LOWE’S DEIR... · • Lands to the north are designated UBP-2 and General Commercial (CG-1). • Lands to the south are designated Light Industrial (IL). • Lands to the west are

Terra Nova/City of San Bernardino Lowe’s/Draft Environmental Impact Report

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

III-1

LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, PROJECT IMPACTS, AND

MITIGATION MEASURES. A. Land Use Compatibility 1. Existing Conditions Current Land Use The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of the existing Gannett Parkway, which is proposed for relocation to the northwestern project boundary. The gasoline service station located at the southwestern corner of Hallmark Parkway and University Parkway is not part of the proposed project, and will remain. The site has been previously cleared or graded, as evidenced from the lack of native vegetation on the property (please see Biological Resources, below). The project site is bounded on the north by Hallmark Parkway, on the east by University Parkway, on the south by the Macy retention basin, and on the west by industrial land uses and Georgia Boulevard. Land Use Designations The site is designated University Business Park (UBP-2), a land use defined as appropriate for local and regional retail and service uses in the General Plan. The proposed use of the site as a home improvement warehouse, general retail and restaurants, is consistent with this land use designation. The General Plan Land Use Map, Exhibit III-2, illustrates the site’s General Plan designation, and surrounding designations. Lands surrounding the project site are designated as follows:

• Lands to the north are designated UBP-2 and General Commercial (CG-1). • Lands to the south are designated Light Industrial (IL). • Lands to the west are designated UBP-1. • Lands to the east are designated CG-1.

III-1

Project Site

Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, Hallmark ParkwayAerial Photo

San Bernardino, California

Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, Hallmark ParkwayGeneral Plan Land UseSan Bernardino, California

III-2

Source: The City of San Bernardino General Plan



III-4

Surrounding Land Uses The proposed project site is located in an area which is generally built out. Lands to the north are mostly developed in retail uses, including a Super Walmart store, convenience and neighborhood retail and similar land uses. Lands to the northwest are partially developed, and include a medical office complex and light industrial land uses. Lands to the south are developed in public uses, including the Macy retention basin, a regional flood control facility, and railroad tracks. Further to the south is the unincorporated community of Muscoy, and a mix of quasi-industrial and residential land uses. Lands to the west are developed in a number of light industrial uses, including the Sun newspaper printing facilities, warehousing, and similar land uses. Some vacant land also occurs on the east side of Georgia Boulevard. Lands immediately east of the site include a gasoline service station, and across University Parkway a motel, a hotel, and gasoline service station. The project site is vacant, and is not located near an existing residential neighborhood. As a result, the project will not divide an established community. The project site does not harbor sensitive species, and is not within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan, or a critical habitat area for any species. The project site is not within the Hillside Management Overlay, or within a fire hazard zone. 2. Project Impacts The project site is 14.4 acres, which are to be divided into 3 development areas. The first parcel, consisting of 10.57 acres, will include a 165,500 square foot Lowe’s home improvement warehouse and associated facilities, including a 32,000 square foot garden center. The second parcel (Outparcel #1) consists of 2.67 acres, and will be occupied by a 30,000 square foot retail building. The third parcel (Outparcel #2) consists of 0.96 acres, and will be built out with a 6,000 square foot retail building proposed for two restaurants (at least one of which will be a fast food restaurant with drive-through facilities). The existing Gannet Parkway, located mid-way through the site, is to be vacated and relocated to the northern property line of the proposed project, approximately 450 feet northerly of its existing location. The Lowe’s building is proposed as a single story structure, extending as high as 49 feet in height at the store’s entry. The bulk of the building, however, will be 31’4” in height. A garden center is proposed for the northerly end of the building, and will consist of screening and shade structures. The structure will be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels. Project elevations are shown in Exhibit I-4. The architecture of the buildings proposed on the outparcels, closest to University Parkway, is not known, as no specific structures have been proposed. It is expected, however, that the buildings will be consistent with the development standards of the Development Code for purposes of this analysis. The proposed project will be accessed on both University Parkway and Hallmark Parkway. The former access point will serve the outparcels closest to University Parkway. The primary access for the Lowe’s building will be on Hallmark Parkway.



III-5

The development is consistent with surrounding land uses, as described above. Commercial and light industrial land uses are compatible, particularly with Development Code setback requirements. Similar land uses occur to the north of the project site. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of UBP-2, which is intended to encourage the development of local and regional commercial development. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and the General Plan designation assigned to it, insofar as it is consistent with the following policies:

Goal 2.2: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on surrounding land uses. The proposed project is surrounded on two sides by commercial development, and on one side by light industrial development. The site is located on a major City roadway, and will be conveniently accessed by shoppers who may be able to take advantage of the synergies of multiple retail businesses in one location.

Policy 2.2.1: Ensure compatibility between land uses and quality design through adherence to the standards and regulations in the Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design Element. The proposed project is being reviewed for conformance with the Development Code through a Development Permit. No variance from City standards has been requested, nor is such a variance expected. The project will therefore comply with City standards.

Policy 2.3.1: Promote development that is compact, pedestrian-friendly, and served by a variety of transportation options, along major corridors and in key activity areas. The proposed project will be located on a major City roadway, University Parkway), and will be immediately south of the I-215, at its interchange with University Parkway. The project is located immediately south of residential development to the north of the Interstate. The project is surrounded by other community-serving and regional retail development, which will facilitate “one stop shopping” for these residents.

Development of the project site is proposed to be consistent with, or to exceed, development standards in the Development Code, through the review and approval of a Development Permit. 3. Mitigation Measures None required. B. Air Quality 1. Existing Conditions Air Quality Management and Regulation Federal and state governments have established air quality standards for a variety of pollutants. In 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) became effective on January 1, 1989 and mandated health-based air quality standards at the state level. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed these state standards, which are generally more stringent than federal



III-6

standards. State Implementation Plans (SIP) may also be prepared to help regional air quality management districts meet the federal and state ambient air quality standards by the deadlines specified in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and emission reduction targets of the California Clean Air Act. Regional and local agencies have assumed some responsibility for assuring that state and federal air quality standards are achieved. The City of San Bernardino is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCab). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for establishing air quality measurement criteria and relevant management policies for the SoCab and neighboring air basins. The City of San Bernardino is subject to the provisions of the 1997 SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan1, which sets forth policies and other measures designed to help the District achieve federal and state ambient air quality standards. The 1997 Plan is intended to satisfy the planning requirements of both the federal and state Clean Air Acts. The SCAQMD also monitors daily pollutant levels and meteorological conditions throughout the District. Climatic Conditions and Air Quality The project area and the City of San Bernardino are influenced by moderating coastal influences, though it is far enough inland that temperatures can reach over 100 F during the summer and drop below 40 F during the winter. Wind patterns in the area are controlled by on-shore westerly winds during the day and off-shore easterly winds in the evenings and at night. During fall and winter months climatic conditions associated with high pressure can drive low humidity winds from north to a low pressure system to the south and create a condition known as the Santa Ana winds, which can blow for multiple days. These strong winds sweep up, suspend and transport large quantities of sand and dust, reducing visibility, damaging property and constituting a significant health threat. The project area and the City are also susceptible to air inversions, which trap a layer of stagnant air near the ground where it can be further loaded with pollutants. These occasional inversions create conditions of haziness caused by moisture, suspended dust and a variety of chemical aerosols emitted by trucks and automobiles, furnaces and other sources. During the past few decades, the region has experienced an obvious decline in air quality as a result of increasing development and population growth, traffic, construction activity and various site disturbances. Primary and Secondary Pollutants Pollutants are generally classified in two categories, primary and secondary. Primary pollutants are primarily a direct consequence of energy production and utilization, typically affect only local areas and do not undergo chemical modification or further dispersion. Primary sources and their pollutants are mostly a direct consequence of the combustion of petroleum and other fuels resulting in the production of oxides of carbon, sulphur, nitrogen and a number of reactive hydrocarbons and suspended particulates.

1 “1997 Air Quality Management Plan,” prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1997.



III-7

Secondary pollutants are those that undergo chemical changes after emission. Secondary pollutants disperse and undergo chemical changes under conditions of high ambient temperatures and high rates of solar insulation. Principal secondary pollutants are termed oxidants and include ozone (O3), peroxynitrates, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and chemical aerosols. Ozone (O3), commonly known as smog, is formed primarily when byproducts of combustion react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. This process takes place in the atmosphere where oxides of nitrogen combine with reactive organic gases, such as hydrocarbons, in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas, and a common component of photochemical smog. Most ozone pollutants are transported inland by coastal winds from the Los Angeles and Riverside/San Bernardino air basins, thereby contributing to occasionally high ozone concentrations in the area.2 Exposure to ozone can result in diminished breathing capacity, increased sensitivity to infections, and inflammation of the lung tissue. Children and people with pre-existing lung disease are most susceptible to the effects of ozone.3 Ozone can also cause extensive damage to vegetation. Studies have indicated that leaf drop, stunted growth, burnt tissues, and fewer seeds produced are defects directly resulting from the ozone pollutant. Particulate Matter (PM10) consists of fine suspended particles of ten microns or smaller in diameter, which are byproducts of road dust, sand, diesel soot, wind storms and the abrasion of tires and brakes. Fine particulate matter poses a significant threat to public health. The elderly, children and adults with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease are most susceptible to the effects of PM10. More than half the smallest suspended particles can be inhaled and deposited in the lungs, resulting in permanent lung damage.4 Elevated PM10 levels are also associated with an increase in respiratory infections and occurrences of asthma attacks. Existing federal and state standards have been directed at reducing particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller. However, new standards are currently being developed for particles of 2.5 microns or smaller (PM2.5). State and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter and other primary and secondary pollutants are shown in Table III-1. State standards are generally more restrictive than federal standards.

2 “1997 Air Quality Management Plan,” prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1997.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.



III-8

Table III-1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant State Standards Federal Standards Averaging Time Concentration Averaging Time Concentration Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm 1 hour 0.12 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20.0 ppm 1 hour 35 ppm 8 hours 9.0 ppm 8 hours 9.0 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 0.25 ppm annually 0.053 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 0.25 ppm annually 0.03 ppm 24 hours 0.04 ppm 24 hours 0.14 ppm Suspended Particulate Matter 24 hours 50µg/m3 24 hours 150µg/m3 AGM 30µg/m3 AAM 50µg/m3 Notes: ppm = parts per million AGM = Annual Geometric Mean µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean Source: “1997 Air Quality Management Plan,” prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District. Regional Pollutants of Concern The South Coast Air Basin covers 6,480 square miles, including Orange County and portions of Los Angeles County, San Bernardino and Western Riverside County. This area includes over 43% of the state’s population and is responsible for almost 29% of the state’s total criteria pollutant emissions.5 Air in the South Coast Basin (which includes the City of San Bernardino) exceeds federal standards for fugitive dust, and the area is considered to be in extreme non-attainment for ozone. At times, air quality in the City has exceeded state and federal standards related to carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. The South Coast Air Quality Management District operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The local monitoring stations is the San Bernardino 4th Street Monitoring Station. Table III-2 shows the maximum concentration of PM10, and the number of days exceeding state standards in San Bernardino from 2000 through 2004. From 2000 through 2004, PM10 levels did not exceed federal standards. However, the region’s PM10 levels continue to exceed state standards. Ozone levels at the San Bernardino air quality monitoring station from 2000 to 2004 are illustrated in following table. Recorded data from 2000 through 2004 indicate that ozone levels in the San Bernardino area relatively stable, thought they have exceeded state standards an average of 52 days a year. Federal ozone standards were not exceeded between 2000 and 2004.

5 “The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2006 Edition,” prepared by the Planning and Technical Support Division of the California Air Resource Board, 2006.



III-9

Table III-2 San Bernardino Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

Carbon Monoxide 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 State 8-hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 8-hour > 9.5 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour Concentration ppm 4.14 3.26 3.2 4.45 3.24 Nitrogen Dioxide 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 State 1-hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 1-hour Concentration ppm 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.12 Ozone 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 State 1-hour > 0.09 ppm 48 56 43 59 55 State 8-hour > 0.07 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 1-hour > 0.12 ppm 7 18 6 19 9 State 8-hour > 0.08 ppm 23 38 29 45 39 Maximum 1-hour Concentration ppm 0.149 0.184 0.147 0.160 0.157 Maximum 8-hour Concentration ppm 0.126 0.144 0.112 0.137 0.129 Particulate Matter 10 Microns (PM10) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 State 24-hour > 50 micrograms/cubic meter 32 31 33 23 4 Federal 24-hour > 150 micrograms/cubic meter 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 24-hour Concentration micrograms/cubic meter 108 106 94 98 118 Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Federal 24-hour > 65 micrograms/cubic meter 2 5 3 1 3 Maximum 24-hour Concentration micrograms/cubic meter 89.8 78.5 82.1 73.9 81.9 Source: San Bernardino 4th Street Monitoring Station, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2000 - 2004

2. Project Impacts The proposed Lowe’s project will result in the development of a 14.4 acre parcel for development of a 165,500 square foot home improvement warehouse, a 30,000 square foot retail building, and a 6,000 square foot retail building, as well as ancillary facilities, including parking lots and landscaped areas. Primary air quality impacts are expected to come from the emission of pollutants generated by vehicular and truck traffic. Emissions generated by fugitive dust from site disturbance and other construction activities will also negatively impact local and regional air quality. This discussion describes the major sources of air pollutants associated with the development of the project and calculates the potential emissions.



III-10

Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust generation is associated with site preparation of the 14.4± acres. Table III-3 illustrates the fugitive dust which can be expected to be generated by the proposed project as a result of site disturbance.

Table III-3 Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential

Total Area to be Total Potential Disturbed at Build Out* Factor Dust Generation 14.4 ± acres 26.4 lbs./day/acre 380.16 lbs./day Source: Table A9-9, “CEQA Air Quality Handbook,” prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. * Acreage represent all lands to be developed through build out of the project. Does not reflect planned phased development and therefore represents the worst possible case, i.e. disturbance of the entire site at one time. Mass grading of the site is expected for the proposed project. The emissions of fugitive dust for the project will be temporary, and can be expected to last four to six weeks. As discussed above, development grading and site stabilization is tightly regulated in the South Coast Air Quality Basin. Detailed grading and dust control plans must be approved prior to any site disturbance. Therefore, likely actual daily emissions associated with grading will be substantially lower. The estimated fugitive dust potential of the project site presented in the above table provides a benchmark by which the potential of phased development to generate fugitive dust can be measured. Site Preparation/Grading Related Emissions Grading of the site will require the use of heavy equipment, which will generate emissions. In addition, the workers who operate this equipment will travel to and from the site every day. The following table shows projected moving exhaust emissions for the workers associated with grading and site preparation. For purposes of this analysis, two trips per worker per day were assumed.

Table III-4

Worker Moving Exhaust Emission Projections for Grading (pounds per day)

Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Total

Length (miles) miles/day 12 x 30 = 360

Pollutant CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 Pounds 5.01 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.04 SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 100.0 75.00 150.00 150.00 *South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Air Quality Handbook,” Table A9-8-A. Source: California Air Resources Board's EMFAC 2002 Version 2.2 Emissions Tables. Scenario year 2006, model years 1965 - 2006.



III-11

Table III-5 illustrates the anticipated equipment required for site grading, and the resultant emissions per day.

Table III-5

Grading Equipment Emissions (pounds per day)

Equipment #

Pieces

# hrs/ day CO ROG NOx SOx* PM10

Crawler Tractors 1 8 10.35 1.45 11.62 1.12 0.53 Scrapers 1 8 29.62 3.64 24.59 3.68 1.08 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 8 4.64 0.65 5.21 1.14 0.24 Rubber Tired Dozer 0 4 - - - - - Motor Graders 2 8 29.96 3.52 22.00 1.44 0.90 Off-Highway Trucks (Water Trucks) 1 8 30.62 3.60 22.48 1.12 0.92

Total: 105.19

12.86 85.90 8.50 3.67

SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00

75.00

100.00

150.00

150.00 Source: URBEMIS2002 Version 8.7 Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects, Appendix H Scenario Year 2006, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 2005. *South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Air Quality Handbook,” Table A9-8-A.

Table III-6 summarizes projected emissions due to site grading activities for the proposed project. As shown in the Table, grading of the site is not expected to exceed thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant.

Table III-6 Grading - Related Exhaust Emissions Summary

(pounds per day) ROG CO NOx SOx PM10

Equipment Emissions

12.86 105.19 85.90 8.50 3.67

Workers' Vehicle Emissions - 5.01 0.54 0.00 0.04

Total Construction Emissions

12.86 110.20 86.44 8.51 3.71

SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance

75.00 550.00 100.00 150.00 150.00



III-12

Construction Related Emissions Three sources of air emissions can be expected during construction of the proposed project: worker vehicle emissions, and the emissions from asphalt and architectural coatings applied to the site. The following Tables illustrate the emissions from each of these sources. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that 25 workers would be on the site on any work day. The Tables reflect construction of the Lowe’s building itself. It is assumed that the two retail buildings would be built subsequent to the Lowe’s construction. As the largest of the structures, the construction of the Lowe’s building is expected to have the greatest air quality impact, and the analysis below represents the worst-case scenario for construction on the project site.

Table III-7

Worker Moving Exhaust Emission Projections for Construction (pounds per day)


Length (miles) miles/day 50 x 30 = 1,500

Pollutant CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 Pounds 19.23 2.04 2.07 0.01 0.17 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00

Table III-8 Construction Equipment Emissions

(pounds per day)

Equipment #

Pieces

# hrs/ day CO ROG NOx SOx* PM10

Crane 1 8 12.27 1.44 8.72 1.12 0.31 Excavators 1 8 15.64 1.84 10.67 3.68 0.29 Off-Highway Tractor 1 8 13.63 1.84 14.05 1.46 0.63 Paver 1 8 11.62 1.37 8.12 1.46 0.26 Rough Terrain Forlift 1 8 6.70 0.79 4.68 0.69 0.15 Trencher 2 8 17.06 2.00 11.64 2.29 0.32

Total: 76.92 9.28 57.88 10.69 1.96

SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00

150.00



III-13

Table III-9

Asphalt Off Gassing (pounds per day)

Asphalt VOC Factor Total Potential

VOC Total Days Average Daily

Acreage (lbs./acre) Generation (lbs.) of

Paving VOC Emissions

(lbs.) 5.12 2.62 13.41 8 1.68

Source: URBEMIS2002 Users' Guide Version 7.4 May 2003.

Table III-10 Calculations of Architectural Coating Emissions Potential

Average Building Coverage (sqft)*

VOC Factor (lbs./1,000 sqft)

Total Potential VOC Generation

(lbs.)

Total Days of

Coating**

Average Daily VOC Emissions

(lbs.) 20,145 18.5 372.7 22 16.9

*Building pad = 165,000 sqft, the area of a square building (four sides) = 23,700 sqft, assuming a 85% coverage of painted surface = 20,145 sqft. **Assumes 1 month maintenance period with 22 workdays per month. Source: Table A9-13, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993.

Table III-11 summarizes conservative emissions from construction related activities for the proposed project. As shown in the Table, construction activities will not exceed any of SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Impacts associated with construction of the proposed project, therefore, are expected to be less than significant.

Table III-11 Aggregate Construction - Related Emissions

(pounds per day) ROG CO NOx SOx PM10 Equipment Emissions 9.28 76.92 57.88 10.69 1.96 Workers' Vehicle Emissions - 19.23 2.04 0.01 0.17 Asphalt Paving Emissions 1.68 - - - -

Architectural Coatings Emissions

16.94 - - - -

Total Construction Emissions

27.90 96.15 59.92 10.70 2.13

SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance

75.00 550.00 100.00 150.00 150.00



III-14

Operational Emissions Calculation of Moving Emissions The Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 7,906 average trips per day at build out. Based on this trip generation, the potential emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site can be estimated, and are shown in Table III-12. Emissions are calculated using emission factors provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) URBEMIS Model Version 2.2, in which emissions are projected to Year 2007. Per mile emissions over subsequent years can be expected to decrease, to some extent, as combustion technologies continue to improve.

Table III-12

Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Build Out (pounds per day)


Length (miles) miles/day 7,906 x 15 = 118,590

Pollutant CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 Pounds 1,520.3 161.4 164.0 1.1 13.6 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00

150.00 150.00

Stationary Source Emissions In addition to moving emissions, the proposed project will cause emissions to be generated from power plants generating power for the proposed project; and the consumption of natural gas to power equipment within the project. Power plant emissions are primarily those associated with combustion products, such as carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, particulate matter and reactive organic gases (ROG). Potential power plant emissions at build out of the site are shown in Table III-13. Commercial electric usage is estimated by applying the Southern California Edison electrical power usage rates to retail development on a per square foot basis. These figures are multiplied by the emission generation factors set forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) EIR Handbook.6

6 Table A9-11-A, “CEQA Air Quality Handbook,” prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District,

April 1993.



III-15

Table III-13

Power Plant Emission Projections at Project Build Out (Lbs. per 1,000 kwh)

Annual Electric Energy Usage (kwh/sqft/year) Total No. Square Feet

Total Annual Electric Usage (kwh)

13.55 201,000 2,723,550

Pollutants Carbon

Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides

Sulfur Oxides Particulates

Reactive Organic Gases

Project (mw/yr) 2,724 2,724 2,724 2,724 2,724 Factor (lbs/mw/hr) 0.2 1.15 0.12 0.04 0.01

Lbs./Year 544.7 3,132.1 326.8 108.9 27.2 Lbs./Day 1.5 8.66 0.9 0.3 0.1

SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 75.00 Based on per unit usage and emissions factors provided in Tables A9-11-A and A9-11-B, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. Assumes continued availability and use of natural gas in power plants and an average contribution from hydro-electric sources. Represents total pounds emitted per year by all commercial development at build out.

Natural gas emissions are calculated using the average monthly consumption factor established by Southern California Gas Company/Sempra Energy and applied by the SCAQMD. The same pollutants for power plant emissions are calculated for natural gas with emission factors specific to use of this fuel.



III-16

Table III-14 Emissions Associated with Natural Gas Consumption

at Project Build Out (lbs./cubic foot)

Estimated Total Monthly Natural Gas Usage Square Feet Usage Rate

(cf/sqft/month) Cubic Feet per

Month 201,000 2.9 582,900

Pollutants Carbon

Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides

Sulfur Oxides Particulates

Reactive Organic Gases

Project (cf/month/mil.) 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Factor (lbs/mil. sqft) 20.00 120.00 - 0.20 5.30

Lbs./Month 11.66 69.95 - 0.12 3.09 Lbs./Day 0.39 2.33 - 0.00 0.10

SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 75.00 Based on cf/square foot usage and emissions factors for "Retail/Shopping Centers" as provided in Tables A9-12-A and A9-12-B, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993.

Summary of Operational Impacts The total day-to-day emissions of the proposed project, including power plant emissions, emissions associated with the consumption of natural gas and vehicular emissions are summarized in Table III-15. As shown in this Table, impacts associated with the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and reactive organic gases will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Although mitigation measures can, to a limited degree be provided, the impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, and cumulative impacts to the regional air quality will also be significantly impacted. As the majority of the area’s electrical power is generated in the air basins outside the area, projects within the City will also contribute to the cumulative impacts on air quality elsewhere. However, greater reliance on transitional fossil fuels such as natural gas will continue to lower pollutant emissions per kilowatt in the near to mid-term.



III-17

Table III-15 Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project-Related Emissions

Associated with Build Out of the Proposed Project

Stationary

Source Emissions Moving Source

Total Anticipated

SCAQMD Threshold

Power Plants

Nat. Gas Consumption

Emissions Emissions (lbs./day)

Criteria* (lbs./day)

Carbon Monoxide 1.5 0.39 1,520.3 1,522.19 550.0 Nitrogen Oxides 8.6 2.33 161.4 172.33 55.0 Sulfur Oxides 0.9 0.0 164.0 164.9 150.0 Particulates 0.3 0.0 13.6 13.9 150.0 Reactive Organic Gases 0.1 0.1 164.0 164.2 55.0 * Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993, Revised January 2006.

Although emission rates are projected by SCAQMD to be reduced over time as new technologies are implemented, the Table above represents a conservative estimate of the likely impacts associated with the proposed project. 3. Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with air emissions are projected to be significant during grading (fugitive dust) and operation (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and reactive organic gases). Some of these impacts can be mitigated through the application of SCAQMD quantified measures, as described below. 1. Grading and development permits shall be reviewed and conditioned to require the provision

of all reasonably feasible methods and technologies to assure the minimal emissions of pollutants from the development (see Table III-16 below), including proper vehicle maintenance and site watering schedules (see detailed list below under Developer’s Air Quality Management Resources).



III-18

Table III-16 Available Emission Reduction Technologies

Daily Emission Reduction Factors Diesel Equipment ROG NOx PM10 CO SOx Aqueous Fuel 0% 14% 63% 0% 0% Diesel Particle Filter 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation 90% 40% 85% 90% 0% Lean NOx Catalyst 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% Worker Trips ROG NOx PM10 CO SOx Use Shuttle to Retail Establishments at Lunch 1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% Source: Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS2002) version 8.7.0 April 2005; developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a modeling tool to assist local public agencies with estimating air quality impacts from land use projects when preparing a CEQA environmental analysis.

2. As part of the City’s grading permit process, the applicant shall submit a dust control plan

consistent with the requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 8.50 Fugitive Dust Control, including compliance with AQMD Rule 403.

3. No more than 10 acres shall be actively graded on any work day throughout the grading

process.

4. The project proponent shall replace ground cover in disturbed areas not being immediately constructed upon within 30 days of completion of grading (resulting in a reduction of 15% in fugitive dust emissions).

5. The project proponent shall water exposed surfaces 3 times daily during all grading activities

(resulting in a reduction of 50% in fugitive dust emissions).

6. All construction grading operations and earth moving operations shall cease when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.

7. The project proponent shall water on-site equipment morning and evening.

The implementation of these mitigation measures will result in fugitive dust generation on the site at 112.2 pounds per day. This is well below the threshold of significance of 150 pounds per day established by SCAQMD. Therefore, with implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with fugitive dust during grading will be reduced to less than significant levels. Operational emissions can also be mitigated, but are not expected to be mitigated to a less than significant level. In order to assure that impacts are reduced to the greatest extent possible, however, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.



III-19

8. The project proponent shall install low-polluting and high-efficiency appliances. 9. The project proponent shall install energy-efficient street lighting.

10. The project proponent shall install landscaping which is native and/or drought-resistant to

reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits.

11. The project proponent shall, to the greatest extent possible, assure the thermal integrity of buildings and reduce the thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors.

12. The project proponent shall, to the greatest extent possible, use efficient window glazing,

wall insulation and ventilation methods.

13. The project proponent shall, to the greatest extent possible, incorporate appropriate passive solar design, including solar heaters, and solar water heaters, to the greatest extent feasible.

Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above will reduce the potential air quality impacts to the greatest extent practicable. In addition, the following Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting program shall ensure that the required mitigation measures are followed throughout the development process. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 1. The appropriate City department(s) shall review grading and dust control plan applications to

ensure conformance with the mitigation measures set forth in the required CEQA documentation and as otherwise conditioned by the City.

Responsible Party: City Public Works and Building Departments Compliance Record: Grading and dust control plans to be kept on file in the Public Works Department. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:

2. The Public Works Department shall record and document all violations of clean air

regulations, these mitigation measures or the conditions of approval of this project. Development may be temporarily halted until inadequate controls or unacceptable conditions are corrected to the satisfaction of the City.

Responsible Party: City Public Works Department, SCAQMD Compliance Record: Violations to be kept on file in the Public Works Department. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:

3. California Code of Regulations Title 24 and other applicable energy efficiency codes and

regulations shall be appropriately applied. Responsible Party: City Planning and Building Departments



III-20

Compliance Record: Approved building plans to be kept on file in the Building Department. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:

C. Biological Resources

1. Existing Conditions Although most of the nearby lands supported coastal sage and alluvial communities at one time, much of the land today is either developed or has been extensively modified by human activity. Disturbed areas include highways, dirt roads, railroad tracks, utility corridors, pavement, concrete, buildings, drainage channels, agricultural areas, and so on. The vegetation that exists in these areas includes non-native grasses, and emerging native vegetation as well as invasive species. A biological resource survey was conducted for the proposed project site, and is included in its entirety in Appendix B of this EIR7. The study included review of a number of databases, including the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base, and the California Native Plant Society’s “Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.” In addition, site surveys were conducted on 5 days in March of 2006. The surveys identified general biological species on the site. In addition, surveys were conducted according to the protocol established by the CDFG in their “1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,” to determine the presence or absence of that species of concern. The following discussion summarizes the findings of the study. Vegetation The project site is dominated by non-native invasive species, with remnants of native coastal sage scrub species, which was the native habitat which occurred on the site prior to development in the area. A total of 32 species were identified on the site, including Broadleaf Filarea, Shortpod Mustard, Telegraph Weed, Red Brome, Slender Wild Oat and Deerweed. 63% of the species identified on the project site are non-native invasive plants. Ornamental Mexican fan palms occur on the eastern property boundary. The site has been disturbed by prior clearing and ongoing discing, as well as illegal dumping and development on adjacent properties. Wildlife The biological survey identified one amphibian, one reptile, 24 birds and 4 mammals on the project site. These included Western Toad, Western Fence Lizard, Mourning Dove, Red-tailed Hawk, California Towhee, Yellow-rumped Warbler, White-crowned Sparrow, Desert Cottontails, California Ground Squirrel and Botta’s Pocket Gopher. Conditions at the time of the survey were not ideal to identify reptiles or amphibians, due to the lower ambient temperatures, however the lack of habitat limits the potential for additional species to be present on the site. Further, it is highly likely that other mammals inhabit or use the project site, but were not observed by the biologist. 7 Baseline Biological and focused Burrowing Owl Surveys for the San Bernardino Lowe’s Project Site, prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., April 2006.



III-21

Water Courses No natural water courses were identified on the project site. There are no features on the site which could qualify as “waters of the state” as defined by CDFG. A wet area was identified at the southeast side of the project site, appearing to be the result of either roadway runoff or a leaking water pipe. Sensitive Species Sensitive species are those that have experienced declining populations, have declining populations, or are vulnerable to habitat loss or change. Some of these species have been listed under the provisions of the federal or state Endangered Species Act as Threatened or Endangered by either the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or by CDFG, while others are identified as sensitive by these and other agencies or organizations, but have not been formally listed. A total of 32 sensitive species were identified in the literature research as occurring in the general vicinity of the project area. In addition, two sensitive plant communities occur in the general area, but not on the project site: Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub and Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland. Table III-17 lists all 32 species, their status, habitat, and likelihood of occurrence on the property. As shown in the Table, most of the species are not expected to occur on the project site, due to its disturbed condition and a number of other species-specific factors. Because of the occurrence of a number of California Ground Squirrel burrows on the project site, the parcel is potential habitat for the Burrowing Owl. As a result, protocol-compliant surveys for this species were conducted. These surveys found no sign of the species, and the species was not observed on the site.

Table III-17 Sensitive Species in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project

Species Protective Status

(F=Federal, C=California) Habitat Occurrence Probability

Plants Arenaria paludicola Marsh Sandwort

F: Endangered C: Endangered CNPS: List 1B R-E-D: 3-3-2 State rank: S1.1

Historically found in marshes/wetlands in CA., now known from one locality in San Luis Obispo Co.

Absent (No habitat present on site)

Berberis nevinii Nevin’s Barberry


Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub (sandy or gravelly)

Absent (site has been previously cleared, species not observed on site)



III-22

Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved Brodiaea

F: Threatened C: Endangered CNPS: List 1B R-E-D: 3-3-3 State rank: S2.1

Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Playas, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools / often clay ±130 - 4000 feet elevation

Absent (Clay soils lacking on/adjacent to site, no vernal pools or favorable topography)

Calochortus plummerae Plummer’s Mariposa Lily

F: None C: None CNPS: List 1B R-E-D: 2-2-3 State rank: S3.2

Various cismontane habitats including coastal sage scrub, grasslands, and chaparral

Absent (habitat lacking on site)

Castilleja lasiorhyncha San Bernardino Mountains owl’s-clover


Stream and meadow margins (vernally wet areas) in meadows, pebble plain habitats, chaparral, and montane coniferous forest

Absent (habitat not present on site, site too low in elevation)

Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis Smooth Tarplant


Grasslands, meadows, playas, scrub habitats (alkaline)

Absent (Alkaline soils lacking on/adjacent to site, no favorable habitat)

Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry’s Spineflower

F: None C: None CNPS: List 3 R-E-D: ?-2-3 State rank: S2.1

Sandy openings in chaparral and coastal sage scrub

Absent (habitat not present on site)

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Salt Marsh Bird’s-beak


Higher zones of salt marsh habitat, usually less than 30 feet in elevation

Absent (no habitat present, record is questionable [from 1880-1889])

Dodecahema leptoceras Slender-horned Spineflower


Sandy openings in chaparral, microhabitat is often old terraces in alluvial fan sage scrub

Absent (no habitat present on site)

Dudleya multicaulis Many-stemmed Dudleya


Clay soils on grassy slopes, chaparral, and coastal sage scrub


Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Santa Ana River Woollystar


Sandy/gravelly soils on river floodplains, (often in alluvial fan sage scrub)

Absent (no habitat on site)



III-23

Fimbristylis thermalis Hot Springs Fimbristylis

F: None C: None CNPS: List 2 R-E-D: 2-2-1 State rank: S2.2

Alkaline meadows near hot springs, 1951 record from Arrowhead Hot Springs in Waterman Canyon, plants not refound in 1983 and 1993


Lycium parishii Parish’s Desert-thorn

F: None C: None CNPS: List 2 R-E-D: 2-1-1 State rank: S2-S3

Sandy to rocky slopes, canyons; CNDDB record is from 1885, San Bndo. populations may be extirpated


Ribes divaricatum var. parishii Parish’s Gooseberry


Riparian woodland (willows), between 180 – 920 feet elevation

Absent (no habitat present, site is too high in elevation)

Schoenus nigricans Black Sedge

F: None C: None CNPS: List 2 R-E-D: 2-2-1 State rank: S2.2

Alkaline marshes and wet habitats, CNDDB record mapped as “best guess” in vicinity of Arrowhead Hot Springs


Amphibians San Gabriel Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps gabrieli)

F: None C: None State rank: S2

Talus slopes in areas of oak, spruce, pine, incense cedar, California laurel, and maple. Low to mid-elevation mountain canyons

Absent: (Although known from Cajon Pass vicinity, no habitat present on site)

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa)

F: Endangered C: CSC State rank: S2

Rocky, partially shaded, shallow streams in montane habitats

Absent (no habitat on site)

Reptiles San Diego Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii)

F: None C: CSC State rank: S2-S3

Many scrub and woodland habitats, grasslands

Absent – Low (habitat poor, discing of site may have eliminated species)

Orange-throated Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra)

F: None C: CSC State rank: S2

Washes, terraces, and other sandy habitats, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, often with large rocks

Absent (no habitat present on site, records from Cajon Pass area are questionable)

Southern Rubber Boa (Charina umbratica)


Only known from the San Bndo. and San Jacinto Mtns., variety of montane habitats often in vicinity of streams or meadows, logs and rock outcrops provide shelter

Absent (site is below known elevational range of species, habitat not present)



III-24

Birds Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

F: None C: CSC State rank: S2

Inhabits a variety of open habitats (including edges of ag. fields), often occupies unused ground squirrel burrows

Absent (habitat suitable, but no owls observed on site during focused surveys)

Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)

F: Threatened C: CSC State rank: S2

Coastal sage scrub habitats Absent (no habitat present, site too disturbed)

Mammals Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax)

F: None C: CSC State rank: S2S3

Open shrublands, sandy herbaceous areas in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands, often in association with rocks or coarse gravel

Absent (no habitat present, site has been too heavily disturbed)

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)

F: Endangered C: CSC State rank: S1

Alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam substrates on alluvial fans and flood plains

Absent (habitat not present, site is too disturbed)

San Bernardino Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus californicus)


Black Oak and White Fir dominated woodlands between 5,200 – 8,500 ft. in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Ranges, often near water, needs tree cavities for cover

Absent (no habitat present, site is too low in elevation)

Western Yellow Bat (Lasiurus xanthinus)

F: None C: None State rank: S3 WBWG: H

Valley foothill riparian, Desert riparian and wash, and palm oasis, roosts in trees, especially palms

Absent-Low (foraging over site)

San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii)

F: None C: CSC State rank: S3?

A variety of grasslands, shrublands, and open habitats (with some cover)

Absent (no cover on site, site too disturbed)

San Diego Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia)


Coastal sage scrub, chaparral habitats

Absent (no habitat present)

Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus)


Open shrublands, grasslands with fine, sandy soils

Absent (no habitat present)

Insects Andrew’s Marble Butterfly (Euchloe hyantis andrewsi)

F: None C: None State rank: S1

Yellow pine forest near Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake, 5,000 – 6,000 feet elevation

Absent (no habitat present, site too low in elevation)

Definitions of status designations and occurrence probabilities.

Federal designations: (federal Endangered Species Act, US Fish and Wildlife Service): END: Federally listed, Endangered. THR: Federally listed, Threatened. BCC: Birds of Conservation Concern C: Candidate for Federal listing ND: Not designated.



III-25

State designations: (California Endangered Species Act, California Dept. of Fish and Game) END: State listed, Endangered. THR: State listed, Threatened. RARE: State listed as Rare (Listed "Rare" animals have been re-designated as Threatened, but Rare plants have retained the Rare designation.) CSC: California Special Concern Species. ND: Not designated.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) designations: List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range. List 2: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. List 3: Plants for which more information is needed. List 4: Plants of limited distribution; a "watch list."

CNPS R-E-D Code: Rarity 1: Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this

time. 2: Occurrence confined to several populations or one extended population. 3: Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. Endangerment 1: Not endangered. 2: Endangered in a portion of its range. 3: Endangered throughout its range. Distribution 1: More or less widespread outside California. 2: Rare outside California. 3: Endemic to California (i.e., does not occur outside California).

Definitions of occurrence probability: Occurs: Observed on the site by AMEC personnel, or recorded on-site by other qualified biologists. High: Observed in similar habitat in region by qualified biologists, or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species and the site is

within the known range of the species. Moderate:Reported sightings in surrounding region, or site is within the known range of the species and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used

by the species. Low: Site is within the known range of the species but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species. Absent: A focused study failed to detect the species, or, no suitable habitat is present. CDFG CNDDB rankings: Animals S1 = Extremely endangered:



III-26

H: High: Species which are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment based on available information on distribution, status, ecology and known threats.

M: Medium: Species which warrant a medium level of concern and need closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions of both the species and possible threats. A lack of meaningful information is a major obstacle in adequately assessing these species' status and should be considered a threat.

L: Low: Species for which most of the existing data support stable populations, and for which the potential for major changes in status in the near future is considered unlikely. There may be localized concerns, but the overall status of the species is believed to be secure. Conservation actions would still apply for these bats, but limited resources are best used on High and Medium status species.

P: Periphery: This designation indicates a species on the edge of its range, for which no other designation has been determined. 2. Project Impacts Development of the project site will not result in destruction of native habitat. As described above, the site has been significantly impacted by previous disturbance and surrounding development. Suitable habitat for sensitive species does not occur on the site. The Mexican Fan Palms and other shrubs on the project site may provide nesting habitat for common birds protected under the Migratory Treaty Act. The Act requires that impacts to nesting birds be minimized through avoidance. The potential for nesting birds occurring on the site represents a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation. Burrowing Owl were not identified on the project site. However, the presence of suitable burrows on the site presents the possibility that the species could inhabit the site prior to construction of the proposed project. This represents a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation. 3. Mitigation Measures In order to protect the biological resources on the project site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. In compliance with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, one of the following

shall occur: a.) Ground clearing, vegetation and tree removal shall occur between August 15 and

January 31 of any year; or b.) Should ground clearing, vegetation and tree removal be proposed between February 1

and August 15 of any year, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey, ending no less than 3 days prior to the initiation of any ground clearing activity. All trees and suitable nesting habitat on the site shall be surveyed for nesting birds. If nesting birds are identified, the biologist shall require appropriate avoidance measures be implemented.

2. A protocol-compliant pre-construction Burrowing Owl survey shall be conducted by a

qualified biologist prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site. Should the species be identified, the biologist shall require appropriate measures for avoidance or relocation of the species.



III-27

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 1. The project proponent shall submit required studies for nesting birds, if required, and for

burrowing owls, to the Development Services Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Responsible Agency: Developer, City of San Bernardino Development Services Department.

Compliance Record: Biological reports to be kept on file in the Planning Department. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:

D. Cultural Resources 1. Existing Conditions Archaeological Resources People present in the San Bernardino Valley prior to Spanish settlement were of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic group. The Serrano, Luiseno, and Gabrielino tribes are all understood to have been present in the Valley at the time of first contact with Spanish missionaries. The earliest inhabitants of the San Bernardino Valley are thought to have settled the area around 8000 BC, and may have oriented their settlements along the Santa Ana River and its tributaries. Archaeological sites include physical remains and other evidence of ancient human activities dating from historic times, as well as prehistoric times. Sites are often characterized by accumulations of flints, food wastes, shells, burial grounds, ceremonial objects, artwork, pottery, tools, detritus from the tool making process, fire pits or cooking pits, alignments of stones, modification of the shape or appearance of rock surfaces, human skeletal remains, and so on. Archaeological sites are often located along rivers, lakes, springs, ridgelines, passes between the mountains, scenic vistas, historic travel routes, and areas protected from the weather. The proposed project site is not identified in the City’s Archaeological Sensitivities map as having potential for archaeological resources8. Historic Resources The City and its surroundings experienced their first significant European settlement in the 1800’s. Beginning in the 19850’s, ranching, farming and timber industries thrived, and the area grew, and the first local governments developed. When gold was discovered north of Big Bear Lake, the area became a stopping point on the way to the gold rush. The development of the railroad at the turn of the 20th century signaled another significant period of growth in the City, as railway lines established the San Bernardino area as a transportation hub, which attracted industrial businesses.

8 San Bernardino General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR, Figure 5.4-2 “Archaeological Sensitivities,” prepared by The Planning Center, July 2005.



III-28

20th century growth in the City was driven also by transportation, but in this instance by the development of the freeways in southern California, which like the railroads before them facilitated movement from the west coast inland. The area of the project site, in the north end of the City, has developed more recently, with the location of the California State University San Bernardino campus north of I-215. The area is not identified in the General Plan or its EIR as having historic resources. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources consist of the fossilized remnants of prehistoric life forms that have been embedded in geologic formations. Fossil remains are thought to be present in many areas of the City of San Bernardino. These paleontological sites provide proof of life forms that predate human civilization. Areas that are particularly likely to contain paleontological resources can often be predicted by the presence of particular types of geological formations. As with archaeological resources, they often coincide with the sites of water resources such as rivers and springs. There are not currently, nor have there been, bodies of water on or adjacent to the project site. 2. Project Impacts The State of California’s Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 defines “historical” resources as including but not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript” which is determined to be historically or archaeologically significant. Historical items also include those resources that are determined to be significant in the “architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.” Similarly, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Inclusion in the California Register may occur if the resource meets any of the following criteria:

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage

Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,

or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values, or Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria for the consideration of cultural resources of potential significance, and their appropriate disposition, are established in Section 15126.4(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines9.

9 “California Environmental Quality Act – Statutes and Guidelines,” prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California, 1998.



III-29

Archaeological Resources The project site has been previously graded, and is currently periodically disced. The area of the project site has not been identified as having a potential for archaeological resources. The potential for resources occurring on the property are therefore very low. Development of the proposed project is not expected to impact archaeological resources. Historical Resources The site is not listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. The site is vacant, and has no potential for historic resources. Development of the site will have no impact on historic resources. Paleontological Resources The project site is underlain with Holocene age alluvium, deposited in the area between 500 and 1,000 years ago. These soils occur at a depth of up to 700 feet10. The proposed project will result in excavation for foundations and footings to limited depths. However, the recent age of the soil deposits, and the extensive depth at which they occur, result in an extremely low potential for paleontological resources occurring on the site. Development of the proposed project is not expected to impact paleontological resources. 3. Mitigation Measures None required. E. Geology and Soils 1. Existing Conditions Soils A layer of poorly formed topsoil overlays the site to a thickness of up to one foot. Below this topsoil, the native soils consist of Tujunga gravelly loamy sand (TvC). These soils are nearly level to moderately sloping, occurring on broad alluvial fans. The soils are Holocene age, deposited between 500 and 1,000 years ago. Site soils are sandy, with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles and silt. with surface rock segments throughout, especially along Gannett Parkway. The soils are subject to caving at a depth of 4 feet below ground surface. The native soils on the site are not suitable for structural support of structures without recompaction, moisture conditioning and reprocessing. Erosion The entire site occurs within the boundaries of the City’s High Wind Area, which is generally located along the northern boundaries of the City, and close to the foothills and edges of the San Bernardino National Forest. The High Wind Area is subject to brush fires and significant soil erosion. Soils exposed during the construction process can be erosive, particularly during significant storm events. The soils on the site, and fill soils to be used in the construction of the site, are silts and sands that have a potential to erode during rain storms.

10 “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,” prepared by EEI, July 2003.



III-30

Regional Geological Setting and Active Faults The City is located between the San Andreas Fault and the San Jacinto fault. The San Andreas Fault zone alone is thought to make up about two-thirds of the movement between the Pacific tectonic plate and the North American tectonic plate. The Pacific Plate moves in a northwesterly direction as a result of the slow collision between the plates. Several active faults are located near the project site. The most important of these include:

The San Andreas Fault (including the Mill Creek Fault) – located about 2.3 miles northeast of the site, which has a maximum credible earthquake potential magnitude of 8.5.

The San Jacinto Fault (including the Glen Helen, Lytle, and Loma Linda Faults) – located 2.1 miles southwest of the site, which has a maximum credible earthquake potential magnitude of 7.5.

The Cucamonga – Sierra Madre fault system – located about 5.3 miles northwest of the site, which has a maximum credible earthquake potential magnitude of 6.5.

San Andreas Fault Zone The San Andreas Fault passes along the northeastern edge of the City of San Bernardino. It presents the greatest earthquake risks for the City. The fault segment that affects the City and the project site runs from south by southeast to north by northwest. In the southwest it begins near the northernmost portion of the Sea of Cortez, and runs through the Salton Sea and the Coachella Valley, and through the City of San Bernardino area northward towards the San Francisco Bay. No significant earthquake has occurred on the San Bernardino branch of the fault in over 250 years, and possibly longer. San Jacinto Fault Zone The San Jacinto Fault system is located about three miles southwest of the project site. The fault system runs in a northwest to southeast direction through the City, paralleling the I-215. At least ten seismic events have taken place along this fault since 1895, and about half of these have been located in the San Bernardino-Riverside area11. Cucamonga-Sierra Madre Fault Zone The Cucamonga Fault system occurs along the south and east edges of the San Gabriel Mountains, northwest of the City. The fault system has not been the source of significant earthquakes in recent times, but is thought to be capable of generating a moderately strong earthquake in the future. 2. Project Impacts The project site is proposed for the development of three commercial buildings of 165,500, 30,000 and 6,000 square feet in size. Because of the City’s location in a significantly seismic area, the potential for structural damage associated with the development of the site must be analyzed. In addition, as described above, the native soils on the site may not be suitable for structural support without mitigation. 11 San Bernardino General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR, Geology and Soils Element, prepared by the Planning Center, November 2005



III-31

Geology Ground Shaking The project site is not located in an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Hazard zone, but is located in Seismic Zone 4, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. Although no known faults cross the site, the project will be subject to significant ground shaking during a seismic event. The buildings within the project will be required to conform to Uniform Building Code standards for structure in Zone 4. These requirements assure that the structures will be constructed to withstand a seismic event. The Lowe’s store will include the stacking of materials to significant heights within the public area of the facility. Since the primary hazard during a seismic event is that of falling debris, the stacking of inventory poses a hazard to the public which could be significant without mitigation. Surface Rupture The proposed project site is not located on a known fault. Surface rupture occurs when a fault break causes the ground above it to open. Since no fault is known on the project site, the potential for surface rupture is considered negligible12. Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when soils become unconsolidated during a seismic event due to soil type and saturation. The water exerts pressure on the soil particles, which no longer can hold tightly pressed together. Earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. The proposed project soils consist of sands and silts of an alluvial fan. The depth to groundwater has been estimated to exceed 100 feet. Further, the project site has been evaluated as part of a study of the San Bernardino area by the US Geological Survey. The site was not considered susceptible to liquefaction in that survey. Based on this data, the likelihood of liquefaction on the project site is considered low to very low. Soils Expansion The soils on the project site consist of alluvium which is estimated to a depth of 700 feet. The soils are medium dense and are well graded. The soils are not known to be expansive. Settlement, Shrinkage and Subsidence Native soils which have not been developed upon can experience settlement when construction occurs, due to the weight of a structure exerting pressure on the soil particles, air and water. Under these conditions, water and air are forced out, and the soil particles contract, causing soil settlement. The project site consists of sands and silts with cobbles, rock and boulders which are inappropriate for structural fill. As a result, the geotechnical engineer has made recommendations for the removal of the upper three feet of native soil from the site, its moisture conditioning, and recompaction under building envelopes. Fill soils are required to be free of debris and rock. As a result of these

12 “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lowe’s HIW Development,” prepared by EEI, July 2003.



III-32

recommendations, soil settlement on the site is expected to be about ½ inch, and differential settlement is expected to be about ¼ inch. Similarly, the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will reduce the potential for shrinkage and subsidence, insofar as the existing cobbles and vegetation materials on the surface of the site will be removed, and stable, well consolidated fill soils will be placed on the site. These standards will assure that shrinkage and subsidence on the site are negligible. Water Erosion During the construction process, the site will be subject to water erosion during storm events. The City will require the submission of a Storm Water Prevention Pollution Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project. The SWPPP Best Management Practices, including temporary and permanent erosion control measures; construction practices that minimize storm water contamination; grading and compaction requirements; coordination of Best Management Practices with construction and post-construction activities; and compliance with city, county, state and federal requirements. These requirements are designed to assure that soil erosion impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Wind Erosion The project site is located in a City Designated High Wind Area13. Site development will result in the disturbance of surface soils and will aggravate the potential for wind erosion during the site preparation and building construction process. The Air Quality section of this EIR addresses the potential impacts of fugitive dust during the construction of the site, and provides mitigation measures designed to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 3. Mitigation Measures The City requires the preparation of site specific geotechnical investigations to be submitted with building plans. During this process, site specific mitigation may be expanded from that provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, based on the buildings’ structure and configuration. Based on the study prepared to date, however, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. 1. The recommendations of the “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lowe’s HIW

Development,” dated July 2003, shall be implemented, unless superceded by additional study made prior to issuance of building permits.

2. Remedial grading will be warranted to assure the site is prepared with compacted structural fill.

The structural fill that is used as replacement soil shall consist of fine, well-graded soils that have a very low expansive potential.

3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project proponent shall submit to the Building

and Safety Division a Seismic Safety Stocking Plan, describing how materials to be stacked to a height greater than 5 feet will be secured to withstand the maximum probable earthquakes

13 City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Safety Element, prepared by the City of San Bernardino, CA, November 2005.



III-33

predicted for the project site. The Plan may include, but is not limited to, structural reinforcement of shelving, bracing and railings for upper tiers, and similar techniques required to assure safety to the public during a seismic event.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1. Throughout the site preparation process, the City Development Services Department shall

inspect the site to ensure compliance with City ordinances and conditions of approval, as well as additional site clearance, excavation, compaction, grading, construction, and erosion control mitigation measures specified in this document.

Responsible Party: City Development Services Department Compliance Record: Inspection records to be kept on file in the Public Works Department. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:

2. When required, rough grading shall be performed under geological and engineering

observation of the Geological Consultant and/or the City Engineer. Responsible Party: City Engineer, Geotechnical Consultant

Compliance Record: Monitoring records to be kept on file in the Public Works Department. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:

3. When deemed appropriate by the City Engineer and/or the Geotechnical Consultant, the

consultant or engineer shall perform the following observations and actions during site grading and construction of foundations:

Observation of all grading operations Geologic observation of all cut slopes Observation of all key cuts and fill benching Observation of all retaining wall back cuts, during and following completion or

excavation Observation of all surface and subsurface drainage systems Observation of backfill wedges and drains for retaining walls Observation of pre-moistening of sub-grade soils and placement of sand cushion and

vapor barrier beneath the slab Take sufficient tests to verify moisture content, uniformity, and degree of compaction

obtained. Observation of all foundation excavations for the structure or retaining walls prior to

placing forms and reinforcing steel Observation of compaction of all utility trench backfill Observation of post-construction planting to minimize erosion Observation of the proper installation of roof drainage to prevent erosion.

Responsible Party: City Engineer, Geotechnical Consultant, Project Engineer Compliance Record: Monitoring records to be kept on file in the Public Works Department. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:



III-34

4. Upon completion of construction, a final geotechnical report, demonstrating compliance with

the recommendations of geotechnical reports and observations during the grading work shall be prepared, and submitted to the City Engineer. Responsible Party: Geotechnical Consultant, City Engineer. Compliance Record: Final geotechnical report to be kept on file in the Public Works Department. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:

5. The Building Department shall review and approve the Seismic Safety Stocking Plan, and

transmit same to the Code Enforcement Division and Fire Department for their records. Responsible Party: Building Department

Compliance Record: Seismic Safety Stocking Plan to be kept on file in the Building, Code Enforcement and Fire Departments. Written Verification Prepared By: Date Prepared:

F. Hazardous and Toxic Materials 1. Existing Conditions The project site is currently vacant, and although impacted by development on surrounding lands, does not appear to have been previously developed. There are no structures on the project site. The existing Gannett Parkway, which currently bisects the site, will be removed as a result on the proposed project. The site is flat, and has limited vegetation. The site is not listed as having underground storage tanks, or leaking underground storage tanks (UST and LUST, respectively) in available databases. No hazardous or toxic materials are known to occur on the project site. There is no school located within one quarter mile of the project site. The closest school, Kendall Elementary, is located approximately ¾ mile from the site, on the north side of the I-215. The site is located outside the boundary of any airport land use plan. The San Bernardino International Airport is located six miles southeast of the proposed project. 2. Project Impacts Short Term Construction Impacts The development of the project site will require the use of certain limited amounts of hazardous materials, including solvents, paints, asphalt and oils. The use of these materials will be of short duration, and in limited quantities. Further, construction personnel are trained in the proper use of these materials. As previously discussed, the City will require the preparation of a SWPPP for the proposed project, which will include Best Management Practices for the containment and disposal of contaminants on the site. The impacts associated with construction activities are not expected to be significant.



III-35

Long Term Operational Impacts The Lowe’s store, as well as the other potential retail establishments within the project site, will store limited amounts of cleaners and solvents for every day use. These materials are not expected to be of significant quantity to pose a hazard to the public or to employees of these facilities. In addition to these materials, the Lowe’s store can be expected to transport and store larger quantities of paints, lubricants, sealants, glues, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and cleaning products for sale. These materials will be stored within the proposed building. Lowe’s will be required by the Fire Department, as well as responsible county, state and federal agencies to handle and store these materials according to their standards and requirements. Further, employees will be required to train in the proper use and disposal of these materials, and the containment and clean-up of materials should they be spilled. These standards and procedures will assure that the potential impacts associated with hazardous materials on the project site will be reduced to less than significant levels. Fire Hazards The proposed project is located south of the City’s designated Fire Hazard Areas. No impact is expected from wildland fires at the proposed project. Emergency Response and Evacuation The City’s Emergency Plan identifies the responsibilities of various agencies and levels of government, as well as the responsibilities of private, and other non-governmental organizations in the event of a disaster, including earthquakes, floods and fires. The Fire Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Response Team that is trained to minimize the impacts of hazardous releases upon lives, property, and the environment. The Department would be responsible for monitoring and clean up of a significant release on the site. The City has mutual aid agreements with neighboring cities for emergency response efforts as well as for any required evacuations. The proposed project is located adjacent to Interstate 215, University Parkway, and Cajon Boulevard, providing access to the City’s evacuation routes. The project Site Plan includes multiple access points to facilitate evacuation and access for emergency response teams. The proposed project will not interfere with emergency evacuation or response. 3. Mitigation Measures None required.



III-36

G. Hydrology This section addresses issues associated with flood control and build out of the project site. A Drainage Report was prepared for the proposed project, and is summarized below14. The Drainage Report can be found in its entirety in Appendix C of this EIR. 1. Existing Conditions Regional Conditions The City of San Bernardino is located at the western edge of the San Bernardino Mountains and at the southern and eastern edge of the San Gabriel Mountains. Flooding from rain and snowmelt represents a potential hazard in the City, especially at the base of the mountains, in the foothills, and around streams and washes. Rainfall in the City is generally less than an inch per month, with the exception of winter months, when frequent storms can produce higher levels. Rainfall on surrounding mountain slopes increases with elevation, thereby increasing the potential for flooding at lower elevations. The region is susceptible to localized, high-intensity thunderstorms, tropical storms, and winter storm conditions. A strong thunderstorm can result in as much as an inch of rain in an hour. Although the ground may generally be dry at the beginning of a storm, the amounts and intensities of rainfall can quickly saturate the ground, thereby reducing percolation and increasing runoff. Development tends to increase runoff by creating impermeable surfaces over much of a parcel, thus decreasing the areas into which rainwater can percolate into the ground, and increasing the need for planned drainage systems. Existing Onsite Conditions The proposed project will occur on 14.4 acres of currently undeveloped land (with the exception of the existing Gannett Parkway, which will be removed and relocated to the north boundary of the site). The project site is not located in a 100 year flood plain, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There are no streams or rivers on or adjacent to the proposed project. The site is surrounded by existing development, and associa

Documents

LOWE’S DEIR... · • Lands to the north are designated UBP-2 and General Commercial (CG-1). • Lands to the south are designated Light Industrial (IL). • Lands to the west are