONSE
20 TO ALL OF THESE VERY SERIOUS CHARGES . OTHERWISE WE ' RE
21 JUST INVITING LITIGATION . NO QUESTION ABOUT IT . SO
22 LET ' S DO IT RIGHT . SO RATHER THAN - - WE ' VE GOT PEOPLE
23 HERE ON SOME VERY OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES . AND THIS COULD
24 DRAG ON FOR THE REST OF THE DAY AND EVENING TO TRY TO
25 RESOLVE ALL THESE QUESTIONS TODAY .
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farraferx"
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r�cr ,5 es'erv1Ce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
26
1 SO UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS VERY STRONG
2 ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT , I WOULD URGE THAT WE GO AHEAD AND
3 CONTINUE THIS SO WE CAN GET A RESPONSE , PROFESSIONAL
4 RESPONSE , FROM OUR ATTORNEY AND FROM OUR PLANNING
5 DEPARTMENT .
6 YOU OBJECT TO A 30-DAY CONTINUANCE?
7 MR . OSTOICH: YES . MY NAME IS MARK OSTOICH .
8 1 'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER OF THE INLAND CENTER
9 MALL .
10 MAYOR HOLCOMB : TALK INTO THE MIKE .
11 MR . OSTOICH : I 'M SORRY .
12 WE FEEL THAT EVERY ISSUE THAT WILL BE
13 BROUGHT UP THIS AFTERNOON CAN BE RESPONDED TO. IN FACT ,
14 WE HAVE RESPONDED TO EVERY ISSUE THAT WILL BE BROUGHT UP
15 TODAY , AND WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT
16 BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION TO PUT IT OFF .
17 MAYOR HOLCOMB : OH , PLEASE . LET ' S GO - - YOU
18 KNOW, WE ' VE GOT ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS TO DO. THIS IS A
19 VERY COMPLEX ITEM. GIVE US THE COURTESY OF LETTING OUR
20 STAFF PEOPLE DO THEIR RESPONSE , NOT YOURS . WE ' RE NOT
21 GOING TO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY AS MUCH AS WHAT
22 OUR STAFF HAS TO SAY .
23 MR . REED HAS ALREADY SAID HE ' S NOT READY TO
24 RESPOND TODAY. HE CAN RESPOND TO A LOT OF THE ISSUES ,
25 BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. SO I ' D HOPE THAT YOU ' D SHOW US THE
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrm2cers-
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r mar-65 xeroice
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
27
1 COURTESY OF LETTING OUR STAFF RESEARCH THIS WITHOUT A
2 LONG ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY BECAUSE I THINK . WHEN WE ' RE
3 ALL THROUGH . IT ' S GOING TO BE CONTINUED ANYWAY .
4 MR . OSTOICH: I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
5 BUT ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT EACH AND EVERY
6 REPORT THAT YOU ALLEGEDLY DON ' T HAVE , YOU DO HAVE . AND
7 STAFF IS AWARE OF THE PHYSICAL BASES OF OUR PROJECT, AND
8 THESE MATTERS HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT - -
9 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WHY CAN 'T WE COME BACK FORWARD
10 IN 30 DAYS? IS 30 DAYS THAT CRITICAL?
11 MR . OSTOICH: IT ' S VERY CRITICAL TO US .
12 MAYOR HOLCOMB : CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY?
13 MR . OSTOICH : WE HAVE A SCHEDULE THAT WE ' VE SET
14 OUT FOR OURSELVES , SIR , AND IT ' S VERY IMPORTANT TO US - -
15 MAYOR HOLCOMB : IF WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE
16 THIS - - ALL RIGHT. TWO WEEKS , HOW' S TWO WEEKS SOUND?
17 COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ : MAYOR . LEGALLY , MR .
18 EMPENO, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND FULL
19 INPUT OR NOT?
20 MR . EMPENO: THIS IS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
21 AGREEMENT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ALONG WITH A MITIGATED
22 NEGATIVE DECLARATION. IT ' S ALSO BEEN SET FOR PUBLIC
23 HEARING AND COUNCIL MEETING AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
24 REQUIRING THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD FOR TAKING ACTION
25 ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , SO PUBLIC HEARING IS
0—
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrafercr
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r 1 J,9r 157 &7-Tlice
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
28
1 REQUIRED.
2 SO I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS . MAYOR , IF 1
3 CAN . I THINK IT ' S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC INPUT
4 BE COMPLETED HERE , ESPECIALLY ANY STATEMENTS IN
5 OPPOSITION . SO THAT WE CAN FIND OUT WHAT THOSE ISSUES
6 ARE .
7 MAYOR HOLCOMB : PRECISELY .
8 MR . EMPENO: SO THAT THEY DON ' T COME BACK IN TWO
9 WEEKS OR 30 DAYS OR WHATEVER THAT TIME IS - -
10 MAYOR HOLCOMB: I THINK - -
11 MR . EMPENO: - - AND PROVIDE NEW ARGUMENTS .
12 1 ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ,
13 THOUGH , ON THE ONE ISSUE THAT SHE HAS MENTIONED OF A
14 LEGAL NATURE IN HER OCTOBER 19 , ' 92 , LETTER . AND I
15 BELIEVE I COULD RESPOND TO THAT .
16 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WE WANT THE WHOLE PACKAGE
17 RESPONDED TO. WE DON 'T WANT IT TO BE RESPONDED TO
18 PIECEMEAL . WE WANT A STAFF REPORT THAT WE CAN READ
19 BEFORE THE MEETING. SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT . WE ' RE NOT
20 PREPARED TO ABSORB ALL THIS TODAY WITHOUT GETTING SOME
21 BACK - - STAFF REPORT BACK TELLING US WHERE IT ' S RIGHT AND
22 WHERE IT ' S WRONG. WHY PIECEMEAL? LET ' S DO IT
23 PROFESSIONALLY AND GET IT ALL DONE AT ONCE . LET ANYONE
24 WHO WANTS TO PROTEST TODAY PROTEST TODAY SO WE KNOW HOW
25 TO RESPOND TO IT .
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrafel-c�-
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 75697-f,57 cservlce
(714)666.2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
29
1 MR . EMPENO: I UNDERSTAND THAT . MAYOR . I THINK
2 THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT WHAT ALL THE ISSUES ARE .
3 THAT ' S WHY I WISH THAT SHE ' D COMPLETE HER PRESENTATION .
4 MAYOR HOLCOMB : HAVE YOU RAISED ALL THE ISSUES
5 THAT YOU WANTED TO RAISE?
6 MS . FOX : N0 , I HAVE NOT . I 'M BARELY BEGUN .
7 MAYOR HOLCOMB : HOW MUCH TIME YOU ANTICIPATE?
8 MS . FOX : FIFTEEN MINUTES AT LEAST .
9 COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ : GO AHEAD. MAYOR .
10 MIGHT AS WELL GET IT OVER WITH.
11 MS . FOX : THANK YOU .
12 I ' D LIKE TO START WITH SOME PROCEDURAL
13 ISSUES THAT I ' LL TRY MY BEST TO DO THIS IN AN ORDERLY
14 FASHION AND DIVIDE IT UP FOR THE BENEFIT OF STAFF FIRST
15 INTO PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND THEN INTO SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES .
16 PROCEDURALLY . I LOCATED OR I SHOULD SAY - -
17 1 DON 'T GET THE CREDIT FOR IT . MY PARALEGAL ON FRIDAY
18 WAS HERE AND LOCATED A PAMPHLET THAT ' S AVAILABLE IN THE
19 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES . SAYS "CALIFORNIA
20 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT , CEQA, " ON THE FRONT OF IT .
21 SHE DID ASK FOR CEQA GUIDELINES THAT ARE USED BY THE
22 COUNTY AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE NO CEQA GUIDELINES .
23 IN THIS PAMPHLET IT SAYS . "WHAT IS THE
24 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS? " AND THEN THERE ' S SOME
25 DISCUSSION THERE ABOUT THE INITIAL STUDY . AND AT THE VERY
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrm fers-'
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r l�1 rfI5 serylce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
30
1 BOTTOM OF THAT PARAGRAPH UNDER THAT HEADING. "WHAT IS THE
2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS? " IT STATES . "THE INITIAL
3 STUDY WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
4 COMMITTEE FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5 OR TO REQUIRE AN EIR , WHICHEVER IS APPROPRIATE . "
6 NOW, I 'VE BEEN TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHAT ' S
7 HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF THIS PROJECT. AND WHAT WE HAVE
8 IS WE HAVE AN INITIAL STUDY DOCUMENT . SOME PART OF A
9 DOCUMENT THAT IS DATED THE 6TH OF MARCH 1992 . WE HAVE A
10 CHECKLIST THAT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE 19TH OF MARCH 1992 .
12 AND THIS IS ALL IN YOUR STAFF REPORT .
13 THEN WE HAVE A PACKAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED
14 BY TOM DODSON AND ASSOCIATES , WHICH SAYS " INITIAL STUDY
15 PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUBSTANTIATION OF
16 INFORMATION IN THE CHECKLIST . " THIS DOCUMENT SUBMITTED
17 BY MR . DODSON IS DATED THE 23D OF MARCH , AND ON THE FRONT
18 PAGE OF THAT IS A STAMP . A CITY STAMP . STAMPED "RECEIVED
19 MARCH 25 , 1992 . " SO WHAT WE HAVE IS YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL
20 REVIEW COMMITTEE HAVING A MEETING ON THE 19TH . ACCORDING
21 TO THE STAFF REPORT , AND DOING A CHECKLIST AFTER THE
22 FACT .
23 WE HAVE AN INITIAL STUDY AND A DISCUSSION
24 OR JUSTIFICATION OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST . WHICH
25 IS DATED THE 23D OF MARCH , WHICH HAPPENED AFTER THE
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive f,57,r7-zsfers-
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re 101- Z57 servzce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 c�
31
1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. AND THEN WE HAVE
BY THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ON THE
2 IT BEING RECEIVED
3 25TH , WHEN , IN FACT , YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD AND WE READ THAT
4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PERIOD STARTED ON THE 24TH OF
5 MARCH .
6 SO I DON 'T - - NONE OF THIS IS CONSISTENT .
7 YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS TOGETHER AT
8 ONE TIME , SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOUR
9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MAKE
10 THE DETERMINATION ON THE 19TH WHETHER TO RECOMMEND A
11 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR , IN FACT , WHETHER OR
12 NOT THEY SHOULD RECOMMEND PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
13 IMPACT REPORT . THAT , ACCORDING TO YOUR DOCUMENTS , IS NOT
14 WHAT HAPPENED . SO THAT ' S THE FIRST PROCEDURAL ISSUE THAT
15 WE COME TO .
16 THEN IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST . WHICH
17 WAS PREPARED BY CITY STAFF . THEY POINT OUT THAT THE - - A
18 SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IS GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY REGARDING THE
19 LIQUEFACTION ISSUE FOR THE AREA. BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO
20 THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHECKLIST PREPARED BY MR .
21 DODSON , WHO I AM UNDERSTANDING WAS RETAINED BY THE
22 APPLICANT , NOT BY THE CITY . THESE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES HAVE
23 BEEN IDENTIFIED AS AIR QUALITY AND TRAFFIC .
24 SO YOU SEEM TO HAVE SOME INCONSISTENCY
25 BETWEEN THE OPINIONS OF CITY STAFF AND THE OPINIONS
1065 North PacitiCenter Drive
farrafnrs-
Anaheim,Suite 150 Suite 1 50 92606 Tlar 1� serPlce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
32
THAT - - THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PREPARED BY MR . DODSON .
NOW. IN ADDITION TO THAT . YOUR STAFF REPORT
2
3 VERY ADEQUATELY POINTED OUT AND VERY ACCURATELY . I WOULD
4 AGREE WITH IT . POINTED OUT THAT WHEN YOU DEAL WITH A
5 REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER OF THIS MAGNITUDE , WITH THIS
6 MANY SQUARE FEET . AND I READ ONE PLACE WHERE YOU ARE
7 TALKING ABOUT APPROXIMATELY AN ADDITIONAL 14 . 000 PLUS
8 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY . THAT ' S A LOT OF VEHICLE TRIPS .
9 THAT ' S A LOT OF TRAFFIC , A LOT OF AIR EMISSIONS .
10 AT ANY RATE , IT ' S CONSIDERED BY CEQA AND BY
11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TO BE A
12 SIGNIFICANT PROJECT , AN AREAWIDE REGIONAL SIGNIFICANT
13 PROJECT .
14 AND WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT . YOU
15 HAVE AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
16 QUALITY ACT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL
17 DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED IN A TIMELY FASHION TO YOUR
18 NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS . AND THAT WOULD MEAN AT AN
19 ABSOLUTE MINIMUM THIS PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
20 ALL THE SUBSTANTIATION AND INITIAL STUDY THAT WAS
21 SUBMITTED BY MR . DODSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO OR
22 DELIVERED TO THE CITIES OF LOMA LINDA . HIGHLAND. COLTON .
23 REDLANDS , AND RIVERSIDE AT A MINIMUM. THERE ' S PROBABLY
24 OTHERS THAT I ' VE MISSED AS WELL .
25 ALL WE ' VE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE IS THAT I
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive �arrZ�S'�er�s"
Suite 150
Anaheim. California 92806 �er�lce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
33
1 BELIEVE IT WAS SENT TO ONE OF THOSE FIVE CITIES , AND IT
2 WAS EITHER COLTON OR HIGHLAND. AT THE MOMENT I DON ' T
3 HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME , AND I DON `T REMEMBER . BUT IT
q WAS NOT - - THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO LOMA
5 LINDA; IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO REDLANDS ; IT WAS NOT
6 SUBMITTED TO RIVERSIDE . HOW ARE THESE CITIES SUPPOSED TO
7 TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PROJECT TO KNOW WHAT ' S GOING ON AND
8 PROVIDE YOU WITH THEIR COMMENTS IF THEY ' RE NOT MADE AWARE
9 OF IT? AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF IT BY
10 RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS PROPOSED NEGATIVE DEC - -
11 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .
12 NOW. IN TERMS OF , ALSO PROCEDURAL , ON THE
13 TRAFFIC , YOUR STAFF REPORT AND ALSO IN THE DOCUMENTATION
14 THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MR . DODSON, THERE IS REFERENCE TO
®
15 CAL TRANS AND IMPROVEMENTS . THE 1 -215 WIDENING PROJECT .
16 IN FACT , 1 BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE THAT ' S IN THE STAFF
17 REPORT REFERS TO THIS LACK OF INFORMATION AND THE
18 INTERACTION OF THE TWO PROJECTS . THE REGIONAL SHOPPING
19 CENTER ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE WIDENING OF 1 -215 ON THE
20 OTHER AS A , QUOTE , AWKWARD SITUATION .
21 IN FACT, I READ IN THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED
22 BY THE CITY THAT CALTRANS IS AT THIS TIME IN THE PROCESS
23 OF DRAFTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
24 WIDENING OF 1 -215 . ALSO, THAT IT IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME
25 ABOUT ALTERNATIVES FOR THAT PROJECT AND PRECISELY OR EVEN
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrisfei-s"
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re/��r � �er�lce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
34
1 GENERALLY HOW THAT PROJECT WILL IMPACT THIS SHOPPING
2 CENTER .
3 MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL , THERE IS NO WAY
4 UNDER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAW, IN MY OPINION , AS IT
5 EXISTS TODAY THAT YOU COULD USE THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE
6 DECLARATION TOGETHER WITH THE MITIGATION MONITORING
7 PROGRAM THAT ' S BEEN PREPARED TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THE
8 INTERACTION OF THOSE TWO PROJECTS , THE ACCUMULATED
9 IMPACTS OF THOSE TWO PROJECTS EACH ON THE OTHER , THE
10 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THOSE TWO PROJECTS . IT JUST
11 SIMPLY CAN 'T BE DONE THE WAY YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IT .
12 IT ' S AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE A SHORTCUT , AND
13 THAT ' S NOT WHAT CEQA IS ALL ABOUT. IT ' S AN INFORMATIONAL
14 PROCESS THAT ' S TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ALL THE INFORMATION
-- 15 YOU NEED TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION FOR THE BEST
16 INTERESTS , THE SAFETY AND HEALTH AND WELFARE OF YOUR
17 CITIZENS . THAT DOESN 'T HAPPEN HERE WITH REGARD TO
18 TRAFFIC .
19 IF IT DOESN 'T HAPPEN WITH REGARD TO
20 TRAFFIC , IT CAN 'T HAPPEN WITH REGARD TO AIR QUALITY . BUT
21 I 'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF , BECAUSE THERE IS ALSO A
22 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN CURRENTLY BEING DRAFTED BY THE
23 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS , SANBAG.
24 AND I UNDERSTAND FROM READING YOUR DOCUMENTS THAT THAT
25 PROJECT , THE DRAFT PLAN, THE EIR AND THE DRAFT PLAN ,
1065 North FacifiCenter Drive �r�rrZes'�eres'�
Suite 150
Anaheim,California 92806 re�igrf,� �ervZCe
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
35
1 WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROVED IN THE END OF 1992 . WELL ,
2 MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL . THIS IS OCTOBER 19TH . THE END OF
3 1992 IS UPON US . IT ' S NOVEMBER ., DECEMBER . WHAT IS THE
4 HURRY THAT YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT TODAY WITHOUT
5 THE BENEFIT OF THE INFORMATION THAT WILL BE IN THE
6 COUNTYWIDE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT ' S BEING
7 PREPARED BY SANBAG?
8 CLEARLY . THIS IS INFORMATION THAT MUST
9 BE - - THAT WOULD GIVE YOU MORE FACTS DEALING WITH
10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THAT ARE REQUIRED WHEN YOU LOOK AT A
11 PROJECT OF THIS REGIONALWIDE SIGNIFICANCE . SO IF YOU
12 DO - - AGAIN , IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE INFORMATION ON
13 TRAFFIC . YOU CANNOT HAVE ADEQUATE INFORMATION ON AIR
14 EMISSIONS .
- 15 AND I MIGHT ADD THAT THE TRAFFIC REPORT
16 THAT ' S BEEN SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THIS NEGATIVE
17 DECLARATION WAS PREPARED IN SEPTEMBER 1991 . SO IT ' S
18 ALREADY 13 MONTHS OLD. REALLY WHAT YOU DO NEED IS
19 SOMETHING UPDATED IN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION FROM
20 CALTRANS , IN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION FROM SANBAG.
21 NOW. WITH REGARD TO THE LIQUEFACTION ISSUE .
22 YOU HAVE A LAW CRANDALL REPORT THAT ' S BEEN SUBMITTED.
23 AND, AGAIN , JUST PROCEDURALLY . AND NOT MEANING TO BE
24 NIT-PICKING. BUT AT DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE STAFF REPORT
25 AND IN THE INITIAL STUDY . IT REFERS TO A SEPTEMBER 1991
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive
farrafer,.r
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r ficr l57 �'erplce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1 c�
36
1 REPORT BY LAW CRANDALL ON THE LIQUEFACTION . AND OTHER
-� 2 PLACES IT REFERS TO A JANUARY 1992 REPORT . THERE IS ALSO
3
A REFERENCE TO A JANUARY 1992 FOUNDATION REPORT .
4 IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR STAFF
5 THAT THAT IS A TYPO WHERE THERE IS A REFERENCE TO A
6 JANUARY 1992 LIQUEFACTION REPORT , THAT , IN FACT , THERE IS
7 NO SUCH REPORT . AND THE ONLY LIQUEFACTION REPORT THAT WAS
g SUBMITTED BY LAW CRANDALL IS DATED SEPTEMBER 1991 .
9 IT IS ALSO OUR INFORMATION THAT EITHER THIS
10 JANUARY 1992 FOUNDATION REPORT DOES NOT EXIST . OR YOUR
11 STAFF HAS BEEN UNABLE TO LOCATE IT AS OF EARLIER TODAY .
12 WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT . AND I ' LL
13 TELL YOU WHY THAT ' S SIGNIFICANT .
14 THIS 19 - - SEPTEMBER 1991 LAW CRANDALL
15 REPORT WAS PREPARED BEFORE TWO OTHER REPORTS HAVE COME
16 OUT , AND I THINK IT ' S INTERESTING THAT THE GENTLEMAN WHO
17 STEPPED UP HERE SEEMED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING
18 TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE I HADN 'T MENTIONED TWO REPORTS AND
19 HE STOOD UP AND SAID, "WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE TWO
20 REPORTS . " BUT AT ANY RATE , ONE OF THE REPORTS IS FROM
21 THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION . DIVISION OF
22 MINES AND GEOLOGY . IT ' S DMGO FILE REPORT 92- 1 . PREPARED
23 IN 1992 , WHICH ADDRESSES PEAK ACCELERATION FOR MAXIMUM
24 CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKES IN CALIFORNIA .
25 AND THIS IS - - THIS CONTAINS INFORMATION
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re�ar � �'er?�ICe
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622.6092 l
37
1 THAT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL AND NECESSARY AND IS MORE
2 CURRENT THAN THE LAW CRANDALL REPORT . IT ' S MORE CURRENT
3 SINCE THIS WAS RELEASED IN 1992 , AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF
4 FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE LAW CRANDALL REPORT WAS SIGNED OFF .
5 AND BY THE WAY , THAT REPORT IS NOT SIGNED BY A GEOLOGIST .
6 IT IS SIGNED BY AN ENGINEER . AND WERE WONDERING IF THE
7 CITY UNDER YOUR GUIDELINES HAS SUBMITTED IT TO A CITY
8 GEOLOGIST FOR REVIEW.
9 IN ADDITION. THERE IS ANOTHER REPORT THAT
10 HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE LAW CRANDALL REPORT . AND
11 THIS IS THE U . S . GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1898 , "THE
12 LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY IN THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY
13 AND VICINITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A REGIONAL
14 EVALUATION . " THIS DOCUMENT IS ALSO PUBLISHED IN 1992 .
15 NOW, IF THE GENTLEMAN WHO STOOD UP A FEW
16 MOMENTS AGO AND SAID THAT THESE REPORTS ARE HERE . THEY
17 MAY BE HERE , BUT THEY ARE NOT ADDRESSED AND THEY ' RE NOT
18 LISTED IN THE LAW CRANDALL REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS
19 THEY MAKE TO MITIGATE PROBLEMS FOR THIS PROJECT WITH
20 REGARD TO THE LIQUEFACTION ISSUE . AND WHILE I `M NOT A
21 GEOLOGIST , IT ' S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS A VERY
22 CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THIS AREA .
23 IN FACT . WE ' VE LOCATED PROBABLY 30 OR 40
24 DIFFERENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS FROM
25 THIS AREA ALL ADDRESSING PROBLEMS RELATING TO
1065 North PaciliCenter Drive
farrixfez-,-�`
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re�(9rfl5 &rpzce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
38
1 LIQUEFACTION IN THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY AREA.
2 YOU NEED TO HAVE THE CURRENT INFORMATION IN
3 ORDER TO SIGN OFF ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT . IT ' S
4 MIND BOGGLING TO ME , BASED ON MY 19 YEARS ' EXPERIENCE ,
5 HOW IT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONTEMPLATED THAT A MITIGATED
6 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PROJECT OF THIS NATURE WITH
7 THE SERIOUS IMPACTS FOR THE GEOLOGY , SEISMICITY , TRAFFIC ,
8 AND AIR AND HYDROLOGY COULD EVEN BE CONSIDERED , BUT IT
9 HAS BEEN , AND I GUESS WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT .
10 AT THE TIME THIS SHOPPING CENTER WAS
11 ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 1965 , CEQA WASN ' T AROUND . CEQA
12 WAS PASSED IN 1970 AND MADE APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE
13 PROJECTS IN ' 72 . SO YOU HAVE NO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ON
14 THIS SHOPPING CENTER .
15 NOW, I LOOKED AT THE LAW CRANDALL REPORT ;
16 AND , AGAIN , I HAVE NO CREDENTIALS AS A GEOLOGIST OR AN
17 ENGINEER , BUT JUST READING THEIR CONCLUSION FOR
18 MITIGATION , THEY TALK ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OR THE
I19 INSTALLATION OF PILES TO GO , I GUESS , BENEATH - - I MUST
20 SAY I DID DISCUSS THIS WITH A GEOLOGIST - - TO GO BENEATH
21 THE LIQUEFACTION AREA. AND YOU CAN DO THAT AND IT ' S
22 RECOMMENDED IN THE LAW CRANDALL REPORT . YOU CAN DO THAT
23 FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION . BUT THIS IS NOT - - THIS PROJECT IS
24 NOT ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION . YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
25 DOUBLE-DECKING.
I
t 065 North PacifiCenter Drive fa, ri,S.fel
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 Varflw �s nvice
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1 155 1 (800)622-6092
39 I
1 WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NEXT GOOD SHAKER LIKE
2
THE ONE WE RECENTLY HAD IN BIG BEAR? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
3 YOU HAVE DOUBLE- DECKED ON TOP OF A 1965 STRUCTURE AND YOU
4 HAVE THIS LIQUEFACTION PROBLEM? ARE YOU WILLING TO
5 GUARANTEE THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC THAT ' S INVITED TO THIS
6 PROJECT?
7 MAYOR HOLCOMB : PLEASE . YOU ARE VERY REDUNDANT .
g THE REAL ISSUES ARE WHAT ' S WRONG WITH THE REPORT . AND
9 PLEASE MAKE YOUR POINTS . AND THEN WE CAN GET DOWN TO
10 BUSINESS . YOU ' RE BEING REPETITIVE .
11 MS . FOX : I HAVE JUST A FEW MORE POINTS , AND
12 THOSE DEAL WITH SOME INCONSISTENCIES THAT APPEAR , SO IT
13 MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO COMMENT ON THEM, BUT
14 INCONSISTENCIES THAT APPEAR BETWEEN THE INITIAL STUDY OF
15 THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . FOR INSTANCE , THE EXISTING
16 TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES . THE TWO NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT
17 IN THE TWO PLACES . FOR THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE
18 ADDED, THE INITIAL STUDY SAYS THAT AN ADDITIONAL 1245 NEW
19 EMPLOYEES WILL BE ADDED, FOR A TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
20 ON- SITE OF 2 . 562 . AND THEN SOMEPLACE ELSE IN ANOTHER
21 DOCUMENT AND IN THE AGREEMENT , IT TALKS ABOUT 2 . 440 FOR A
22 TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES . THE AVERAGE ON- SITE
23 EMPLOYEES . IN ONE PLACE IT SAYS 1250 . AND IN THE INITIAL
24 STUDY IT SAYS 1325 .
25 WE WOULD SUBMIT , MR . MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive
�arrz��er�"
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r�cr 1J2 �'er�lce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 l
to„* 40
1 THE COUNCIL , THAT THERE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT IS
2 INADEQUATE HERE AND ENOUGH FACTS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE NEEDS TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK
4 AT THIS WITH REGARD TO THEIR RECOMMENDATION . AND IF . IN
5 FACT , THEY WANT TO ADHERE TO THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF A
6 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION , THEY CAN ONLY DO SO AFTER
7 THEY 'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION
8 THAT ' S MISSING.
9 MY CLIENT ASKS ONLY FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
10 PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS AND BE FULLY ADVISED . AND WE
11 THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR , AND I WOULD BE
12 HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE MIGHT HAVE .
13 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WE DON 'T HAVE TIME TODAY FOR ALL
14 THE QUESTIONS .
15 ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO BE
16 HEARD IN OPPOSITION , OPPOSITION , TO THE PROPOSED
17 RESOLUTION? OKAY .
18 THE APPLICANT - - I JUST STRONGLY URGE THE
19 COUNCIL THAT WE NOT DO ANYTHING TODAY EXCEPT, ONE , EITHER
20 CONTINUE THIS FOR A STAFF REPORT OR , TWO. DENY THE
21 NEGATIVE DEC AND ORDER A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
22 REPORT. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO SAFE COURSES THAT I CAN
23 SEE .
24 THE APPLICANT . IF THEY WANT TO PURSUE THIS .
25 1 DON 'T THINK ANY COUNCIL IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS , IN VIEW
1065 North PaciliCenter Drive
�arrz�' er�"
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 rejcr z5 xerJZce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
41
1 OF THESE STATEMENTS . WOULD BE PREPARED TO RESPOND OR TAKE
2 ACTION WITHOUT THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT STAFF REPORT . NO
3 MATTER HOW ELOQUENT YOU MIGHT BE . YOU ARE NOT GOING TO
4
CHANGE THIS COUNCIL TO IMMEDIATE ACTION TODAY .
5 MR . REED : JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT . FROM THE
6 INFORMATION SHE SAID. THERE ' S NO NEW INFORMATION FOR
7 STAFF . THESE ARE ALL ITEMS THAT WE ADDRESSED IN THE
8 DEVELOPMENT - - IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE .
9 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WE WANT A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO
10 ALL THESE THINGS .
11 MR . REED: WE ' LL GET BACK WITH YOU .
12 MAYOR HOLCOMB : THE APPLICANT DOES WANT TO
13 SPEAK. THEY HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND NO MORE , PLEASE .
14 MR . DODSON : YES , MR . MAYOR . MR . MAYOR AND
15 MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL , I 'M TOM DODSON , AND I 'M THE
16 PERSON WHO PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT THAT ' S SO
17 MUCH IN QUESTION ALL OF A SUDDEN .
18 I ' D LIKE TO TAKE YOU THROUGH VERY QUICKLY
19 SOME THINGS THAT GET DISTORTED WHEN SOMEONE HASN 'T BEEN
20 INVOLVED.
21 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WE KNOW THAT . TELL US WHY WE
22 CAN 'T CONTINUE THIS FOR TWO WEEKS UNTIL WE GET A FULL
23 REPORT RATHER THAN PIECEMEAL .
24 MR . DODSON : BECAUSE MOST OF THIS INFORMATION 1
25 BELIEVE I CAN SUPPLY RIGHT HERE AND FOCUS ON THE REAL
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive fanrZ��er�'
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 TICT-f107 Xervice
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1 155 1 (800)622-6092
I
42
1 ISSUES THAT YOU WANT BROUGHT BACK . THAT ' S THE REALITY OF
2 MY PRESENTATION .
3 MAYOR HOLCOMB : HOW MUCH TIME YOU GOING TO TAKE?
4 MR . DODSON : YOUR FIVE MINUTES . I 'M ROLLING IF
5 YOU LET ME GO.
6 IF I MAY JUST QUICKLY . THERE WERE QUESTIONS
7 THAT WERE RAISED VERY QUICKLY ABOUT THE ISSUES OF CEQA
8 AND PROCESS , THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS SEVERAL ITEMS
9 SUBMITTED IN DIFFERENT DATES . IT ' S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
10 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HAD ALL THE
11 INFORMATION IN FRONT OF THEM AT A HEARING . THEY SAID.
12 "WE WANT YOU TO MAKE SOME MINOR CHANGES IN THIS DOCUMENT
13 AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO US AND SEND IT OUT . "
14 THOSE MINOR CHANGES , WE MADE THE MINOR
15 CHANGES AND SUBMITTED THAT DOCUMENT. AND THAT ' S THE
16 REASON FOR THE PROCESSING DIFFERENCES .
17 MAYOR HOLCOMB : I 'M SURE THAT ' S THE CASE . WHY
18 CAN 'T YOU PUT ALL THIS IN WRITING FOR US SO THAT OUR
19 STAFF CAN EITHER CONCUR OR NOT CONCUR?
20 MR . DODSON: IF I MAY , I AGREE WITH YOU , BUT 1
21 THINK THAT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU ' VE BEEN LEFT WITH A VERY
22 STRONG PERCEPTION THAT SOMETHING IS INADEQUATE , IT HELPS
23 TO HAVE SOME INFORMATION IN MIND TO BALANCE THAT OUT .
24 AND THAT ' S WHAT I 'M TAKING JUST A FEW MOMENTS TO DO.
25 I ' LL STICK WITH MY TIME FRAMES .
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrafe7s-
Suite 150
Anaheim.California 92806 r169r 15 xery)zce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
43
I
1 WITH REGARDS TO LIQUEFACTION AND THE
2 LIQUEFACTION ISSUES AND THE ITEMS RAISED BY MRS . FOX OR
3 MS . FOX , VERY QUICKLY . THE STUDIES THAT WERE DONE FOR
4 THIS SITE ARE DONE SITE-SPECIFIC . THERE WERE TWO STUDIES
I
5 DONE , ONE IN SEPTEMBER OF 1991 AND ONE IN JANUARY OF i
6 1992 . BOTH OF THEM INDICATE THAT THE PROBLEMS AT THIS
7 PARTICULAR SITE ARE VERY EASILY ENGINEERING SOLVABLE . IT
8 CLEARLY INDICATES . AND THERE ' S CONFUSION ON HER PART
9 BECAUSE SHE HASN 'T SEEN BOTH DOCUMENTS , IT CLEARLY
10 INDICATES THAT THE SPREAD FOOTINGS THAT WERE USED TO
11 CONSTRUCT THE ORIGINAL MALL WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO PUT THE
12 SECOND STORY ON AND, NUMBER TWO , THAT FOR THE NEW
13 STRUCTURES AT THE LOCATIONS THAT THEY ' RE PROPOSED, THEY
14 SHOULD PUT THE FOOTINGS AT A DEPTH TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE
15 AND MINIMIZE THE LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS .
16 THIS . A . IS MUCH MORE PRECISE AND MUCH MORE
17 EXPLICIT THAN IN THE INFORMATION AND REGIONAL REPORTS
18 THAT COULD BE OBTAINED. IT IS IN HAND AND WE HAVE IT ,
19 AND IT ' S BEEN IN YOUR FILINGS FOR A LONG TIME .
20 GOING BACK TO THE ISSUE WITH REGARDS TO
21 TRAFFIC AND THE CONCERNS RELATED TO TRAFFIC . THE REASON
22 THAT THIS PROJECT WAS NOT FOUND TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
23 IMPACT ON TRAFFIC IS BECAUSE . WITH THE MITIGATION
24 MEASURES THAT WERE PROVIDED OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT
25 WAS GOING TO BE - - THIS PROJECT WILL BE BUILT . THIS
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive �arrZ� er��
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
44
1 PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY REDUCE THE IMPACTS BECAUSE OF THE
2 MITIGATION MEASURES . REDUCE THE IMPACTS AT ALL THE
3 INTERSECTION LOCATIONS , AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY CLEARLY
4 SUPPORTS THAT .
5 THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WERE CONSIDERED AND
6 BROUGHT INTO THIS PROJECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED
7 BY THE AGENCIES IN THE AREA , INCLUDING SANBAG, INCLUDING
8 CALTRANS . WE HAD CONFERENCES WITH THOSE GROUPS . THIS
9 PROJECT HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY REVIEWED BY THOSE AGENCIES
10 AND DOESN 'T CONFLICT WITH ANY OF THEIR APPROACHES AT THIS
11 POINT IN TIME .
12 THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH REGARDS TO CALTRANS
13 MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR NEW PROJECT , BUT THAT ' S NOT
14 WELL ENOUGH DEFINED FOR US TO EXAMINE ANY FURTHER AT THIS
15 POINT IN TIME . WE DID OUR VERY BEST AND DEALT WITH THE
16 INTERSECTIONS .
17 WITH REGARDS TO THE ISSUES ON GROWTH , 1 ' D
18 LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT VERY CLEARLY THIS DOCUMENT PLACED
19 THIS GROWTH ON THIS PROJECT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE
20 GENERAL PLAN , WHICH FORECASTED GROWTH FOR A VERY LONG
21 PERIOD OF TIME AND SAID THIS IS THE TYPE OF GROWTH WE
22 EXPECT , HERE ' S THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET THAT WE EXPECT,
23 AND IT WAS PUT IN THAT CONTEXT , AND THERE WAS AN ECONOMY
24 ANALYSIS THAT FORECASTED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AS THIS GROWTH
25 OCCURRED AND THE DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive farrz,&rx-
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re�G7 15 &rpzce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1 c�
45
1 SERVICES .
2 AND WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT WE UTILIZED THE
3 GENERAL PLAN AND ITS EVALUATION OF OVERALL GROWTH DURING
4 THIS PERIOD , AND THE PROJECT IS PHASED TO ACCOMMODATE
5 THAT GROWTH . SO SPECIFICALLY , WE PLACED OURSELVES UNDER
6 THAT UMBRELLA OF A DOCUMENT THAT YOU FOLKS HAVE ALREADY
7 SEEN , REVIEWED , AND APPROVED . THAT ' S THE WAY WE REVIEWED
8 THIS LARGER SCOPE ISSUE .
9 1 THINK THAT COVERS THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE
10 ISSUES . I 'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS .
11 COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ : I HAVE A QUESTION TO
12 ASK .
13 MAYOR HOLCOMB : COULD WE SAVE OUR QUESTIONS
14 UNTIL WE 'VE HAD CHANCE TO HEAR BACK FROM STAFF?
15 COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ : NO .
16 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WE CAN OPEN THIS THING UP AND BE
17 HERE ALL DAY AND ALL AFTERNOON ON THIS ISSUE . I THINK WE
18 OUGHT TO HAVE A STAFF REPORT RESPONDING TO ALL THESE
19 THINGS SO WE CAN STUDY IT. TWO WEEKS IS ALL THAT IS
20 GOING TO BE TAKEN .
21 MR . REED: YEAH. I THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO
22 BE ADDITIONAL NEW ITEMS THAT WE HADN ' T - - FROM WHAT I 'VE
23 HEARD , THERE ' S NOTHING THAT HASN ' T BEEN CLEARLY DISCUSSED
24 AND CONSIDERED. AND I THINK , BECAUSE OF THE INVOLVEMENT
25 OF THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE AT THIS LATE DATE . WE NEED THE
1065 North PaciliCenter Drive
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r�cr � �'er�lce
(7t 4)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 l
— 46
1 TIME TO BRING THEM UP TO SPEED AS TO WHAT WE ' VE DONE .
2 AND I THINK . GIVEN THE NATURE OF WHAT WE ' VE HEARD, WE CAN
3 DO THAT WITHIN TWO WEEKS .
4 MAYOR HOLCOMB : CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE
5 THIS MATTER?
6 COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ : I STILL HAVE A
7 QUESTION .
8 MAYOR HOLCOMB : OKAY . CONTINUE - - A MOTION TO
9 CONTINUE IS NOT DEBATABLE , BUT , PLEASE , NOW, IF YOU OPEN
10 UP THIS QUESTION , WE ' LL BE HERE FOREVER .
11 COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ : YOU WEREN 'T PRESENT
12 WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION OF THE THREE GENTLEMEN THAT 1
13 MET THIS WEEK OR LAST WEEK , AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE
14 IMPACT THAT IT WOULD HAVE ON THIS MALL DOWNTOWN .
15
WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR CITY NOW IS TRI -CITY
16 AND HOSPITALITY LANE HAVE DRAINED ABOUT HALF A MILLION
17 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE OUT OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND
18 HAS DESTROYED IT, THE DOWNTOWN .
19 IS THE SAME THING GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE
20 CAROUSEL MALL? AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO, THEN HOW CAN YOU
21 GUARANTEE THAT THAT ' S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN?
22 MR . DODSON : NO ONE CAN MAKE THAT GUARANTEE .
23 COUNCILMAN HERNANDEZ , AND I WON 'T PRETEND TO. WHAT I CAN
24 TELL YOU IS THAT YOUR GENERAL PLAN ALREADY IDENTIFIES AND
25 ADDRESSES THE TYPE OF GROWTH THAT YOU WOULD ANTICIPATE
1065 North FacitiCenter Drive
Suite 150 15n 0 1
r her � Service
Anaheim, 1 92806
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
47 I
I
1 OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME . ONE THING WILL HAPPEN IF YOU
2 DON 'T ENHANCE OR PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND THE COMMERCIAL
3 CAPACITY HERE , AND THAT IS THAT PEOPLE WILL LEAVE THIS
4 AREA.
5 THE MALL PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED
6 HERE WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO FULFILL YOUR GENERAL
CONTINUED GROWTH BASED UPON THE
7 PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR
8 GROWTH-IN THE COMMUNITY AS IT GOES FORWARD. AND IT WAS
9 DESIGNED ALSO TO KEEP PEOPLE SHOPPING HERE RATHER THAN
10 LEAVING THE AREA . THE ANSWER TO YOUR (QUESTION , I THINK.
11 WHY IS GOING BACK TO THE GENERAL PLAN IN THE CONTEXT IN
12 WHICH THIS COUNCIL APPROVED AND SOUGHT NEW COMMERCIAL
13 GROWTH TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE DEMANDS AS THE CITY GROWS .
14 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WE ' RE GETTING INTO WHAT STAFF
15
WILL BE REPORTING ON .
16 MOTION TO CONTINUE IS NOT DEBATABLE . I ' D
17 CALL FOR THE (QUESTION .
18 MR . OSTOICH: MAYOR HOLCOMB , EXCUSE ME . WE ' RE
19 IN FAVOR OF THE CONTINUANCE . AFTER HEARING EVERYTHING.
20 WE FEEL THAT , WITH A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME , THAT THE
21 OPPONENTS ' CONCERNS CAN BE MET , AND SO I ' D LIKE TO SAY
22 THAT WE APPRECIATE THAT . AND WE SUPPORT THE CONTINUANCE .
23 AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING,
24 THOUGH, BECAUSE - -
25 MAYOR HOLCOMB : NO , WE CAN 'T CLOSE THE PUBLIC
1065 North PaciliCenler Drive Farr
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 7Y r w .s'erpZCe
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1 c�
1001N 48
1 HEARING TILL AFTER THE NEXT - - PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD BE
2 KEPT OPEN IN CASE NEW INFORMATION COMES UP .
3 MR . EMPENO.
4 MR . EMPENO: MAYOR , IT ' S AT THE DISCRETION OF
5 THE COUNCIL WHETHER THE PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD BE CLOSED
6 AT THIS POINT. IF NEW INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AT THE
7 NEXT COUNCIL MEETING - -
8 MAYOR HOLCOMB: I 'M SUGGESTING WE CONTINUE AND
9 THE PUBLIC HEARING BE KEPT OPEN . IS THAT LEGAL? CAN WE
10 DO THAT?
11 MR . EMPENO: IT ' S AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
12 COUNCIL .
13 MAYOR HOLCOMB : I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT . WE
14 ALL. KNOW THAT .
15 MR . REED: I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CLOSE IT
16 JUST FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT IT ' S YOUR DISCUSSION .
17 MAYOR HOLCOMB : WELL , THIS COULD GO ON FOREVER .
18 COUNCILMEMBER ESTRADA: THAT MAY BE TRUE , LARRY ,
19 BUT I THINK THAT THERE ' S ENOUGH QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN
20 RAISED, THAT WE SHOULDN 'T CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
21 THIS POINT , NO. 1 . AND NO . 2 , AS IT APPLIES TO THE
22 GENERAL PLAN , THAT ANALYSIS WAS DONE UP TO THE YEAR 2010 .
23 AND WHILE IT CALLS FOR TWO MILLION SQUARE FEET OF NEW
24 RETAIL SPACE , IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY SAY THAT IT HAS TO
25 BE IN ONE LOCATION .
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive lJ�lrrZeS�erc��
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 r 1 1�Gr Z5 &,rpzce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092
49
1 MAYOR HOLCOMB : IF WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING,
2 THE APPLICANTS WOULDN 'T HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND. SO I 'M
3 GOING TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION OF CONTINUING THIS MATTER ,
4 WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND AT THE NEXT MEETING WE
5 ASK STAFF TO RESPOND TO ALL THE ISSUES RAISED. THAT ' S
6 THE MOTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION .
7 (A VOTE WAS TAKEN . )
8 - MAYOR HOLCOMB : I DON 'T LIKE TO BE ABRUPT . WE
9 COULDN 'T ACT ON THIS THING TODAY . IT ' S OBVIOUS .
10
11 (END OF PROCEEDINGS ON ITEM 32 AT 3 : 15 P .M. )
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1065 North PacifiCenter Drive GarrZ � er�'�
Suite 150
Anaheim, California 92806 re�Gr Zr1�/ �S'er�lce
(714)666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622-6092 1
0
Reporter's Certificate
6 0 . --C) J n hereby certify:
that on the of
O c-t-bW- 19921 I did report in
shorthand the testimony and proceedings of the
foregoing hearing;
that at the conclusion of the above entitled
matter, I did transcribe my shorthand notes into
typewriting;
that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct
copy of my shorthand notes thereof.
Certified Shorthand Reporter
Certificate No. ? 1 s'2--
1065 Norih Paci+,Centet Drive J�CII�I�Ic� L'Ic)"
^—' Sure
Ananetm. Caidoma ?2506
(714(666-2226 FAX(714)666-1155 1 (800)622.6092 C�
x i �,+ y r �` t i`+•'4 t 4
„;t. 'S . ,� n v r"Skr "� w r � • t k �' � n, t �'^..S ST t t 11r
d r
Y
i
• i RvIno M7 M. , a i
t
s
i
d H k"Y
Y "Y
Ile�M
Y
l
td ��'•N',' .Y uaw� '� '4
�rww ✓, "�
SAN BERNP4RDINO
BUSINESS
Table of Contents
San Bernardino malls are expanding,bringing new stores and products to area Advertiser index
residents.Inland Center Mall plans to double its size,and Carousel Mall is opening
three new stores. Aetna
In addition to shopping centers,this issue looks at several retail outlets including Arrowwest.....................................8
Home Depot,PACE,L.A.Cellular,and Goforth&Marti. Bank of San Bernardino................7
Beemans Pharmacy ......................6
Inland Dance Theater.................... 4 Business Profiles .........................13 Cardinal Academy ......................14
San Bernardino Retail Market....... 5 Radisson Hotel ............................14 Carousel Mall...............................13
New Members............................... 9 Around Town ..............................19 Community Bank.........................25
Beeman Pharmacy ................... 10 Anniversaries...............................24 Crest Chevrolet............................10
People ........................................ 11 Calendar of Events ......................25 Crown Printers...............................4
Economic Development Agency.27
This month's cover has been sponsored by Home Depot. El Dorado Bank............................23
First Federal Savings & Loan ....24
Goforth & Marti...........................12
San Bernardino Area
Golden Valley Medical Supply...18
Chamber of Commerce Harmon Auto Center..................17
Home Depot ..........................Cover
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE G. Jordan, M.D., F.A.C.P.), Deborah Inland Factors ..............................16
MARK EDWARDS-president Kinder (Aetna Health Plan), Janey Inland Center Mall.......................15
Reid& Hellyer Kozlowski (San Bernardino County Kinko's ..........................................19
DEBORAH MANDABACH-past pres- Schools), Wilfred Lemann (Lemann & L. A. Cellular................................11
ident, St. Bernardine Medical Center Schaefer),Jerry Miller(First Federal Sav- Life Savings Bank..........................5
LARRY GRAHAM-president elect ings&Loan),George W.Schnarre(George Manpower....................................16
Bobbin Memorial Chapel H. Schnarre, Realtor), Jon Shultz (Holi- Pace Membership Warehouse ....2
WAYNE STAIR-treasurer day Oldsmobile-Mazda), Dr. Donald PacTel ...........................................18
Bank of America Singer (San Bernardino Valley College), Radisson Hotel .............................18
DEBBIE COCHRAN-V.P.Business Brian Townsend (Precinct Reporter). Ramada Inn ..................................16
Support, Inland Flowers Honorary Members: Bob Holcomb Roger's Bindery ...........................22
BOB HOEBELHEINRICH- V.P. (Mayor of San Bernardino), Col. John Rogers, Anderson,
Economic Dev. First Interstate Bank Hopper (Norton Air Force Base). Malody&Scott ..............................20
JUDI BATTEY-V.P.Education S. B. Industrial Medical Center..... 17
Southern California Gas Co. CHAMBER STAFF San Bernardino Valley College.... 16
JEAN STEPHENS- V.P.Gov.Affairs JUDI THOMPSON-Executive V.P. S.B. Employment Training
Fleming, Reiss & Company LAURENTINE ALLEN-Accountant ••• 15
Standard Mortgage Company...21
CYNTHIA PRINGLE-V.P.Member- LYNNE BARILE- Administrative
ship, Cal State U., San Bernardino Assistant
EVLYN WILCOX-V.P.Military Af- GENE BINSBACHAR-Membership
fairs, Manpower Employment Serv. ROD COCHRAN- Account Executive SAN BERNARDINO BUSINESS(ISSN
SUSAN KITCHEN-Receptionist/ 0892-8347) is published monthly with
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Division Coordinator the exception of Jan.,Feb.,April,and May
Marion Black (Vernon Company), Jim LIZA RATKOWIAK-Division Coordi- for$15 per year(included in the member-
Burns (Southern California Edison), Pat nator ship investment). Published by the San
Caffery(La Quinta Motorinn),Dick Crail Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce,
(Lockheed Commercial Aircraft), Steve EDITORIAL BOARD 546 W.Sixth Street,San Bernardino,CA
Easley(Goforth&Marti),Deborah Hagar Chair-Cynthia Pringle;Mark Edwards, 92410. Second Class postage paid at San
(Hagar&Associates),Jane Hammer(Life Larry Graham, Bill Heitritter, Deborah Bernardino,CA.
Savings Bank),Bill Heitritter(McGladrey Mandabach,Brian Townsend and Judi
& Pullen), Brooks Johnson (The SUN Thompson.Photographer-John Mate POSTMASTER:Send address changes
Company),Dr.Kenneth Jordan(Kenneth (714) 924-2650. to San Bernardino Business,P.O.Box
658,San Bernardino,CA 92402-0658.
San Bernardino Business,November 1992 3
Inland Center Mall plan's to expand
Continued from Page 5 nearly as large as the 1.2-million-square-
each department to help customers The expansion will double foot Montclair Plaza.
through any project. its size, calling for three Hours open during the Christmas
Sales personnel teach customers to lay holiday are Dec.5 to Dec.23,Monday
ceramic tile,hang a ceiling fan,or more anchor department through Friday 10 a.m.to 9:30 p.m.,
winterize homes.Home Depot also offers stores. Saturday 10 a.m.to 9 p.m.,and Sunday 11
weekend"do-it-yourself'classes. I a.m.to 7 p.m.Gift certificates are avail-
In-home consultations by interior city officials. able at the information booth.
designers,carpet specialists,lighting The agreement,which outlines the Inland Center is owned by Mano
experts,and N.K.B.A.trained cabinet proposed expansion of Inland Center,has Management Co.,Inc.,and is represented
designers help coordinate color schemes, been approved by the San Bernardino by UBS Asset Management of New York.
measure for window coverings,cabinet Planning Commissioner with further
installation,design kitchen cabinets,and review scheduled. Carousel Mall's early beginning as
offer suggestions for lighting needs. Currently,leasing efforts are focused Central City Mall,one of the first en-
Home Depot guarantees the lowest on quality fashion stores proposed for closed downtown shopping centers,has
price on its items.If any product is found opening in early 1993. continued its retail concept to become the
at a lower price,it will meet that price and The expansion will double its size, first mall in the Inland Empire to own and
take-off an additional five percent. calling for three more anchor department operate a custom carousel and train,
A new program,bridal registry,has stores,a second level with 70 additional establish a high school teen board
been introduced by Home Depot. Now shops,and athree-or four-level parking encompassing 16 area high schools,and a
couples can register for home-improve- structure. children's theater.
ment products instead of the traditional The expansion is dependent upon the Carousel Mall is continuing the
china and crystal. major stores agreeing to locate at the tradition of the downtown meeting,
mall. shopping and entertainment center for
A development agreement between Currently,Inland Center has 101 stores community families of all ages.
Inland Center and the City of San with anchors of May Co.,Sears and The Since the unveiling of its new look,it
Bernardino is currently being reviewed by Broadway.The expansion would make it Continued on Page 7�-
10%' 1
Beeman S
I S )
4.
Because You Care About Your Health
We're Here To Serve You.
• Senior Citizen Discounts • Diabetes Care Center
r` • Jobst Products • *New Extended Hours
• Breast Prosthesis • Personal Consultation
• Mastectomy Products • Computerized Medication Records
We accept most insurance plans
Highland Pharmacy 21st Street Pharmacy
• • E. Highland Avenue 355 E. 21 st Street
AW
San Bernardino, CA San Bernardino,
886-6851 • •
• ' •
6 San Bernardino Business,November 1992
t
rc y�
.... 3`Sw,•w ape y� as 3i.� A ���'�YH;�y.� `� �,♦:
E a�
, n
tV
Ar
ni
.a3
♦ r i
ran
Future Seismic Hazards in Southern
California
Phase I:
Implications of the 1.992 Landers Earthquake Sequence
National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
Southern California Earthquake Center
Ad Hoc Working Group
on the
Probabilities of Future Large Earthquakes
in
Southern California
November 1992
Working Group on the Probabilities of Future Large Earthquakes
in Southern California
Duncan C. Agnew University of California, San Diego
Keiiti Aki (Co-Chair) University of Southern California
C. Allin Cornell Stanford University
James F. Davis California Department of Conservation
Division of Mines and Geology
Paul Flores California Office of Emergency Services
Thomas H. Heaton (Co-Chair) United States Geological Survey
I. M. Idriss University of California, Davis
David D. Jackson University of California, Los Angeles
Karen C. McNally University of California, Santa Cruz
Michael S. Reichle California Department of Conservation
Division of Mines and Geology
James C. Savage United States Geological Survey
Kerr E. Sieh
Kerry California ifornia Institute of Technology
This report (with color plates) is available on sale at the California Division of Mines and
Geology, P. O. Box 2980, Sacramento, CA 95812-2980. Please provide a check or money order
for$18.
Cover photo: Courtesy of Kevin Coppersmith, Geomatrix Consultants.
PREFACE
This progress report addresses the implications of the 1992 Landers earthquake sequence
on future seismic hazards in southern California. It represents the efforts of a joint ad hoc
working group composed of individuals from the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation
Council (NEPEC), the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (CEPEC), and the
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).
Following the Landers earthquake, SCEC organized a workshop to share the preliminary
results of ongoing scientific investigations. The group determined that it was necessary to
address formally the implications of the Landers earthquake on seismic hazards in southern
California and update earlier estimates of probabilities of large earthquakes on the region's active
faults. Due to the high level of public concern, the Chairs of NEPEC and CEPEC confirmed the
need for a deliberate evaluation, and a formal procedure was initiated. On August 5, 1992,
NEPEC, CEPEC, SCEC, and the OES announced the formation of the joint ad-hoc working
group composed of 12 experts to oversee the generation of a report. SCEC scientists were asked
to provide the necessary technical working papers for the document. It was decided that this
document should be Phase I of a two phase study of the probabilities of future large earthquakes
in southern California, and should provide for the timely release of the best information available
to date. A Phase 11 report, to be completed in about 9 months, would contain a more complete
analysis of future earthquake probabilities in greater southern California.
Following review of the working papers by the ad hoc working group, a final version of
this report was assembled by SCEC and submitted to the Directors of the USGS and OES for
their approval. Since the report is the product of several different individuals working under
tight time constraints, there is a degree of unevenness in style and depth of presentation.
NEPEC was established in 1979 pursuant to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act of 1977 to advise the Director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) concerning
any formal predictions or other information pertinent to the potential for the occurrence of a
significant earthquake.
CEPEC was formed in 1976 under existing administrative authority as the successor to an
advisory group formed in 1974. CEPEC advises the Director of the California Office of
Emergency Services (OES) on the validity of predictions of earthquakes capable of causing
damage in California, including the reliability of the data and scientific validity of the technique
used to arrive at a specific prediction.
SCEC was established by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the USGS to
integrate earth sciences research on the processes that cause earthquakes so as to improve
forecasts of damaging earthquakes and their effects. A fundamental goal of SCEC is to develop a
master model that will provide the basis for a time-dependent probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis of southern California. SCEC is a consortium of seven research institutions in
partnership with the USGS. Member institutions include the California Institute of Technology,
Columbia University, the Universities of California at Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Barbara,
and Santa Cruz, and the University of Southern California -- SCEC's managing institution.
The scientific input to the present Phase I report consisted of working papers prepared by
the Southern California Earthquake Center. These interim documents were an outgrowth of three
workshops held on July 13, July 27 and August 24, 1992. Principal authors of the working papers
were Duncan Agnew, Ruth Harris, David Jackson, Lucy Jones, Kerry Sieh, Bob Simpson, and
Ross Stein. Duncan Agnew and David Jackson assembled the papers, which were organized and
edited into this report by Tom Henyey, with help from Virgil Frizzell and John McRaney. In
addition, the following scientists participated in the workshops and/or contributed ideas and
materials to the working papers: Kei Aki, Allin Cornell, Jim Davis, Jim Dieterich, Bill Ellsworth,
Jack Evernden, Egill Hauksson, Tom Heaton, Tom Henyey, Anshu Jin, Yan Kagan, Simeon
Katz, Volodja Keilis-Borok, Geoff King, Volodja Kossobokov, Tanya Levshina, Allan Lindh,
Mehrdad Mandyiar, Torn McEvilly, Karen McNally, Bernard Minster, Steve Park, Paul
Reasenberg, David Schwartz, Lynn Sykes, Steven Ward, Ray Weldon, and Steven Wesnousky.
OWN
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive SuTnmary....................................................................................................... 1
II. Introduction................................................................................................................... 4
III. Recent Seismicity.......................................................................................................... 9
IV. The Landers and Big Bear Earthquakes....................................................................... 9
A. General Information.......................................................................................... 9
B. Foreshocks and Aftershocks............................................................................. 12
C. Distant Triggered Earthquakes......................................................................... 14
V. Static Stress Changes Caused by the Landers Earthquake Sequence.......................... 16
VI. Plausible Future Large Earthquakes as a Consequence of the Landers
EarthquakeSequence.................................................................................................... 21
A. Southern San Andreas and Northern San Jacinto Faults................................... 23
B. Miscellaneous Faults of the Mojave Shear Zone.............................................. 26
VII. Intermediate-Term (1 to 5 Year) Probability Estimates............................................... 26
A. Southern San Andreas and Northern San Jacinto Faults.................................. 27
B. Greater Landers Region.................................................................................... 27
C. Greater Southern California............................................................................. 29
VIII. Estimates of Ground Shaking for Future Earthquakes................................................. 30
IX. Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 37
X. Recommendations........................................................................................................ 39
XI. References.................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix...................................................................................................................... 42
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Southern California and its seismologists received a wake-up call on June 28, 1992. The
largest earthquake to strike southern California in 40 years occurred near the town of Landers,
located 30 km north of the San Andreas fault. It had a magnitude of 7.5 (M7.5). Three and one-
half hours later, a M6.5 aftershock struck the Big Bear area 40 km (kilometers) to the west of
Landers. An ad hoc working group was rapidly convened in July, 1992, to evaluate how the
Landers-Big Bear earthquake sequence might affect future large earthquakes along major faults
in southern California. In particular, what are the chances of large earthquakes in the next few
years and how do they compare to previous estimates (such as those of the Working Group on
California Earthquake Probabilities -- WGCEP, 1988)? Such an evaluation was made for central
California after the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 (WGCEP, 1990). The charge to the Landers
ad hoc working group included analyzing the seismicity for the last several years in southern
California and the new paleoseismic, geologic, and geodetic data recently available for southern
California. To inform the public about the potential hazard of plausible earthquakes, the working
group was also asked to map the predicted severity of ground shaking for such earthquakes
compared to that from the Landers earthquake.
The following observations raise concern that a large earthquake might soon occur in
southern California:
♦ Portions of the southern San Andreas fault appear ready for failure; where data are
available, the time elapsed since the last large earthquake exceeds the long-term average
recurrence interval.
♦ Since 198.5, earthquakes have occurred at a higher rate than for the preceding four
decades.
♦ The Landers earthquake is estimated to have increased the stress toward the failure limit
on parts of the southern San Andreas fault.
♦ Some aftershocks of the Landers earthquake sequence occurred near the San Andreas
fault; a few appeared to be within the mapped fault zone near Yucaipa. These aftershocks
are in areas where, typically, the seismicity has been relatively low.
Based on discussions with some scientists, the news media have stated that the Landers
earthquake belongs to a developing fault system which may be replacing the San Andreas as the
boundary between the North American and Pacific plates. These statements refer to a geologic
process which is taking place on a time scale of millions of years. Studies of recent geologic
history and modern strain measurements, however, suggest that the well-known Mojave shear
zone, in which the Landers earthquake occurred, accommodates only 15-20 percent of the total
plate motion. Therefore, the San Andreas fault system, which has more than 70 percent of the
plate motion, will continue to provide most major earthquakes in southern California over any
human time scale.
The perception that many earthquakes have been felt in southern California lately is one
reason for public concern over the Landers earthquake. This perception is accurate -- in the last 7
i
1/2 years (since 1985), a higher rate of earthquake occurrence has existed than for the preceding
four decades (by a factor of 1.7 for M5 and above, and by a factor of 3.6 for M6 and above). We
do not know, however, if this increased activity represents a departure from a lower background
rate and could now be over,or if the higher rate will persist in the future.
The Landers earthquake belongs to a sequence of regional earthquakes including the 1975
Galway Lake (M5.2), 1979 Homestead Valley (M5.6), 1986 North Palm Springs (M6.0) and
1992 Joshua Tree (M6.1) earthquakes. The stress redistribution from these earlier earthquakes is
estimated to have increased the stress that contributed to failure along most of the future Landers
rupture by up to 1 bar (15 lbs/in). The Joshua Tree earthquake on April 22, 1992, occurred at the
south end of the impending rupture. In early June its aftershocks began to spread northward
toward the future epicenter of the Landers mainshock. In retrospect, a few of these events that
occurred at the site of the Landers epicenter may be regarded as foreshocks.
The stress redistribution inferred for the Landers earthquake increased the stress toward
the failure limit for some segments of the San Andreas fault (by up to 10 bars for the San
Bernardino Mountains segment and less than one bar for the Coachella Valley segment), but
decreased it for the Mojave segment by less than a bar. Most significantly, the Landers
earthquake has been estimated to have increased the stress toward failure by about 3 bars in the
rupture area of the Big Bear earthquake. We regard the M6.5 Big Bear event to be an aftershock
to the Landers earthquake because it occurred shortly after Landers (3 hr 6 min later) and its
distance was within one rupture length of that event.
The Landers aftershock sequence has behaved normally for a M7.5 California mainshock
and such activity should continue for at least three years. Beginning September 1, 1992, there are
85 and 23 percent probabilities of M>5 and M>6 aftershocks, respectively, over the next year,
and 95 and 34 percent probabilities, respectively, over the next three years. One obvious concern
is that one of these aftershocks might actually turn out to be a foreshock to a large event on the
San Andreas fault system. This concern was addressed by CEPEC after the Landers earthquake,
and OES was advised to plan precautionary measures for a 3-day alert in case of a M6 of greater
earthquake on or near the San Andreas fault.
The Landers earthquake has raised questions about the prospect for additional large
(M>7) earthquakes in southern California within the next few years. The most likely case is that
no large earthquake (M>7) will occur. Statistics based on global earthquake catalogs indicate that
the probability of a large earthquake (M>7) following another one drops sharply after two
months. If a large event should occur within 100 km of the Landers rupture in the next few years,
however, it would most likely originate on one or more of the following structures:
♦ The Mojave shear zone. Individual fault strands include the Helendale, Lenwood-
Lockhart, Old Woman Springs, northern Johnson Valley, Calico-Blackwater, Rodman-
Pisgah, and/or the southern half of the Emerson fault.
♦ The San Bernardino Mountains and Coachella Valley segments of the San Andreas fault,
or a combination of the San Bernardino Mountains segment with either the Coachella
Valley segment or the Mojave segment, or with both.
♦ The northern San Jacinto fault.
2
The increase in earthquake activity since 1985, including the Landers sequence, has
resulted in an increase of our estimate of the yearly probability throughout southern California.
The yearly probability of a M7 or larger earthquake prior to 1985 was estimated to be about 4
percent. Now it is at least 5 percent and may be as high as 12 percent. These larger values reflect
the recent increase in seismicity in southern California. This range of values allows for the
effects of stress redistribution by the Landers earthquake and the ripeness for failure of the
southern San Andreas fault. We estimate the probability of a large earthquake (M>7) within 100
km of the Landers rupture to be 2 to 5 percent within one year from September 1, 1992.
Ground shaking for the Landers earthquake and some of the other plausible earthquakes
has been simulated using information about the earthquake source, seismic wave propagation
effects, and geologic site conditions. The simulation yields a distribution of seismic intensities
consistent with the observed ground motions for the Landers earthquake. The simulated high
intensity for the epicentral area is consistent with the levels of damage actually experienced, and
observed accelerations as high as 0.9g. Fortunately such strong shaking only occurred in sparsely
populated areas. Plausible future events in the Mojave shear zone will produce effects similar to
the Landers earthquake. However, such earthquakes on the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults
would cause much stronger shaking in more urbanized areas. The conclusions of this report
underscore the plausibility of large damaging earthquakes affecting metropolitan areas of
southern California. As such, the California Office of Emergency Services should intensify its
efforts to assist local governments and the public in preparing for such eventualities.
This report is intended for disaster-preparedness personnel, engineers, science writers and
interested members of the public, as well as members of the earth science community. It is the
first (Phase I) of two reports to be issued over the next 9 months and specifically addresses the
implications of the Landers earthquakes. A second report (Phase I1) will quantitatively address
the more difficult problems identified in preparing this report and consider in more detail
additional faults and earthquake probabilities in the broader southern California region.
3
II. INTRODUCTION
On the morning of June 28, 1992, most people in southern California were awakened by a
very large earthquake -- the largest in California in 40 years. Named "Landers" after the small
desert community near its epicenter (Figure 1), this quake had a magnitude of 7.5 (M7.5),
making it the third largest in California of this century. The only larger shocks have been the
1952 Arvin-Tehachapi earthquake (M7.7) and the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (M8.3). The
1989 Lorna Prieta earthquake (M7.1), while far more destructive than the Landers earthquake,
released only about one-fourth the amount of energy. The sheer size of the Landers earthquake,
its proximity to the southern San Andreas fault, its aftershock pattern (Figure 2a), and the fact
that its sense and orientation of slip (north northwest with right-lateral strike-slip motion) were
similar to that of the San Andreas, immediately raised questions. In particular, how might it be
related to future earthquakes on the San Andreas proper? This report addresses these questions.
A working group on California Earthquake Probabilities (1988; henceforth referred to as
WGCEP 88) determined the probabilities of large earthquakes on the major strike slip faults in
California including the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Hayward, Calaveras, and Imperial faults. This
group derived probability estimates based upon an interpretation of fault segmentation, patterns
of historical seismicity, and an interpretation of the geologic evidence for prehistoric events
(paleoseismology). One widely quoted conclusion was that a M7.5 or larger earthquake had a
Some Definitions
Fault: A fracture in the earth's crust accompanied by a displacement of one side
of the fracture with respect to the other, and in a direction parallel to the
fracture. The relative displacement is the fault slip, and the extent of the
fracture is the rupture length.
Earthquake: A shaking of the earth that is tectonic or volcanic in origin. A tectonic
earthquake is caused by fault slip.
Hypocenter: The starting point of a fault rupture. Ruptures propagate away from the
hypocenter at velocities of a few km/sec.
Epicenter: The point on the earth's surface directly above the hypocenter.
Cluster: Earthquakes tend to cluster within a space-time window. The largest
earthquake of the cluster, if distinct, is called the mainshock. Those quakes
preceding the mainshock are called foreshocks, and those following the
mainshock are called aftershocks. If there is no distinct mainshock, the
cluster is called an earthquake swarm. A foreshock that occurs outside the
normal time window is called a preshock.
Hazard: A source of danger that has the potential for creating adverse
consequences.
Risk: The likelihood of adverse consequences.
Ripeness of a fault: Refers to the relationship between the elapsed time since the last major
earthquake on a given fault and the average recurrence interval between
large earthquakes on that fault. Part of the southern San Andreas fault is
ripe because the time since the last earthquake actually exceeds the
average time between large earthquakes (recurrence interval).
Clock advance: Within a recurrence interval stress is believed to increase gradually with
time until failure. If additional stress is imposed on the fault, failure will
occur sooner, advancing the clock.
4
119° I If3° 117°
Enlarged
feo
Bakersfield e �\ ' �s" 34•
1 r r I
129• 120'
Mp�y �/
\ I \ O \
i \'.. \� C. pv
V.
CC'
SOMS
SonBerrardino� �fl\ P
'LOS AN
eles
SGP
Palm*
Springs
INN\
\ ` \
N`S 33•
10 20 30mlles �
0 10 20 30 40 50Mm Son
\ \
Diego \
119° 118• 117° 116•
Figure 1. Map of southern California showing locations and faults (adapted from Jennings,
1992) discussed in text.
AS: Anza segment of San Jacinto Fault. CC: Cajon Creek
BB: Bombay Beach CP: Cajon Pass
BF: Blackwater Fault CF: Calico Fault
BMS: Borrego Mountains segment CRF: Camp Rock Fault
of San Jacinto Fault. CVS: Coachella Valley segment
C: Carrizon of San Andreas Fault.
(key continued on next page)
5
ESF: Elsinore Fault PC: Pitman Canyon
EF: Emerson Fault PF: Pisgah Fault
GF: Garlock Fault PMF: Pinto Mountain Fault
HF: Helendale Fault RF: Rodman Fault
HVF: Homestead Valley Fault SAF: San Andreas Fault
I: Indio SBMS: San Bernardino Mts segment
IF: Imperial Fault of San Andreas Fault
JVF: Johnson Valley Fault SBVS: San Bernardino Valley segment
LHF: Lockhart Fault of San Jacinto Fault
LWF: Lenwood Fault SGP: San Gorgonio Pass
MP: Mill Potrero SHF: Superstition Hills Fault
MS: Mojave segment SJF: San Jacinto Fault
of San Andreas Fault SJVS: San Jacinto Valley segment
OWSF: Old Woman Springs Fault SMF: Superstition Mountain Fault
P: Pallet Creek W: Wrightwood
Y: Yucaipa
The rectangular region outlined by long dashed lines is the Greater Landers Region
discussed in Section VII - B. The Mojave shear zone is outlined by short dashed lines.
60 percent probability of occurring somewhere on the southern San Andreas within the next 30
years. This conclusion assumed that the San Bernardino Mountains segment of the San Andreas
could not break independently of other segments. If it could, the probability was estimated to be
closer to 70 percent within 30 years. Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, a similar
working group (1990; WGCEP 90) reported that the Loma Prieta earthquake increased the stress
on adjacent segments of the San Andreas, thereby modestly increasing the probabilities of
earthquakes there. WGCEP 90 considered new paleoseismic data for faults north of San
Francisco Bay, finding that these results implied a somewhat higher risk than had been estimated
in 1988. New paleoseismic data also exist for southern California and must be included in any
comprehensive reevaluation of earthquake probabilities there.
This progress report analyzes how the Landers earthquake affects intermediate-term
seismic hazard in southern California. Although some parts of this report are more technical than
others, it does not deal with certain issues that would be detailed in a more formal scientific
paper. A more thorough study (Phase II) will assess expected ground motions in the major urban
areas, and more fully treat the regional effects of the Landers earthquake, the implications of the
new paleoseismic data, and earthquake probabilities on major faults in a broader region of
southern California. This Phase I report does not replace the 1988 and/or 1990 reports, nor does
it alter their basic conclusions. Damaging earthquakes are a fact of life in California and a high
probability exists for one or more within the next thirty years.
6
I 1 �L1_1_LL1_I11J11I-�_L
ILLLll i 1 I 1 I I 1 I I LLLl_LLl I I I I I I I I I 1 11LL�L111�1.11--1-11L1-Lu.1.LLLLlL1-L1-11 1LLL
- 11 '
,I
• °
q e
• r o W Q�
LID
COO
z 00
O • O • I / n M .0
cn
7 C'41
00
Ay
11Z 7 00
on
L)
J ° O J
to
o q i
00
Y ° U o
e
en
D i J�(/ /. / N O
Jill 1111 111111111 1111 1111 Jill 1111 lirr-11,111'r,T
0 0
LO
M M
7
3 0' 2 0' 10' 1 1 6 °
d.
2 0'
•a
'4
� 1
10
o —
• is
1•^c a
q f
50'
20 KM '
Figure 2B. Distribution of epicenters of the Landers and April 22, 1992, M6.1 Joshua
Tree aftershocks. Red star is epicenter of Landers mainshock;blue circles are subsequent
aftershocks. Green circles are aftershocks related to the Joshua Tree earthquake.
8
III. RECENT SEISMICITY
The Landers earthquake is the latest in a series of damaging earthquakes that have struck
southern California over the last six years. The rate at which southern California earthquakes
have been occurring, especially those of M5 and greater, has increased noticeably over the last
several years. Awareness has been heightened by the number of damaging events between M5.5
and M5.9 occurring northeast of Los Angeles in the highly urbanized San Gabriel Valley.
Although southern California lacks an adequate historical perspective with which to consider the
significance of this increase in seismicity, it is interesting to note that in the 50 years preceding
the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the rate of occurrence of moderate-sized earthquakes in
northern California was significantly greater than for the following several decades. Other
studies of seismicity patterns further suggest that earthquakes tend to cluster in space and time.
The annualized rate of earthquakes in southern California plotted by decade beginning in
1945 (Figure 3) appears to indicate an increase in the last 7.5 years. For M4.0 and above events,
the rate has not changed much with time, although since 1985 the rate appears to have increased
slightly over the previous two decades. However, when considering only larger earthquakes, the
difference between decades appears to be greater. For M5 and above, the most recent interval has
a rate 1.7 times the average of the past four decades, and for M6 and above, the rate for the last
interval is 3.6 times the average of the same period (Table 1). The implications of this change
will be considered in Section VII-C of this report.
Finally, a series of maps (Figure 4) show a change in the spatial distribution of
earthquakes greater than M4 on a decade by decade basis. Before 1985, the San Jacinto fault, the
Mojave desert, and the Imperial Valley were the sites of many shocks of M4 and larger;
earthquakes of M6 and larger were rare and scattered. Since 1985, shocks of M5 and above have
been concentrated in the San Gabriel Valley, along the southern San Jacinto fault, and most
recently, in the Landers/Big Bear/Joshua Tree region northeast of the San Andreas fault.
IV. THE LANDERS AND BIG BEAR EARTHQUAKES
A. General Information
The Landers and Big Bear earthquakes remind us that not all large southern California
earthquakes occur directly on the San Andreas fault. Thus, while the San Andreas is the most
significant fault in California, earthquake preparedness must not focus solely on this fault.
Although this earthquake sequence was unforeseen, it occurred on faults previously classified as
active (Morton and others, 1980). The surface faulting from the Landers earthquake occurred
almost entirely within one or more special studies zones (Hart and others, 1988) already
delineated by the California Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology under
the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones act for designating active faults, but the actual
combination of faults along the zone of rupture was not anticipated. Most active faults in the
Mojave Desert have apparently formed in the last 6 to 10 million years (Dokka, 1983), roughly
the same period over which the southern San Andreas fault, the Gulf of California, and Salton
Trough developed.
. 9
I
Table 1. Changes in Rate of Earthquakes in Southern California
Parameter 1945-1984 1985-1992
a-value (annual average for the period) 4.40 3.09
b-value (average for the period) 0.88 0.57
Annual rate, magnitude? 5.0 1.0 /yr 1.7 /yr
Annual rate, magnitude>_ 6.0 0.13/yr 0.48/yr
The a-and b-values come from the empirical Gutenberg-Richter relation,N(M)=10(a-W)or loglON(M)=a-bM,for
ttic number of earthquakes,N(M),above magnitude M. The a-value is a constant and a measure of the size of the
population,while the b-value,also a constant,is a measure of the relative numbers of events of different magnitudes.
The a-and b-values are determined from linear regression analyses of earthquake magnitude statistics.
10 Map.'_4.0
e
6
4
2
0
} 2.0 Map.>.5.0
(n
1.6
W
Q 1.2
D
O 0.8
cr 0.4
Q
W 0
08 Maq.'_6.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
O
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
TIME(Yr.)
Figure 3. Annualized rate of earthquakes in southern California plotted by decade beginning in
1945. Although California Institute of Technology's Southern California Seismographic
Network has recorded earthquakes since 1932, consistent determinations of magnitude to the
nearest 0.1 units have been made only since 1945 (Hutton and Jones, 1992). Thus, the figure uses
decade averages beginning in 1945 except for the last 7 1/2 years.
10
1945 - 1954 I 1955 - 1964
II�IIIII�III�IIIII�IIII�II�IIIIIll111W11� 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
35' ° o ® 'A 35* °� o
° ° °
o O
O 9 00
0 0 ° 0
° ° °° •
m o ° o0
34° o 0 ° 0O,5 070 34° o ° 00 BO ° o
o ° 0 ° O
0 0 per° o
33° 50 KM t o 33° 50 KM e �oAB°a0
° II''''''IIII
LLl_LL o 1L1 W o °
0 0
121 ° 120° 119° 118° 117° 1160 121 ° 120° 119° 118 117° 116°
1965 — 1974 I I 1975 - 1984
l�lllllllllllllllllllllllllll111111.�1111111111�11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII W
o • 0 0
° o
35* •°
35° • o
° ° 00 O o
0 0 °
° °°
0
o � m °°
34° ��� °° 0 34*
'�CyD�— ° 0 0 ° _
0 0
° O o
° m ° 00 o%D
Cr
O
33°
50 KM �V 33° S �M 0
0 0 °
°
0 0
0
L1JL1.1 0
_ 0 0
o °
>T<
121 ° 120° 119° 113° 117° 116° 121 ° 120° 119° 118° 117° 116°
1985 — 1992.5
MAGNITUDES
0 %0 O ° 0 4.0+
o
35° °00 O 5.0+
0
0 0 0
o O • o
0
34* man°- o Q 7.0+
0
0 0
Its ° •
o °o W
33' 50 KM ° O Ob 0
M
121 ° 120° 119° 118° 117° 116°
Figure 4. Epicenter locations of earthquakes of M4 and greater for the southern California
region by decade from 1945 to 1985 compared with the period 1985 to 1992.
11
Earthquakes are driven by the tectonic stress resulting from strain accumulation in the
earth's brittle upper crust. Geodetic and geologic data from the Mojave Desert had previously
shown strain accumulating along a belt through which the Landers earthquake ruptured. This
belt, known as the eastern California or Mojave shear zone (Figure 1), seems to average
approximately 8-10 mm/yr (millimeters per year) of displacement (Savage and others, 1990;
Dokka and Travis, 1990), and apparently transfers motion from the San Andreas fault in the
Imperial Valley to the Basin and Range province in eastern California, Nevada, and Utah. The
San Andreas system in California is responsible for approximately 35 mm/yr of displacement,
with another few mm/yr offshore to make up a total of 48 mm/yr (DeMets and others, 1990) on
the North American-Pacific plate boundary. Thus, the Mojave shear zone accommodates about
15-20 percent of the strain occurring along the plate boundary -- enough to be seismically active
in historical time, but at a lower rate than for the main faults farther west. Over any time scale
appropriate for public planning, the San Andreas and its related faults will continue to be
southern California's most active fault.
In retrospect, the Landers earthquake sequence began with the M6.1 Joshua Tree
earthquake of April 22, 1992. This earlier event occurred with no sign of surface faulting on an
unmapped north-south fault in the westernmost part of Joshua Tree National Monument. Its
aftershocks, while largely restricted to a zone between the San Andreas and Pinto Mountain
faults, gradually spread northwards over the next two months. The June 28, 1992, Landers
earthquake began with a rupture on the north-south trending Johnson Valley fault, which is north
of the east -west trending Pinto Mountain fault and slightly offset from the trend of the Joshua
Tree rupture (Figure 1). This new rupture then propagated further north, along parts of the
Homestead Valley, Emerson, and Camp Rock faults, extending over 70 km to the Rodman
Mountains. In addition, the aftershocks of the Landers earthquake extended from the epicenter
southwards across the Pinto Mountain fault and towards the San Andreas fault. The slip averaged
3-4 m (meters) and reached a maximum of approximately 6 m in Upper Johnson Valley. Three
and one-half hours after the Landers event, a fault near Big Bear slipped at roughly right angles
to the Landers rupture, but did not break the earth's surface. This slip resulted in the M6.5 Big
Bear earthquake. Both quakes have been followed by long trains of aftershocks typical for their
size (Figure 2a). Because of the temporal and spatial proximity of the Landers and Big Bear
events, we regard the latter to be an aftershock of the former. It is not unusual for the largest
aftershock of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake to be of magnitude 6.5.
B. Foreshocks and Aftershocks
We consider the M6.1 Joshua Tree earthquake of April 22 to be a preshock to the Landers
earthquake. Its epicenter was about 30 km south of the Landers epicenter, on the same fault
system, but probably on a different fault plane. The Joshua Tree earthquake had unusually high
activity aftershock sequence for a M6.1 mainshock and included about 6000 aftershocks prior to
the Landers earthquake. They mostly occurred on a previously unmapped north-northwest
trending fault extending from the San Andreas fault to the Pinto Mountain fault; some occurred
on a few small parallel faults (Figure 2b). In early June, the Joshua Tree aftershocks began to
spread north of the Pinto Mountain fault, toward the future epicenter of the Landers mainshock.
12
Most of these events were east of the impending Landers rupture, but in retrospect, a few were
i - Landers foreshocks, having occurred at the site of the future Landers epicenter.
Many Joshua Tree aftershocks (Figure 2b) occurred on, and helped define the fault
system responsible for the Landers mainshock -- a composite fault structure that trends north-
northwest at its southern end and northwest at its northern end. These Joshua Tree events at least
partially contributed to stress loading (discussed briefly below) on the eventual Landers zone.
The largest aftershock to the Landers event was the Big Bear quake; this shock occurred on a
separate, northeast-trending fault, located in the San Bernardino Mountains west of the Landers
rupture. Additional aftershocks occurred: (a) in a patch northeast of Barstow, about 20 km north
of, and on trend with the northernmost extent of the Landers rupture, and (b) in a couple of small
patches east of the rupture. Although the Joshua Tree and Landers aftershocks did not cross the
San Andreas fault, earthquakes following the Big Bear event occurred southwest of the San
Andreas fault along the trend of the Big Bear aftershocks sequence.
The magnitude distribution and temporal pattern of aftershocks to the Landers earthquake
have behaved normally for a M7.5 mainshock. Generally, the number of aftershocks in a given
sequence increases exponentially with magnitude of the mainshock. Thus, there have been a
great many aftershocks -- the Southern California Seismic Network recorded more than 10,000
events in the 45 days from June 28 to August 11. Given the present pattern of aftershock
behavior, the aftershocks in the Landers/Big-Bear sequence will continue for at least three years.
The aftershock pattern for the Landers and Big Bear earthquakes can be used (Jones,
1992; also see Appendix) to estimate the probability of an aftershock occurring in a given
magnitude range in a given time period (Table 2). The chance of more aftershocks capable of
damage (M>5) over the next three years is high (95 percent). Such events pose little risk in most
of the Landers rupture zone because of its low population density, but this is less true for an
aftershock in the Big Bear area. Independent estimates of the probabilities for Landers and Big
Bear aftershocks using the method outlined in the Appendix indicate that the Landers-only
probabilities are very close to those shown in Table 2, while those for Big Bear are much smaller
-- only 1 percent in the next year for a M6 or greater. This estimate is a consequence of the
smaller magnitude of Big Bear's mainshock. It is probably better, however, to consider the Big
Bear event and its aftershocks as a part of the Landers sequence. An extension of the Big Bear
1 rupture in another M6 is physically plausible.
Table 2. Aftershock Probabilities for Combined Landers/Big Bear Sequence
Starting September 1, 1992
Ma nig tude I Y_rr
>5 85% 95%
>6 23% 34%
I
13
C. Distant Triggered Earthquakes
Within minutes after the Landers earthquake, local earthquake activity increased abruptly
at widely scattered sites across the western United States (Figure 5; Reasenberg and others,
1992). This increase, while unusual, was not unprecedented. Some distant triggering may have
been caused by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake -- notably a M6+ event in the Imperial Valley
on the afternoon of the same day. Previous observations have shown that earthquakes can be
induced or triggered by filling and emptying reservoirs, injecting and extracting fluids through
deep boreholes, mining, detonating underground nuclear explosions, and other earthquakes.
Aftershocks usually occur within one or two fault-lengths of the mainshock, however, with areas
farther away generally remaining unaffected. Nevertheless, for the Landers event, triggered
earthquakes appear to have occurred as far away as 17 fault lengths (1250 km).
The clearest observations of probable triggered activity come from areas north and east of
Landers (Figure 5). Indications of a widespread increase in earthquake activity in southern
California also exist, but these remain equivocal because the regional earthquake catalog is
incomplete -- an unavoidable consequence of backlogged processing due to the Landers
aftershocks. In areas such as the Long Valley caldera and the Geysers, normally high seismicity
rates became even higher in a sudden surge which started within 30 seconds after the local arrival
of the seismic waves from the Landers quake and while the most energetic portion of the seismic
waves from the Landers mainshock was still passing through these regions. In less active
regions, such as Mono Basin, Mt. Shasta, and the White Mountains, the earliest candidates for
triggered earthquakes are those detected between 8 and 24 hours after the mainshock. A dramatic
increase in the earthquake rate occurred along the Sierra Nevada - Great Basin boundary from
Owens Valley to Lake Tahoe. In the southern Cascade Range in California, seismic activity
increased in areas near Mount Shasta, Medicine Lake Caldera, and Lassen Peak, but did not
change further north in other volcanic centers of the Cascades.
In southern Nevada and eastern California, triggered events occurred in a broad zone
extending northward from the Landers earthquake aftershock zone through Death Valley, east to
Cedar City in southwestern Utah, and up to Yellowstone National Park. The biggest of these
earthquakes was near Little Skull Mountain, Nevada, with a magnitude of 5.6, 22 hours after the
Landers earthquake. The seismicity rate did not increase along the creeping section of the San
Andreas fault or in the San Francisco Bay region. No rate changes were observed in northern
Arizona, in the Rio Grande Rift zone in New Mexico, or along the Wasatch fault zone in Utah.
The causal relationship between the Landers earthquake and distant triggered earthquakes
is unknown. However, the threat to public safety from similar long-distance triggering associated
with future large earthquakes appears to be limited. The increased rate of events within two fault-
lengths of the Landers mainshock might be explained by the static change in stress resulting from
the Landers rupture. The occurrence of small events in more distant geothermal areas such as Mt.
Shasta and Lassen Peak may be attributed to the dynamic stresses associated with seismic waves,
which are much larger than the static stress change at those distances. Oddly, earlier large
earthquakes near Cape Mendocino (i.e., the April 25, 1992 M7.2 Cape Mendocino earthquake
and its large aftershocks) which were much closer to Mt. Shasta and Lassen Peak, did not trigger
earthquakes in these same areas.
14
Figure 5. Top panel: Earthquakes listed in regional network catalogs for northern California,
northern and southern Nevada, and Utah in the 10-day period before the June 28, 1992 Landers
earthquake. All magnitudes are shown. Bottom panel: The same region for the 10-day period
after the Landers earthquake.
10 DAYS BEFORE LANDERS EARTHQUAKE
42•
° \ -
MAGNITUDES 1 1
° 0.0• 41• 1 i
1.0. O
t -
• • O ,
O 2.0• 40 \`
3.0. O
5.0• 1 •
37• b: . \ \•.
36, ti•� 1
,d
35• 1 1
O
O
34• q '
� - 1
33°
soo KM e
124• 123° 122° 121° 120• 1)9° 18 1 117• 116° 115• 114• 113•
10 DAYS AFTER LANDERS EARTHQUAKE
42° l��diltlihl�tltliltlilply,lWL1
MAGNITUDES
.1
o.o. 41• j�}
O
0 2.0+ 40• , oa
p 3.o• • . o
•I O
0
4.0. 79°
O 5.0• 11 Oe p�O j
38* �I i
Wo
°a I
37- j- `4
° •Hp Q o
36° '•b
j oq, o
0
35°
33° '
500 KM S
t I I I 1 -__J \ •\
TM TTT*FRTnTTMjMT RiT*TTnTN*TTiTi—riT—"T
124• 123° 122° 121• 120° 119° 118• 117° 116° 115° I1',• 113•
15
A question raised by the public is whether two nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site
(NTS) on June 19 and 23 might have triggered the Landers earthquake. Previous explosions at
NTS have triggered earthquakes, but only very close by, even when the explosions have been
much larger than the two in question, which were magnitude 3.0 and 3.9. As the earlier
discussion makes clear, the Landers earthquake had a more effective source of triggers much
closer-- namely the many aftershocks of the earlier Joshua Tree earthquake.
V. STATIC STRESS CHANGES CAUSED BY THE LANDERS EARTHQUAKE
SEQUENCE
WGCEP 90 employed a quantitative method (after Dieterich, 1988) to include static
stress changes to assess the effect of one event on the probability of a future event on a nearby
segment. Including this effect for faults in the Bay Area slightly increased the estimated
probabilities on most fault segments there and a similar calculation in southern California might
increase the probability in that region.
Has the Landers earthquake changed the failure state of the San Andreas fault? One
estimate of the proximity to failure on a fault is given by the Coulomb failure stress, which
specifies that failure is promoted when there is an increase in the sum of the shear stress (acting
on the fault plane) plus the friction-coefficient times the extensional stress (acting perpendicular
to the fault plane). Stress changes by the Landers earthquake sequence have been modeled by
Stein and others (1992), Harris and Simpson (1992), and Jaume and Sykes (1992).
Models indicate that moderate-sized earthquakes near Landers from 1975 to 1992
increased the proximity to failure along the impending Landers rupture. Stress changes resulting
from the 1975 Galway Lake, 1979 Homestead Valley, 1986 North Palm Springs, and 1992
Joshua Tree earthquakes together caused an increase of about 1 bar (note: 1 bar equals 15 lbs/in2
and corresponds to atmospheric pressure at sea level) in the proximity to failure at the future
Landers hypocenter(Figure 6, Panel A). This is about 1-2 percent of the stress drop that occurred
during the Landers earthquake. A similar stress transfer is consistent with the triggering of the
Big Bear earthquake 3 hr and 6 min after the Landers shock. The Landers rupture increased by 1-
3 bars the proximity to failure at the Big Bear hypocenter (Figure 6 -- Panel B, and Figure 8).
The Landers and Big Bear earthquakes also increased the static stresses on parts of the
San Andreas fault (Figures 7 and 8). The largest estimated stress changes of 5-10 bars occurred
along parts of the San Bernardino Mountains segment (Figure 8), which would have brought
these parts closer to failure by an amount estimated to be equivalent to an advance of 10-20 years
in the timing of the next large earthquake (Table 3). Smaller stress changes on the San Andreas
fault to the southeast are estimated to have brought parts of the Coachella Valley segment closer
to failure by an amount equivalent to 3 to 10 years. The Mojave segment to the northwest was
slightly relaxed by the Landers-induced stress changes, by an amount equivalent to a delay of 0.3
to 10 years. The ranges in clock advances reported above are a consensus among Stein and others
(1992) and Harris and Simpson (1992) and reflect differences in models and assumptions
regarding fault geometry and averaging stress along the fault. Among other faults brought closer
to failure in the models, parts of the San Bernardino Valley and San Jacinto Valley segments of
the San Jacinto fault zone are estimated to have experienced a clock advance of about 5-8 years.
16
1�lgure 6,
Panel A: Optimum COU10I11b failure
stress changes (for a static friction
coefficient, l , of 0.4) caused by the four
W!5.2 shocks within 50 km of the
t Landers earthquake occurring during the
previous 17 years. The optimum right-
lateral fault planes are shown by the
b
short sh
h Landers
in to the lack lines. N o
o
epicenter and much of the fault rupture
lies within the zone of elevated stress.
Panel B: Optimum Coulomb failure
»<_« stress changes (forµ=0.4) caused by the
Change In Right-Lateral Landers rupture. The optimum left-
Failure Stress ? . Slip Unes
(13M) -1.0-0.8-0.E-0.4-0.2-0.00.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 In black lateral fault planes are shown by the
short white lines. The left-lateral Big
Bear rupture, which followed the
Landers shock by 3 hr 6 min, occurred
in the largest region of stress increase of
the Landers rupture. From Stein and
others (1992).
Change In LsR Lateral
Failure Stress Slip Lines
(be-) -2.0-1.0-1.2-0 8-0A-0.0 0.4 0.8 12 1.8 2.0 In white
17
� 4
irk 6� r r 3
yA
y ;� $
F4
4•
F� F
r:
Y S
fN.
1
4
�i.
F
Failure Stress
Chan bars Earthquakes within
Change S 25 days of Landers
9 � Main Shock El
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 7. Optimum Coulomb failure stress changes caused by M?6 earthquakes in southeastern California during 1979-
1992. A regional compressive stress of 100 bars is oriented N7°E. Landers aftershocks are from Caltech-USGS network
(M?1). Stress changes caused by die Imperial Valley(IV),Elmore Ranch(ER)and Superstition Hills(SI I)earthquakes arc
included. Stress has risen in the Coachella Valley (Bombay Beach to north of Indio) and the San Bernardino Mountains
segments(north of Palm Springs to Cajon Pass). Stress has dropped on Mojave segment(Cajon Pass to west edge of map).
Y= Yucaipa. Other faults arc Elsinore (EF),San Jacinto(SJF),Garlock (GF),Camp Rock(CRF),Pisgah(PF),Lenwood
(I,F),and Blackwater(BF). From Stein and others(1992).
1 O
i
Figure 8. Changes in Coulomb failure stress for selected southern California faults and for fault
planes of five M>4.5 aftershocks to the Landers earthquake. Red indicates that a fault was
loaded toward failure in the model, and blue indicates relaxation. Landers rupture = yellow
patches, SAFZ= San Andreas fault zone, M = Mojave segment, SB = San Bernardino Mountains
segment, CV = Coachella Valley segment, SJFZ= San Jacinto fault zone, SBV = San Bernardino
Valley segment, SJV = San Jacinto Valley segment, A = Anza segment, BM = Borrego
Mountains segment, SMF = Superstition Mountains fault, SHF =Superstition Hills fault,
IF=Imperial fault. M>4.5 aftershocks: bb =Big Bear Lake, br= Barstow, m = Mojave,
p =Pisgah, rc =Ridgecrest. From Harris and Simpson (1992).
Panel A: Changes in Coulomb failure stress for a low apparent coefficient of friction, µ=0.2,
which could represent either weak faults or the presence of pore fluids moderating the normal
(perpendicular) stress changes.
Panel B: Changes in Coulomb failure for a high apparent coefficient of friction, µ= 0.8, which
could represent either strong faults or, if pore fluids are present, the failure situation after enough
time has passed for the fluids to re-equilibrate.
Note that four of the five M>4.5 aftershock fault planes were brought closer to failure by the
Landers-induced Coulomb failure stresses.
19
A) µ=0.2
rc ® Garlock fault
;:
br �
San Andreas p
Zone b
A4 q
. � San✓a�L _ � .
nto F q
avh<one
50 km
B) µ=0.8
rc A Garlock fault
br®
M �.
San Andreeas
h Zone b
-�-- M B
o Pat,�2o
50 km
-5 0 5
Change in Coulomb Failure Stress (bars)
Figure 8
20
Table 3. Data Used to Estimate Clock-Advance Probabilities
Fault Last Mean Recurrence Standard Time Since Clock
Segment Event Interval (vrs) Deviation * Last Event (�rs) Advance (yrs) **
Mojave (SA) 1857 162 0.41 135 - 0.3 to -10 ***
San Bernardino
Mountains (SA) 1812 198 0.60 180 10 to 20
Coachella
Valley (SA) 1680 258 0.30 312 3 to 10
San Bernardino
Valley (SJ) 1890 t 102 5 to 8
San Jacinto
Valley (SJ) 1918 t t 74 5 to 8
* The standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the ratio of the expected recurrence time to
its mean.
** Derived using a plausible range of models, including the plate model of Stein and others
(1992) and the halfspace model of Harris and Simpson (1992).
*** For this segment the clock was delayed 0.3 to 10 years.
t Data not available.
VI. PLAUSIBLE FUTURE LARGE EARTHQUAKES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
THE LANDERS EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE
The WGCEP 88 report stated that there is a relatively high level of seismic hazard in
southern California from the "ripeness" for rupture of the southern San Andreas fault. Since then,
there have been new developments: (a) regional earthquake activity has increased since 1985
compared with the previous two decades, (b) the Landers earthquakes has occurred, and (c) the
stress toward the failure limit has been increased on parts of the San Andreas fault. These factors
may increase the chances of large earthquakes in southern California. However, the most
probable outcome is for no M>7 earthquake in southern California during the next few years. In
the last two centuries, the region has experienced about eight earthquakes greater than M7 (Table
4). If these large earthquakes are assumed to occur randomly in time, then this record implies a
probability rate of about 4 percent per year.
In this section we consider the potential for a major earthquake (M>7) occurring within
approximately 100 km of the Landers rupture in the next few years (refer to Figure 1). If such an
event were to occur, it would most likely nucleate on either a segment of the southern San
Andreas fault, the northern San Jacinto fault, or a fault in the Mojave shear zone. Below we
review the most plausible large earthquake scenarios on these structures given the occurrence of
the Landers earthquake sequence.
21
vor
Table 4. Big Earthquakes in Southern California
Year Month DU M Location
1812 12 8 7 Wrightwood
1812 12 21 7 Santa Barbara Channel
1857 1 9 8.2 Fort Tejon
1872 3 6 7.6 Owens Valley
1927 11 4 7.3 Southwest of Lompoc
1940 5 19 7.1 Imperial valley
1952 7 21 7.7 Kern County
1992 6 28 7.5 Landers
Data from Ellsworth(1990),and this report. Note that two large earthquakes,apparently separated by more than
100 km,occurred within two weeks in 1812.
Table 5. WGCEP 88 Fault Segments
Fault Se2men Lengt h Last 30-yea
,(km) Event ProbabiliLv
San Andreas Mojave 100 1857 0.3
San Andreas San Bernardino Mountains 100 1812 0.2
San Andreas Coachella Valley 100 1680 0.4
San Jacinto San Bernardino Valley 50 1890(?) 0.2
San Jacinto San Jacinto Valley 65 1918 0.1
San Jacinto Anza 50 1892(?) 0.3
22
A. Southern San Andreas and Northern San Jacinto Faults
The southern 300 km of the San Andreas fault has been divided into three distinct
segments, based upon the geometry of the fault, its historical seismicity, and the availability of
paleoseismic data -- the Mojave, San Bernardino Mountains, and Coachella Valley segments.
The northern San Jacinto fault has been divided into the San Bernardino Valley, San Jacinto
Valley, and Anza segments (WGCEP 88; Figure 1 and Table 5). Paleoseismic data from several
sites along the San Andreas (Table 6) indicate that large coseismic ruptures may commonly
involve more than one segment. The multiple-segment character of the historical 1857 Fort Tejon
and 1906 San Francisco ruptures support this conclusion. The possibility that recent prehistoric
large earthquakes were produced by single segments acting alone, however, cannot be excluded
by the paleoseismic data. Radiocarbon dating (the most commonly used method to date
prehistoric earthquakes) cannot always distinguish two earthquakes occurring on two adjacent
segments within a few decades of one another from a single event involving both segments, and
vice versa. Thus, an earthquake at one site may be correlated with an earthquake at another site
based upon indistinguishable radiocarbon ages, even though the events may be decades apart.
Such a correlation would tend to overestimate probabilities of larger events.
(1) San Bernardino Mountains Segment: This segment is the most geometrically
complex part of the southern San Andreas fault. The northwestern end of this segment was
defined (WGCEP 88) as the southeastern limit of the 1857 rupture, northwest of Cajon Pass. It is
also, in effect, the intersection of the San Jacinto fault with the San Andreas. The southeastern
end of the segment was defined to be San Gorgonio Pass. By this definition, the San Bernardino
Table 6. Earthquake Surface Rupture
Coachella an Bernardino Mojave Carrizo
Valle v Mountains
Earthquake Indio Pitman Cajon Wrightwood Pallett Mill Cardzo
Canyon Creek Creek Potrero
1857 X X X X
1812 X X X X
1690 X X ? X
1590 ? ? X ?
1490 X ? ? X X X X
Recent trenching studies at Wrightwood,Pitman Canyon (near Devore)and Indio,combined with the previous work
by Sieh (1978)at Pallett Creek,give more precise dates and sizes of earthquakes on the San Andreas fault than were
available in 1988.No information exists at Pitman Canyon for 1690.Cajon Creek suffered two additional events
between 1290 and 1812;but dates are unknown. 1690 is a revised estimate of the date of the"1680"event referred
to by WGCEP.The 1680 date is used in Tables 3 and 5 for conformity with WGCEP 88.
23
Mountains segment includes most of the San Andreas fault between the southern tail of the
Landers/Joshua Tree earthquake sequence and the southwestern tail of the Big Bear aftershock
zone (Figure 2a). Results discussed earlier indicate that the Landers and Big Bear ruptures
decreased the normal stress and increased the right-lateral shear stress on this portion of the San
Bernardino Mountains segment between the two aftershock zones. Furthermore, a small patch of
the San Bernardino Mountains segment slipped in the North Palm Springs earthquake of 1986
(Jones and others, 1986), indicating that this segment may be ready for a larger rupture.
Its relatively long period of dormancy may also indicate that the San Bernardino
Mountains segment may be near failure. Sites at Wrightwood, just a few kin northwest of the
segment and at Pitman Canyon within the segment, show evidence of ruptures in 1690 and 1812.
If the 1690 event is the same one detected at Indio, then it must have ruptured the entire San
Bernardino Mountains segment. Likewise, we might assume the event in 1490 ruptured through
the segment because of surface rupture at both Indio and Wrightwood. If the 1812 earthquake
ruptured the San Bernardino Mountains segment, then the mean recurrence time since 1490 is
about 167 years (502 divided by 3), and an elapsed time since rupture is 180 years. If, on the
other hand, the 1812 event did not continue southeast of Wrightwood/Pitman Canyon, then the
mean recurrence time is 251 years (502 divided by 2), and the elapsed time is about 300 years. In
both cases the elapsed time exceeds the mean recurrence time.
Two facts suggest, however, that the San Bernardino Mountains segment may not be in
imminent danger of failure: (a) The North Palm Springs earthquake did not trigger a larger
earthquake, and (b) very few aftershocks (potential triggers) of the Joshua Tree, Landers, or Big
Bear earthquakes have occurred on the San Andreas fault. The aftershocks near Yucaipa are a
concern, especially those with focal mechanisms expected for San Andreas fault earthquakes,
and these continuing aftershocks and the strain field accompanying them merit careful
monitoring. Should additional moderate sized earthquakes occur on the San Bernardino
Mountains segment, the likelihood for future rupture of this segment would increase.
Immediately following the April 22, 1992, Joshua Tree event (M6.1), the USGS office in
Pasadena applied the model of Agnew and Jones (1991) to determine the probability that an
earthquake of a given magnitude on the San Andreas fault is a foreshock to a larger earthquake.
The OES was notified that there was a 5 to 25 percent chance of a large earthquake on the San
Andreas fault within the 72 hours immediately following the Joshua Tree event, and OES issued
a public advisory. However, because Agnew and Jones (1991) did not consider the possibility of
a large earthquake sequence (such as Landers/Big Bear) that had numerous aftershocks in the
vicinity of the San Andreas fault, it may be inappropriate to use their model to estimate the
probability that Landers/Big Bear aftershocks will be foreshocks to a larger San Andreas event.
At this point, the hazard ensuing from the occurrence of such an earthquake cannot be quantified,
but as is the case with most potential aftershocks, the chance that a large San Andreas earthquake
would follow a M6 is probably small. Still, the consequences of such an event are serious and it
would appear to be appropriate that OES take precautionary measures including planning for an
alert and mobilization in response to a M6 or larger event occurring on or near the San Andreas
fault between Cajon Pass and Bombay Beach.
If the San Bernardino Mountains segment should fail in the next few years, its complex
fault geometry suggests that the coseismic deformation will also be complex; the event would
24
probably be well over M7. Assuming a 25 mm/yr long-term slip rate (Weldon and Sieh, 1985),
between 4.5 and 7.5 m of right-lateral displacement would occur along the principal rupture, with
the potential for a lesser, but not insignificant, component of reverse slip. The large number of
active secondary structures and numerous changes in strike and dip along the segment suggest
that aftershock activity could be unusually robust and complex.
(2) Coachella Valley Segment: The Coachella Valley segment is the most likely
segment of the San Andreas fault to fail in the next 30 years (WGCEP 88). This conclusion was
based on paleoseismic data near Indio which indicate that between about 1000AD and 1700AD
the average time interval between large earthquakes was about 230 years, but that the most recent
seismic rupture occurred about 300 years ago. As noted earlier, calculations indicate that the
Landers and Big Bear ruptures slightly increased the right-lateral shear stress on this fault
segment. If this segment fails soon, right-lateral offsets of about 9 meters could be expected
given the current period of dormancy and long-term slip rate of about 30 mm/yr.
(3) Mojave Segment: This segment was not strongly perturbed by the Landers and Big
Bear earthquakes or their aftershocks, and the stress may have moved farther from the failure
limit by a small amount. Nevertheless, this segment is relatively hazardous (WGCEP 88), and the
Landers event has not changed this conclusion.
(4) Combinations of San Andreas Segments: Since 1988 new paleoseismic data have
become available (e.g., Table 6), and our understanding of seismicity along the southern San
Andreas fault system has advanced. The paleoseismic data show that either earthquakes
frequently rupture across segment boundaries or that adjacent segments tend to rupture within a
short time of one another (Sieh and others, 1989). Simultaneous rupture of the San Bernardino
Mountains and Coachella Valley segments is certainly plausible, and this scenario would entail
rupture of the southern 200 km of the San Andreas fault in an earthquake of about M7.8.
Part of the 100-km-long Mojave segment moved with the San Bernardino Mountains
segment in 1812 and could do so again. If the Mojave segment failed in conjunction with the San
Bernardino Mountains and Coachella Valley segments, the rupture length would be about 300
km, and the earthquake would be about M8. The probability for such a multisegment event is
lower than that for the individual segments.
(5) Northern San Jacinto fault: Although the southern half of the San Jacinto zone has
produced numerous moderate earthquakes throughout the past half century, the northern half has
been seismically quiet since the occurrence of major earthquakes in 1899 and 1918. Earthquakes
greater than M7 are plausible on the Anza, San Jacinto Valley and San Bernardino Valley
segments (WGCEP 88). The Landers sequence caused the stress to move closer to the failure
limit on the San Bernardino Valley and San Jacinto Valley segments of the San Jacinto fault,
although to an even smaller extent than it did on the sub-parallel San Andreas.
25
B. Miscellaneous Faults of the Mojave Shear Zone
I
The Landers earthquake was generated by the sudden failure of interconnected fault
segments on several different faults within the south-central part of the Mojave shear zone. Many
more fault segments within this 90-km-wide zone of active right-lateral faults did not fail during
the earthquake, but, because of their proximity to the rupture, fall within the region of
appreciable coseismic static stress change. As discussed earlier, modeling of the stress change
indicates that some of these structures experienced effects that would inhibit failure, while others
underwent changes that might accelerate failure. Furthermore, the Landers and other earthquakes
in southern California over the last 7 1/2 years may indicate increased stress over a broad region.
This stress might be large enough to push some unrecognized fault toward the failure point.
The recurrence of major ruptures along each active fault in the Mojave shear zone is
probably measured in millennia, rather than centuries. If this is correct, the annual probability of
rupture of any one fault would be much lower than for faults of the San Andreas system where
recurrence intervals are typically shorter by an order of magnitude. Furthermore, several of this
century's M>7 earthquakes, including the 1954 Dixie Valley-Fairview Peak, 1932 Cedar
Mountain, 1915 Pleasant Valley, and 1872 Owens Valley earthquakes, effectively occurred on a
northward extension of the Mojave shear zone and have originated on faults with similarly long
recurrence intervals. The dates of the most recent large earthquakes on faults of the Mojave shear
zone are unknown, however, and one or more could be similar to the Landers rupture -- i.e.,
"ripe" for failure. The larger ones could generate M7 earthquakes if they were to fail, making any
of these faults, singularly or in conjunction with its neighbors, a possible source for the next
major earthquake in southern California.
Of particular concern is the Calico-Blackwater fault zone. Since the Landers event, a
well-defined zone of aftershocks has been developing just southwest of this fault zone -- to the
northeast of Barstow (Figure 2a). The spatial relationship of these quakes to the Calico-
Blackwater faults resembles that of the Homestead Valley earthquakes in 1979 to the Homestead
Valley/Johnson Valley faults on which the Landers rupture occurred. Another area of concern is
a gap in aftershocks between the northern termination of the Landers rupture on the Camp Rock
fault and a zone of aftershocks northeast of Barstow (Figure 2a). This roughly 40 km gap could
be filled with a M6+ aftershock, thus affecting the Barstow area.
VII. INTERMEDIATE-TERM (1 TO 5 YEAR) PROBABILITY ESTIMATES
In the last section we examined the likelihood of failure of the faults within 100 km of the
Landers rupture. In this section we quantitatively assess the probability of earthquake
occurrences in the intermediate term for regions potentially impacted by the Landers earthquake
as well as for greater southern California. We first consider the immediate impact of the Landers
earthquake sequence on the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults, and then examine probabilities
for the greater Landers and southern California regions without regard to specific faults. For the
latter we rely mainly on earthquake catalogs. Because few historical precedents exist and those
that do are for rather different circumstances, probability cannot easily be addressed as frequency
of occurrence or as a description of well-categorized randomness. Rather, probability must be
26
interpreted as betting odds. We consider a number of techniques below, covering a spectrum
from very empirical to very model dependent. Generally the empirical techniques are based on
global earthquake observations which are numerous but fail to capture the special circumstances
of the present case. The model-dependent techniques are based on assumptions that are
reasonable but untestable because of insufficient data.
The probability estimates below are for periods beginning September 1, 1992. Most are
driven by the fact that no large earthquake has occurred between the time of the June 28, 1992,
Landers earthquake and September 1, 1992, and we have explicitly included this fact.
A. Southern San Andreas and Northern San Jacinto Faults
The WGCEP 8.8 report calculated the probability of a large event on a specific segment of
the San Andreas fault given the time elapsed since the last such event, but did not address the
effects of one fault or segment of fault upon another. The report assumed that earthquakes on a
given segment are quasi-periodic, with a probability density function for inter-event times given
by the log normal distribution.
Since the Landers earthquake did not occur either on the San Andreas or San Jacinto
fault, we assume that it did not reset the clock to zero for any of the San Andreas or San Jacinto
segments. However, one way to approach a revision in probabilities (WGCEP 90) for these faults
is to add the time it would take to accumulate aseismically the change in Coulomb failure stress
on the San Andreas or San Jacinto fault caused by the Landers earthquake to the elapsed time
since the last earthquake ("clock advance"). We estimated one-year probabilities for segments of
the southern San Andreas and the northern San Jacinto from the data in Table 3. They were not
perceptibly different from those calculated using the same methods as WGCEP 88, without the
clock advance. The negligible change in probability predicted by the clock advance method may
not adequately reflect the change in seismic hazard. It is based on a simple quasi-periodic model
for earthquake occurrence that may not capture the true physics of stress interactions following a
large earthquake. The sequence of quakes beginning with the 1975 Galway Lake earthquake and
culminating with the Landers event suggests that the stress increment form each earthquake
helped trigger the next one. Another remarkable sequence of earthquakes occurred along the
North Anatolian fault in Turkey from 1939 to 1944. However, examination of global earthquake
catalogs shows that such apparent triggering is far from universal. When considering failure
criteria, the irregular geometry and heterogeneous distribution of strength along a fault may be
more important than stress increments from nearby earthquakes. Since more time is needed to
discuss these issues, we will defer a more complete analysis of the probability estimates for
individual segments of the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults to the Phase I1 report.
B. Greater Landers Region
Let us now estimate the probability of a large earthquake (M>7) occurrence in the greater
Landers region without regard to specific faults. For convenience, this region will be described
by a rectangular box with latitude range 33.50 N to 35.50N and the longitude range 115.50W to
117.50W (Figure 1). Using data for the southern California catalog from 1932 through 1991
27
A. Landers: Computed Intensity
35.0
Barstow p
34.8 ,
ads r;,
� s\
34.6
34.4 - -"
34.2 Pasadena Q
San Bernardino Q Yucca Valley
.+ .
Los Angeles A
J 34.0 Q Riverside
t 3
p Palm SpringsQ
z 33.8
Q Santa Ana
33.6 �s
s
33.4
33.2
33.0
-119.0 -118.5 -118.0 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 -116.0
East Longitude
V VI VII VIII IX
Intensity (Modified Mercalli)
B. Barstow (Calico): Predicted Intensity
35.0 j
Barstow' ^a a.':'iia�s'�:
34.8 . em[ .✓ sy
z. r �i t
K"43 '
34.6
34.4 ?.
t ... mss•♦ ;. . �i... y` ti
j34.2 Pasadena Q San Bernardino 1.
Q x QYucca Valley
Los Angeles Q '�<
J 34.0 p Riverside
t
0 33.8 Palm Springs Q
Q Santa Ana
33.6
33.4
33.2
hill
33.0 d
-119.0 -118.5 -118.0 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 -116.0
East Longitude
aro.. ru1YlNlw �1�JII I
C. San Andreas (S.B Mtn.): Predicted Intensity
35.0
\ v ,
34.8
L Na\tri
34.6zw `�2 i x
34.4 ,
\�\
34.2 .\YC ,'rb `'�`•f,F
.:a1 •'�...Pasadena
.a. �.
an Bernardino v;Y�pYuccv Valley
o Los Angelespr i ra\°i "' ►R.
-� 34.0 „ Q Rverside
P A ac
z° 33.8 t> ,;`*" "� <:. ,r,a 3 Palm,Sp 33.8 - p* zz
\ cQ Santo Ana \ \s
33.6 \ 2 w \ E r + aa> A ,"M.
33.4
33.2 r
33.01 tj
-119.0 -118.5 -118.0 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 116.0
East Longitude
<1,
Y�
V VI VII VIII IX
Intensity (Modified Mercalli)
35.0 D. San Andreas (Coachella): Predicted Intensity
Barstow Q
ix
34.8
to x
34.6
34.4
34.2 �`:`
Q
Pasadena San Bernardino
,& a. QYucca Valley
o Los Angeles,&
-� 34'0 Q Riverside '
Z 33.8 Palm Springs r
Q Santa Ana z �.
33.6
z
33.4 � >s
33.2
3
33.0
-119.0 -118.5 -118.0 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 `116.0
East Longitude
k
Awk
is
E. San Andreas (S.B Mtn. + Coachella): Predicted Intensity
35.0
Bars tow Q
I
34.8
34.6
34.4
v ,
> ti
#r 41111!34.2 k : , x
> 2..:. Son BernardinoQ r Yucco Valley
z
+r Los AnyN��`
34.0 �x p Riverside
t �
p Palm Spnngs Q
z 33.8
QSanta Ana
33.6tt
33.4
33.2
33.0
-119.0 -118.5 -118.0 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 -116.0
East Longitude
PIN „ a
V VI VII VIII IX
Intensity (Modified Mercalli)
F. San Andreas (S.B Mtn. + Mojave): Predicted Intensity
35.0
Barstow Q
34.8
34.6
�<
34.4 `
7 34.2 : Q
Pasadena *kSon�BernardinoQ £ QYucca Valley
J Los Angeles
7-M.,
34.0 Riverside
sr>
O '` s Jl�Po lm Spnngs Q
z 33.8
Q Santa Ana r �
33.6
71
33.4 s
Sk \
332
y
33.0
-119.0 -118.5 -118.0 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 -116.0
East Longitude
z i,
G. San Jacinto (North): Predicted Intensity
35.0
Barstow p
s
34.8
'I �
34.6 — I'M�Tk
'+,\�
34.4
34.2
a< 2 Son Bema►fino QYucca Valley
Log AngelesC.;\c ; ..:>� „e \ \ Z
—� 34.0 River�de ,k 2
Y'
z° 33.8a��;A> >� Pa Spnngs p
33.6
33.4
33.2
33.0
—119.0 —118.5 —118.0 —117.5 —117.0 —116.5 —116.0
East Longitude
°Ksk
V VI VII' VIII Ix
Intensity (Modified Mercalli)
35
Table 9. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 (Steinbrugge, 1982)
IV. During the day felt by many, felt outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes,
windows, doors disturbed; walls make creaking sound. Sensation like heavy truck
striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc. broken; a few
instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbance of trees, poles, and
other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI. Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few
instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.
VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and
construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly
built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving
motor cars.
VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial
buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of
frame structures. Fall of chimney, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy
furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water.
Disturbs persons driving motor cars.
IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures
thrown out of plumb; damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse.
Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes
broken.
Table 10. Observed and Predicted Landers Intensities
Place Observed Predicted
Barstow VI-VII VI 1/2
Cherry Valley VI VI
Forest Falls VII VI 1/2
Joshua Tree VII-VIII VIII
Los Angeles VI IV 1/2
Morongo Valley VII VII 1/2
Palm Springs VI+ VI 1/2
Pasadena V-VI IV 1/2
Redlands VII VI
Yucca Valley VIII VIII
36
IX. CONCLUSION
The Landers earthquake occurred on a series of interconnected fault segments within the
Mojave shear zone, which accommodates 15-20 percent of the total displacement across the
North American-Pacific plate boundary. The surface faulting from the Landers earthquake was
almost entirely within one of the Special Studies zones designating active faults, although the
actual combination of faults along the zone of rupture was not anticipated.
One reason for public concern over the Landers earthquake is the perception that there
have been many earthquakes lately. This perception is accurate for southern California. Since
1985, M5 and larger earthquakes have occurred at a rate 1.7 times higher than for the previous
four decades. For M6 and above, the rate is up by a factor of 3.6. We do not know if this change
represents a short-term fluctuation or a persistent trend.
The Landers event belongs to an earthquake sequence which includes the 1975 Galway
Lake (M5.2), 1979 Homestead Valley (M5.6), 1986 North Palm Springs (M6.0) and 1992 Joshua
Tree (M6.1) quakes. The stress redistribution from these events is estimated to have increased the
stress toward the failure limit along most of the future Landers rupture by about l bar. The
Joshua Tree earthquake occurred April 22, 1992, on the same general fault zone as the Landers
rupture, and in early June its aftershocks began to spread northward toward the future epicenter
of the Landers mainshock. In retrospect, we consider a few of these events to be Landers
foreshocks occurring at the site of the future Landers epicenter.
The stress redistribution inferred for the Landers earthquake itself increased the stress
toward the failure limit for some segments of the San Andreas fault (by up to 10 bars for the San
Bernardino Mountain segment and less than one bar for the Coachella Valley segment), but
decreased it for the Mojave segment by somewhat less than a bar. Most significantly, it increased
the stress toward the failure limit by about 3 bars in the rupture area of the Big Bear quake
(M6.5) which occurred 3 hr and 6 min after Landers. We consider the Big Bear quake to be an
aftershock of the Landers earthquake because it was within one rupture length of the Landers
mainshock and had a magnitude consistent with the normal distribution of aftershock sizes for a
M7.5 mainshock.
The local aftershocks of the Landers earthquake have behaved normally for a M7.5
mainshock. The aftershocks in the Landers/Big Bear sequence will continue for at least three
years. Table 11 gives probabilities of aftershocks for the combined Landers/Big Bear sequence
with magnitudes greater than the specified value for various periods beginning September 1,
1992.
Table 11. Aftershock Probabilities
Magnitude 1 Year Probability 3 Year Probability
>5 85% 95%
>6 23% 34%
The Landers event was followed by a sudden increase in the rate of seismicity over a
large area of western United States, particularly in geothermal areas along the Sierra Nevada-
Great Basin boundary from Owens Valley to Lake Tahoe and as far north as the southern
Cascades. Such widespread distant triggering of earthquakes is largely unprecedented. While the
triggering mechanism is not well understood, there is some evidence that dynamic stresses
generated by seismic surface waves spreading from the epicenter may be responsible.
To address the prospect for large (M>7) earthquakes in the in the next few years in
southern California, some plausible earthquake scenarios have been enumerated, their effects on
urban areas of southern California described, and their intermediate-term probabilities estimated.
The most likely outcome is that no large earthquake (M>7) will occur within 100 km of the
Landers rupture in the next few years. If one should occur it is most likely to originate on one or
more of the following structures:
♦ Miscellaneous faults of the Mojave shear zone, including the Helendale, Lenwood, Old
Woman, Springs, northern Johnson Valley, Cal ico-Black water, Rodman-Pisgah, or the
southern half of the Emerson fault.
♦ The San Bernardino Mountains and Coachella Valley segments of the San Andreas fault,
or a combination of the San Bernardino Mountains segment with either the Coachella
Valley segment or the Mojave segment, or with both.
♦ The northern San Jacinto fault.
Ground shaking has been simulated for the Landers earthquake and for some of the
plausible earthquakes listed above based on existing information about the earthquake source,
seismic wave propagation, and geologic site conditions. The simulation yielded a distribution of
seismic intensities in general agreement with observations from the Landers earthquake. The
high intensity for the epicentral area agrees with levels of damage actually experienced and
accelerations as high as 0.9g recorded in the epicentral area. Fortunately such strong shaking
only occurred in sparsely populated areas. As shown on the simulated intensity maps, potential
events in the Mojave shear zone will have effects similar to the Landers quake. Those on the San
Andreas and San Jacinto faults, however, could cause severe shaking in more urbanized areas.
How probable are any of the above plausible earthquakes? According to statistics based
on global earthquake catalogs, the probability that a large earthquake (M>7) follows another
sharply drops after two months from the occurrence of the first one. Using various formulas, the
probability of a large earthquake (M>7) in the greater Landers region was estimated to be 2 to 5
percent within 1 year from September 1, 1992. However, the yearly probability for at least one
M7 or larger earthquake somewhere in greater southern California is estimated to be at least 5
percent and up to 12 percent. The larger figures reflects the recent increased seismicity in
southern California. The range of values quoted above also allows for the stress redistribution by
the Landers earthquake and the ripeness of the southern San Andreas fault.
38
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended scientific follow-up to the Phase 11 report is as follows:
♦ The new paleoseismic data for the southern San Andreas fault should be incorporated into
a revision of probability estimates. For example, these data suggest that the background
probability for a large earthquake may be substantially higher than that estimated in 1988,
and that the segment boundaries assumed by WGCEP 88 may need revision in order to
properly describe the potential rupture zones of large earthquakes.
♦ The assumptions underlying the methodology used by WGCEP 88 for estimating
probabilities of earthquake occurrence must be reexamined.
♦ Ground motion parameters including peak ground acceleration, duration of shaking, and
response spectra for periods of 0.1, 0.3, 1, and 3 sec must be estimated. The existing
methodology for calculating these parameters should be validated using the Landers-Big
Bear strong motion data and applied to plausible future large earthquakes.
♦ The probabilities of failure for the numerous major faults in the broader area of southern
California need to be estimated. To express the integrated effects of seismic hazard from
these faults, a strategy for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis must be developed as
soon as possible. It should include the choices of ground motion parameters, mesh size
for site conditions, and exceedance probability.
♦ The regional geotectonic framework of the Landers/Big Bear/Joshua Tree sequence, and
any possible tectonic interrelationships between this sequence and other clusters of
moderate size earthquakes in the San Gabriel and Imperial Valleys must be considered.
Additional Steps:
♦ The California Office of Emergency Services should intensify loss reduction and public
information efforts (public policy) based on the conclusions of this report.
♦ The California Office of Emergency Services should plan for a M6 or greater earthquake
on the San Andreas fault.
39
XI. REFERENCES
Agnew, D.C. and L.M. Jones, 1991, Prediction probabilities from foreshocks: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 96, p. 959-972.
DeMets, C., R.G. Gordon, D.F. Argus and S. Stein, 1990, Current plate motions: Geophysical
Journal International, v. 101, p. 425-478.
Dieterich, J.H., 1988, Probability of earthquake recurrence with non-uniform stress rate and
time-dependent failure: Pure and Applied Geophysics, v. 126, p. 589-617.
Dokka, R.K., 1983, Displacement on late Cenozoic strike slip faults of the central Mojave
Desert, California: Geology, v. 11, p. 305-308.
Dokka, R.K., and C.J. Travis, 1990, Role of the eastern California shear zone in accommodating
Pacific North American plate motion: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 17, p. 1323-
1 326.
Dziewonski, A.M., G. Ekstrom, and M.P. Salganik, 1992, Centroid-moment tensor solutions for
July-September, 1991: Physics of Earth and Planetary Interiors, v. 72, p. 1-11.
Ellsworth, W.L., 1990, Earthquake history, 1769-1989: in R.E. Wallace, ed.,The San Andreas
Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, p. 153-187.
Evemden, J.F., W.M. Kohler, and G.D. Clow, 1981, Seismic intensities of the earthquakes of
conterminous United States--their prediction and interpretation: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1223, 56 p.
Harris, R.A., and R.W. Simpson, 1992, Changes in static stress on southern California faults
after the 1992 Landers earthquake: Nature, v. 360, p. 251-254.
Hart, E.W., W.A. Bryant, J.E. Kahle, M.W. Manson, and E.J. Bortungno, 1988, Summary report:
Fault evaluation program, 1986-1987, Mojave Desert region and others areas: California
Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 88-1, 40 p., 1 plate, 1:500,000.
Hutton, K., and L.M. Jones, 1992, Local magnitudes and apparent variations in seismicity rates
in Southern California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, in press.
Jackson, D.D., K. Aki, and D. Agnew, 1992, Implications of the 1992 Southern California
Earthquakes for Seismic Hazard, Abstract, FOS, v. 73, p. 357.
Jaume, S.C., and L.R. Sykes, 1992, Changes in state of stress on the southern San Andreas fault
resulting from the California earthquake sequence of April-June 1992: Science, in press.
Jennings, C. W., 1992, Preliminary fault activity map of California: California Division of
Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 92-03.
Jones, L.M., 1992, Landers aftershocks and earthquake probabilities for the San Andreas fault in
southern California, Abstract: EOS, v. 73, p. 357.
Jones, L.M., K. Hutton, D.A. Given and C.R. Allen, 1986, The July 1986 North Palm Springs,
California, earthquake: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 76, p. 1830-
1837.
Kagan, Y.Y., and D.D. Jackson, 1992, Calculating and updating earthquake probabilities,
Abstract: EOS, v. 73, p. 366.
Kagan, Y.Y., and D.D. Jackson, 1991, Long-term earthquake clustering: Geophysics Journal
International, v. 104, p. 117-133.
40
Morton,D.M., F.M. Miller, and C.C. Smith, 1980, Photoreconnaissance maps showing young-
looking fault features in the southern Mojave Desert, California: t1.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF1051, scales 1:24,000 and 1:62,500, 7 sheets.
Pacheco, J.F., and L.R. Sykes, 1992, Seismic moment catalog of large shallow earthquakes,
1900-1989: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 82, p. 1306-1349.
Reasenberg, P.A., D.P. Hill, A.J. Michael, R.W. Simpson. W.L. Ellsworth, S. Walker, M,
Johnston, R. Smith, S.J. Nava, W.J. Arabasz, J.C. Pechmann, J. Gomberg, J.N. Brune, D.
DePolo, G. Beroza, S.D. Davis, and J. Zollweg, 1992, Remote seismicity triggered by the
M7.5 Landers, California, Earthquake of June 28, 1992, Abstract: EOS, v. 73, p. 392.
Reasenberg, P.A., and L.M. Jones, 1989, Earthquake hazard after a mainshock in California:
Science, v. 243, p. 1173-1176.
Savage, J.C., M. Lisowski and W.H. Prescott, 1990, An apparent shear zone trending north-
northwest across the Mojave Desert into Owens Valley, eastern California: Geophysical
Research Letters, v. 17, p. 2113-2116.
Sieh, K.E., 1978, Pre-historic large earthquakes produced by a slip on the San Andreas fault at
Pallett Creek, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 83, p. 3907-3939.
Sieh, K. E., M. Stuiver, and D. Brillinger, 1989, A More Precise Chronology of Earthquakes
Produced by the San Andreas Fault in Southern California: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 94, no. B 1, p. 603-624.
Stein, R.S., G.C.P. King, and J. Lin, 1992, Change in failure stress on the southern San Andreas
fault system caused by the 1992 M=7.4 Landers earthquake: Science, 258, in press.
Steinbrugge, K.V., 1982, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tsunamis: An Anatomy of Hazards:
Skankia America Group, New York, 392 p.
Toppozada, T.R., C.R. Real, and D.L. Parke, 1988, Earthquake history of California: in W.H.K.
Lee, H. Mayers, and K. Shimazaki, eds., Historical Seismograms and Earthquakes of the
World: Academic Press, p. 267-275.
Weldon, R.J., and K.E. Sieh, 1985, Holocene rate of slip and tentative recurrence interval for
large earthquakes on the San Andreas fault in Cajon Pass, southern California:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 96, p. 793-812.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1988, Probabilities of large earthquakes
occurring in California on the San Andreas fault: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 88-398, 62 p.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1990, Probabilities of large earthquakes
in the San Francisco Bay region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1053, 61 p.
A,
Appendix
Estimation of Aftershock Probabilities
The aftershock pattern for the Landers and Big Bear earthquakes can be used to estimate
the probability of an aftershock occurring in a given magnitude range in a given time period.
More than 100 years of observed seismology has firmly established the fact that the frequency of
aftershocks decreased as a function of time from the mainshock origin time according to Omori's
law,
N(t) = K (1)
(t+c)r
where N(t) is the number of aftershocks per unit time, t is time since the mainshock, and K, c and
p are constants which vary from one aftershock sequence to another.
The magnitude distribution follows the Gutenberg-Richter relation for the number of
earthquakes of different magnitudes,
N(M) = 10(a-bM) (2)
where N(M) is the number of events above some magnitude, M, and a and b are constants.
The parameter K in equation (1) above depends on the magnitude of the mainshock, with
larger mainshocks producing more aftershocks. Aftershock data suggest that the "triggering
potential" of a mainshock obeys
K = 10(a'+b Mm) (3)
where a' is a constant, b is the same constant appearing in (2), and Mm is the magnitude of the
mainshock. We can combine (1), (2), and (3) to get the rate of aftershock occurrence, X(t,M,Mm),
X(t,M,MM) = l0a„+b(Mm-M)(t+c)-t' (4)
where a"=a'+a.
The aftershock pattern for the Landers and Big Bear earthquakes can be fit to these
equations, yielding the values of the constants given in Table I. Using these constants, the
probability of future damaging aftershocks in this sequence can be computed following the
procedures of Reasenberg and Jones (1989), who determined values of a, b, c, and p for many
California aftershock sequences. The constants for the Landers/Big-Bear sequence are very close
to average values for California earthquakes as shown in the following table.
Knowing the parameters in Omori's Law and the Gutenberg-Richter relation for a
particular aftershock sequence allows one to describe the sequence. This description also gives
an estimated probability of an aftershock occurring in a given magnitude range in a given time
period (see Table 2 in Report).
A_fter.shock Parame erS
Sequence a b
Landers/Big Bear -1.78 0.85 0.85 0.04 0.99
Landers only -1.97 0.85 0.01
Big Bear only -2.60 0.90
1.16 0.09 0.93
California average _1.76 0.90
0.05 1.07
42
I'Y � � �
AU
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO c, G ` X992 D
PLANNING DIVISION
BVfLUfNG SV"
V CS/VG&
OPPICIAL NOTICE
PUBLIC HIlARNN
STATE OF oIv
S%. EN THAT ITY OF
CALIFORNIA, SAN a7 ARDINO
County of San Aernardino, WILLNIHOLD JPUBLIIC
HEARING ON ESDAY
SEPTEMBER 1"2 Af
The undersigned hereby certifies as follows: 700 PA&IN COUN-
CIL CHAMBE S CITY
HALL 300 N RN D-
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, and not a STRE9T, SAN ERNAR-
DINO, �AL FORNIA
party to nor interested in the above-entitled matter; I am the principal clerk of the 92418 ON E oLLOw-
printer of a newspaper, to wit, The Sun; the same was at all times herein mentioned a ING ITEMS:
PAMNL MAP NO. 14M'
newspaper of general circulation printed and published daily,including Sunday,in the AND VARIANC K N0.tt-
ti-sub property is a
City of San Bernardino, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; said rectangu -shapedPer-
newspaper is so published every day of the year as and under the naineof The Sun,said eel of lend oonsattnR n
P y Y Y about o.6 acres 1ocaMtr on
has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation b the Superior the west side a t-E-
newspaper trees
1 g g Y Pe and on the east side t>t
Court of the State of California, in and for the Count of San Bernardino, b a 'ud Acacia Avenue approxi-
mately 225 feet north of the
ment of said Superior Court duly made, filed and entered on June 20, 1952, in the centerline of 28th Street
and having a front Of
records and files of said Superior Court in that certain proceeding entitled In the Mat- about 120—.--.- Estreet
and on AcacIa Avenue.
ter of the Ascertainment and Establishment of The Sun as a Newspaper of General Cir- The aPPIIcarM requests to su
culation, numbered 73084 in the records of civil proceedings in said Superior Court "�parcels into f04 vpar
and by judgment modifying the same,also made, filed and entered in said proceeding; piec'e.eThe apciccaant asso
requests nroval o ion
the notice or other process or document hereinafter mentioned was set, printed and Variance of CC
19.04.030(1) to establish
published in type not smaller than nonpareil and was preceded with words printed in parcels less than the mini-
mum required lot area and
black face type not smaller than nonpareil describing and expressing in general terms width In the Rs,Residen-
tial Suburban General
the purport or character of the notice intended to be given; and the Plan land use designation.
Owner: PACIFIC STAR
DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF Appticant: BONADIMAN
. . . . . . . . . .0 . . RU$L�C HEARING. . . . . . . . . . . ENGINEERS, INC.
Ward: 7
97-1.6, 92-05r 91-01 GENERAL PLAN
. . . . AMENDMENT NO. 92-05
. . . . . . . . . . . . - Subiect properties are
two rectangularly-shaped
of which the annexed is a true printed copy, was published in each edition and issue of parcels of land consisting
of about 1.93 acres located
said newspaper of general circulation, and not in any supplement thereof, on each of at the northwest corner of
6th Street and Sierra Way
the following dates, to wit: having a frontage of about
300 feet on the north side of
6th Street and having a
frontage of 280 feet on the
west side of Sierra Way
and further described is
being located at 600 and
applicant
North eqS Sf 1!G-hne-
AUGUST 21, 1992 eras Plan Amendment ro
evaluate
General Plan frrom the
current RH, Residential
High designation to the
Co-1, Commercial Office
designation.
Owner: ROBERT J. b
NANCY W. SEDLAK
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Applicant SAME
Ward:. 1
Executed on the 21 day of
San Bernardino, in said County
'A0V4.H1
I
lam«b01e0r 101 NMn�atanlo aNtrl!
Proof of Publication
D f f' ft IC r nn —
1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO NOV i 1991 '
DEPARTML
BUILDi,, ,
NOTICE OF
CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING BEFORE
THE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL
STATE OF CALIFONN[A, u SAN BERNARDIOF
County of San Bernardino,
THE PUBLIC HEARING
before the Mayor and
The undersigned hereby certifies as follows: common council of the
City of San Bernardino to
consider Development
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, and not a Agreement No. 91-01 has
been continued from No-
party to nor interested in the above-entitled matter; I am the principal clerk of the ve b r 2 1992 t m,Decem-
ber
printer of a newspaper, to wit, The Sun; the same was at all times herein mentioned a council North bersf City
newspaper of general circulation printed and published daily,including Sunday,in the San Bernardino,CA 92418.
Development Agreement
City of San Bernardino, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; said No.91-01 is a proposal for
newspaper is so published everyday of the year as and under the name of The Sun,said the development of a muIlti-phased expansion
newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Mall consisting of up 3
Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, by a judg- a second anchor torthe mail
ment of said Superior Court duly made, filed and entered on June 20, 1952, in the and 3-4 parking roper-
� y J lures.The subject proper-
records and files of said Superior Court in that certain proceeding entitled In the Mat- ty is an irregularly-shaped
Parcel of land consistinp of
ter of the Ascertainment and Establishment of The Sun as a Newspaper of General Cir- about 62.5 acres located on
the south side of Inland
culation, numbered 73084 in the records of civil proceedings in said Superior Court Center Drive east of I-2151
and west of 'E" Street.
and by judgment modifying the same,also made, filed and entered in said proceeding; Owner:west
Management
the notice or other process or document hereinafter mentioned was set, printed and Co./Sears Roebuck a
co/Carter Hale Stores-
published in type not smaller than nonpareil and was preceded with words printed in /May Co. Stores.
Applicant:General Growth
black face type not smaller than nonpareil describing and expressing in general terms Development, Inc.
the purport or character of the notice intended to be given; and the Ward: 3
The Mayor and Common
NOTICE OF CO'117 Council of the City of San ILIUED P[1ALIC HEARING Bernardino will review the
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Project and consider the i
DF-7,11PER 7, 1992 GENERAL GROWTH DEVELOPMENT, INC. ti ePODecla action and Miti-
gation Monitoring/Report-
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mg Program in making its
decision on this project.
The Mayor and Common
rioted m Council of the city of San
of which the annexed is a true
p copy,was published in each edition and issue of Bernardino request your
said newspaper of S an supplement general circulation, and not in ement thereof, on each of Participation in evaluating
Y PP this proposal.You are wel-
the following dates, to wit: come to speak at the
Council meeting or to sub-
mif written comments pri-
or to the hearing. The De-
velopment Agreement,
Mitigated Negative Decla-
ration and Mitigation
NOVEMBER 6, 1992 gram documents
viewed at the Planning
and Building Services De-
partment, Monday
through Friday, 7:30 a.m.
to 4:30 P.M. at 300 North
"D" Street, 3rd Floor, San
Bernardino, CA, 92418.
Should You desire further
information,please do not
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. hesitate to call the Plan-
ning and Building Services
Department by phoning
(714) 384-5057. 1
If You challenge the resul-
tant action of the Mayor
and Common Council or
Executed on the . . . . 9 day of NOVEMBER 92 anv aspect thereof in
I9 , et court,You meY be limited
to raising only those issues
San Bernardino, in said County and State. You or someone„else NO.3
raised at the public hear-
ing described n this no-
tice, or in wri Wen corre-
spondence delivered to the
Planning and Building Ser-
vices Department at, or
05M4r81 prior il, the public
heart 114(104) 1615
¢g yy z tag Y
�h
t �SH �!3• �f N^ b S. ,�`<�{ �: �➢�:� i° r }3 d �tl �
GRAPHIC/A4
Mexico City tremor shows local danger. C� Local officials prepare for Big One.
U Sylmar quake victim shares experience. U Records of an 8.3 ternblor in 1857.
la What to do before and after a ternblor. U S.B. Valley used to be all water.
Y, �{
FY 1
Y
Y
rzR�
I
d
A"
,4 j�axY
k 7a
!f
14 ALL ON AS
Ca
Geophysicist Art Frankle displays seismic waves of the San Bernardino Valley for a 6.5-magnitude earthquake. QM PHOTO
Now
.w
The Sun
SUNDAY, February 7, 1993
,Area o hakf 3011
■ Officials say If a large determined that some parts of, scale — is overdue on the sec- The chief reason is San Ber-
'tembior were to hit locally, the valley would experience ma- tions of the San Andreas Fault_ nardino's eolo
$ _ gy. The deep
the dirt under the San Jor Shaking for ihany seconds af- that run from the High Desert rock basin' is filled with sand
ter the fault stopped rupturing. through the San Bernardino and gravel Washed down by the
Bernardino Valley could Some soil even could liquefy, and Yucaipa areas and into the Santa Ana River and other
liquefy. causing the surface to sag under Coachella Valley. mountain streams for thousands
the weight of buildings, roads In November, a government of years. Such basins trap pow-
ByVI POLLARD and pipelines.
Los Angeles Bureau panel concluded that a major erful waves of earthquake en-
There's no reason for panic quake on the San Bernardino ergy; continuing to :wiggle for
—although everyone should be Mountains segment of the San many seconds after the main
San Bernardino sits on a prepared for what would be a Andreas or the northern end of quake shock 6hds.
hard-rock basin filled with , terrWing event, scientists say, the Sate Jacinto fault, near M6, - Wit"P99" tt) the last great
loose, wet sand and gravel sedi- A wide area could experience city's south edge, would shake earthquake on the San Andreas
ment. damage, but not devastation. the San Bernardino Valley in SouthernCglifornia—an 8.3
That's good for growing Overall, the experience would worse than any other urbanized magnitude blast %n'1857 — at-
oranges. be comparable to what hap- area. ""6sted to the phenomenon,
But when it comes to a major pened in the 6.4-magnitude Syl- The panel said it probably according to research by Cali-'
earthquake,it's bad. mar quake of Feb. 9, 1971, said would cause damage even to fornia Institute of Technology
Thomas Henyey, director of the well-built structures, shift seismologist Kerry Sieh. Al-
The ground beneath San Southern California Earth- buildings off their foundations if though the quake's epicenter
Bernardino would wobble in a quake Center at the University they're not bolted down and was more than 100 miles away, '
major quake like a bowl of Jell- of Southern California. break underground pipelines— north of Fort Tejon in the Teha-
O. Recent research by a U.S. A major quake - possibly damage similar to that caused chapi Mountains, Sieh esti-
Geological Survey scientist has measuring 7 or 8 on the Richter by the San Fernando quake. See QUAKES/A5
,Quakes: S.B. -on shaky
ground
Continued from Al perience much less shaking. bined with water agencies'efforts
mated the shaking in the San Some officials also are con- to pump out the ground water
Bernardino area lasted 3 minutes cerned that high underground have reduced the liquefaction ,
— longer than anywhere else in water levels beneath parts of the danger area by 80 percent, said
the region. valley could result in liquefaction Joe Stejskal of the San Bernardi-
Similar geology explains why in a major quake. In liquefaction no city water department.
' Mexico City suffered extensive loosely packed, water-soaked He said the highest water lev-
damage in 1985 from a magnitude sediment can turn into a thick liq- el now is 17 feet below ground
8.1 earthquake centered 240 uid that cannot support the dry level near Mill Street and Arrow-
miles away. ground above it. This tan cause head Avenue. Beneath city hall,
the ground surface to break and he said, the depth is 50 to 60 feet
Recent computer research by slide sideways or tilt unevenly below the surface, a sharp drop
geophysicist Arthur Frankel of under heavy buildings. Liquefac- from 22 feet in 1984.
the U.S. Geological Survey's Res- tion was partly responsible for
ton,Va.,office,demonstrates how the damage to San Francisco's This month's heavy rains will E ,
trapped seismic waves can Marina District during the 7.1- have no immediate impact on r
bounce up and down and back magnitude Loma Prieta earth- ground water levels. They are af- f'
and forth in the basin beneath the quake in 1989. fected primarily by seepage from
San Bernardino Valley to pro- A decade-old study of lique- runoff in the nearby mountains,a
long the ground shaking in some faction potential in the San Ber process that takes about five
areas. years,Stejskal said.
nardino Valley by U.S.Geological
The worst shaking probably Survey geologist Jonathan Matti Louis Fletcher, general man-
would occur in areas of deepest warned that water levels less ager of the San Bernardino Val-
sediment, which are found along than 30 feet from the surface pose ley Municipal Water District,said
the Santa Ana River and under a moderate to high danger of liq- his agency remains very con-
the central and southern parts of uefaction-caused ground failure. cerned about the remaining po-
the city,Frankel concluded. Nor- In the early 1980s, Matti tential for liquefaction near the
ton Air Force Base may be prone found that several square miles of Santa Ana River bed and Lytle i
to some of the strongest shaking, the city, area Creek.
ty, from the downtown
he said. south to the Santa Ana River,had So do seismologists.
Areas where bedrock reaches water levels ranging from 30 feet
to the surface, such as Perris Hill
to within a few inches of the Sur- Said Frankel: "To the extent
And the Shandin Hills near Cali- face. that you have liquefaction. the
k
1 " '
CIT`! OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTDMENT
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNC
SUBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-01 WARD #
3
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Subject property is an irregularly-shaped rcel consisting of about 62 . 5 acres located on the south side off Inland
Center Drive and east side of I-215 and west of "E" Street.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests approval of a Development Agreement t
govern the development of a multi-phased expansion project at
Inland Center Mall consisting of u o
a second level to the mall and 3-4 to 3 new major anchor tenants,
parking structures.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: _
o..
SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL - o#AA•f
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "D"STREET _ (/
SAN BERNARDIN0, CA 92418 �• V snow
[TE
HEARING DATE AND TIME: o u o s
Monday, October 19 , 1992 2 : 00 ar,�co7�
A detailed description of the o .'.''. ''
pr posal is on file in the Planning and Building Services ••'• '''''
Department at City Hall.If youwould like further information about this proposal prior to the '•• ••
public hearing,please contact the Planning I k •-
ng and Building Services Department in person
or by phoning(714)3845057. •,�`i•: �::
The Mayor and Common Council Is requesting your participation.If you are unable �.� ••••
to attend.you may submitt written comments in favor of or in Opposition- 1 I rat the Planning and Building in Ciy al the proposal to
Street.San Bernardino,California 92418.
g g Services Department.San Bernardino City Hall,300 Nonh'D"
. ................:.
•••••••...._:.
Decisions of the Planning Commission are final concerning building movings,Con- •••••• •::::::
ditional Use Permits. Review of Plans. Tentative Traci Maps and Variances. unless •• same.
:r
appealed to the Mayor and Common Council.Appeals to the Mayor and Common Council
must be made in writing,stating the grounds of the appeal,and must be submitted to the ..•••
City Clerk along with the appropriate fee within fifteen days of the decision(ten days for
Parcel Maps and Tentative Traci Maps).
General Plan Amendments and Amendments to the Municipal Code will ...iJ
CallY be forwarded to the Mayor and Common Council for final action. •`i`
It you challenge the resuflant action of the Mayor Y and Common Council in court.you „� �• •
maybe ed to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearinq O���K ��0�
this notice.or in written Correspondence delivered to the Cily Planning Division
o.the public hearing. '
ve millf119s oer