CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL SAN BERNARDINO AREA OFFICE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2018
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL San Bernardino Office Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for: State of California Department of General Services 707 Third Street West Sacramento, CA 95605
On behalf of the Lead Agency: California Highway Patrol 601 N. 7th Street, Building C Sacramento, CA 95811
Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Oakland, California 94610 Contact: Michael Stevenson (510) 986-1852
February 2018
Horizon Water and Environment. 2018. California Highway Patrol San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. February. (HWE 15.002) Oakland, CA. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 3 1.1 Intent and Scope of this Document ...... 1-1 4 1.2 Public Involvement Process ...... 1-2 5 1.3 Organization of this Document ...... 1-2 6 1.4 Impact Terminology ...... 1-3
7 Chapter 2 Project Description ...... 2-1 8 2.1 Background and Need for the Project ...... 2-1 9 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives ...... 2-1 10 2.3 Project Location and Setting ...... 2-2 11 2.4 Proposed Project Characteristics ...... 2-5 12 2.5 Permits and Approvals ...... 2-15
13 Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist ...... 3-1 14 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 3-2 15 Determination ...... 3-3 16 3.1 Aesthetics ...... 3-4 17 3.2 Agricultural Resources ...... 3-16 18 3.3 Air Quality ...... 3-19 19 3.4 Biological Resources ...... 3-30 20 3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 3-43 21 3.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ...... 3-57 22 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 3-66 23 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 3-70 24 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-82 25 3.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 3-92 26 3.11 Mineral Resources ...... 3-94 27 3.12 Noise ...... 3-97 28 3.13 Population and Housing ...... 3-107 29 3.14 Public Services ...... 3-109 30 3.15 Recreation ...... 3-115 31 3.16 Transportation/Traffic ...... 3-118 32 3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 3-135 33 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 3-141 34 3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 3-149
35 Chapter 4 References ...... 4-1
36
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i
California Highway Patrol Table of Contents
1 LIST OF APPENDICES 2 Appendix A. Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies 3 Appendix B. Air Quality Appendix 4 Appendix C. Health Risk Assessment Memorandum and Supporting Documentation 5 Appendix D. Biological Resources Background Information 6 Appendix E. Cultural Resources Documentation (Confidential) 7 Appendix F. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 Appendix G. Traffic Data
9 LIST OF TABLES 10 Table 2-1. Parcels Comprising the Proposed Project Site ...... 2-2 11 Table 2-2. Local Utility Agencies in the Project Area ...... 2-11 12 Table 2-3. Comparison of Worker and Construction Trips during 13 Various Construction Phases for the Proposed Project ...... 2-12 14 Table 2-4. Comparison of Staffing Levels at Existing and Proposed 15 San Bernardino Area Offices ...... 2-14 16 Table 2-5. Applicable Permit and Regulatory Requirements ...... 2-15 17 Table AQ-1. Attainment Status of the State and Federal Ambient Air 18 Quality Standards ...... 3-20 19 Table AQ-2. Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Project 20 Construction and Operations ...... 3-22 21 Table AQ-3. Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Construction ...... 3-24 22 Table AQ-4. Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Operations ...... 3-25 23 Table AQ-5. Results of Air Quality Health Risk Assessment for the 24 Proposed Project ...... 3-28 25 Table CR-1. Record Search Results: Previous Cultural Resources 26 Surveys in the Proposed Project Parcel ...... 3-50 27 Table GEO-1. Proximity of the Project Site to Regional Active Faults ...... 3-60 28 Table NOI-1. Examples of Common Noise Levels ...... 3-99 29 Table NOI-2. State Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community 30 Noise Environment ...... 3-101 31 Table NOI-3. Construction Equipment and Vibration Distance ...... 3-105 32 Table PH-1. Population estimates and forecast for the City of Loma 33 Linda...... 3-107 34 Table PS-1. 2015 Police and Crime Statistics for the City of Loma 35 Linda ...... 3-111 36 Table TCR-1. Native American Consultation ...... 3-138 37 Table TR-1. Level of Service Definitions for Intersections ...... 3-119 38 Table TR-2. Trip Rates & Trip Generation ...... 3-124 39 Table TR-3. LOS and Delay for Existing Conditions and Project 40 Conditions ...... 3-127 41 Table TR-4. LOS and Delay for Future Conditions and Future plus 42 Project Conditions ...... 3-129 43 Table TR-5. LOS and Delay for Existing Conditions and Project 44 Conditions with Mitigations ...... 3-131 45 Table TR-6. LOS and Delay for Future Conditions and Future plus 46 Project Conditions with Mitigations ...... 3-132
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ii
California Highway Patrol Table of Contents
1 Table MAND-1. Geographic Scope for Resources with Potential 2 Cumulative Impacts ...... 3-151 3 Table MAND-2. List of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects that May 4 Cumulatively Affect Resources of Concern for the 5 Proposed Project ...... 3-152 6 Table MAND-3. Summary of Cumulative Significant Impacts and 7 Proposed Project’s Contribution ...... 3-154 8 Table UTL-1. City of Loma Linda Actual 2015 and Projected Potable 9 Water Demands ...... 3-144 10
11 LIST OF FIGURES 12 Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity ...... 2-3 13 Figure 2-2. Project Site ...... 2-4 14 Figure 2-3. Conceptual Project Overview ...... 2-6 15 Figure 2-4. Conceptual Building Design ...... 2-7 16 Figure AES-1. Viewpoints Surrounding Proposed Project Site ...... 3-8 17 Figure AES-2. Existing Views from KOPs 1 and 2 ...... 3-9 18 Figure AES-3. Existing Views from KOPs 3 and 4 ...... 3-10 19 Figure AES-4. Existing Views from KOPs 5 and 6 ...... 3-11 20 Figure BIO-1. CNDDB Occurrences of Special-status Plants within 5 21 miles of the Proposed Project ...... 3-35 22 Figure BIO-2. CNDDB Occurrences of Special-status Animals within 5 23 miles of the Proposed Project ...... 3-37 24 Figure BIO-3. Critical Habitat within 5 miles of the Proposed Project ...... 3-39 25 26
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iii
California Highway Patrol Table of Contents
1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2 A attainment 3 AB assembly bill 4 ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 5 AFY acre-feet per year 6 APN Assessor’s Parcel Number 7 AST above-ground storage tank 8 ATCM airborne toxic control measure 9 Avocet Avocet Environmental, Inc. 10 11 bgs below ground surface 12 BMP best management practice 13 14 CalARP California Accidental Release Program 15 CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model 16 Cal EMA California Emergency Management Agency 17 CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency 18 CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 19 Cal OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 20 Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational 21 Safety and Health 22 CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 23 Caltrans California Department of Transportation 24 CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 25 CARB California Air Resources Board 26 CBC California Building Standards Code 27 CCR California Code of Regulations 28 C&D construction and demolition 29 CDC California Department of Conservation 30 CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife 31 CDOC California Department of Conservation 32 CEC California Energy Commission 33 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 34 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 35 Act (also known as the Superfund Act) 36 CESA California Endangered Species Act 37 cf cubic feet 38 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 39 CGS California Geological Survey 40 CHP California Highway Patrol 41 CIP capital improvement program
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iv
California Highway Patrol Table of Contents
1 City City of Loma Linda 2 CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board 3 CJUSD Colton Joint Unified School District 4 CMP Congestion Management Program 5 CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 6 CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level 7 CNPS California Native Plant Society 8 CO carbon monoxide
9 CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 10 County San Bernardino County 11 CREC controlled Recognized Environmental Condition 12 CRHR California Register of Historical Resources 13 CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency 14 CWA Clean Water Act 15 cy cubic yards 16 17 dB decibel 18 dBA A-weighted decibel 19 DGS California Department of General Services 20 DPM diesel particulate matter 21 DTSC [California] Department of Toxic Substances Control 22 DWR Department of Water Resources 23 24 EA environmental assessment 25 EB eastbound 26 EO Executive Order 27 ESA Endangered Species Act 28 29 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 30 Farmland Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance 31 FCC Federal Communications Commission 32 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 33 FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 34 ft feet 35 ft2 square feet 36 FTA Federal Transit Administration 37 38 GHG greenhouse gas 39 40 HAP hazardous air pollutant 41 HCP habitat conservation plan
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration v
California Highway Patrol Table of Contents
1 HCM Highway Capacity Manual 2 hp horsepower 3 HRA health risk assessment 4 HREC historical Recognized Environmental Condition 5 HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 6 Hz hertz 7 8 in/sec inches per second 9 IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation 10 IS/MND initial study/mitigated negative declaration 11 12 KOP key observation point 13 14 Ldn energy average of the A weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 15 hour period 16 LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design 17 Leq equivalent steady-state sound level 18 LLFD Loma Linda Fire Department 19 Lmax maximum sound level 20 Lmin minimum sound level 21 LOS level of service 22 Lxx sound level exceeded x percent of a specific time period 23 24 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 25 MGD million gallons per day 26 MLD Most Likely Descendant 27 MRZ Mineral Resource Zone 28 MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system 29 MT metric tons
30 MMT CO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 31 Mw Megawatt 32 33 N non-attainment 34 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 35 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission 36 NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 37 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 38 NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 39 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
40 NO2 nitrogen dioxide
41 NOX oxides of nitrogen
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vi
California Highway Patrol Table of Contents
1 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 2 NPPA Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 3 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 4 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 5 NSF National Science Foundation 6 7 OEHHA [California] Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 8 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 9
10 PM2.5 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less
11 PM10 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less 12 ppm parts per million 13 PPV peak particle velocity 14 Proposed Project CHP San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 15 PSD polyvinyl chloride 16 17 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 18 REC Recognized Environmental Condition 19 RF radio frequency 20 RMP risk management plan 21 ROG reactive organic gases 22 RUSD Redlands Unified School District 23 RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 24 25 SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments 26 SB senate bill 27 SBSD San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department 28 SBTAM San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model 29 SBWRF San Bernardino Water Reclamation Facility 30 SCAG Southern California Association Governments 31 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 32 SCE Southern California Edison 33 SGE Southern California Gas Company 34 SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
35 SO2 sulfur dioxide 36 SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company 37 SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 38 SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan 39 SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 40 41 TAC toxic air contaminant
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vii
California Highway Patrol Table of Contents
1 TCP Traditional Cultural Properties 2 TCR tribal cultural resource 3 4 U unclassified 5 USC U.S. Code 6 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 7 USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 8 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 9 USGBC U.S. Green Building Council 10 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 11 UST underground storage tank 12 UWMP urban water management plan 13 14 VA U.S. Veterans Affairs 15 VHFHSV very high fire hazard severity zone 16 VdB Vibration velocity in decibels 17 18 WB westbound 19 20 °F degrees fahrenheit 21 µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration viii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to provide the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the proposed CHP San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project and its location are described in depth in Chapter 2, Project Description. This document was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 15000 et seq.).
1.1 Intent and Scope of this Document This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, under which the Proposed Project is evaluated at a project level (CEQA Guidelines § 15378). CHP, as the lead agency under CEQA, will consider the Proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts when considering whether to approve the Project. This IS/MND is an informational document to be used in the planning and decision-making process for the Proposed Project and does not recommend approval or denial of the Proposed Project.
The site plans for the Proposed Project included in this IS/MND are conceptual. CHP anticipates that the final design for the Proposed Project would include some modifications to these conceptual plans, and the environmental analysis has been developed with conservative assumptions to accommodate some level of modification.
This IS/MND describes the Proposed Project; its environmental setting, including existing conditions and regulatory setting, as necessary; and the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project on or with regard to the following topics:
Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture/Forestry Resources Mineral Resources Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Population and Housing Cultural Resources Public Services Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Recreation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation and Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Tribal Cultural Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Utilities and Service Systems
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-1
California Highway Patrol Chapter 1. Introduction
1.2 Public Involvement Process Public disclosure and dialogue are priorities under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section (§) 15073 and § 15105(b) require that the lead agency designate a period during the IS/MND process when the public and other agencies can provide comments on the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. Accordingly, CHP is now circulating this document for a 30-day public and agency review period.
To provide input on this project, please send comments to the following contact:
Jennifer Parson, Senior Environmental Planner State of California Department of General Services Real Estate Services Division, Project Management & Development Branch Energy & Environmental Section 707 Third Street, 4th Floor, MS 509 West Sacramento, CA 95605 email: [email protected]
During its deliberations on whether to approve the Proposed Project, CHP will consider all comments received before 5:00 p.m. on the date identified in the Notice of Intent for closure of the public comment period.
1.3 Organization of this Document This IS/MND contains the following components:
Chapter 1, Introduction, provides a brief description of the intent and scope of this IS/MND, the public involvement process under CEQA, and the organization of and terminology used in this IS/MND.
Chapter 2, Project Description, describes the Proposed Project including its purpose and goals, the site where the Proposed Project would be constructed, the construction approach and activities, operation-related activities, and related permits and approvals.
Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist, presents the checklist used to assess the Proposed Project’s potential environmental effects, which is based on the model provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This chapter also includes a brief environmental setting description for each resource topic and identifies the Proposed Project’s anticipated environmental impacts, as well as any mitigation measures that would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Chapter 4, References, provides a bibliography of printed references, websites, and personal communications used in preparing this IS/MND.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-2
California Highway Patrol Chapter 1. Introduction
Appendices Appendix A. Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies Appendix B. Air Quality Appendix Appendix C. Health Risk Assessment Memorandum and Supporting Documentation Appendix D. Biological Resources Background Information Appendix E. Cultural Resources Documentation (Confidential) Appendix F. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix G. Traffic Data
1.4 Impact Terminology This IS/MND uses the following terminology to describe the environmental effects of the Proposed Project:
. A finding of no impact is made when the analysis concludes that the Proposed Project would not affect the particular environmental resource or issue. . An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that no substantial adverse change in the environment would result and that no mitigation is needed. . An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation if the analysis concludes that no substantial adverse change in the environment would result with the inclusion of the mitigation measures described. . An impact is considered significant or potentially significant if the analysis concludes that a substantial adverse effect on the environment could result. . Mitigation refers to specific measures or activities that would be adopted by the lead agency to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for an otherwise significant impact. . A cumulative impact refers to one that can result when a change in the environment would result from the incremental impacts of a project along with other related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Significant cumulative impacts might result from impacts that are individually minor but collectively significant. The cumulative impact analysis in this IS/MND focuses on whether the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to significant cumulative impacts caused by the project in combination with past, present, or probable future projects is cumulatively considerable. . Because the term “significant” has a specific usage in evaluating the impacts under CEQA, it is used to describe only the significance of impacts and is not used in other contexts within this document. Synonyms such as “substantial” are used when not discussing the significance of an environmental impact.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-3
California Highway Patrol Chapter 1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-4
1 Chapter 2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3 2.1 Background and Need for the Project 4 The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is the statewide law enforcement agency responsible 5 for enforcing vehicular and traffic laws on state highways and freeways; regulating the 6 transport of goods, including hazardous waste; and serving as emergency responders to 7 incidents on the state’s highway system. CHP’s mission is to provide “the highest level of 8 Safety, Service, and Security” (CHP 2017). To fulfill this mission, CHP has the following 9 objectives: 10 . protect life and property; 11 . provide superior service to the public and assistance to allied agencies; 12 . enhance public trust through community outreach and partnerships; 13 . invest in our people; and 14 . identify and respond to evolving law enforcement needs.
15 CHP police protection services are currently provided to San Bernardino and its surrounding 16 areas through San Bernardino Area CHP’s office located at 2211 Western Avenue, San 17 Bernardino, California. An increasing number of CHP employees have been assigned to the 18 San Bernardino area, and the existing facility’s building and service structures are inadequate 19 to house the number of employees and related equipment, record storage, reference library, 20 evidence rooms, lockers, and other officer support needs; therefore, a new CHP facility is 21 needed in the San Bernardino area.
22 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives 23 The CHP San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project (Proposed Project) is being 24 constructed as part of a statewide effort to replace aging or inadequate CHP field offices and 25 other facilities. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to relocate the San Bernardino Area 26 Office on Western Avenue and replace it with new facilities that would provide adequate 27 workspace, equipment storage, and vehicle parking for an increasing number of employees 28 assigned to this office (approximately 96 current employees, increasing to 110 employees 29 over 10 years).
30 Specific project objectives are as follows:
31 . construct a facility that meets CHP’s statewide programming requirements (e.g., 32 provision of a citation clearance area and additional/separate locker rooms for 33 female employees); 34 . construct a facility in the San Bernardino Area Office’s service area that provides 35 efficient access to the freeway system,
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-1
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 . develop a CHP facility that is accredited under the U.S. Green Building Council’s 2 (USGBC) Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) program at the 3 “silver” or better level of certification, as required by state law; 4 . meet the California Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act requirements 5 by designing and constructing a facility capable of providing essential services to 6 the public after a disaster; and 7 . construct a facility that meets the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act 8 (ADA), California Green Code, and Title 24 energy and resource standards.
9 2.3 Project Location and Setting 10 The Proposed Project site is located northwest of the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and 11 Bryn Mawr Avenue in Loma Linda, California (see Figure 2-1). This location is situated 12 approximately 0.15 mile south of Interstate 10, 3.4 miles east of Interstate 215, 1.5 miles 13 southeast of the Santa Ana River, and 6.85 miles southeast of CHP’s existing office in San 14 Bernardino. The site is comprised of 10 parcels, totaling 5.3 acres, as follows:
15 Table 2-1. Parcels Comprising the Proposed Project Site
Assessor’s Parcel Acres Street Address Number 0292-451-36 0.4 Not assigned 0292-451-37 0.4 Not assigned 0292-451-38 0.4 Not assigned 0292-451-39 0.4 Not assigned 0292-451-40 0.4 Not assigned 0292-451-41 0.8 Not assigned 0292-451-42 0.6 Not assigned 0292-451-43 0.6 Not assigned 0292-451-44 0.6 Not assigned 0292-451-49 0.9 Not assigned Total 5.3 16 Source: Avocet Environmental, Inc. (Avocet) 2016
17 The site itself is vacant and has been so since the 1980s. Adjacent land uses include 18 commercial/light industrial to the north and west, residential to the east, and medical to the 19 south (the U.S. Veterans Affairs [VA] Loma Linda Ambulatory Care Center) (Avocet 2016). 20 Figure 2-2 shows the Project site and surrounding area. Available records indicate that the 21 Project site was developed for agricultural use, most likely as a citrus grove, sometime prior 22 to 1938. In the late 1980s, the Project site and many of the surrounding citrus groves were 23 cleared to make way for commercial development in the area (Avocet 2016).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-2
.! Existing Facility Location 7 1 0 2 / 9 1 / 7
G P
d x m . y t i n i c i V t c e j o r P _ 1 - 2 _ e r u g i F \ o n i d a n r
e .! B n a
S Proposed New \ d x
m Facility Site \ A Q E C _ P H C _ 2 0 0 5 1 \ S T C
E C J
O A R
P L _ \ I S
I F
G O c r R A \
s N t n IA e m u c o D \ S I Detail Area G \ s r Basemap Sources: Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map e s policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, U \
: USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. C Figure 2-1: Project Vicinity Prepared by: .! Proposed New Facility Site .! Exisiting Facility
0 1 2 San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project Prepared for: California Highway Patrol ¯ Miles Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15002_CHP_CEQA\mxd\SanBernardino\Figure_2-2_ProjectSite.mxd PG 12/18/2017 C P P r r a e e l i p p f o a a r r r n e e i d d a
f b H o y r i : : g h w a y
P a t r o l ¯ 0 F 4 e 0 e 0 t N P e 8 0 r w 0 o S
p F i o t a e s c e i l S d i t a y n E I B N s a
C r s B i I R e ( n m T E e h M a i a r p t E i
l n a S i N n a o T a d u
l ) P r r , c
,
M e S d N s a R t : i p
S C u n m o a y d u n o I r n , c
y
d E e A i s s / a r : ,
i r
M E N J e s a G r p i i a C , a
t H C n
i , E O ,
g M © R E a f
E O f T , t
p D I i , e e
c e E n L d e S s o r t r i
r
m e C N R e e h t e e M , i
n U a g p a S p
( a
G l H c a t o S o n i n , c
t I v g r n e P i
b t K e e m u o r F
r t m n o D g r e o i a s ) p e g , , n
, j E a c u e n s t l d r
i a P c
r t K h r o t r e e r a
e o G
S a t 2 I j S , i i e o - t c 2 n e t California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 2.4 Proposed Project Characteristics 2 The Proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a replacement CHP Area 3 Office and associated improvements. The conceptual site plans and building design for the 4 CHP San Bernardino Area Office are shown in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4, respectively. Note: 5 the plans shown on Figures 2-3 and 2-4 are conceptual; CHP anticipates that the detailed 6 design for the Proposed Project would include modifications to these plans.
7 The Proposed Project would develop approximately 5.0 acres (approximately 217,000 8 square feet [ft2]) within the 5.3-acre site. Approximately 169,000 ft2 (3.9 acres) of this would 9 be new impervious surfaces; the remainder of the site would be unpaved, such as for 10 landscaping.
11 This section continues with a discussion of the Project facilities, construction activities, and 12 operational activities that would be part of the Proposed Project. The section also discusses 13 the proposed changes from the existing CHP San Bernardino Area Office operations, to the 14 extent they are relevant to the environmental analysis.
15 2.4.1 Project Facilities 16 The Proposed Project would include structures, a radio tower, secured and visitor parking 17 areas, enclosures and storage areas, a fuel island and gas tank, utility improvements and other 18 ancillary improvements. Descriptions of these facilities follow. Conceptual locations of 19 Project facilities are indicated on Figure 2-3.
20 Structures 21 Structures that would be part of the Proposed Project include an office building, an 22 automobile service building, a radio vault building, and a property storage building. A general 23 description of each structure is provided below. Details of the site preparation work are 24 provided in Section 2.4.2, “Construction.”
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-5
AST
Prepared by: 0 80 160 Figure 2-3. Feet Conceptual Project Overview
Prepared for: San Bernardino Area Ofϐice Replacement Project California Highway Patrol Source: Department of General Services 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: Figure 2-4. Conceptual General Building Design
Prepared for: San Bernardino Area Ofϐice Replacement Project California Highway Patrol Source: Department of General Services 2015 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 Main Office Building: The main office building would be a single-story building of 2 approximately 33,000 ft2. The facility would be built to meet California Green Code and Title 3 24 energy and resource standards and achieve a USGBC LEED silver or higher accreditation. 4 The USGBC grants LEED certification based on a scoring system related to eight major 5 categories: location and transportation; sustainable sites; water efficiency; energy and 6 atmosphere; materials and resources; indoor environmental quality; innovation; and 7 regional priority (USGBC 2017). 8 The facility would include: 9 . offices and work stations; 10 . break room/conference room; 11 . interview rooms; 12 . briefing/training room; 13 . armory; 14 . gun cleaning area and gun cleaners/solvents and materials storage; 15 . issue room (for equipment and casework storage); 16 . evidence processing, logging, and storage areas; 17 . men’s/women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and showers; 18 . “physical means of arrest” room and storage; 19 . lactation room; 20 . rain gear lockers; 21 . voice/data room; and 22 . janitorial, mechanical, and electrical rooms.
23 Automobile Service Building: The automobile service building would be located directly 24 adjacent (to the west) to the main office building. The structure would be a single-story 25 building of approximately 6,700 ft2 that would include offices, three auto service bays, a car 26 wash bay, a vehicle equipment area, tire storage area, vehicle parts storage room, restroom, 27 and an air compressor room. Two 55-gallon bulk oil drums and one 30-gallon used oil drum 28 would be stored in the automobile service building. The automobile service bays would have 29 vehicle lifts for servicing and maintaining CHP vehicles.
30 Radio Vault Building: The one-story radio vault building would be approximately 750 ft2 31 and would include a radio vault room and an equipment storage area.
32 Property Storage Building: The one-story property storage building would include a bulk 33 evidence and property storage area, and a secured storage area. The total size of the building 34 would be approximately 750 ft2.
35 Miscellaneous Site Elements 36 Vehicle Fueling Area: The vehicle fueling area would include a 12,000-gallon aboveground 37 fuel storage tank with two mechanized dispensers, a canopy over the fueling area, and 38 parking for a fuel tanker truck, covering an area of approximately 3,300 ft2. The fuel storage
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-8
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 tank would have secondary containment. Gasoline stored in the fuel tank would be used to 2 supply CHP vehicles.
3 Radio Tower: The radio tower would consist of a 120-foot steel lattice communications 4 tower supporting a 20-foot mono pole and 8-foot lightning rod: comprising a total height of 5 148 feet. The radio tower would provide for communications between the new facility, CHP 6 personnel in the field, local dispatch facilities, and state-wide during emergencies. The base 7 of the radio tower would be approximately 900 ft2. No tower lighting or markings are 8 required by the Federal Aviation Administration at this time.
9 Waste Enclosure: A waste enclosure would be constructed on the Project site. The enclosure 10 would contain two trash dumpsters, covered used-tire racks, and a recycling area. The waste 11 enclosure would be approximately 1,200 ft2.
12 Waste Oil Containment: A 250-gallon waste oil tank would be located near the automobile 13 service building and would be approximately 120 ft2.
14 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment Area: The heating, ventilation, and 15 air conditioning (HVAC) system equipment area would be approximately 700 ft2. The HVAC 16 system would provide fully automated and continuous heating, cooling, and air ventilation to 17 all areas of the office building and automobile service building that would be designed for 18 occupancy.
19 Generator Enclosure and Tank: The generator enclosure would contain an emergency 20 generator, exhaust system, cooling system, diesel fuel supply and fuel storage system, engine 21 control system, and miscellaneous cables and equipment to support the generator’s 22 operation. The emergency generator’s capacity would be approximately 500 kilowatts (kW). 23 Aboveground diesel fuel tanks would hold approximately 96 hours of fuel supply, which 24 would equate to 4,000 gallons. The emergency generator would be used as a power source to 25 the Area Office facilities, as necessary, if primary power sources were to fail. The total area of 26 the generator enclosure and tank would be approximately 2,200 ft2.
27 Fusee Enclosure: Flares, flare guns, and similar equipment would be stored in the fusee 28 enclosure (approximately 200 ft2).
29 Parking and Citation Clearance Areas 30 Parking Areas: The Proposed Project would have a visitor parking area and a secured 31 parking area for CHP vehicles and equipment. The visitor area would have approximately 30 32 regular spaces, two spaces for handicapped-accessible parking (includes one for van 33 parking), and four spaces for automobiles associated with the citation clearance area 34 described below, for a total of 36 spaces. The secured parking area would have approximately 35 120 total spaces, including spaces for various specialized vehicles such as motorcycles, 36 evidence vehicles, a mobile command center, and accessible vehicles. In total, the visitor and 37 secured parking areas would provide approximately 156 parking spaces, for a total net area 38 of approximately 53,500 ft2. The parking spaces would be located adjacent to the main office 39 building, as shown in Figure 2-3, and would be surfaced with asphalt concrete and/or 40 reinforced concrete paving. Electric vehicle charging stations also would be included in the 41 parking areas.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-9
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 Citation Clearance Area: A citation clearance area would be provided for verifying 2 correction of citations and processing of standard passenger vehicles and larger commercial 3 vehicles, such as buses. Citations issued to passenger and commercial vehicles may include 4 violations for outdated registration tags, missing license plates, missing mirrors, 5 malfunctioning engine or exhaust systems, and other vehicle violations (“fix-it tickets”). The 6 purpose of the citation clearance area at the CHP San Bernardino Area Office is to provide 7 space in which officers can safely evaluate vehicles to determine whether violations have 8 been addressed. For citation clearance checks involving passenger vehicles, the driver parks 9 in the designated citation clearing parking area and requests a verification of citation 10 correction from an officer on-duty. These verifications occur throughout the day and typically 11 take less than 5 minutes. Following a satisfactory verification, the citation is cleared and the 12 driver leaves the site. For citation clearance checks involving commercial vehicles, an 13 appointment with the CHP Commercial Unit officer is required. The commercial vehicle parks 14 in the larger designated citation clearing area for the inspection. Commercial vehicle 15 inspections are scheduled several times per week; they take more time than passenger 16 vehicle checks and may require multiple engine shut-downs and periods of engine idling. As 17 shown in Figure 2-3, the approximately 4,800 ft2 commercial truck and bus citation clearance 18 area may be located at the east end of the site and be accessible directly from Bryn Mawr 19 Avenue.
20 Ancillary Improvements 21 Fencing: The Proposed Project’s secured areas would be surrounded by 6-foot-tall concrete- 22 block masonry fence with 2-foot metal pickets. Steel decorative sliding gates would be 23 installed at the vehicle entrances to the Project site.
24 Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants would be installed in accordance with applicable requirements 25 of the Office of the State Fire Marshal and local fire department.
26 Landscape and Irrigation: Drought-tolerant landscaping requiring minimum maintenance 27 and an automatic irrigation system would be installed on the Project site. Plants would be 28 selected that are tolerant of the local climate.
29 Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting would be installed throughout the site for security 30 purposes; lighting would be located along the site perimeter, but it would be directed 31 downward and shielded to reduce light dispersion. Lighting must meet CHP safety protocols, 32 which require 24-hour lighting of the facility. Entrances would have brighter lighting than the 33 parking areas and office building. Flagpoles would have lighting directed upward.
34 Flagpoles and Monument: Three aluminum flagpoles, each 30 feet high, would be installed 35 in front of the CHP office building near the visitor parking area. A CHP monument sign would 36 also be installed near the visitor parking area.
37 Utilities and Stormwater Drainage 38 Utilities: The Project site has immediate access to utilities, including water, sewer, electricity, 39 natural gas, and communications infrastructure. Table 2-2 lists anticipated utility service 40 agencies that would serve the Proposed Project.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-10
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 Table 2-2. Local Utility Agencies in the Project Area
Utility Service Utility Agency Water Supply City of Loma Linda Sanitary Sewer City of Loma Linda Stormwater Management City of Loma Linda Electrical Service Southern California Edison (SCE) Natural Gas Service Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) Data and Phone Service AT&T, Charter, Spectrum, Frontier Communications Fire Protection Service City of Loma Linda Fire Department, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District
2 Stormwater Drainage: Site runoff would be managed and discharged according to post- 3 construction stormwater management requirements issued by the State Water Resources 4 Control Board.
5 2.4.2 Construction
6 Construction Methods 7 Site Preparation and Earthwork: Site preparation would include clearing and grubbing, 8 grading, excavation, importing and placing fill, and compacting the fill and other materials. 9 Clearing and grubbing would be conducted using bulldozers, standard excavators, and hand 10 labor. All demolished material and debris would be disposed of off-site at an appropriate 11 location selected by the construction contractor. For the purposes of this analysis, the 12 disposal site is presumed to be located within 1 hour of travel time from the Project site.
13 To the extent feasible, excavated soil would be reused on site. For hauling trips, an 14 assumption of an average of 2.5 feet of fill for a 5.4-acre site was used. Fill would be delivered 15 to the Project site by conventional haul trucks (approximately 15 cubic yards [cy] per load). 16 Fill material would be placed with an excavator and compacted with a compactor/roller. 17 Table 2-3 provides the anticipated number of potential worker and construction-related 18 trips for the Proposed Project’s various construction phases. Site preparation activities 19 discussed above are divided into three phases (demolition, site preparation, and grading) for 20 the purpose of estimating worker and construction-related trips.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-11
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 Table 2-3. Comparison of Worker and Construction Trips during Various Construction 2 Phases for the Proposed Project
Total Trips by Construction Phase Worker Trips Vendor Trips Hauling Trips Construction Phase Demolition 300 0 0 300 Site Preparation 90 0 0 90 Grading 120 0 2,723 2,843 Construction 15,640 6,440 0 22,080 Paving 270 0 0 270 Coating 252 0 0 252 3
4 Buildings and Structures: Construction of buildings and structures would include the 5 following activities:
6 . delivery of tilt-up walls and/or concrete delivery, forming, and placement, and rebar 7 placement; 8 . structural steel work (assembly and welding); 9 . installation of electrical/instrumentation work; 10 . masonry or tilt-up concrete wall construction; and 11 . installation of mechanical equipment and piping installation.
12 Pipelines and Underground Utility Equipment: Drainage, water supply, and wastewater 13 pipelines and underground utilities would be installed in open trenches, typically using 14 conventional cut-and-cover construction techniques. The first step in the construction 15 process would be surface preparation, including removing any structures, pavement, or 16 vegetation from the surface of the trench area using jackhammers, graders, pavement saws, 17 mowing equipment, bulldozers, front-end loaders, and/or trucks. A backhoe, track-mounted 18 excavator, or similar equipment would then be used to dig trenches for pipelines or 19 installation of underground utility equipment. The width of the trench would generally vary 20 between 3 and 5 feet and the depth would be three times the pipeline diameter. The diameter 21 of pipelines would vary by material type and purpose.
22 In most locations, trenches would most likely have vertical sidewalls to minimize the amount 23 of soil excavated and the area needed for the construction easement. Soil excavated from the 24 trench would be stockpiled alongside the trench or in staging areas for later reuse in 25 backfilling the trench or for fill at other on-site locations, if appropriate. Native soil would be 26 reused for backfill to the greatest extent possible; however, it may not have the properties 27 necessary for compaction and stability. If not reusable, the soil would be hauled off site for 28 disposal at an appropriate disposal site.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-12
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 The final step in the installation process would be to restore the ground surface. Site 2 restoration would generally involve paving, installing landscaping, or installing erosion 3 controls, as necessary.
4 Construction Equipment 5 The main pieces of equipment that might be used are as follows:
. track-mounted excavator . backhoe . small crane . compactor . end dump truck . front-end loader . 10-wheel dump truck . water truck . paving equipment . forklift . flat-bed delivery truck . compressor/jack hammer . concrete truck . boom truck . grader . mowing equipment (e.g., weedeater, commercial lawnmower) . bulldozer
6 Construction Fencing 7 The construction area would be fenced for safety and security.
8 Decommissioning the Existing Facility 9 The existing CHP San Bernardino Area Office at 2211 Western Avenue would be 10 decommissioned to allow for future use as a State-owned surplus building. If the State 11 determines that there is no other State use for the property, the property would be included 12 in the annual omnibus surplus legislation and, upon enactment, would be sold pursuant to 13 California Government Code Section 11011 et seq.
14 Construction Schedule 15 Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to last for approximately 24 months, 16 beginning in 2019 and ending in 2021. Within this timeframe, the majority of construction 17 work that involves the use of operating equipment would be performed within a 15-month 18 period. Construction activities would typically be performed Monday through Friday 19 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. After-hours work and work on Saturdays, Sundays, and State 20 holidays would be permitted at the discretion of the State of California.
21 2.4.3 Existing and Proposed Operations
22 Existing Operations 23 The existing CHP San Bernardino Area Office at 2211 Western Avenue includes an office 24 building, storage buildings, communications tower, secured and visitor parking, vehicle
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-13
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 maintenance area, and fuel island and storage tank, comprising a total of approximately 1.82 2 acres (approximately 79,000 sf2).
3 The existing CHP San Bernardino Area Office is staffed by 81 uniformed CHP officers and 15 4 civilian support personnel, and is operated 7 days per week, 24 hours per day by shift 5 employees. Shifts generally run from 6 a.m. to early afternoon, early afternoon to 10 p.m., and 6 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Most non-uniformed staff are present from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
7 Proposed Project Operations 8 Employees and Vehicle Equipment Use 9 To fulfill its law enforcement and public safety activities at all times, the proposed CHP facility 10 would be staffed 7 days a week, 24 hours a day by shift employees, with shifts similar to those 11 of the existing area office.
12 The Proposed Project is projected to have 110 employees comprising 18 civilian support staff 13 members and 92 uniformed CHP personnel over the next 10 years. The average vehicle miles 14 traveled by each CHP staff person at the Project site would remain approximately the same 15 as that for the existing area office. Overall, average vehicle miles traveled to and from the new 16 office would increase incrementally based on the increased number of personnel who would 17 be employed at the new office. Table 2-4 compares the number of employees associated with 18 the existing and proposed facilities.
19 Table 2-4. Comparison of Staffing Levels at Existing and Proposed San Bernardino 20 Area Offices
Existing Proposed CHP Area Office CHP Area Office (10-year projection) Employees (Total) 96 110 Uniformed Officers (Total) 81 92 Other Staff 15 18 21
22 Facility Operation 23 Operation of the CHP San Bernardino Area Office would require periodic deliveries of 24 automotive service equipment and materials (e.g., oil, lubricants, and tires), fuel, office 25 supplies and other equipment. Fuel would be delivered approximately monthly. Hazardous 26 materials stored on site (e.g., used oil and used tires) would be transported approximately 27 quarterly to an appropriate local hazardous waste facility for disposal or recycling. Fuel 28 would be delivered approximately monthly. Other hazardous material (e.g., oil) would 29 generally be delivered quarterly, or as needed.
30 Similar to the existing CHP San Bernardino Area Office operations, the Proposed Project 31 operations would include periodic office building alarm tests and vehicle siren tests during 32 daily shift changes. Shift change tests are a mandatory practice that involves testing sirens, 33 vehicle lights, and the vehicle camera. In general, as shifts change, CHP vehicle sirens would
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-14
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 be tested briefly to ensure functionality before vehicles leave the project site. The office 2 building alarm would be part of the fire protection system for the facility and would always 3 be active. The alarm would be tested every 6 months and emit a loud alert typically lasting 4 30 seconds.
5 2.5 Permits and Approvals 6 The permits and regulatory compliance requirements, along with the responsible or 7 permitting agency, are described for the Proposed Project in Table 2-5.
8 Table 2-5. Applicable Permit and Regulatory Requirements
Regulatory Permit/ Agency Law/Regulation Purpose Authorization Type Santa Ana Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Notification under Regional Water Section 402 Porter Elimination System (NPDES) NPDES General Quality Control Cologne Water program regulates Construction Permit Board Quality Control Act discharges of pollutants Compliance with NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit South Coast Air Rule 10 Stationary Source Permits Permit to Construct and Quality for emergency generator, Permit to Operate Management refueling station, storage District tanks California Section 660 of the Potential encroachment Encroachment permit, if Department of California Streets into Caltrans right-of-way necessary Transportation and Highways Code (Caltrans) SCE SCE Policies and Establish compliance with Electrical connection Requirements SCE policies approval SoCalGas SoCalGas Policies Establish compliance with Encroachment permit and Requirements gas company policies and gas connection approval City of Loma New water supply, Establish water supply, fire Conditional Water and Linda fire hydrants, and hydrant, and sewer Sewer Use and sewer line connections at the Project Connection Permits, connections site Coordinate with City
9
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-15
California Highway Patrol Chapter 2. Project Description
1 This page intentionally left blank
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-16
California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Chapter 3. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title CHP San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 2. Lead Agency Name and California Highway Patrol Address 601 N. Seventh Street, Building Sacramento, California 95811 3. Contact Person and Email Bob Jones, Chief of Administrative Services Division [email protected] 4. Project Location and APN Vacant site northwest of the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and Bryn Mawr Avenue in the City of Loma Linda. This location is situated approximately 0.15 mile south of Interstate 10, 3.4 miles east of Interstate 215, 1.5 miles southeast of Santa Ana River, and 6.85 miles southeast of CHP’s existing office in San Bernardino. The project would develop approximately 5 acres. See attached project location maps (Figures 2-1 through 2-3). Project APNs: 0292-451-36, 0292-451-37, 0292- 451-38, 0292-451-39, 0292-451-40, 0292-451-41, 0292-451-42, 0292-451-43, 0292-451-44, 0292-451- 49 5. Property Owner(s) State of California 6. General Plan Designation Business Park 7. Zoning C2 (General Business) 8. Description of Project See Chapter 2, Project Description 9. Surrounding Land Uses The site is vacant. Surrounding land uses generally and Setting include commercial/light industrial buildings and office space. The site is bordered by a surgery center and medical building to the northwest, a distribution business to the north across Business Center Drive, and other business offices on the west, across Enterprise Drive. The VA Loma Linda Ambulatory Care Center is to the south of the Project site across Redlands Boulevard. 10. Other Public Agencies Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, whose Approval or Input South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCE, May Be Needed SoCalGas, City of Loma Linda, Caltrans
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-1 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
11. Hazards or Hazardous The project site is not located on the lists Materials enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, including, but not limited to lists of hazardous waste facilities. 1
2 This chapter of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) assesses the 3 environmental impacts of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) San Bernardino Area Office 4 Replacement Project (Proposed Project) based on the environmental checklist provided in 5 Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The 6 environmental resources and potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project are 7 described in the individual subsections below. Each section (3.1 through 3.18) provides a 8 brief overview of the regulations and regulatory agencies that address the resource and 9 describes the existing environmental conditions for that resource to help the reader 10 understand the conditions that could be affected by the Proposed Project. Relevant local laws, 11 regulations, and policies are described in Appendix A. In addition, each section includes a 12 discussion of the rationale used to determine the significance level of the Proposed Project’s 13 environmental impact for each checklist question. For environmental impacts that have the 14 potential to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce the severity 15 of the impact to a less-than-significant level.
16 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 17 The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by the Proposed 18 Project, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Land Use/Planning
☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Mineral Resources
☒ Air Quality ☒ Noise
☒ Biological Resources ☐ Population/Housing
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Public Services
☒ Geology/Soils ☐ Recreation
☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Transportation/Traffic
☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Utilities/Service Systems
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
19
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-2 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.1 AESTHETICS Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
2 3.1.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 No federal regulations are applicable to aesthetics in relation to the Proposed Project.
5 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 6 In 1963, the California State Legislature established the California Scenic Highway Program, 7 a provision of the Streets and Highways Code, to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of 8 California (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2017). The state highway 9 system includes designated scenic highways and those that are eligible for designation as 10 scenic highways.
11 There are no designated or eligible scenic highways within the Project vicinity; the nearest 12 eligible state scenic highway is State Route 330 located approximately two miles northeast of 13 the Project site.
14 3.1.2 Environmental Setting 15 The Proposed Project site is located northwest of the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and 16 Bryn Mawr Avenue in Loma Linda, California (see Figure 2-1). This location is situated 17 approximately 0.15 mile south of Interstate 10, 3.4 miles east of Interstate 215, 1.5 miles 18 southeast of the Santa Ana River, and 6.85 miles southeast of CHP’s existing office in San 19 Bernardino.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-4 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 The site itself is vacant and has been so since the 1980s. Adjacent land uses include 2 commercial/light industrial to the north and west, residential to the east, and medical to the 3 south (the U.S. Veterans Affairs [VA] Loma Linda Ambulatory Care Center is south of the 4 Project site across Redlands Boulevard) (Avocet Environmental, Inc. [Avocet] 2016). Figure 5 2-2 shows the Project site and surrounding area.
6 Visual Character and Quality of the Site 7 The Project site is covered with ruderal grass. The dominant visual features surrounding the 8 Project site include roads, office and commercial development and Interstate 10 to the north, 9 a vacant parcel to the west, the VA hospital to the south, and residential to the southwest and 10 east. Beyond the vacant parcel on the west, across Enterprise Drive, is another row of office 11 buildings. The VA hospital is the largest development in the surrounding area. The building 12 is three stories, 271,000 square feet, surrounded by parking lots; the entire developed site is 13 approximately 36 acres.
14 There is minimal vegetation in the area, aside from ruderal grasses on the Project site and 15 landscaping trees lining the surrounding streets. There are distant views of San Bernardino 16 Mountains to the north and the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. Given the 17 developed nature of the Project site’s surroundings, the area surrounding the Project site has 18 an urban character marked by structures, minimally landscaped areas, and roads. The visual 19 quality of the site is low to moderate and characteristic of surrounding land uses.
20 Light and Glare 21 Nighttime lighting is necessary to provide and maintain safe environments. Light that falls 22 beyond the intended area of illumination is referred to as “light trespass.” The most common 23 cause of light trespass is spillover light, which occurs when a lighting source illuminates 24 surfaces beyond the intended area, such as when building security lighting or parking lot 25 lights shine onto neighboring properties. Spillover light can adversely affect light-sensitive 26 uses, such as residences, at night. Both light intensity and fixtures can affect the amount of 27 light spillover. Modern, energy-efficient fixtures that face downward, such as shielded light 28 fixtures, are typically less obtrusive than older, upward-facing light fixtures.
29 Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials, such as 30 reflective glass, polished surfaces, or metallic architectural features. During daylight hours, 31 the amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight.
32 The most notable sources of lighting in the Project vicinity are from street lights on the 33 surrounding roads, and parking lot lighting at the nearby office parks, the VA hospital and the 34 townhomes. Vehicles traveling on U.S. Highway 10, approximately 800 feet to the north, are 35 another source of lighting, particularly during nighttime hours.
36 Scenic Highways and Corridors 37 There are no officially designated or eligible to be designated state scenic highways within 38 the vicinity of the Project site.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-5 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Viewer Sensitivity 2 Viewer sensitivity is another consideration in assessing the effects of visual change. 3 Sensitivity is a function of factors such as the visibility of resources in the landscape, 4 proximity of viewers to the visual resource, elevation of viewers relative to the visual 5 resource, frequency and duration of views, number of viewers, and types and expectations of 6 individuals and viewer groups.
7 Existing views of the Project site were captured from six key observation points (KOPs), as 8 shown on Figure AES-1. These photographs have been selected as being representative of 9 the types of visual resources that are present in each area.
10 Views of the Project site and vicinity from each of these KOPs are described as follows:
11 . KOP 1: This KOP shows views from the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and 12 Bryn Mawr Avenue looking northwest toward the Project site (Figure AES-2, top 13 photo). The view includes the adjacent roadways, light signals and poles, trees, and 14 existing structures. In addition, the periphery of the adjacent business complexes 15 and associated landscaping trees can be seen from this viewpoint. In general, the 16 view from KOP 1 can be characterized as urban in character marked by structures, 17 minimally landscaped areas, and roads. 18 . KOP 2: This KOP shows views from Bryn Mawr Avenue, midway between Business 19 Center Drive and Redlands Boulevard, looking west toward the Project site (Figure 20 AES-2, bottom photo). The office parks to the north and west can be seen beyond 21 the Project site. In general, the view from KOP 2 can be characterized as urban in 22 character marked by structures, minimally landscaped property, trees, and roads. 23 . KOP 3: Similar to KOP 2, this KOP shows the view from the intersection of Business 24 Center Drive and Bryn Mawr Avenue, looking southwest toward the Project site 25 (Figure AES-3, top photo) and primarily includes ruderal grasses on the Project 26 site, office buildings, the VA hospital and trees in the background. In general, the 27 view from KOP 3 can be characterized as urban in character, marked by the adjacent 28 highway, minimally landscaped property, trees, and distant structures. 29 . KOP 4: This KOP shows the view from the end of Industrial Circle, a cul-de-sac that 30 extends south of Business Center Drive, midway between Enterprise Drive and Bryn 31 Mawr Avenue, looking south toward the Project site (Figure AES-3, bottom photo). 32 Beyond the Project site, other visible features include the VA hospital, utility poles, 33 and trees. Views of the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains are in the distant 34 background. The view from KOP 4 can be characterized as urban in character, 35 marked by, minimally landscaped property, trees, distant structures and mountains. 36 . KOP 5: This KOP shows the view from the intersection between Enterprise Drive 37 and Redlands Boulevard looking northeast toward the project site. The view 38 includes Redlands Boulevard, utility pole, street trees in the foreground, and office 39 buildings in the background. This view also includes the San Bernardino Mountains 40 in distant horizon (Figure AES-4, top photo). In general, the view from KOP 5 can be 41 characterized as urban in character, marked by the adjacent roadway, minimally 42 landscaped property, trees, and distant structures and mountains. 43 KOP 6: This KOP shows the view from the edge of the VA hospital site looking north 44 toward the Project. (Figure AES-4, bottom photo). This view includes Redland
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-6 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Boulevard, trees, utility pole, and overhead power lines in the foreground and 2 ruderal grasses on the Project site. Beyond the Project site, views include the office 3 buildings to the north as well as the San Bernardino Mountains in the distant 4 horizon. In general, the view from KOP 6 can be characterized as urban in character, 5 marked by the adjacent roadway, minimally landscaped property, trees, structures, 6 and distant mountains.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-7 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration KKOPOP 3 KKOPOP 4
Proposed KKOPOP 2 New Facility Site KKOPOP 1 KKOPOP 5 KKOPOP 6
Basemap Sources: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
Figure AES-1. Viewpoints SurroundingFigure 2-2 Project Site Prepared by: Proposed Project Site
0 400 800 San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project Prepared for: California Highway Patrol ¯ Feet Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: Figure AES-2. Existing Views from KOPs 1 and 2
Prepared for: San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project California Highway Patrol Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: Figure AES-3. Existing Views from KOPs 3 and 4
Prepared for: San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project California Highway Patrol Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: Figure AES-4. Existing Views from KOPs 5 and 6
Prepared for: San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project California Highway Patrol Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Viewer Groups 2 Viewer groups in the vicinity of the Project site and their sensitivity to visual changes are 3 described below. Viewer groups with visual access to the Project site are divided into the 4 categories of patrons of nearby businesses, motorists, pedestrians, and residences.
5 Visitors and Employees of Nearby Offices and Hospital 6 Consistent with the land use designation of Business Park under the City’s General Plan and 7 General Commercial (C2) zoning, the Project site is surrounded by commercial and office 8 buildings to the north and west. In addition, a VA hospital is located south of the site, across 9 Redlands Boulevard. Patrons of these establishments likely visit on an infrequent and 10 temporary basis, with limited expectations of the surrounding setting. Employees would have 11 higher sensitivity due to their frequency and duration of views, however, nearby buildings 12 with views of the Project site have very few windows and the VA hospital is approximately 13 700 feet away which offers a distant view of the Project. As such the employees would have 14 reduced viewer sensitivity.
15 Motorists 16 Motorists traveling on Redlands Boulevard, Bryn Mawr Avenue, Business Center Drive, and 17 Enterprise Drive have views of the Project site (KOPs 1 and 6). Motorists’ views would be 18 temporary, and they would have limited expectations of the setting. Motorists in this area 19 would most likely be patrons or employees of the surrounding businesses and the hospital. 20 These roadways are not considered to be scenic vistas or byways; therefore, motorists would 21 not be traversing the surrounding roadways for the purpose of scenic viewing.
22 In general, as a viewer group, motorists in this area would have reduced sensitivity to the 23 surrounding viewshed.
24 Residential 25 There are townhouses (Redlands West Townhome) directly to the east of the Project site, 26 across Bryn Mawr Avenue, and an apartment complex (Orange Wood Apartments) across 27 Redlands Boulevard, approximately 250 feet southwest of the project site. Trees planted 28 adjacent to the Orange Wood Apartments and on the north side of Redlands Boulevard 29 provide some visual screening for the residents of Orange Wood. Trees also screen some of 30 the townhomes, but to a lesser degree. In general, as a viewer group, residents have a 31 heightened sensitivity to the surrounding viewshed because they have high frequency and 32 duration of views.
33 3.1.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 34 a. Adverse effects on scenic vistas—Less than Significant
35 A scenic vista is generally considered a view of an area that has remarkable scenery or a 36 natural or cultural resource that is indigenous to the area. No scenic vistas have been officially 37 designated for the Project site or vicinity in the City’s General Plan (City of Loma Linda, 2009).
38 Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would cause some temporary 39 visual changes in the Project site. A variety of construction equipment, as listed in
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-12 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Section 2.4.2, “Proposed Project Characteristics,” would be present during construction. The 2 temporary presence of this equipment and associated construction activities would be 3 somewhat out of character for the area; however, no equipment would be present on the 4 Project site after completion of the construction phase of the Proposed Project. Because 5 construction would be temporary and the site is not located within a scenic vista, 6 construction impacts would be less than significant.
7 The Proposed Project would result in aboveground physical changes to the viewshed, 8 including the presence of:
9 . buildings and enclosures, 10 . aboveground tanks, 11 . parking areas, 12 . 6-foot-tall concrete-block masonry fence with 2-foot metal pickets along with steel 13 decorative sliding gates, 14 . 24-hour exterior lighting meeting CHP safety protocols, 15 . three aluminum flagpoles, each 30 feet high, 16 . CHP monument sign near the visitor parking area, 17 . vehicle fueling area that would include a canopy over the fueling area, and 18 . 148-foot tall communications tower. 19 20 Figure 2-3 shows the Project’s conceptual site plan, and Figure 2-4 shows conceptual cross- 21 section views of the replacement CHP Area Office. The Proposed Project would result in a 22 substantial visual change as the site is currently vacant. The CHP offices would be one-story 23 buildings which would not obstruct any views of the distant mountains from any KOP. 24 Motorists would have clear but fleeting views of the CHP Area Office. Residents of the 25 townhomes across Bryn Mawr Avenue would have views of the CHP Area Office’s fencing, 26 parking area, and main office building. The communications tower would also be visible, 27 though the bottom portion would be partially blocked by facility fencing and possibly facility 28 structures. More distant views of the CHP Area Office would also be available from the KOP 6 29 (VA hospital) and would primarily consist of the new concrete wall and roof of the main office 30 building.
31 The 148-foot-tall communications tower would be the most prominent visual feature on the 32 Project site. The specific tower location on the Project site is unknown at this time and will 33 be identified during final design, however it would likely be visible from all KOPs. The tower 34 would be the tallest structure in the Project area and would likely be seen from a wide area 35 around the Project site. However, as stated above, the tower is not projected to block or alter 36 any scenic vistas. As discussed above, visitors and employees of the medical office have 37 reduced sensitivity to the surrounding viewshed due to the limited number of windows 38 exposed to the Project site.
39 Although the CHP Area Office would be visible to nearby businesses, passerby motorists, and 40 residents, these changes would be generally consistent with the current urban visual 41 character of the area and would not substantially affect the quality of views for these viewer
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-13 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 groups. Moreover, there are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area that would be 2 affected by the Proposed Project.
3 Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
4 b. Damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock 5 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway— 6 No Impact
7 The Project site is not visible from any officially designated or eligible to be designated scenic 8 highway and does not include any scenic resources. The Proposed Project would not damage 9 any scenic resources. Therefore, there would be no impact.
10 c. Changes to existing visual character or quality—Less than Significant
11 The nature of the Project site’s existing visual character is urban, represented primarily by 12 nearby office parks and the VA hospital, and its proximity to U.S. Highway 10. The property 13 itself is flat land with ruderal grasses.
14 Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project could result in temporary 15 changes to the visual character of the area due to the presence of construction crews and 16 heavy equipment. However, the duration of construction would be temporary (anticipated to 17 last for approximately 2 years) and the scale of changes in views would be limited to the 18 surrounding businesses, the hospital passerby motorists, and some residents. Therefore, 19 during construction, this impact would be less than significant.
20 Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show conceptual site plans and cross-sectional views of the 21 replacement CHP Area Office. As described in impact discussion a., structures that may be 22 most prominent include the exterior concrete wall surrounding the parking lot, the main 23 office building, and the communications tower. These facilities would be compatible in scale 24 and type with the surrounding development and consistent with the urban nature of the 25 Project site and vicinity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
26 d. New sources of light or glare—Less than Significant
27 Several existing sources of light and glare are present in the area surrounding the Project site. 28 Street lights are located on all the roads that surround the Project site. The office parks and 29 VA hospital surrounding the Project site have parking lot lighting as well. The townhomes 30 parking lot adjacent to Bryn Mawr Street also has lighting. As a result, nighttime lighting is 31 already present in the area. To the north, light from passing vehicles and the business 32 developments across U.S. Highway 10 persist. During the day, the most notable source of 33 glare is from sunlight reflecting off passing vehicles as well as the rooftops and sides of the 34 surrounding buildings.
35 Operation of the Proposed Project would include use of nighttime security lighting 36 throughout the site. This would include lighting dispersed throughout the facilities, as well as 37 in the parking area, illuminating three on-site flag poles and illuminating the CHP monument 38 sign (see Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description). Aside from the flag pole lighting, all 39 exterior lighting would be directed downward to reduce light dispersion. The flag poles
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-14 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 require specialized lighting because of their height. However, flagpoles are typically located 2 near the front of the office building within the interior of the site, so the upward-aimed 3 lighting would not spill over onto adjacent properties, and would not create a substantial 4 visual contrast with the night sky.
5 Nighttime lighting at the Project site could be visible to motorists driving by. However, all 6 lighting except for the flagpole lighting would be directed downward and thereby prevent 7 light from falling onto surrounding properties. Using downward lighting to the greatest 8 extent feasible would be consistent with recommendations of the City’s Municipal Code.
9 The windows and buildings of the new structures and steel material of the communications 10 tower could create new sources of glare. Daytime glare can cause an annoyance for viewers 11 and a potential safety hazard for motorists. However, the proposed buildings and ancillary 12 structures would not significantly affect viewers or motorists because they would be located 13 away from roadways behind the perimeter wall and fencing and would not generate 14 substantial glare. The communications tower is not anticipated to represent a source of glare 15 that would be substantial enough to create annoyance relative to existing conditions. As a 16 result, the impacts related to glare and nighttime lighting would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-15 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use in a manner that will significantly affect timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, or other public benefits?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, because of their location or nature, could result in a conversion of Farmland to a nonagricultural use?
2 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 No federal laws, regulations, or policies apply to agricultural and forestry resources and the 5 Proposed Project.
6 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 7 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 8 The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), administered by the California 9 Department of Conservation (CDOC), produces maps and statistical data for use in analyzing
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-16 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 impacts on California’s agricultural resources (CDOC 2016a). FMMP rates and classifies 2 agricultural land according to soil quality, irrigation status, and other criteria. Important 3 Farmland categories are as follows (CDOC 2016b):
4 Prime Farmland: Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical 5 features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. These lands have the soil 6 quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high 7 yields. Prime Farmland must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at 8 some time during the 4 years before the FMMP’s mapping date.
9 Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmland similar to Prime Farmland, but with 10 minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. 11 Farmland of Statewide Importance must have been used for irrigated agricultural 12 production at some time during the 4 years before the FMMP’s mapping date.
13 Unique Farmland: Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the 14 state’s leading agricultural crops. These lands are usually irrigated but might include 15 non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, as found in some climatic zones. Unique 16 Farmland must have been cropped at some time during the 4 years before the FMMP’s 17 mapping date.
18 Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance to the local agricultural 19 economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory 20 committee.
21 California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) 22 The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (commonly referred to as the Williamson Act) 23 allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of 24 preventing conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses (CDOC 2016c). In 25 exchange for restricting their property to agricultural or related open space use, landowners 26 who enroll in Williamson Act contracts receive property tax assessments that are 27 substantially lower than the market rate.
28 3.2.2 Environmental Setting 29 No forestry resources currently exist on the project site. A majority of the project site is 30 designated as grazing land, and the remainder is designated as urban or built-up land (CDOC 31 2017). The project site was developed for agricultural use, likely as a citrus grove, sometime 32 before 1938 (Avocet 2016). The site was in agricultural use until the late 1980s, when it was 33 cleared and commercial development of properties to the north and west began (Avocet 34 2016). The site has been fallow since the late 1980s (Avocet 2016). There are no Williamson 35 Act contracts or designated Important Farmland on or adjacent to the project site (CDOC 36 2017, 2016d). As described in Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” the project site is 37 designated for business park use in the City’s general plan (City of Loma Linda 2009) and is 38 zoned for general business.
39 The existing San Bernardino Area Office (which would be replaced by the Proposed Project) 40 is located approximately 6.7 miles northwest of the project site. This existing facility is
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-17 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 located on land designated for industrial use and has no existing agricultural or forestry 2 resources/activity (City of San Bernardino 2005).
3 3.2.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 4 a, e. Convert farmland to non-agriculture use; Conflicts with or loss of 5 agricultural or forest lands—Less than Significant
6 No land within or adjacent to the project area is classified as Important Farmland by the 7 CDOC. A majority of the project site is designated as grazing land, and the remainder is 8 designated as urban or built-up land (CDOC 2017). The site was under agricultural use for 9 roughly 40 years until the late 1980s, but has been fallow since then. Although there are a 10 few existing trees along the project site’s southern perimeter, these trees are not part of a 11 stand intended for commercial production. Construction and operation of the Proposed 12 Project would not affect forest lands in the area. No agricultural or forestry activity is present 13 on the existing CHP facility property; therefore, decommissioning and transferring this 14 existing facility to state surplus would not result in the conversion of farmland to non- 15 agricultural use. Impacts would be less than significant.
16 b-c. Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, Williamson Act 17 Contract, or forest land or timber land—No Impact
18 The project site is designated for business park use in the City’s general plan (City of Loma 19 Linda 2009). Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site are commercial/light 20 industrial to the north and west, residential to the east, and medical to the south. There is 21 currently no agricultural activity on or near the project site and no land on or near the site 22 enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. The existing CHP facility is not on land enrolled in a 23 Williamson Act contract, zoned for agricultural use, or used for timber production. Therefore, 24 there are no existing Williamson Act contracts in the area and no potential for conflicts from 25 the Proposed Project. No impact would occur.
26 d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- 27 forest use—No Impact
28 No forestry resources currently exist in the project site. Where there are some pine trees near 29 the southern property line, these trees are not part of a stand intended for commercial 30 production. The project site primarily consists of ruderal vegetation. Construction and 31 operation of the Proposed Project would not affect forest land. No impact would occur.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-18 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.3 AIR QUALITY Less than Potentially Significant with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
2 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal and State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 The Clean Air Act is implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and 5 sets ambient air limits, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for six criteria 6 pollutants: particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), 7 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), carbon 8 monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ground-level ozone, and lead. Of these criteria 9 pollutants, particulate matter and ground-level ozone pose the greatest threats to human 10 health.
11 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets standards for criteria pollutants in California 12 that are more stringent than the NAAQS and include the following additional contaminants: 13 visibility-reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The Proposed 14 Project is located in Western San Bernardino County which is within the South Coast Air
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-19 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) manages air quality in the 2 basin for attainment and permitting purposes.
3 Table AQ-1 shows the current attainment status for the state and federal ambient air quality 4 standards.
5 Table AQ-1. Attainment Status of the State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards State Standards Federal Standards Contaminant Averaging Time Concentration Attainment Status1 Attainment Status2 1-hour 0.09 ppm N See footnote 3 Ozone 0.070 ppm N 8-hour 0.075 ppm N (Extreme) 20 ppm A 1-hour Carbon Monoxide 35 ppm A 8-hour 9.0 ppm A A 0.18 ppm A 1-hour 0.100 ppm5 A Nitrogen Dioxide Annual arithmetic 0.030 ppm A mean 0.053 ppm A 0.25 ppm A 1-hour 0.075 ppm A 0.04 ppm A Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24-hour 0.14 ppm A Annual arithmetic 0.030 ppm A mean 50 µg/m3 N 24-hour Particulate Matter 150 µg/m3 N (PM10) Annual arithmetic 20 µg/m3 N mean 24-hour 35 µg/m3 N (Extreme) Fine Particulate Annual arithmetic 12 µg/m3 N N (Extreme) Matter (PM2.5) mean Sulfates 24-hour 25 µg/m3 A Lead6 30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 A Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm U Vinyl Chloride6 0.010 ppm A 24-hour (chloroethene) Visibility Reducing 8 hour See footnote 4 U Particles (10:00 to 18:00 PST) A – attainment ppm – parts per million N – non-attainment µg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter U – unclassified
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-20 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Notes: 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard.
2. National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National air quality standards are set by USEPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. National standards other than for ozone, particulates, and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent 3-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.
3. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by USEPA on June 15, 2005. On October 1, 2015, the national 8- hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. However, the attainment status has not yet been updated based on this revised 8-hour standard. It is likely that the region will remain in nonattainment.
4. Statewide Visibility-Reducing Particle Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range.
5. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitoring station within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010).
6. CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined. Although the vinyl chloride California Ambient Air Quality Standards remains in force, current regulatory efforts are under ARB’s Air Toxics Program.
1 Source: CARB 2017, USEPA 2017, SCAQMD 2016a, CARB 2015
2 USEPA and CARB regulate various stationary sources, area sources, and mobile sources. 3 USEPA has regulations involving performance standards for specific sources that may release 4 toxic air contaminants (TACs), known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) at the federal level. 5 In addition, USEPA has regulations involving emission criteria for off-road sources such as 6 emergency generators, construction equipment, and vehicles. CARB is responsible for setting 7 emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as 8 consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB also establishes passenger vehicle 9 fuel specifications. Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs), including the following 10 relevant measures, are implemented to address sources of TACs:
11 . ATCM for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines Rated at 50 Horsepower 12 and Greater 13 . ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-21 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 . ATCM to Reduce Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines Standards for 2 Non-vehicular Diesel Fuel 3 . ATCM for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines 4 . ATCM for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive 5 Maintenance and Repair Activities
6 Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies 7 Local laws, regulations, and policies are provided in Appendix A. The analysis below 8 references SCAQMD rules, regulations, and plans.
9 The SCAQMD has established guidelines for determining significance for air quality analyses 10 (SCAQMD 2015) which are shown in Table AQ-2. Projects below these mass emission 11 thresholds do not have a significant impact on air quality.
12 Table AQ-2. Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Project 13 Construction and Operations Mass Daily Thresholds Construction Operation Pollutant Pounds/Day Pounds/Day NOX 100 55 VOC 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOX 150 150 CO 550 550 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Odor, and GHG Thresholds TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Source: SCAQMD 2015.
14 3.3.2 Environmental Setting 15 The Project site is located in the City of Loma Linda in western San Bernardino County which 16 is in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast is California’s largest metropolitan 17 region. The area includes the southern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, all of Orange 18 County, and the western urbanized portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It 19 covers a total of 6,480 square miles and is home to nearly 17 million people (CARB 2011).
20 The Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, 21 and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The topography and climate of Southern 22 California combine to make the Basin an area of high air pollution potential. A warm air mass 23 frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-22 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a 2 cap over the cooler surface layer, which traps the pollutants near the ground. Light winds can 3 further limit ventilation. Additionally, abundant sunlight triggers the photochemical 4 reactions which produce ozone and the majority of the particulate matter (SCAQMD 2017b). 5 The average temperature in the San Bernardino County area is 66 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 6 and it receives an average of 16 inches of rain per year (World Climate 2017).
7 The portion of San Bernardino County that contains the project site, within the Basin, is 8 designated as a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. It is in 9 attainment or unclassified for all other federal and state criteria air pollutants, as shown in 10 Table AQ-1. Major sources of air pollution in the Basin include: on- and off-road vehicles, fuel 11 combustion, architectural coating and consumer products, and watercraft (SCAQMD 2017b).
12 The project site is on vacant land. Medical, residential, commercial, and office land uses are 13 located near the project site. Apartment complexes are located across the street to the east of 14 the project site and to the southwest. Mountain View Surgery Center is located adjacent to 15 the project site on the northwest side and the VA Ambulatory Care Center is located across 16 Redlands Boulevard to the south of the project site. The closest residence is located 150 feet 17 (ft) east of the site on Bryn Mawr Avenue. Oasis Church and Redlands KinderCare day care 18 center are 1,150 and 1,650 feet to the west respectively. Mission Elementary School is 2,700 19 feet southeast, while the nearest middle school and high school are located more than a mile 20 away. Interstate 10 is located 0.15 miles north of the project site.
21 3.3.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 22 a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality 23 plan—Less than Significant
24 A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it would result in population and/or 25 employment growth that exceeds growth estimates included in the applicable air quality 26 plan, which, in turn, would generate emissions not accounted for in the applicable air quality 27 plan emissions budget. Therefore, projects need to be evaluated to determine whether they 28 would generate population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would 29 exceed the growth rates included in the relevant air quality plans. The Proposed Project’s 30 plans include increasing the number of existing employees by 30 over a decade. As detailed 31 in Appendix A, the SCAQMD’s Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan presents the District’s 32 plan for attaining federal air quality standards, particularly for ozone and PM2.5 (SCAQMD 33 2016b). Since the air quality plan applicable to the Proposed Project includes population 34 growth projections of roughly 1 million additional people each decade (SCAQMD 2016b), the 35 Proposed Project would not result in growth exceeding estimates and is therefore consistent 36 with the air quality plan.
37 The Proposed Project would follow all federal, state, and local regulations related to 38 stationary and area sources of air pollutants, and in particular, the chemical storage tanks, 39 refueling pumps, and emergency generator. In addition, construction will follow local air 40 district rules and regulations for fugitive dust. Therefore, because the Proposed Project 41 would be consistent with the applicable general plan policies and would comply with all 42 applicable regulations for sources of air pollutants, the Proposed Project would have a less- 43 than-significant impact and would not obstruct or conflict with applicable air quality plans.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-23 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 2 existing or projected air quality violation—Less than Significant with 3 Mitigation
4 During construction of the Proposed Project, the combustion of fossil fuels for operation of 5 fossil fueled construction equipment, material hauling, and worker trips would result in 6 construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions. These emissions were estimated using 7 the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.1 using information 8 from the Project Description along with default assumptions for a 5-acre site, which is the 9 area that would be developed within the 5.3-acre project parcel. The Proposed Project’s 10 criteria air pollutant emissions during construction are shown in Table AQ-3. CalEEMod 11 modeling results for the Proposed Project are provided in Appendix B.
12 Table AQ-3. Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Construction Total Construction Emissions (tons) Fugitive Exhaust Fugitive Exhaust Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 2019 0.388 3.800 2.803 0.006 0.204 0.181 0.074 0.170 0.232 0.165 0.178 3.00E- 3.79E- 8.93E-03 1.01E-03 8.32E-03 2020 04 03 Total 0.620 3.965 2.982 0.007 0.208 0.190 0.075 0.178 Peak Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Peak Daily 23.6 128.8 37.4 0.298 18.27 2.4 10.0 2.2 Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Above Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Notes:
ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in NOX = oxides of nitrogen diameter SO2 = sulfur dioxide
13 Source: CalEEMod modeling results are provided in Appendix B.
14 Operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be generated by fossil-fueled equipment 15 and motor vehicles, building energy use, and an on-site refueling pump. Most of the Proposed 16 Project’s operational emissions were estimated using default assumptions in CalEEMod 17 version 2016.3.1. Mobile-source emissions were estimated by adjusting the trip rate to 487 18 daily trips, with 53 percent of the trips from worker commute trips. The non-uniformed 19 worker trip length was set to 7.3 miles and the patrol worker trip length was set to 44.5 miles 20 based on an estimated 2,500 miles per month for patrol workers. The default trip length was 21 used for all other workers. Vehicle idling emissions were estimated by assuming that 2 22 worker vehicles would be idling 24 hours per day. The idling emission factors were taken 23 from the EMFAC 2014 emissions model to be consistent with CalEEMod emission factors for 24 a “light-duty truck 1” vehicle class (CARB 2015). The emergency generator was assumed to 25 be 670 horsepower (hp) and operate for 100 hours per year for testing. The refueling pump
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-24 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 station emissions were estimated assuming a 97,000-gallon annual throughput and emission 2 factors from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA’s) Gasoline 3 Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines (1997) for a Phase II vapor recovery 4 system with vents. The Proposed Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions during operations 5 are shown in Table AQ-4.
6 Table AQ-4. Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Operations Operational Emissions (tons/year) Operational Source Fugitive Exhaust Fugitive Exhaust ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 Area 0.1791 3.00E-05 3.38E-03 1.00E-05 1.00E-05 Energy Use 1.82E-03 0.0165 0.0139 1.00E-04 -- 1.25E-03 -- 1.25E-03 Mobile 0.259 1.6575 4.5975 1.71E-02 1.4013 0.0172 0.3755 0.0162 Vehicle Idling 0.02156 0.030848 0.063634 -- -- 1.34E-04 -- 0.001708 Refueling Pump 0.073866 Emergency 5.50E-02 0.1537 0.1402 2.60E-04 8.09E-03 8.09E-03 Generator Total 0.59 1.86 4.82 0.02 1.40 2.67E-02 0.38 0.03
Peak Daily 4.05 12.45 29.50 0.10 7.84 0.27 2.10 0.27 Emissions (lbs/day) Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 (lbs/day) Above Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = oxides of nitrogen SO2 = sulfur dioxide PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in ” -- “ =no emissions or no emissions calculated as de diameter minimis. PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter
7 Source: CalEEMod modeling results and other refueling and idling modeling results are provided in Appendix B.
8 The operational mass emissions would be substantially below the mass emission significance 9 thresholds. Therefore, the impact from operations is less than significant.
10 With the exception of NOx, the construction mass emissions would be substantially below the 11 mass emission significance thresholds. Particulate matter emissions from the Proposed 12 Project would be minimized through compliance with all of the SCAQMD’s applicable 13 regulations, particularly Rule 403, which prescribes fugitive dust control requirements. 14 Construction NOx emissions are above the daily construction threshold during the grading 15 phase and are associated with material hauling trips. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 16 AQ-1 would drop the maximum daily NOx emissions to below 100 pounds per day. This can 17 be achieved by limiting the amount of vehicle idling and limiting the amount of material
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-25 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 hauling truck trips to 315 one-way trips per day, or by using more recent model year material 2 hauling trucks which emit substantially less NOx per trip. Therefore, with implementation of 3 NOx material hauling control measures, the impact of NOx emissions during construction 4 would be considered less than significant with mitigation and the Proposed Project would 5 not contribute substantially to an air quality violation.
6 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Material Hauling NOx Control Measures
7 The Contractor shall implement any combination of the following measures to reduce 8 NOx emissions to below 100 pounds per day: 9 a. Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or 10 reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes as a maximum.
11 b. Limit the number of daily one-way material hauling trips to less than 315.
12 c. Use newer model year material hauling vehicles that emit less NOx emissions 13 per trip.
14 c. Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for 15 which the project region is a nonattainment area—Less than 16 Significant with Mitigation
17 As shown in Table AQ-1, the project site is in a region that is designated in non-attainment 18 for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. It is assumed that projects that conform to the General Plan and 19 do not have mass emissions exceeding the screening level significance thresholds would not 20 create a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions. The Proposed Project would 21 comply with the SCAQMD’s Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which would minimize particulate matter 22 emissions during the project’s construction. As discussed above, during construction, NOx 23 emissions, which are an ozone precursor, would exceed the daily significance threshold. The 24 implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would decrease these emissions to less than 25 significant levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact 26 with mitigation.
27 d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations— 28 Less than Significant
29 Construction 30 During project construction, diesel particulate matter (DPM) and gasoline fuel combustion 31 emissions that are classified as TACs could be emitted from construction equipment. The 32 construction period for the CHP station facilities is short in duration (24 months). Due to the 33 variable nature of construction activity, the generation of TAC emissions in most cases would 34 be temporary, especially considering the short amount of time such equipment is typically 35 operating within an influential distance that would result in the exposure of sensitive 36 receptors to substantial concentrations. Chronic and cancer-related health effects estimated 37 over short periods are uncertain. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies 38 or worker studies with long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable 39 uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from exposure that would last only a small
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-26 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 fraction of a lifetime. Some studies indicate that the dose rate may change the potency of a 2 given dose of a carcinogenic chemical. In other words, a dose delivered over a short period 3 may have a different potency than the same dose delivered over a lifetime (Office of 4 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA] 2015). Furthermore, construction 5 impacts are most severe adjacent to the construction area and decrease rapidly with 6 increasing distance.
7 Concentrations of mobile-source DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at a 8 distance of approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005).
9 Given the short duration of construction, the fact that TAC concentrations would quickly be 10 reduced away from the active construction site, and the uncertainties in modeling such 11 emissions, the Proposed Project’s effect on nearby sensitive receptors due to construction- 12 related air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
13 Operation 14 During Proposed Project operations, DPM could be emitted from the diesel-powered 15 emergency generators. In addition, various gasoline-related TACs would be emitted by the 16 refueling pump station and vehicles idling in the parking lots. TACs could include such 17 chemicals as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, and xylenes.
18 Residential sensitive receptors are present in the project area. To evaluate the impacts of 19 DPM and TACs on nearby sensitive receptors, a screening-level quantitative HRA was 20 conducted consistent with OEHHA guidance (OEHHA 2015) for determining local community 21 risks and hazards. The HRA evaluated the Proposed Project’s emissions associated with 22 testing of the diesel-powered emergency generator, refueling pump station, and vehicle 23 idling. Detailed information on the methodology and data used to conduct the HRA is 24 described in Appendix C. The screening-level health risk assessment involved estimating 25 emissions of DPM and TACs, then conducting screening-level air dispersion modeling to 26 estimate ambient air concentrations at various distances from the source. Once the ambient 27 air concentrations were determined, these were combined with exposure parameters and 28 toxicity information to determine health impacts. Table AQ-5 shows the results of the HRA 29 for the Proposed Project.
30 Health impacts resulting from emissions at the proposed CHP San Bernardino Area Office 31 would be less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million excess cancer risks, below 32 the chronic hazard index (HI) of less than 1, and below the acute HI of less than 1 at all 33 sensitive receptor locations near the project site. The HRA analysis (Appendix C) indicates 34 that operational sources will be below the significance thresholds for health impacts. 35 Therefore, operational impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
36 For the overall impact of the Proposed Project’s construction and operational impacts, this 37 impact would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-27 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Table AQ-5. Results of Air Quality Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Project Elementary Middle High Medical Medical Recreation Recreation Senior Emission Source Resident Daycare Preschool School School School Child Adult Child Adult Center Cancer Risk Emergency Generator Large 3.82E-06 1.72E-07 2.02E-08 4.58E-08 1.50E-08 1.04E-08 4.85E-07 1.29E-08 1.34E-07 7.13E-08 6.83E-08 Vehicle Idling 2.21E-06 2.87E-08 3.36E-09 5.14E-09 7.41E-10 5.64E-10 1.50E-07 4.00E-09 1.57E-08 8.38E-09 4.46E-09 Truck Idling 1.90E-06 2.47E-08 2.89E-09 4.42E-09 6.37E-10 4.86E-10 1.29E-07 3.44E-09 1.35E-08 7.21E-09 3.84E-09 Refueling-Loading 3.52E-08 8.77E-10 1.03E-10 1.28E-10 2.05E-11 1.51E-11 1.07E-08 2.85E-10 4.27E-10 2.28E-10 1.24E-10 Refueling-Breathing 4.44E-09 1.11E-10 1.30E-11 1.61E-11 2.59E-12 1.91E-12 1.35E-09 3.60E-11 5.39E-11 2.87E-11 1.56E-11 Refueling-Refueling 7.44E-08 1.85E-09 2.17E-10 2.70E-10 4.51E-11 3.32E-11 2.30E-08 6.13E-10 9.04E-10 4.81E-10 2.71E-10 Refueling-Spillage 2.31E-07 5.82E-09 6.82E-10 8.50E-10 1.44E-10 1.06E-10 7.09E-08 1.89E-09 2.85E-09 1.51E-09 8.64E-10 Total 8.27E-06 2.34E-07 2.74E-08 5.66E-08 1.66E-08 1.16E-08 8.71E-07 2.32E-08 1.67E-07 8.91E-08 7.78E-08 Chronic Hazard Index Emergency Generator Large 8.34E-04 1.08E-04 1.08E-04 1.03E-04 8.30E-05 8.61E-05 5.91E-04 5.91E-04 1.03E-04 1.03E-04 9.85E-05 Vehicle Idling 6.04E-03 2.27E-04 2.27E-04 1.45E-04 5.13E-05 5.86E-05 2.30E-03 2.30E-03 1.52E-04 1.52E-04 8.08E-05 Truck Idling 4.14E-04 1.55E-05 1.55E-05 9.91E-06 3.51E-06 4.02E-06 1.58E-04 1.58E-04 1.04E-05 1.04E-05 5.54E-06 Refueling-Loading 1.41E-04 1.01E-05 1.01E-05 5.24E-06 2.07E-06 2.29E-06 2.39E-04 2.39E-04 6.02E-06 6.02E-06 3.27E-06 Refueling-Breathing 1.78E-05 1.28E-06 1.28E-06 6.62E-07 2.62E-07 2.89E-07 3.02E-05 3.02E-05 7.60E-07 7.60E-07 4.13E-07 Refueling-Refueling 2.98E-04 2.14E-05 2.14E-05 1.11E-05 4.56E-06 5.04E-06 5.14E-04 5.14E-04 1.27E-05 1.27E-05 7.18E-06 Refueling-Spillage 8.85E-04 6.45E-05 6.45E-05 3.35E-05 1.39E-05 1.54E-05 1.52E-03 1.52E-03 3.84E-05 3.84E-05 2.19E-05 Total 8.63E-03 4.48E-04 4.48E-04 3.07E-04 1.59E-04 1.72E-04 5.35E-03 5.35E-03 3.23E-04 3.23E-04 2.18E-04 Acute hazard Index Emergency Generator Large 3.04E-02 3.96E-03 3.96E-03 3.74E-03 3.03E-03 3.14E-03 2.16E-02 2.16E-02 3.75E-03 3.75E-03 3.59E-03 Vehicle Idling 7.30E-03 2.74E-04 2.74E-04 1.75E-04 6.19E-05 7.08E-05 2.78E-03 2.78E-03 1.83E-04 1.83E-04 9.77E-05 Truck Idling 9.94E-02 3.73E-03 3.73E-03 2.38E-03 8.44E-04 9.64E-04 3.78E-02 3.78E-02 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 1.33E-03 Refueling-Loading 1.56E-04 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 5.83E-06 2.30E-06 2.55E-06 2.66E-04 2.66E-04 6.69E-06 6.69E-06 3.63E-06 Refueling-Breathing 1.98E-05 1.42E-06 1.42E-06 7.36E-07 2.91E-07 3.21E-07 3.36E-05 3.36E-05 8.44E-07 8.44E-07 4.59E-07 Refueling-Refueling 3.31E-04 2.37E-05 2.37E-05 1.23E-05 5.06E-06 5.60E-06 5.71E-04 5.71E-04 1.41E-05 1.41E-05 7.97E-06 Refueling-Spillage 9.07E-04 6.61E-05 6.61E-05 3.44E-05 1.43E-05 1.58E-05 1.56E-03 1.56E-03 3.94E-05 3.94E-05 2.25E-05 Total 1.39E-01 8.06E-03 8.06E-03 6.35E-03 3.95E-03 4.20E-03 6.46E-02 6.46E-02 6.49E-03 6.49E-03 5.05E-03
2 San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-28 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 2 people—Less than Significant
3 Diesel exhaust from construction activities may temporarily generate odors while 4 construction of the Proposed Project is underway. Once construction activities have been 5 completed, these odors would cease. Operational activities would also generate odors, mainly 6 associated with gasoline and diesel fuel and exhaust and other oils and lubricants used for 7 automobile repair; these odors would be short-lived and would occur intermittently. Odors 8 from gasoline refueling would be minimized with the use of required vapor recovery systems. 9 Vehicle idling at the site would be minimized to the extent feasible and so would not be likely 10 to cause odor issues for nearby sensitive receptors. Based on observations of odorous 11 evidence at another CHP facility visited by the document authors in March 2015, odors from 12 evidence would not be detectible outside of the evidence storage area. Impacts related to 13 potential generation of objectionable odors are thus expected to be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-29 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less than Potentially Significant Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the DFG or USFWS?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including marshes, vernal pools, and coastal wetlands) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP); natural community conservation plan; or other approved local, regional, or state HCP?
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-30 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.4.1 Regulatory Setting
2 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 3 Endangered Species Act 4 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S. Code [USC] § 1531 et seq.; 50 Code of Federal 5 Regulations [CFR] Parts 17 and 222) provides for conservation of species that are 6 endangered or threatened throughout all or a substantial portion of their range, as well as 7 protection of the habitats on which they depend. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 8 and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementing the 9 ESA. In general, USFWS manages terrestrial and freshwater species, whereas NMFS manages 10 marine and anadromous species.
11 Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of any fish or wildlife 12 species listed under the ESA as endangered or threatened, unless otherwise authorized by 13 federal regulations. The ESA defines the term “take” to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 14 shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 15 USC § 1532). Section 7 of the ESA (16 USC § 1531 et seq.) outlines the procedures for federal 16 interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitats. 17 Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides a process by which nonfederal entities may obtain 18 an incidental take permit from USFWS or NMFS for otherwise lawful activities that 19 incidentally may result in “take” of endangered or threatened species, subject to specific 20 conditions. A habitat conservation plan (HCP) must accompany an application for an 21 incidental take permit.
22 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 23 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Chapter 7, Subchapter II) protects migratory 24 birds. Most actions that result in take, or the permanent or temporary possession of, a 25 migratory bird constitute violations of the MBTA. The MBTA also prohibits destruction of 26 occupied nests. USFWS is responsible for overseeing compliance with the MBTA.
27 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 28 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC § 668; 50 CFR Part 22) prohibits take of 29 bald and golden eagles and their occupied and unoccupied nests. USFWS administers the Bald 30 and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
31 Clean Water Act 32 Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into 33 waters of the U.S., which include all navigable waters, their tributaries, and some isolated 34 waters, as well as some wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned waters (33 CFR Section 35 328.3). Areas typically not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage 36 and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes or 37 ponds used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial waterbodies such as swimming 38 pools, vernal pools, and water-filled depressions (33 CFR Part 328). Areas meeting the 39 regulatory definition of waters of the U.S. are subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Army Corps of 40 Engineers (USACE) under the provisions of CWA Section 404. Construction activities 41 involving placement of fill into jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are regulated by USACE
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-31 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 through permit requirements. No USACE permit is effective in the absence of state water 2 quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of CWA.
3 Section 401 of the CWA requires an evaluation of water quality when a proposed activity 4 requiring a federal license or permit could result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. In 5 California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water 6 Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) issue water quality certifications. Each RWQCB is 7 responsible for implementing Section 401 in compliance with the CWA and its water quality 8 control plan (also known as a Basin Plan). Applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct 9 activities that may result in the discharge to waters of the U.S. (including wetlands or vernal 10 pools) must also obtain a Section 401 water quality certification to ensure that any such 11 discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA.
12 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 13 California Fish and Game Code 14 The California Fish and Game Code includes various statutes that protect biological resources, 15 including the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA) and the California Endangered 16 Species Act (CESA). The NPPA (California Fish and Game Code subsection (§§) 1900-1913) 17 authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as endangered or rare and 18 prohibits take of any such plants, except as authorized in limited circumstances.
19 CESA (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050–2098) prohibits state agencies from approving 20 a project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a species listed under CESA as 21 endangered or threatened. Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the 22 take of any species that is state listed as endangered or threatened, or designated as a 23 candidate for such listing. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) may issue an 24 incidental take permit authorizing the take of listed and candidate species if that take is 25 incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, subject to specified conditions.
26 California Fish and Game Code §§ 3503 and 3513 protect native and migratory birds, 27 including their active or inactive nests and eggs, from all forms of take. In addition, §§ 3511, 28 4700, 5050, and 5515 identify species that are fully protected from all forms of take. Section 29 3511 lists fully protected birds, §5515 lists fully protected fish, §4700 lists fully protected 30 mammals, and §5050 lists fully protected amphibians.
31 3.4.2 Environmental Setting 32 The Proposed Project site encompasses an undeveloped 5.3-acre area comprised of 10 33 parcels. Commercial and light industrial development surrounds the site on the north and 34 west, residential development is located to the east, and medical facilities to the south. The 35 Santa Ana River is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Proposed Project site, and the 36 Mission Creek/Zanja Channel, a canal, is located approximately 275 feet north of the site. The 37 topography is generally flat, with a moderate slope up to the adjacent Redlands Boulevard. In 38 this section, Proposed Project site refers to the Proposed Project footprint, while Proposed 39 Project area refers to the surrounding area.
40 A reconnaissance-level biological site assessment was conducted by a qualified biologist from 41 Horizon on July 21, 2017. The purpose of the assessment was to characterize existing
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-32 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 conditions and assess the site’s potential to support special-status species. The Proposed 2 Project site consists of a former agricultural field that has been recently plowed. Vegetation 3 present at the project site consists primarily of ruderal species such as puncture vine 4 (Tribulus terrestris) and pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Along Bryn Mawr Avenue, the soil is 5 gravelly and dominated by Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). A narrow strip of landscaped 6 vegetation is present adjacent to Redlands Boulevard, consisting of irrigated grass and 7 several mature pine (Pinus sp.) trees. No USFWS-designated critical habitat is located within 8 the Proposed Project.
9 Special-Status Species 10 For the purposes of this assessment, special-status species are those that are listed as rare, 11 species of concern, candidate, threatened, or endangered by USFWS or the CDFW. Special- 12 status plant and animal species with the potential to occur in the Proposed Project area were 13 identified through a review of the following resources:
14 . USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Report (USWFS 2017, 15 Appendix D), 16 . California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) queries for the nine USGS 7.5- 17 minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the Proposed Project site, San 18 Bernardino North, San Bernardino South, Harrison Mtn., Keller Peak, Yucaipa, 19 Redlands, El Casco, Sunnymead, and Riverside (CDFW 2017, Appendix D), 20 . California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants 21 of California query for the nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute 22 quadrangles containing and surrounding the Proposed Project site (CNPS 2017, 23 Appendix D), and 24 . eBird.org (eBird 2017). 25 A list of special-status species and their potential to occur within the Project site is provided 26 in Appendix D, Table D-1. Figure BIO-1 and Figure BIO-2 also provide locations of these 27 species that occur within a 5 mile-radius of the Proposed Project site. Figure BIO-3 shows 28 the location of critical habitat within 5 miles of the site. The potential for special-status 29 species to occur in areas affected by the Proposed Project was evaluated according to the 30 following criteria:
31 . None: indicates that the area contains a complete lack of suitable habitat, the local 32 range for the species is restricted, and/or the species is extirpated in this region. 33 . Not Expected: indicates situations where suitable habitat or key habitat elements 34 may be present but may be of poor quality or isolated from the nearest extant 35 occurrences. Habitat suitability refers to factors such as elevation, soil chemistry 36 and type, vegetation communities, microhabitats, and degraded/substantially 37 altered habitats. 38 . Possible: indicates the presence of suitable habitat or key habitat elements that 39 potentially support the species. 40 . Present: indicates that either the target species was observed directly or its 41 presence was confirmed by diagnostic signs during field investigations or in 42 previous studies in the area.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-33 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.4.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 2 a. Substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat 3 modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or 4 special-status species—No Impact
5 Special-status Plant Species 6 The potential for special-status plants to occur was evaluated through assessment of the 7 habitat requirements for the special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the 8 Proposed Project, and conditions observed during reconnaissance site visits. No special- 9 status plant species have potential to occur at the project site because suitable habitat is not 10 present or the habitat is very marginal (Appendix D, Table D-1). Therefore, no impacts to 11 special-status plants would occur.
12 Special-status Aquatic Species 13 No aquatic habitat features are present in the project site. The Santa Ana River is located 14 approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. This reach of the river does not currently 15 support Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) or arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) (USFWS 16 2011, Moyle 2002). The Mission Creek/Zanja Channel is not expected to provide habitat for 17 any special-status aquatic species. Therefore, there would be no impacts to special-status 18 aquatic species and their habitat.
19 Special-status Terrestrial Wildlife Species 20 The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for the special-status amphibians, reptiles, 21 birds, and mammals that are known to occur in the vicinity (Appendix D, Table D-1). Special- 22 status bats could potentially forage over the Project site, but there is not suitable roosting 23 habitat for these species. Therefore, there would be no impacts to special-status terrestrial 24 wildlife species and their habitats.
25 In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects directly or 26 through habitat modifications on a special-status, candidate, or sensitive species. Therefore, 27 there would be no impact.
28 b. Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive 29 natural community—No Impact
30 The only vegetation communities at the Proposed Project site are ruderal vegetation and 31 landscaped vegetation. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present 32 at the site. No impact would occur.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-34 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Parry's spineflower
Peruvian dodder Parish's gooseberry Salt Spring checkerbloom Santa Ana River woollystar
Horn's milk-vetch San Bernardino aster
Parish's bush-mallow
Robinson's slender-horned spineflower pepper-grass Parry's spineflower slender-horned spineflower
Plummer's mariposa-lily Santa Ana River woollystar Santa Ana River woollystar Santa Ana River woollystar Gambel's water cress
slender-horned spineflower Parry's spineflower prairie wedge grass bristly sedge smooth tarplant Los Angeles sunflower California satintail
Santa Ana River woollystar
Santa Ana smooth tarplant River woollystar
Nevin's barberry Alvin Meadow bedstraw
Parry's spineflower
Nevin's barberry
salt marsh bird's-beak Nevin's barberry marsh sandwort Robinson's pepper-grass
Parry's spineflower C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15002_CHP_CEQA\mxd\SanBernardino\Figure_BIO-1_CNDDB_plants.mxd RH 8/2/2017 0 0.5 1 5-mile buffer Project Site Figure BIO-1 ¯ Miles CNDDB Occurrences of Special-status Plants within Alvin Meadow bedstraw Parish's gooseberry Santa Ana River woollystar 5 miles of the Proposed Project California satintail Parry's spineflower bristly sedge Gambel's water cress Peruvian dodder marsh sandwort
Prepared by: Horn's milk-vetch Plummer's mariposa-lily prairie wedge grass San Bernardino Area Office Los Angeles sunflower Robinson's pepper-grass salt marsh bird's-beak Replacement Project Nevin's barberry Salt Spring checkerbloom slender-horned spineflower Prepared for: Initial Study/ California Highway Patrol Parish's bush-mallow San Bernardino aster smooth tarplant Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-36 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration western mastiff bat
southern rubber boa
California glossy snake western yellow-billed western cuckoo yellow bat San Bernardino kangaroo rat western yellow bat northwestern American badger northwestern San Diego Swainson's hawk burrowing San Diego pocket mouse owl pocket mouse coasta San Bernardino burrowing owl whiptail kangaroo rat coast horned lizard San Bernardino kangaroo rat San Bernardino kangaroo rat Delhi Sands flower-loving fly California coastal San Bernardino Los Angeles San Bernardino kangaroo rat glossy western pocket mouse whiptail kangaroo rat snake mastiff northwestern bat coastal California gnatcatcher San Diego pocket mouse
pocketed western southern Californi free-tailed mastiff bat legless lizard least Bell's vireo bat
least Bell's vireo
tricolored blackbird coast horned lizard pallid bat western yellow bat
southern coast horned lizard grasshopper coastal whiptail western mouse northwestern yellow bat San Diego pocket mouse coastal whiptail
Stephens' least Bell's vireo least Bell's vireo kangaroo rat
Stephens' kangaroo rat Stephens' kangaroo rat yellow warbler coastal California gnatcatcher southwestern coastal California gnatcatcher American badger willow flycatcher
red-diamond least Bell's vireo rattlesnake
Los Angeles pocket mouse C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15002_CHP_CEQA\mxd\SanBernardino\Figure_BIO-2_CNDDB_animals.mxd RH 8/2/2017 0 0.5 1 American badger coastal California gnatcatcher southern rubber boa Figure BIO-2 ¯ Miles California glossy snake coastal whiptail southwestern willow flycatcher CNDDB Occurrences of 5-mile buffer Project Site Delhi Sands flower-loving fly least Bell's vireo tricolored blackbird Special-status Animals Note: Occurrences for Delhi Sans flower- Los Angeles pocket mouse loggerhead shrike western mastiff bat within 5 miles of the loving fly and southern rubber boa are displayed as the full quadrangle. San Bernardino kangaroo rat northwestern San Diego pocket mouse western yellow bat Proposed Project San Diego desert woodrat pallid bat western yellow-billed cuckoo Stephens' kangaroo rat pocketed free-tailed bat yellow warbler Prepared by: San Bernardino Area Office Swainson's hawk red-diamond rattlesnake yellow-breasted chat Replacement Project burrowing owl southern California legless lizard Prepared for: Initial Study/ California Highway Patrol coast horned lizard southern grasshopper mouse Source: CNDDB, July 2017 update. Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-38 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15002_CHP_CEQA\mxd\SanBernardino\Figure_BIO-3_critical_habitat.mxd RH 8/2/2017 0 0.5 1 Figure BIO-3 ¯ Miles 5-mile buffer Project Site Critical Habitat within 5 miles of the Critical Habitat Proposed Project Coastal California gnatcatcher San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat Santa Ana sucker Prepared by: San Bernardino Area Office Southwestern willow flycatcher Replacement Project Source: USFWS
Prepared for: Initial Study/ California Highway Patrol Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-40 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 c. Substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands—No 2 Impact
3 Irrigation water from the landscaped portion of the project site (along Redlands Boulevard) 4 provides water to the portion of the plowed field immediately adjacent to the landscaping. A 5 puddle of water was observed during the July 2017 visit, but no hydrophytic vegetation was 6 observed at the site. No wetland features were observed within the project footprint. The 7 project site does not support any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 8 the CWA; therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact on federally protected 9 wetlands.
10 d. Substantial interference with wildlife movement, established wildlife 11 corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites—Less than 12 Significant with Mitigation
13 The project site is a vacant parcel composed of ruderal vegetation and landscaping, located 14 within a commercially and industrially developed area. Wildlife corridors and travel routes 15 are obstructed by existing commercial development and by the adjacent highway system to 16 the north (I-10) of the project site; therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with 17 the movement of any native or migratory wildlife species.
18 Several mature pine trees are present along the southern edge of the project site, and a 19 variety of trees are located on developed properties adjacent to the project site. No active or 20 remnant nest structures were observed during the July 2017 reconnaissance site visit; 21 however, the trees have the potential to be used by nesting raptor species such as Red-Tailed 22 Hawk (Buteo jameicensis) as well as passerine species. In addition, the field provides 23 potentially suitable nesting habitat for other birds such as Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous). 24 Active nests of most native birds are protected under MBTA and various sections of the 25 California Fish and Game Code. Clearing and grubbing, noise, and visual disturbance 26 associated with construction of the Proposed Project could adversely affect birds during their 27 nesting season. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the Proposed Project 28 would minimize impacts on nesting birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 29 would reduce impacts on native wildlife nursery sites to less than significant.
30 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds 31 and implement no work buffer areas if necessary.
32 If construction activities occur during the breeding season (February 15–August 31), 33 a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of 34 suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of construction activity. Surveys shall be 35 conducted within 14 days before the start of construction activity. If no work occurs 36 for a period of 2 or more weeks during the nesting season, surveys must be performed 37 before work is resumed. If the survey indicates that no active nests are found, no 38 further mitigation shall be required.
39 If active nests are identified, appropriate no-work buffers will be established. 40 Appropriate buffer widths will be established by a qualified biologist familiar with 41 the life history and reproductive strategies of the nesting species. The buffer widths 42 will be based on species’ sensitivity to disturbance (as documented in peer‐reviewed
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-41 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 literature), planned construction activities, and baseline level of human activity. The 2 buffers will be clearly marked in the field with flagging or fencing. No project activity 3 shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the 4 young have fledged or the nest is no longer active.
5 e. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological 6 resources— Less than Significant
7 Local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources are not applicable on state- 8 owned property. Therefore, the Proposed Project cannot conflict with these regulations. Site 9 location avoids sensitive habitats and open space, which is consistent with the requirements 10 of Policies 9.2.10.3 and 9.2.10.4 of the City of Loma Linda’s General Plan (City of Loma Linda 11 2009); therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact arising from conflicts with 12 local ordinances and policies protecting biological resources.
13 f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community 14 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP— 15 No Impact
16 The Proposed Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted HCP, Natural 17 Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP. Therefore, 18 there would be no impact.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-42 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
2 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 The Proposed Project does not require any federal permits, and it is not located on federal 5 lands; therefore, federal laws do not apply to the Proposed Project. The following laws are 6 provided for context only.
7 3.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act 8 Projects that require federal permits, receive federal funding, or are located on federal lands 9 must comply with 54 USC 306108, formally and more commonly known as Section 106 of the 10 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). To comply with Section 106, a federal agency 11 must “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, 12 or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places 13 [NRHP].” The implementing regulations for Section 106 are found in 36 CFR Part 800, as 14 amended (2004).
15 The implementing regulations of the NHPA require that cultural resources be evaluated for 16 NRHP eligibility if they cannot be avoided by an undertaking or project. To determine if a site, 17 district, structure, object, and/or building is significant, the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation are 18 applied. A resource is significant and considered a historic property when it:
19 A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 20 patterns of our history; or
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-43 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
2 C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, 3 or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that 4 represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 5 individual distinction; or
6 D. Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
7 In addition, 36 CFR Section 60.4 requires that, to be considered significant and historic, 8 resources must also exhibit the quality of significance in American history, architecture, 9 archaeology, engineering, or culture and must possess integrity of location, design, setting, 10 materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
11 Other “criteria considerations” need to be applied to religious properties, properties that are 12 less than 50 years old, a resource no longer situated in its original location, a birthplace or 13 grave of a historical figure, a cemetery, a reconstructed building, and commemorative 14 properties. These types of properties are typically not eligible for NRHP inclusion unless the 15 criteria for evaluation and criteria considerations are met.
16 For archaeological sites evaluated under criterion D, “integrity” requires that the site remain 17 sufficiently intact to convey the expected information to address specific important research 18 questions.
19 TCPs are locations of cultural value that are historic properties. A place of cultural value is 20 eligible as a TCP “because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 21 community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in 22 maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and King 1990, rev. 23 1998). A TCP must be a tangible property, meaning that it must be a place with a referenced 24 location, and it must have been continually a part of the community’s cultural practices and 25 beliefs for the past 50 years or more.
26 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 27 CEQA and CEQA Guidelines 28 Section 21083.2 of CEQA requires that the lead agency determine whether a project may have 29 a significant effect on unique archaeological resources. A unique archaeological resource is 30 defined in CEQA as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly 31 demonstrated that there is a high probability that it:
32 . Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and 33 there is demonstrable public interest in that information; 34 . Has a special or particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best 35 available example of its type; or 36 . Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or 37 historic event or person. 38 Although not specifically inclusive of paleontological resources, these criteria may also help 39 to define “a unique paleontological resource or site.”
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-44 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Measures to avoid, conserve, preserve, or mitigate significant effects on these resources are 2 also provided under CEQA § 21083.2.
3 Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines notes that “a project with an effect that may cause a 4 substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may 5 have a significant effect on the environment.” Substantial adverse changes include physical 6 changes to the historic resource or to its immediate surroundings, such that the significance 7 of the historic resource would be materially impaired. Lead agencies are expected to identify 8 potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of a 9 historic resource before they approve such projects. Historical resources are those that are:
10 . listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of 11 Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code § 5024.1(e)); 12 . included in a local register of historic resources (Public Resources Code § 13 5020.1(k)) or identified as significant in an historic resource survey meeting the 14 requirements of Public Resources Code § 5024.1(g); or 15 . determined by a lead agency to be historically significant. 16 17 CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 also prescribes the processes and procedures found under Health 18 and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code § 5097.95 for addressing the existence 19 of, or probable likelihood of, Native American human remains, as well as the unexpected 20 discovery of any human remains within the project site. This includes consultation with the 21 appropriate Native American tribes.
22 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 provides further guidance about minimizing effects to historical 23 resources through the application of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures must be 24 legally binding and fully enforceable.
25 The lead agency having jurisdiction over a project is also responsible to ensure that 26 paleontological resources are protected in compliance with CEQA and other applicable 27 statutes. Paleontological and historical resource management is also addressed in Public 28 Resources Code § 5097.5, “Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites.” This statute 29 defines as a misdemeanor any unauthorized disturbance or removal of a fossil site or remains 30 on public land and specifies that state agencies may undertake surveys, excavations, or other 31 operations as necessary on state lands to preserve or record paleontological resources. This 32 statute would apply to any construction or other related project impacts that would occur on 33 state-owned or state-managed lands.
34 California Register of Historical Resources 35 Public Resources Code § 5024.1 establishes the CRHR. The register lists all California 36 properties considered to be significant historical resources. The CRHR includes all properties 37 listed as or determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, including properties evaluated 38 under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The criteria for listing are similar 39 to those of the NRHP. Criteria for listing in the CRHR include resources that:
40 1) Are associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 41 patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-45 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 2) Are associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
2 3) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of 3 construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess 4 high artistic values; or
5 4) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
6 The regulations set forth the criteria for eligibility as well as guidelines for assessing 7 historical integrity and resources that have special considerations.
8 3.5.3 Environmental Setting
9 Prehistory 10 Although a significant amount of archaeological work has been conducted in the San 11 Bernardino Valley, continual debate exists over the area’s cultural chronology. This is in part 12 due to the geologic forces at hand, including tectonic and flood activity which often disturb 13 or destroy archaeological remains, making it difficult to interpret settlement patterns based 14 on surface inspection alone. Despite these shortcomings, Warren (2004) does an excellent 15 job at synthesizing the current data and presenting a cultural chronology for the greater 16 California Desert Region. Four distinct periods are used to describe the region’s prehistory: 17 the Pinto, the Gypsum, the Saratoga Springs, and the Protohistoric.
18 The Pinto Period predominated the study region from approximately 5,000 to 2,000 B.C. 19 Present theory suggests that, after the rise in aridity that occurred at the end of the 20 Pleistocene, a period of reprieve was marked by an increase in moisture around 4,500 B.C. In 21 support of this, Pinto sites are usually located along ephemeral lakes, and dry streams and 22 springs. The sites are often small, lack midden, and are distinguished by limited surface 23 deposits suggesting temporary and seasonal occupation by small groups. Artifacts associated 24 with this period include the Pinto series projectile points known for their rough form, heavy- 25 keeled scrapers, choppers, and an inconsistent usage or presence of flat millingstones and 26 manos. Pinto subsistence relied upon a mixed economy of hunting large and small game, 27 collecting plant foods, and, perhaps, the use of stream resources (Warren 2004).
28 The Gypsum Period was evident in the Desert Region from 2,000 B.C. to A.D. 500. Gypsum 29 tool technology is characterized by the presence of various projectile points including 30 Humboldt Concave Base, Gypsum Cave, Elko Eared, and Elko Corner-notched. In addition, 31 leaf-shaped points, rectangular-based knives, flake scrapers, T-shaped drills and occasional 32 large scraper-planes, choppers, and hammerstones were present. Manos and millingstones 33 became more prevalent during this period, indicating an increased reliance on hard seeds, 34 and the pestle and mortar were introduced, as well. It is thought that the introduction of the 35 pestle and mortar coincided with the initial usage of mesquite, which further implies a 36 seasonal round economy. Other indicative artifacts include shaft smoothers, slate and 37 sandstone pendants and tablets, drilled slate tubes, Haliotis shell rings, beads, and 38 ornaments, Olivella shell beads, bone awls, and late in the period, the bow and arrow. The 39 presence of Haliotis and Olivella shell artifacts suggest that trade was occurring with 40 southern California coastal groups (Warren 2004).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-46 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 The Saratoga Springs Period occurred from A.D. 500 to 1,200. This period is represented by 2 artifacts including Rose Spring and Eastgate projectile points, millingstones and manos, 3 mortars and pestles, incised stones, and slate pendants. The Rose Spring and Eastgate points 4 are relatively small projectiles and, therefore, have been associated with bow and arrow 5 usage. It is also evident that trade was occurring with the southern coast as shell beads and 6 steatite are present in some sites. An apparent increase in cultural diversification is noted by 7 the presence of turquoise and pottery; evidence of an Anasazi influence from the east. Despite 8 these influences, the overall cultural pattern throughout the northwest Mojave Desert 9 remained much the same as it was during the Gypsum Period (Warren 2004).
10 The Protohistoric Period ranged from A.D. 1,200 to the late 1700s in this region and is the 11 last defined stage in the Desert Region. This period is characterized by the presence of Desert 12 Side-notched and Cottonwood projectile points. In addition, pottery, steatite shaft 13 straighteners, painted millingstones, and shell beads from the California coast are also 14 present at some sites. The apparent abundance of these items is likely a result of the 15 proximity of highly influential trade routes along the Mojave River. It has been suggested that 16 these extensive trade routes were the impetus behind an increasingly complex 17 socioeconomic and sociopolitical organization that occurred around this time. Housepit 18 village sites were located at the headwaters of the Mojave River and in Antelope Valley; 19 however, by the end of this period there was an abandonment of these sites as well as a 20 decline in trade. This marked change is thought to be a result of either the drying up of the 21 lakes that fed the Mojave River or the southward movement of the Chemehuevi across the 22 Mojave River trade route prior to European contact (Warren 2004).
23 Ethnography 24 Ethnographically the project area is near the southern edge of territory that was inhabited by 25 the Serrano, who belong to the Takic family of the Uto-Aztecan language (Bean and 26 Smith1978). The Serrano were hunters and gatherers who developed sociopolitical and 27 socioeconomic systems that set them apart from the other Uto-Aztecan speakers who resided 28 in the Eastern Sierra and Nevada, and linked them more closely to the southern California 29 coastal groups and the Colorado River tribes. The Serrano occupied a diverse territory that 30 ranged from low or moderately low desert to the mountain regions of the San Bernardino 31 Mountains and adjacent ranges. Though definitive boundaries are lacking, ancestral Serrano 32 lands extended west to near Ontario, included Antelope Valley on the northwest, reached 33 north to Tiefort Mountain north of Barstow, to the northeast of the Cady and Bullion 34 mountains on the east, and south to include Yucaipa and portions of Riverside (McCarthy 35 2015), an area ranging in elevation from below 300 feet to above 11,000 feet above mean sea 36 level. Villages located in the higher elevations were placed near canyons that received 37 substantial precipitation or were adjacent to streams and springs. Villages located in the 38 lower elevations were also located close to springs or in proximity to the termini of alluvial 39 fans where the high water table provided abundant mesquite and shallow wells could be dug 40 (Bean and Smith 1978).
41 Serrano subsistence relied upon hunting and gathering, and occasionally fishing. The division 42 of labor was split between women gathering and men hunting and fishing (Altschul et al. 43 1984; Bean and Smith 1978; Warren 2004). Mountain sheep, deer, rabbits, acorns, grass 44 seeds, piñon nuts, bulbs, yucca roots, cacti fruit, berries, and mesquite were some of the more 45 common resources utilized (Bean and Smith 1978; Warren 2004).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-47 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 The Serrano were organized into exogamous patrilineal clans that were affiliated with one of 2 two exogamous moieties, with the clan being the largest autonomous political entity. They 3 lived in small villages where extended families lived in circular, dome-shaped structures 4 made of willow frames covered with tule thatching. The Serrano utilized shell, bone, feathers, 5 wood, stone, and plant fibers in the manufacture of their material culture, including 6 extravagant basketry, blankets, and ceremonial costumes.
7 Although the Spanish church established ranchos in the San Bernardino Valley shortly after 8 the founding of Mission San Gabriel Arcangel in the San Gabriel Valley in 1771, and Pedro 9 Fages explored the region east of the mission in 1772, the Serrano remained relatively 10 autonomous until a Spanish asistencia, or outpost, was established near Redlands in 1819, 11 when most of the western Serrano were removed from their traditional villages and placed 12 into the missions (Bean and Smith 1978; Warren 2004).
13 The increased presence of Europeans and Americans after California became a state greatly 14 changed the way of life for the Serrano as they were moved to reservations and children were 15 taken to boarding schools. Their livelihood began to improve later in the 1900s as new federal 16 laws allowed tribes greater political and economic independence. Today, the Serrano tribes 17 of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians own 18 some of the largest gaming operations in the state and have economically diversified into a 19 broad assortment of businesses.
20 History 21 The historic period began in the San Bernardino County when it was first visited by Pedro 22 Fages, explorer and Spanish Military Commander of California, in 1772. Juan Bautista de 23 Anza, followed in 1774 by coming overland from the Colorado River. Two years later, in 1776, 24 Fr. Francisco Garces, a missionary priest, also entered San Bernardino Valley from the 25 Colorado River. It was not until 1810, however, when Franciscan missionary Francisco 26 Dumetz (Dumatz), of the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel in present-day San Gabriel near Los 27 Angeles, named the valley San Bernardino in observance of the feast day of St. Bernardine of 28 Siena. The name proliferated and was later given to the nearby mountain range, city and 29 county. Dumetz had been sent to the valley to establish a rancho, Rancho San Bernardino, to 30 supply the mission. The headquarters of the rancho, Guachama Mission Station, was placed 31 on the Native American village of Guachama, in the Bunker Hill area of San Bernardino. The 32 Mission Station buildings were destroyed either by or shortly after an earthquake in 1812, 33 and the Mission fathers returned to Mission San Gabriel Arcangel (Caballeria 1902). The 34 Guachama Mission Station was rebuilt in 1819 at the Redlands location that is today marked 35 as California Historical Landmark #95 (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2017), 36 approximately 0.5-linear-mile southwest from the Project site. The Asistencia San 37 Bernardino, which included a chapel, an adobe administration building and a residence, was 38 also constructed at the Guachama Mission Station site around 1820; however, the complex 39 was moved in 1830 to its current location, about 1.5 miles southeast of the Project area, which 40 is identified as California Historical Landmark #42 (California Department of Parks and 41 Recreation 2017; San Bernardino County 2017). These buildings were both constructed by 42 the local Serrano people who were forced to relocate to the mission properties. The Serrano 43 also dug the Mill Creek Zanja (irrigation ditch) during the time that the Guachama Mission 44 Station was developed. This engineering effort brought water 12 miles, from Mill Creek near 45 present day Mentone, to support the station and the mission ranches. Water from the zanja 46 ultimately allowed settlement of the San Bernardino Valley, supplying water for agriculture,
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-48 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 and for local communities and industry. The Mill Creek Zanja is listed as a California Historical 2 Landmark #43, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (California 3 Department of Parks and Recreation 2017; San Bernardino County 2017).
4 The Mission Period ended sometime around 1834, and gave way to the Mexican or Rancho 5 Period. After secularization, the Guachama Mission Station and Asistencia were abandoned 6 by the padres. In 1842 the Lugo family was given the Rancho San Bernardino as a land grant 7 from the Mexican government. The Rancho, a total of 37,700 acres and encompassing the 8 entire San Bernardino Valley, including the Project area, was granted to raise stock and 9 establish a colony. Shortly thereafter, the valley boasted 4,000 head of cattle and the Lugos 10 were settled throughout the area (Kyle et al. 2002).
11 The end of the Rancho Period came with the war between Mexico and the United States. In 12 1846, large battles near the current project locale were fought at Chino to the west and 13 Aguanga to the south. Despite this, the war had little overall impact on the San Bernardino 14 Valley and the end of local involvement in the war came with the surrender of the Californio 15 forces to the Americans in 1847 at Cahuenga. After this time, the Lugo family faced economic 16 hardship largely due to problems with not being able to protect their livestock and, in 1851, 17 they sold the Rancho to a group of Mormon colonists led by Captain Jefferson Hunt, of the 18 Mormon Battalion (Kyle et al 2002).
19 Early American visitors to the area included Jedediah Smith in 1826 and Kit Carson, along 20 with a group of trappers, in 1830. California was admitted into the United States in 1850, and 21 three years later San Bernardino County was created from parts of Los Angeles, San Diego 22 and Mariposa counties. San Bernardino County has a rich agricultural and mining history. 23 Vineyards were planted in the Cucamonga area as early as the 1840s. In 1857 three orange 24 trees were planted on a farm in Old San Bernardino and by 1882 rail car loads of oranges and 25 lemons were being shipped out to Denver. Gold was discovered in 1860, in the San 26 Bernardino Mountains in Holcomb and Bear Valleys, drawing an influx of miners to the area. 27 The boom continued with the discovery of borax in 1862 at Searles Dry Lake and, again, with 28 the mining of silver in the 1870s and 1880s in Ivanpah and Calico. Such activities further 29 displaced the local Native Americans and by 1893 the government realized the need for a 30 permanent Indian reservation, at which point the San Manuel Reservation was established.
31 Other notable features of the area are the extensive water conveyance systems throughout 32 the valley. Initially, water diversion projects in the area were small and localized, beginning 33 with the 1820 construction of the Mill Creek Zanja Channel, mentioned above. Major region- 34 wide water systems were developed in the 1890s in response to population growth in the 35 San Bernardino Valley. Several dams were built and completed in Bear Valley by 1912, which 36 supplied water to large irrigation and domestic water systems that are still in use today.
37 The City of Loma Linda began as a planned resort center, known as Mound City, along the 38 railroad line in the 1880s. This effort failed and the property was purchased in the 1890s by 39 a group of physicians from Los Angeles to create a health resort and convalescent home called 40 Loma Linda. This effort also failed by 1904, and the property was bought by the Seventh-day 41 Adventist Church in 1905 who established a sanitarium and nursing school. The venture was 42 successful and a school of medicine was opened in 1910. The various medical operations of 43 the facility were consolidated in 1961 as Loma Linda University, which is an internationally 44 known medical center. The community of Loma Linda thrived as a health and agricultural 45 center, becoming incorporated as a city in 1970 (City of Loma Linda 2017; Kyle et al. 2002).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-49 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Cultural Resources Studies 2 Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites; historic-era archaeological sites; 3 TCRs; and historic buildings, structures, landscapes, districts, and linear features.
4 Archival Search
5 A records search was conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center of the 6 California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Northridge. 7 The purpose of the record search was to identify the presence of any previously recorded 8 cultural resources within the project site, and to determine whether any portions of the 9 project site had been surveyed for cultural resources. The record search (File No. 10 17822.3819) indicated that portions of the Project area were covered by four previous 11 archaeological surveys; two additional surveys included the entire Project site (see Table 12 CR-1). Another five studies have been conducted within ¼ mile of the Project location.
13 No archaeological resources were recorded in or in close proximity to the Project parcel as 14 the results of any of the studies listed by the South Central Coastal Information Center. One 15 built-environment resource, the Hayfield-Chino 220Kv transmission line, was recorded along 16 the east edge of the Project site as the result of the studies. The transmission line was 17 evaluated as not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
18 The studies outside of the Project parcel recorded three resources on the south side of 19 Redlands Boulevard, on the opposite side of the street from the proposed CHP facility. These 20 included two residences and one small concentration of three fragments of historic glass. The 21 houses were recorded as contributors to the City of Loma Linda’s Mission Road Historic 22 District. One of the homes, the Cole Ranch Residence, which was a large Free Classic Queen 23 Anne-style house built in 1880s, was also found individually eligible for the NRHP. Both 24 homes are no longer present at their original locations. The third resource was a tiny 25 concentration of three pieces of historic-era glass.
26 Table CR-1. Record Search Results: Previous Cultural Resources Surveys in the 27 Proposed Project Parcel Report No. Year Author Title SB-00600 1978 Hearn, Joseph E. Archaeological-Historical Resources Assessment of Approximately Eight Acres at the Northeast Corner of Redlands Boulevard and Bryn Mawr Avenue, Loma Linda Area SB-00647 1978 Hearn, Joseph E. Archaeological-Historical Resources Assessment of [a] 63 Acre Parcel of Land Located on the North Side of Redlands Boulevard between Mountain Avenue and Bryn Mawr Avenue, Loma Linda-Redlands Area SB-01764 1988 Hatheway, Roger E. A Windshield Survey and Preliminary Architectural/Historical Inventory of Loma Linda, California SB-07955 2013 McLean, Roderic, Cultural Resources Assessment and Class III Natalie Brodie, Inventory Volume I. West of Devers Project, Jacqueline Hall,
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-50 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Report No. Year Author Title Shannon Carmack, Phil San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, Fulton, Ingri Quon, Erin California Martinelli, Richard Erickson, and Jay Michalsky SB-07963 2015 DeCarlo, Matthew M., Engineering Refinements Survey and and Diane L. Winslow Recommendations of Eligibility for Cultural Resources with Southern California Edison Company's West of Devers Upgrade Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California SB-07964 2015 DeCarlo, Matthew M., Cultural Resources Impact Assessment and and Diane L. Winslow Evaluation Status Report for Southern California Edison Company's West of Devers Upgrade Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California 1 Source: South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information 2 System at California State University, Fullerton.
3 The City of Loma Linda General Plan (2009) was also reviewed for information pertaining to 4 cultural resources. The General Plan notes that, while there are no prehistoric archaeological 5 sites recorded (as of 2009) in the plan area, the location of the Guachama Rancheria (also 6 known as the San Bernardino Rancho of the Mission San Gabriel [California State Parks 7 2017]) is considered very sensitive for Native American cultural remains that predate the 8 arrival of the Spanish. As previously noted, the Guachama Rancheria/San Bernardino Rancho 9 of the Mission San Gabriel is approximately 0.5 mile from the Project site. The Mill Creek Zanja 10 is about 0.25 miles from the Project location. The City has also identified four potential 11 historic districts within the General Plan study area. None of these four districts (the Mission 12 District, Campus District, Prospect/Starr District, and Bryn Mawr) include the Project parcel. 13 At least 197 historical resources have been identified within the Loma Linda planning area, 14 of which 22 are potentially eligible for NRHP-listing.
15 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the project site included research on 16 the historical uses of the property (Avocet 2016). This research involved interviews and 17 examination of historical topographic maps (1899-2012) and aerial photographs (1938- 18 2012). Avocet reports that the earliest topographic maps depict railroad lines to the north 19 and south of the Project site, and the presence of the Mission Creek/Zanja Channel also to the 20 north. While various scattered residences and agricultural developments were present in the 21 vicinity, there was no development at the Proposed Project location. Avocet found that the 22 project site was under cultivation as a citrus grove by 1938, and that more homes and 23 outbuildings are present in the general area, including along Redlands Boulevard and Bryn 24 Mawr Avenue across from the Project. Development began to encroach upon the agricultural 25 land in the 1950s, and Interstate 10 was constructed in the mid-1960s. Orchards were cleared 26 from land east of Bryn Mawr Avenue in the 1970s, and the town homes that currently exist 27 were built in the early 1980s. The Project parcel, itself, was cleared of its orchard later in the 28 1980s, and additional development occurred in the adjacent parcels 1n the 1990s and early 29 2000s.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-51 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Native American Consultation
2 An email request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 30, 3 2017 to review its files for the presence of recorded sacred sites on the project site. The NAHC 4 responded on July 6, 2017, stating that no significant resources were identified in the Project 5 area as a result of a search of their files. The NAHC also provided a list of 14 tribes and tribal 6 contacts with a traditional and cultural affiliation with the Project area for notification 7 pursuant to Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52). AB 52 consultation is 8 described in Section 3.17, Tribal Cultural Resources. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 9 has identified a cultural landscape that includes the Project site. Additional information about 10 this cultural landscape is presented in Section 3.17, Tribal Cultural Resources.
11 Archaeological Survey and Results
12 An archaeological survey of the Project location was conducted with pedestrian transects at 13 approximate 50-foot intervals on July 21, 2017 by an archaeologist who meets the U.S. 14 Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Standards. The Project site had been disked, and 15 although patches of low vegetation grew throughout the parcel, ground surface visibility was 16 good to excellent. With the exception of a few chunks of broken concrete observed near the 17 northern end of the site, no cultural resources were noted. The concrete chunks appeared 18 modern and were dispersed along the plow zone; therefore, they were not recorded as 19 cultural resources. No cultural resources were identified and recorded during the pedestrian 20 survey. The survey and results are detailed in the archaeological technical report prepared 21 for the Project (Horizon 2017).
22 Paleontological Resources
23 Paleontological resources include fossil remains, as well as fossil localities and rock or soil 24 formations that have produced fossil material. Fossils are the remains or traces of prehistoric 25 animals and plants. Fossils are important scientific and educational resources because of 26 their use in (1) documenting the presence and evolutionary history of particular groups of 27 now-extinct organisms; (2) reconstructing the environments in which these organisms lived; 28 and (3) determining the relative ages of the strata in which they occur, as well as the relative 29 ages of the geologic events that resulted in the deposition of the sediments that formed these 30 strata and their subsequent deformation.
31 As discussed in Section 3.6, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, the Project area lies within the 32 Bunker Hill – San Timoteo Basin (Basin) between the San Bernardino Mountains and the San 33 Andreas Fault Zone to the northeast and the San Jacinto Mountains and the San Jacinto Fault 34 Zone to the southwest. The Project site is underlain by late Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial 35 deposits associated with the Santa Clara River system. Soils at the Project site are categorized 36 as Hanford Sandy Loam, with depths of up to 6 feet. The presence of these soils indicates that 37 buried paleontological resources could be encountered during construction.
38 The City of Loma Linda General Plan (2009) notes that some of the deposits in the Basin 39 contain paleontological remains, but that none have been recorded within or near the Plan 40 area; thus, none have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project site.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-52 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.5.4 Discussion of Checklist Responses 2 a. Adverse change in the significance of a historical resource—No 3 Impact
4 No historical resources, as defined in § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines were identified within 5 the project site. As a result, the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse 6 change to a historic resource and there would be no impact.
7 Historical resources that are archaeological in nature may be accidentally discovered during 8 project construction; archaeological resources are discussed further in item 3.5.3(b) below.
9 b. Adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource— 10 Less than Significant with Mitigation
11 No archaeological resources, as defined in § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, have been 12 identified within the Project site. Although an archaeological survey was conducted and no 13 archaeological resources were identified, archaeological remains may be buried with no 14 surface manifestation. Excavation for site preparation and any buried utilities would occur in 15 areas where buildings, structures and utilities are to be located. Such excavation activities 16 could uncover buried archaeological materials. Prehistoric materials most likely would 17 include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, and choppers), 18 tool-making debris, or milling equipment such as mortars and pestles. The Project property 19 is not particularly sensitive for historic-era archaeological remains, as historic maps and 20 aerial photographs indicate that is has only been used for agricultural purposes, and largely 21 as a citrus orchard. As a result, if present, historic-era archaeological remains are likely to 22 consist of agriculturally related items such as pieces of wire, or perhaps equipment parts, and 23 possibly items left or lost in the orchard by workers.
24 If archaeological remains are accidentally discovered that are determined eligible for listing 25 in the CRHR, and Proposed Project activities would affect them in a way that would render 26 them ineligible for such listing, a significant impact would result. Should previously 27 undiscovered archaeological resources be found, implementation of Mitigation Measure 28 CR-1 would ensure that impacts on CRHR-eligible archaeological sites accidentally 29 uncovered during construction are reduced to a less-than-significant level by immediately 30 halting work if materials are discovered, evaluating the finds for CRHR eligibility, and 31 implementing appropriate mitigation measures, as necessary. Implementation of Mitigation 32 Measure CR-1 would reduce impacts related to accidental discovery of archaeological 33 resources to a level that is less than significant with mitigation.
34 Mitigation Measure CR-1: Immediately halt construction if cultural resources 35 are discovered, evaluate all identified cultural resources for eligibility for 36 inclusion in the CRHR, and implement appropriate mitigation measures for 37 eligible resources.
38 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 39 (SMBMI) Cultural Resources Management (CRM) Department shall provide a cultural 40 sensitivity training to inform the construction crews about the kinds of archaeological 41 materials that could be present within the project area, and the protocols to be
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-53 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 followed should any such materials be uncovered during construction when a 2 monitor is not present.
3 If any cultural resources, including but not limited to structural features, bone or 4 shell, flaked or ground stone artifacts, historic-era artifacts, human remains, or 5 architectural remains, are encountered during any project construction activities, 6 work shall be suspended immediately at the location of the find and within a radius 7 of at least 50 feet and the lead agency shall be contacted.
8 All cultural resources accidentally uncovered during construction within the project 9 site shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR. Resource evaluations 10 will be conducted by individuals who meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s 11 professional standards in archaeology, history, or architectural history, as 12 appropriate. For finds that are of Native American origin and/or concern, SMBMI’s 13 CRM Department will be notified and asked to consult on the find’s nature, character, 14 and significance. Other tribes that have requested notification will also be informed 15 of the finds. If, as a result of this assessment by the archaeologist and SMBMI, any of 16 the resources meet the eligibility criteria identified in Public Resources Code § 5024.1 17 or CEQA § 21083.2(g), mitigation measures will be developed in concert with SMBMI, 18 and implemented in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(b) before 19 construction resumes.
20 For resources eligible for listing in the CRHR that would be rendered ineligible by the 21 effects of project construction, additional mitigation measures will be implemented. 22 Mitigation measures for archaeological resources may include (but are not limited to) 23 avoidance; incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; 24 capping the site; deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement; or data 25 recovery excavation. Mitigation measures for archaeological resources shall be 26 developed in consultation with responsible agencies and, for Native American 27 resources, SMBMI. If a site is deemed a TCR, consultation with SMBMI also will need 28 to occur. Implementation of the mutually-agreed upon and approved mitigation 29 would be required before resuming any construction activities with potential to affect 30 identified eligible resources at the site.
31 c. Destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique 32 geological feature— Less than Significant with Mitigation
33 Although no paleontological resources have been previously recorded in the vicinity of the 34 Project location, the geological formation present at the site has been known to contain fossils 35 elsewhere. As a result, the Project has some potential to contain paleontological resources. 36 Project construction will include trenching to depths of up to 5 feet and could uncover 37 paleontological remains. If fossils were discovered during construction, impacts on 38 paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation 39 Measure CR-2 would reduce impacts on any paleontological resources discovered during 40 construction to less than significant with mitigation.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-54 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Mitigation Measure CR-2: Suspend Construction Immediately if Paleontological 2 Resources Are Discovered, Evaluate the Significance of the Resources, and 3 Implement Appropriate Mitigation Measures as Necessary.
4 Paleontological resources are not necessarily visible on the ground surface, but 5 construction of the new CHP facilities has the potential to discover fossils. If any items 6 of paleontological interest are unearthed during construction, work shall be 7 suspended immediately within 50 feet of the discovery site, or to the extent needed 8 to protect the finds, and the State shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist will be 9 retained to examine the discovery.
10 Any discovery of paleontological resources during construction shall be evaluated by 11 the qualified paleontologist. If it is determined that construction could damage a 12 unique paleontological resource, additional mitigation shall be implemented in 13 accordance with Pub. Res. Code Section 21083.2 and CEQA Section 15126.4. If 14 avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall develop a treatment plan in 15 consultation with the State. Elements of the treatment plan shall include but not be 16 limited to the following: procedures for recovering the exposed fossil, or sample of 17 fossils, depending on the fossil type (macrofossil, microfossil, paleobotanical fossil); 18 recovery documentation; and preparation, curation, and storage of recovered fossils. 19 Work shall not be resumed until authorization is received from the State and 20 recommendations received from the qualified paleontologist are implemented.
21 d. Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside 22 of formal cemeteries—Less than Significant with Mitigation
23 No evidence of human remains was observed within the Proposed Project parcels. Although 24 the Project site has been previously graded, there is the possibility that human remains could 25 be discovered during project construction. Should any such remains be discovered during 26 construction, the California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 requires that work immediately 27 stop within the vicinity of the finds and that the County coroner be notified to assess the finds. 28 Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3 would ensure that the Proposed Project would 29 not result in any substantial adverse effects on human remains uncovered during the course 30 of construction by requiring that, if human remains are uncovered, work must be halted and 31 the County coroner must be contacted. Adherence to these procedures and provisions of the 32 California Health and Safety Code would reduce potential impacts on human remains to less- 33 than-significant level with mitigation.
34 Mitigation Measure CR-3: Immediately halt construction if human remains are 35 discovered and implement applicable provisions of the California Health and 36 Safety Code 7050.5.
37 If human remains are accidentally discovered during the Proposed Project’s 38 construction activities, the requirements of California Health and Safety Code § 39 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains include any portion of the remains of 40 human being, regardless of type, amount or condition, and regardless of whether or 41 not the remains are from a burial or a cremation. All ground disturbing excavation 42 shall halt on the Project site within a minimum radius of 100 feet of the remains, and 43 the County coroner shall be notified. The coroner is required to examine all
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-55 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on 2 private or state lands (California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5[b]). If the coroner 3 determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact 4 NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (California Health and 5 Safety Code § 7050[c]). Pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code § 6 5097.98, NAHC shall identify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD designated 7 by NAHC shall have at least 48 hours to inspect the site and propose treatment and 8 disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods. The State shall work with 9 MLD to ensure that the remains and any grave goods are treated in a culturally 10 appropriate, respectful, and dignified manner and comply with Public Resources 11 Code § 5097.98 . Native American human remains may also be determined to be 12 TCRs. The County coroner will contend with the human remains if they are not of 13 Native American origin.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-56 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-57 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting
2 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 3 Clean Water Act Section 402– National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 4 CWA is discussed in detail in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Since Section 402 5 of CWA is directly relevant to earthwork, additional information is provided here.
6 The 1987 amendments to CWA added Section 402(p), which establishes a framework for 7 regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant 8 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. As described in Section 3.9, the USEPA has 9 delegated authority to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for administration 10 of the NPDES program in California, where it is implemented by the state’s nine Regional 11 Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Under the NPDES Phase II Rule, any construction 12 activity disturbing 1 acre or more must obtain coverage under the state’s General Permit for 13 Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). General 14 Permit applicants are required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention 15 Plan (SWPPP) that describes the best management practices (BMPs) that will be 16 implemented to avoid adverse effects on receiving water quality as a result of construction 17 activities, including earthwork.
18 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act 19 The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124) and creation 20 of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) established a long-term 21 earthquake risk reduction program to better understand, predict, and mitigate risks 22 associated with seismic events. The following four federal agencies are responsible for 23 coordinating activities under NEHRP: USGS; National Science Foundation (NSF); Federal 24 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and National Institute of Standards and 25 Technology. Since its inception, NEHRP has shifted its focus from earthquake prediction to 26 hazard reduction. The current program objectives (NEHRP 2017) are as follows:
27 1. Develop effective measures to reduce earthquake hazards;
28 2. Reduce facilities and system vulnerabilities to earthquakes;
29 3. Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods; and
30 4. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects. 31
32 Implementation of NEHRP objectives is accomplished primarily through original research, 33 publications, and recommendations and guidelines for state, regional, and local agencies in 34 the development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-58 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 2 Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act 3 The Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act; Pub. Res. Code § 2621 et 4 seq.) was passed to reduce the risk to life and property from surface faulting in California. The 5 Alquist–Priolo Act prohibits construction of most types of structures intended for human 6 occupancy on the surface traces of active faults and strictly regulates construction in the 7 corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones). It also defines criteria for identifying 8 active faults, giving legal weight to terms such as “active,” and establishes a process for 9 reviewing building proposals situated in and adjacent to earthquake fault zones. Under the 10 Alquist–Priolo Act, faults are zoned, and construction along or across them is strictly 11 regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” Before a project can be permitted, 12 cities and counties require completion of a geologic investigation to demonstrate that the 13 proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults.
14 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act 15 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (SHMA; Pub. Res. Code §§ 2690–2699.6) 16 establishes statewide minimum public safety standards for mitigation of earthquake hazards. 17 While the Alquist–Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping 18 Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including strong ground shaking, 19 liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. Its provisions are similar in concept to those 20 of the Alquist–Priolo Act. The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of 21 strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other seismic hazards; cities and counties 22 are required to regulate development within mapped seismic hazard zones. In addition, the 23 act addresses not only seismically induced hazards but also expansive soils, settlement, and 24 slope stability. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, cities and counties may withhold the 25 development permits for a site within seismic hazard zones until appropriate site-specific 26 geologic and/or geotechnical investigations have been carried out and measures to reduce 27 potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans.
28 California Building Standards Code 29 Title 24 CCR, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBC), specifies standards 30 for geologic and seismic hazards other than surface faulting. These codes are administered 31 and updated by the California Building Standards Commission. CBC specifies criteria for open 32 excavation, seismic design, and load‐bearing capacity directly related to construction in 33 California.
34 3.6.2 Environmental Setting 35 The Project site is located in Bunker Hill – San Timoteo Basin (basin) between the San 36 Bernardino Mountains and the San Andreas Fault Zone to the northeast and the San Jacinto 37 Mountains and the San Jacinto Fault Zone to the southwest. The downdropped San 38 Bernardino Valley Block (i.e., the basin floor) lies between the two northwest trending 39 mountain ranges/fault zones (California Division of Mines and Geology 1976).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-59 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Geology 2 The Project site is underlain by late Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial deposits associated 3 with the Santa Clara River system. This geologic unit consists of sand and gravel interspersed 4 with deposits of silt and clay. Overall, the basin’s alluvium infill varies in thickness, reaching 5 a maximum thickness of 1,200 feet near the San Bernardino International Airport (USGS 6 1976).
7 Soils 8 The Project site is underlain by Hanford sandy loam (Natural Resources Conservation Service 9 [NRCS] 2017). This soil generally consists of sandy loam to fine sandy loam alluvium derived 10 from granite. This soil unit is well drained with very low runoff potential.
11 According to NRCS, soil characteristics at the Project site are favorable for development of 12 small commercial buildings but considered somewhat limited during shallow excavations 13 due to dusty conditions and unstable excavation walls (NRCS 2017). These limitations can be 14 overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation.
15 Seismicity 16 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and Faults 17 No Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones or known faults exist within the Project site. The nearest 18 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone is located in the city of Loma Linda, approximately 1.4 miles 19 southwest of the Project site (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2003; CGS 2010).
20 Several active faults are located in relatively close proximity to the Project site. The nearest 21 fault is the northwest trending San Jacinto Fault Zone, San Bernardino section, located 22 approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the Project site. This fault is estimated to have a 5 23 percent probability of producing an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater within the next 24 30 years (CGS 2010, Southern California Earthquake Data Center 2017). Other regional, 25 active faults are presented below in Table GEO-1.
26 Table GEO-1. Proximity of the Project Site to Regional Active Faults Approximate Distance from Fault Major Displacement Proposed Project San Jacinto Fault Zone, 1.4 miles southwest 1918, San Jacinto earthquake San Bernardino section MW 6.8 1923, North San Jacinto Fault earthquake MW 6.3 San Andreas Fault Zone, 5.3 miles northeast 1857, Fort Tejon earthquake San Bernardino Mountains MW 7.9 section Crafton Hills Fault Zone, 8.0 miles southeast Within the last 11,700 years Live Oak Canyon Fault
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-60 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Approximate Distance from Fault Major Displacement Proposed Project Sierra Madre Fault Zone 14.1 miles north 1970, Lytle Creek earthquake MW 5.2 1990, Upland earthquake MW 5.4 1 MW = moment magnitude
2 Sources: CGS 2010; Southern California Earthquake Data Center 2017; USGS 2015.
3 Ground Shaking 4 The severity of ground shaking experienced at a specific location depends on a variety of 5 factors, such as the magnitude and duration of the seismic event, fault type associated with 6 the event, distance from the epicenter, and physical properties of the underlying geology and 7 soils. The San Bernardino area lies in a very active seismic region of southern California 8 where the level of earthquake ground shaking frequency and severity is considered very high 9 (CGS 2008).
10 Liquefaction and Differential Settlement 11 Liquefaction can occur when water-saturated, loose sandy soils lose cohesion during seismic 12 shaking. The primary factor that triggers liquefaction is moderate to strong ground shaking. 13 Physical properties that increase susceptibility to liquefaction are relatively clean/loose 14 granular soils, and a shallow depth to groundwater and/or saturated conditions. The Project 15 site is located in a designated liquefaction zone where historical occurrence of liquefaction, 16 or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for 17 permanent ground displacements. Soils at the Project site consist of sandy loam to fine sandy 18 loam and may pose a potential risk of liquefaction and differential settlement, if saturated.
19 Information on depth to groundwater at the Project site is limited. However, proxy data 20 indicates groundwater elevations between 80-110 feet below ground surface (bgs) at a 21 former cleanup site 0.5-mile east of the Project site (Department of Water Resources [DWR] 22 2017), and 185-226 feet bgs at a former San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 23 supply well (State Well Number: 01S04W24K001S), approximately 0.8-mile northwest of the 24 Project site (DWR 2017).
25 Landslide, Slope Failure, and Lateral Spreading 26 The Project site is relatively flat, sloping gradually to the west-northwest. Similarly, local 27 topography adjacent to the Project site is mostly flat with less than a 2.0 percent grade (USGS 28 2015). Therefore, the potential for landslides to occur in or adjacent to the Project site is 29 highly unlikely.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-61 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.6.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 2 a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, 3 including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
4 i. Seismic-related rupture of a known earthquake fault—No Impact
5 Ground surface ruptures occur along earthquake fault lines. The Project site is not located 6 within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The nearest identified ‘Zones of Required Investigation’ 7 to the Project site are centered around the San Jacinto Fault Zone, San Bernardino section 8 (1.4 miles southwest) and the San Andreas Fault Zone, San Bernardino Mountains section 9 (5.3 miles northeast). The probability of ground rupture of a known earthquake fault at the 10 Project site is discountable; therefore, there would be no impact.
11 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking—Less than Significant
12 As discussed in Section 3.6.2 above, under “Seismicity,” the probability of strong seismic 13 ground shaking in the Project site is considered very high. The Proposed Project includes the 14 construction of a number of structures that could conceivably fail if on-site seismic or 15 geologic conditions are inadequately addressed during design or construction, posing a risk 16 to property or human life.
17 The current CBC (2016) takes seismically induced stresses into consideration for new 18 construction. The building standards outlined under Title 24, Part 2 of the CBC are specifically 19 tailored to meet regional requirements for increased seismic stability. Adherence to building 20 codes would reduce the potential for adverse effects from earthquakes and ground shaking 21 on the Project site by ensuring the stability of new structures and public safety. With 22 adherence to the current CBC standards, any potential for structural damage associated with 23 seismic ground shaking would be low. Therefore, effects of seismic ground shaking would be 24 less than significant.
25 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction—Less than 26 Significant with Mitigation
27 As discussed in Section 3.6.2 above, under “Seismicity,” underlying geologic properties and a 28 shallow water table increase the risk of liquefaction and differential settlement. The Project 29 site is underlain by alluvial sediments (alluvium) consisting of sandy loam to fine sandy loam 30 that may be susceptible to liquefaction or differential settling under saturated conditions. 31 Earth movements and differential settling have the potential to injure people through 32 substantial damage to and/or collapse of structures during either construction or operation 33 of a facility.
34 To meet or exceed safety standards, CHP and/or its design contractor would design and 35 construct the Proposed Project in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1, discussed 36 below. This mitigation measure includes design and/or construction measures to ensure that 37 the new buildings and structures minimize the potential risk of structural failure resulting 38 from seismic-related hazards and soil stability issues.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-62 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Conduct a Design-Specific Geotechnical 2 Investigation and Incorporate Report Recommendations into the Final Design 3 and Construction of the Proposed Project.
4 The State shall require in contract documents that a site-specific, design-level 5 geotechnical investigation and corresponding report be required prior to final design 6 approval. The geotechnical investigation shall comply with all applicable state and 7 local code requirements and be conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer (or 8 team of geotechnical engineers) to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions 9 at the Project site.
10 The corresponding geotechnical report shall document the results of that 11 investigation and provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the 12 geotechnical aspects of design and construction of the Proposed Project. 13 Recommendations shall address site and geologic conditions with a focus on 14 evaluating and mitigating:
15 a. the potential for liquefiable soils; 16 b. the expansion, shrink/swell potential, and corrosion of underlying soils; 17 c. subsurface soil improvements; and 18 d. the settlement and possibility differential settlement of soils. 19 20 The recommendations shall also address any other geologic hazards that are 21 identified during the course of the investigation. The report shall provide design 22 criteria to address any geotechnical issues and ensure that the Proposed Project’s 23 structures and facilities remain stable.
24 CHP shall require in contract documents that the Proposed Project’s final design and 25 construction incorporate the recommendations put forth by the final geotechnical 26 report and comply with all other relevant CBC standards and construction permit 27 requirements.
28 Following implementation of the findings and recommendations of Mitigation Measure 29 GEO-1 and adherence to current CBC standards, potential seismic-related hazards including 30 ground failure and liquefaction would be less than significant with mitigation.
31 iv. Seismic-related landslides—Less than Significant
32 The Project site and adjacent properties are relatively flat and not susceptible to landslides. 33 During construction activities and installation of building foundations, there is some 34 potential for open excavation areas to fail during a seismic event. However, with proper 35 safety procedures, required inspections, and adherence to current CBC standards, the risk of 36 collapse caused by shallow landslide or excavation activities would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-63 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 b. Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil—Less than Significant
2 The Proposed Project would include ground-disturbing construction activities that could 3 increase the risk of erosion or sediment transport. In addition, upon completion of 4 construction, the Proposed Project would include structures, asphalt driveways, parking 5 areas, and walkways creating approximately 3.9 acres of impervious surfaces. This 6 conversion from vacant land to impervious surface area could result in increased runoff and 7 soil erosion.
8 The Proposed Project would minimize the potential for increased runoff and soil erosion by 9 constructing a dedicated stormwater detention basin to provide on-site capture and 10 infiltration of runoff generated at the Project site. The Proposed Project would direct excess 11 stormwater runoff to existing stormwater infrastructure via an underground drainage 12 system and/or dedicated drain swales. Site drainage would be designed so as not to have 13 greater than a 4.5 percent slope at any point on the Project site, unless approved by the State.
14 As discussed in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” implementation of SWPPP 15 requirements and applicable BMPs would further reduce surface erosion and loss of topsoil 16 during construction-related activities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
17 c. Location on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would 18 become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project and potentially 19 result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, 20 subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse—Less than Significant with 21 Mitigation
22 The Proposed Project alignment is underlain with thick alluvium deposits of sand and gravel 23 interspersed with deposits of silt and clay, with similarly composed alluvial soils associated 24 with the Santa Clara River system. These geologic units and soils may be subject to shallow 25 landslide, differential settlement, liquefaction, or lateral spreading, especially following 26 periods of precipitation. During construction activities, excavation and trenching for building 27 foundations could temporarily create potentially unstable slopes. Because Project activities 28 may further destabilize steeply excavated, relatively unstable geologic layers and increase 29 the potential for slope failure and damage structures or injure workers, this impact would be 30 considered significant. Since the Proposed Project does not include subsurface resource 31 extraction or other related activities, no increase in potential subsidence would be expected.
32 As described in item 3.6.3(a)(iii, iv) above, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires design and 33 construction specifications to ensure that building foundations are designed and installed to 34 address seismic-related or soil stability issues and minimize the potential risk of structural 35 failure. Following implementation of findings and recommendations of Mitigation Measure 36 GEO-1 and adherence to current CBC standards, potential hazards from landslide, lateral 37 spreading, liquefaction, or collapse would be less than significant with mitigation.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-64 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 d. Location on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or 2 property—Less than Significant
3 Expansive soils are predominantly composed of clays and can undergo substantial volume 4 change in response to changes in moisture content. During wetting and drying cycles, 5 expansive soils may shrink and swell, creating differential ground movements. This uneven 6 movement can fracture concrete foundations and footings, resulting in potential damage or 7 failure of infrastructure. Soils underlying the Project site consist of sandy loam and fine sandy 8 loam composed predominately of sand and silt with less than 13 percent clay in general 9 (NRCS 2017). The physical characteristics of these soils are not consistent with expansive soil 10 properties.
11 Furthermore, adherence to CBC building standards as outlined in item 3.6.3(a)(ii) above and 12 implementation of recommendations addressing any findings of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 13 would minimize the potential for expansive soils to create substantial risk to life or property. 14 Therefore, risk to life or property from development of the Proposed Project would be less 15 than significant.
16 e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks 17 or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers 18 are not available for the disposal of wastewater—No Impact
19 The Proposed Project would tie into existing wastewater disposal systems. Septic tanks or 20 other alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be necessary; therefore, the 21 Proposed Project would have no impact.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-65 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less than Potentially Significant with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2 3.7.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 At the federal level, USEPA has developed regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) 5 emissions from motor vehicles and has developed permitting requirements for large 6 stationary emitters of GHGs. On April 1, 2010, USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety 7 Administration (NHTSA) established a program to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel 8 economy standards for new model year 2012-2016 cars and light trucks. On August 9, 2011, 9 USEPA and the NHTSA announced standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel 10 efficiency for heavy-duty trucks and buses. In August 2016, USEPA and the NHTSA jointly 11 finalized Phase 2 Heavy-Duty National Program standards to reduce GHG emissions and 12 improve fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles for model year 2018 and beyond 13 (USEPA 2017a). However, in April 2017, the USEPA stated it may adjust the later years of the 14 2017-2025 standards, and thus the increased mileage standard requirements may be subject 15 to change (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 2018).
16 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 17 In recent years, California has enacted a number of policies and plans to address GHG 18 emissions and climate change. In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the 19 Global Warming Solutions Act, which set the overall goals for reducing California’s GHG 20 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 32 codified an overall goal for reducing 21 California’s GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Orders (EOs) 22 S-3-05 and B-16-2012 further extend this goal to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 23 CARB has completed rulemaking to implement several GHG emission reduction regulations 24 and continues to investigate the feasibility of implementing additional GHG emission 25 reduction regulations. These include the low carbon fuel standard, which reduces GHG 26 emissions associated with fuel usage, and the renewable portfolio standard, which requires 27 electricity suppliers to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources 28 to 33 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030. The CBC (Title 24) governs construction of 29 buildings in California. Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24 are relevant for energy use and green
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-66 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 building standards, which reduce the amount of indirect GHG emissions associated with 2 buildings.
3 CARB approved the First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014 (CARB 2014). 4 This update defines climate change priorities for the next 5 years and also sets the 5 groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in EOs S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The update also 6 highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction 7 goals and evaluates how to align the State's longer term GHG reduction strategies with other 8 state policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and 9 land use. CARB is updating the Scoping Plan to reflect progress since 2005, additional 10 reduction measures, and plans for reductions beyond 2020. CARB recently released the draft 11 proposed second update to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and 12 codified by senate bill (SB) 32 (CARB 2017a, CARB 2017b). The updated Scoping Plan is 13 expected to be adopted in late 2017.
14 Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies 15 Local laws, regulations, and policies are provided in Appendix A. The analysis below 16 references the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) carbon dioxide 17 equivalent threshold, Loma Linda General Plan, and San Bernardino County Regional 18 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.
19 This analysis relies upon a bright line threshold established by the SCAQMD, below which 20 GHG mass emissions would not be considered a significant impact. This threshold (10,000 21 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (CO2e/yr)) includes construction 22 emissions amortized over a project life of 30 years and added to net operational GHG 23 emissions. This is the threshold that has been used in this analysis; emissions below the 24 10,000 MT CO2e/yr level were considered to not have a significant cumulative impact on 25 climate change from GHG emissions.
26 3.7.2 Environmental Setting 27 Climate change results from the accumulation in the atmosphere of GHGs, which are 28 produced primarily by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Because GHGs (carbon dioxide 29 [CO2], methane, and nitrous oxide) persist and mix in the atmosphere, emissions anywhere 30 in the world affect the climate everywhere in the world. GHG emissions are typically reported 31 in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) which converts all GHGs to an equivalent basis 32 taking into account their global warming potential compared to CO2.
33 Anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of GHGs are widely accepted in the scientific 34 community as contributing to global warming. Temperature increases associated with 35 climate change are expected to adversely affect plant and animal species, cause ocean 36 acidification and sea level rise, affect water supplies, affect agriculture, and harm public 37 health.
38 Global climate change is already affecting ecosystems and societies throughout the world. 39 Climate change adaptation refers to the efforts undertaken by societies and ecosystems to 40 adjust to and prepare for current and future climate change, thereby reducing vulnerability 41 to those changes. Human adaptation has occurred naturally over history; people move to 42 more suitable living locations, adjust food sources, and more recently, change energy sources.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-67 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Similarly, plant and animal species also adapt over time to changing conditions; they migrate 2 or alter behaviors in accordance with changing climates, food sources, and predators.
3 Many national, as well as local and regional, governments are implementing adaptive 4 practices to address changes in climate, as well as planning for expected future impacts from 5 climate change. Some examples of adaptations that are already in practice or under 6 consideration include conserving water and minimizing runoff with climate-appropriate 7 landscaping, capturing excess rainfall to minimize flooding and maintain a constant water 8 supply through dry spells and droughts, protecting valuable resources and infrastructure 9 from flood damage and sea level rise, and using water-efficient appliances.
10 In 2015, total California GHG emissions from routine emitting activities were 440.4 million 11 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMT CO2e) (CARB 2017c). This represents a 12 decrease from 2014 and a 10% reduction compared to peak levels reached in 2004. Declining 13 emissions from the electricity sector were responsible for much of the reduction due to 14 growing zero-GHG energy generation sources. In 2015, the transportation sector of the 15 California economy was the largest source of emissions, accounting for approximately 37 16 percent of the total emissions. The Aliso Canyon natural gas leak event released 1.96 MMT 17 CO2e of unanticipated emissions in 2015. These emissions were tracked, but not included in 18 the statewide total as they will be fully mitigated.
19 A San Bernardino County 2008 Community GHG inventory estimated the city’s emissions to 20 be 252,521 MT CO2e, most of which came from building energy consumption and on-road 21 transportation (San Bernardino County 2014).
22 3.7.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 23 a. Generate a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions which may have 24 a significant impact on the environment—Less than Significant
25 The Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. 26 Construction-related GHG emissions would result from the combustion of fossil-fueled 27 construction equipment, material hauling, and worker trips. These emissions were estimated 28 using CalEEMod version 2016.3.1, with default assumptions for a 5-acre site, which is the 29 area that would potentially be developed within the 5.3-acre project site. The Proposed 30 Project’s construction-related GHG emissions are estimated at 616 metric tons of carbon 31 dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e).
32 Operational GHG emissions would result from fossil-fueled equipment and motor vehicles, 33 building energy use, water use, and solid waste. The Proposed Project’s operational 34 emissions were estimated with CalEEMod version 2016.3.1 using default assumptions. 35 Mobile emissions, including emissions associated with employee commute trips, CHP patrol 36 officer trips while on duty, and trips generated by civilian employees. Vehicle idling emissions 37 were conservatively estimated by assuming that 2 worker vehicles were idling 24 hours per 38 day. The idling emission factors were taken from the EMFAC 2014 model to be consistent 39 with CalEEMod emission factors for a light-duty truck (vehicle class 1). The diesel-powered 40 emergency generator was assumed to have 670 hp and operate for 100 hours per year for 41 testing. Based on these assumptions, the Proposed Project’s operational GHG emissions are 42 estimated to be 1,948 MTCO2e per year. The majority of the emissions are from the patrol
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-68 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 cars. This estimate includes emissions associated with the existing CHP San Bernardino Area 2 Office. Thus, the operational emissions of the new CHP facility would be partially offset by 3 eliminating emissions from the existing CHP facility. The resulting net increase would be 4 attributable to the increase in the number of employees and larger size of the facility.
5 The existing CHP facility emissions were estimated in CalEEMod based on the estimated 6 building square footage, and number of employees. The existing facility emissions were 7 estimated to be 1,602 MTCO2e. Therefore, the net operational emissions for the project are 8 346 MTCO2e.
9 The net project emissions when amortized construction emissions are included would be 10 approximately 366 MTCO2e/year, which is well below the applicable bright-line threshold of 11 10,000 MTCO2e and would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact to global climate 12 change or impede the goals of AB 32 or SB 32. In addition, the new facility would be 13 constructed consistent with current California building codes, which substantially reduce the 14 energy and water use for new buildings compared to the standards in effect when the existing 15 CHP San Bernardino Area Office was constructed. Since the Proposed Project’s emissions 16 would be below the significance threshold, the impact would be less than significant.
17 b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the 18 purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases—Less than 19 Significant
20 The State of California has implemented AB 32, SB 32, and multiple Executive Orders to 21 reduce GHG emissions. The Proposed Project does not pose any conflict with the most recent 22 list of CARB’s early action strategies, nor is it one of the sectors at which measures are 23 targeted. The First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan and the proposed second update (CARB 24 2017a) did not mention similar projects as a specific target for additional strategies, but 25 emission reductions at the project site would be influenced by decisions relating to target 26 sectors such as water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. 27 The Proposed Project would not be required to report emissions to CARB. Therefore, 28 emissions generated by the Proposed Project would not be expected to have a substantial 29 contribution to the ongoing impact on global climate change. While local plans, policies and 30 regulations do not apply to the state, the location of the project site is in line with local general 31 plan policies regarding land use, transportation, air quality planning goals, and local 32 Greenhouse Gas Reduction plans. For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not conflict 33 with AB 32, the local general plans, and climate action plans. Therefore, this impact would be 34 less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-69 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the study area?
f. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the study area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-70 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting 2 Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are subject to extensive federal, state, and local 3 regulations to protect public health and the environment. These regulations provide 4 definitions of hazardous materials; establish reporting requirements; set guidelines for 5 handling, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous wastes; and require health and safety 6 provisions for workers and the public. The major federal, state, and regional agencies 7 enforcing these regulations are USEPA and the Occupational Safety and Health 8 Administration (OSHA); California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); 9 California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health 10 (Cal/OSHA); California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES); SWRCB; Los 11 Angeles RWQCB; and SCAQMD.
12 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 13 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 14 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also 15 called the Superfund Act; 42 USC § 9601 et seq.) is intended to protect the public and the 16 environment from the effects of past hazardous waste disposal activities and new hazardous 17 material spills. Under CERCLA, USEPA has the authority to seek the parties responsible for 18 hazardous materials releases and to ensure their cooperation in site remediation. CERCLA 19 also provides federal funding (through the “Superfund”) for the remediation of hazardous 20 materials contamination. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 21 (Public Law 99-499) amends some provisions of CERCLA and provides for a Community 22 Right-to-Know program.
23 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 24 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 USC § 6901 et seq.), as 25 amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, is the primary federal law 26 for the regulation of solid waste and hazardous waste in the United States. These laws provide 27 for the “cradle-to-grave” regulation of hazardous wastes, including generation, 28 transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. Any business, institution, or other entity 29 that generates hazardous waste is required to identify and track its hazardous waste from 30 the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed of.
31 USEPA has primary responsibility for implementing RCRA, but individual states are 32 encouraged to seek authorization to implement some or all RCRA provisions. California 33 received authority to implement the RCRA program in August 1992. DTSC is responsible for 34 implementing the RCRA program in addition to California’s own hazardous waste laws, which 35 are collectively known as the Hazardous Waste Control Law.
36 Energy Policy Act of 2005 37 Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Underground Storage Tank 38 Compliance Act of 2005) contains amendments to Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 39 the original legislation that created the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. As 40 defined by law, a UST is "any one or combination of tanks, including pipes connected thereto, 41 that is used for the storage of hazardous substances and that is substantially or totally 42 beneath the surface of the ground." In cooperation with USEPA, SWRCB oversees the UST
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-71 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Program. The intent is to protect public health and safety and the environment from releases 2 of petroleum and other hazardous substances from tanks. The four primary program 3 elements include leak prevention (implemented by Certified Unified Program Agencies 4 [CUPAs], described in more detail below), cleanup of leaking tanks, enforcement of UST 5 requirements, and tank integrity testing.
6 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule 7 USEPA's Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule (40 CFR, Part 112) apply 8 to facilities with a single above-ground storage tank (AST) with a storage capacity greater 9 than 660 gallons, or multiple tanks with a combined capacity greater than 1,320 gallons. The 10 rule includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil 11 discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires specific facilities 12 to prepare, amend, and implement SPCC Plans.
13 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 14 OSHA is responsible at the federal level for ensuring worker safety. OSHA sets federal 15 standards for implementation of workplace training, exposure limits, and safety procedures 16 for the handling of hazardous substances (as well as other hazards). OSHA also establishes 17 criteria by which each state can implement its own health and safety program.
18 Federal Communications Commission Requirements 19 There is no federally mandated radio frequency (RF) exposure standard; however, pursuant 20 to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 USC § 224), the Federal Communications 21 Commission (FCC) established guidelines for dealing with RF exposure, as presented below. 22 The exposure limits are specified in 47 CFR § 1.1310 in terms of frequency, field strength, 23 power density, and averaging time. Facilities and transmitters licensed and authorized by 24 FCC must either comply with these limits or an applicant must file an environmental 25 assessment (EA) with FCC to evaluate whether the proposed facilities could result in a 26 significant environmental effect.
27 Licensees at co-located sites (e.g., towers supporting multiple antennas, including antennas 28 under separate ownerships) must take the necessary actions to bring the accessible areas 29 that exceed the FCC exposure limits into compliance. This is a shared responsibility of all 30 licensees whose transmission power density levels account for 5.0 or more percent of the 31 applicable FCC exposure limits (47CFR 1.1307[b][3]).
32 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 77 33 14 CFR Part 77.9 is designed to promote air safety and the efficient use of navigable airspace. 34 Implementation of the code is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If 35 an organization plans to sponsor any construction or alterations that might affect navigable 36 airspace, a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) must be filed. 37 The code provides specific guidance regarding FAA notification requirements when:
38 . any construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level; 39 . any construction or alteration:
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-72 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 - within 20,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 2 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway 3 more than 3,200 feet;
4 - within 10,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 5 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no 6 more than 3,200 feet;
7 - within 5,000 feet of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface; 8 . any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height 9 would exceed the above noted standards; 10 . when requested by the FAA; and 11 . any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless 12 of height or location. 13 14 The Proposed Project includes construction of a 148-foot communications tower.
15 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 16 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 – Proposition 65 17 The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, more commonly known as 18 Proposition 65, protects the state’s drinking water sources from contamination with 19 chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Proposition 65 20 also requires businesses to inform the public of exposure to such chemicals in the products 21 they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. In 22 accordance with Proposition 65, the California Governor’s Office publishes, at least annually, 23 a list of such chemicals. OEHHA, an agency under the California Environmental Protection 24 Agency (CalEPA), is the lead agency for implementation of the Proposition 65 program. 25 Proposition 65 is enforced through the California Attorney General’s Office; however, district 26 and city attorneys and any individual acting in the public interest may also file a lawsuit 27 against a business alleged to be in violation of Proposition 65 regulations.
28 The Unified Program 29 The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative 30 requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of six environmental and 31 emergency response programs. CalEPA and other state agencies set the standards for their 32 programs, while local governments (CUPAs) implement the standards. For each county, the 33 CUPA regulates/oversees the following:
34 . Hazardous materials business plans; 35 . California accidental release prevention plans or federal risk management plans; 36 . The operation of USTs and ASTs; 37 . Universal waste and hazardous waste generators and handlers; 38 . On-site hazardous waste treatment; 39 . Inspections, permitting, and enforcement;
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-73 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 . Proposition 65 reporting; and 2 . Emergency response. 3 4 Hazardous Materials Business Plans 5 Hazardous materials business plans are required for businesses that handle hazardous 6 materials in quantities greater than or equal to 55 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, 7 or 200 cubic feet (cf) of compressed gas, or extremely hazardous substances above the 8 threshold planning quantity (40 CFR, Part 355, Appendix A) (Cal OES 2015). Business plans 9 are required to include an inventory of the hazardous materials used/stored by the business, 10 a site map, an emergency plan, and a training program for employees (Cal OES 2015). In 11 addition, business plan information is provided electronically to a statewide information 12 management system, verified by the applicable CUPA, and transmitted to agencies 13 responsible for the protection of public health and safety (i.e., local fire department, 14 hazardous material response team, and local environmental regulatory groups) (Cal OES 15 2015).
16 California Occupational Safety and Health Administration 17 Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety 18 regulations in California. Cal/OSHA regulations pertaining to the use of hazardous materials 19 in the workplace (CCR Title 8) include requirements for safety training, availability of safety 20 equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, warnings about exposure to hazardous 21 substances, and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans. Hazard 22 communication program regulations that are enforced by Cal/OSHA require workplaces to 23 maintain procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, inform workers 24 about the hazards associated with hazardous substances and their handling, and prepare 25 health and safety plans to protect workers at hazardous waste sites. Employers must also 26 make material safety data sheets available to employees and document employee 27 information and training programs. In addition, Cal/OSHA has established maximum 28 permissible RF radiation exposure limits for workers (Title 8 CCR § 5085[b]), and requires 29 warning signs where RF radiation might exceed the specified limits (Title 8 CCR § 5085 [c]).
30 California Accidental Release Prevention 31 The purpose of the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program is to prevent 32 accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the 33 environment, to minimize the damage if releases do occur, and to satisfy community right-to- 34 know laws. In accordance with this program, businesses that handle more than a threshold 35 quantity of regulated substance are required to develop a risk management plan (RMP). This 36 RMP must provide a detailed analysis of potential risk factors and associated mitigation 37 measures that can be implemented to reduce accident potential. CUPAs implement the 38 CalARP program through review of RMPs, facility inspections, and public access to 39 information that is not confidential or a trade secret.
40 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wildland Fire Management 41 The Office of the State Fire Marshal and the California Department of Forestry and Fire 42 Protection (CAL FIRE) administer state policies regarding wildland fire safety. Construction
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-74 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 contractors must comply with the following requirements in the Public Resources Code 2 during construction activities at any sites with forest-, brush-, or grass-covered land:
3 . Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines must be 4 equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire 5 (Public Resources Code § 4442). 6 . Appropriate fire-suppression equipment must be maintained from April 1 to 7 December 1, the highest-danger period for fires (Public Resources Code § 4428). 8 . On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials must be removed 9 to a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or 10 flame, and the construction contractor must maintain the appropriate fire- 11 suppression equipment (Public Resources Code § 4427). 12 . On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline- 13 fueled internal combustion engines must not be used within 25 feet of any 14 flammable materials (Public Resources Code § 4431). 15 16 California Highway Patrol 17 CHP, along with Caltrans, enforce and monitor hazardous materials and waste transportation 18 laws and regulations in California. These agencies determine container types used and license 19 hazardous waste haulers for hazardous waste transportation on public roads. All motor 20 carriers and drivers involved in transportation of hazardous materials must apply for and 21 obtain a hazardous materials transportation license from CHP.
22 3.8.2 Environmental Setting 23 The general geographic and site description of the Proposed Project are provided in Section 24 2.3, “Project Location and Setting.” In July 2016, Avocet conducted a Phase I environmental 25 site assessment for the Project site parcel. The assessment investigated potential Recognized 26 Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions 27 (CRECs), historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), and ‘other 28 environmental features’. The Phase I identified the Project site as potentially containing one 29 REC, for site-wide residential pesticide buildup (Avocet 2016). In response to the Phase I 30 assessment, Avocet prepared a Phase II Investigation (Avocet 2017) for the property to 31 evaluate the potential impact of the identified REC.
32 Existing Hazards and Hazardous Materials 33 Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, no potential or confirmed state or 34 federal Superfund site is located within or immediately adjacent to the Project site. Several 35 agency-listed sites are present within a 1-mile radius of the Project site that have been 36 affected by unauthorized material releases including former leaking underground storage 37 tanks associated with automobile refueling stations, with two gas stations approximately 0.5 38 mile of the Project site (SWRCB 2017). However, none of these agency-listed sites is known 39 to have adversely affected the Project site. In addition, because of their relative location, type 40 of hazardous waste release, groundwater flow, and the intervening distance from the Project 41 site, the likelihood that any of these agency-listed sites have affected the soil or groundwater 42 beneath the Project site is nominal.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-75 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 The Project site was used exclusively for agricultural purposes (e.g., citrus orchards) until 2 cleared for development sometime during the late 1980s. The Project site is currently vacant 3 but surrounding parcels have since been developed with mixed commercial/light industrial 4 uses, townhomes to the east, and a Veteran’s Affairs medical facility to the south. The vacant 5 Project site is disked or plowed twice a year for weed abatement. No signs of significant 6 grading or fill material is present (Avocet 2016).
7 Wildfire Hazards 8 The region surrounding the project site is urban, developed land and zoned as non-VHFHSV 9 (very high fire hazard severity zone) within incorporated city limits (CAL FIRE 2008). The 10 nearest fire station is the Loma Linda Fire Department – Station #252, 1.2 miles west of the 11 project site and approximately 3 minutes driving time.
12 Sensitive Receptors 13 Sensitive receptors include hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and 14 convalescent facilities, etc., where the occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects 15 of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. Extra care must be taken 16 when dealing with contaminants and pollutants in close proximity to areas recognized as 17 sensitive receptors.
18 Several schools, churches, and community centers are located within a 1-mile radius of the 19 Project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the site are likely to be patients visiting the VA 20 Ambulatory Care Center directly south of the Project site at 26001 Redlands Boulevard. Other 21 nearby sensitive receptors include children attending Redlands KinderCare (10451 22 Commerce Street), approximately 0.3 mile west of the Project site, and Mission Elementary 23 School (10568 California Street), approximately 0.5 miles east of the Project site.
24 3.8.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 25 a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 26 the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials—Less 27 than Significant
28 Construction 29 Construction activities for the Proposed Project would require handling of hazardous 30 materials, such as fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents for use with construction equipment 31 on-site. Accidental spills or improper use, storage, transport, or disposal of these hazardous 32 materials could result in a public hazard or the transport of hazardous materials (particularly 33 during storm events) to the underlying soils and groundwater.
34 Although these hazardous materials could pose a hazard as described above, Proposed 35 Project activities would be required to comply with extensive regulations so that substantial 36 risks would not result. Examples of compliance with these regulations would include 37 preparation of a hazardous materials business plan, as described above, which would include 38 a training program for employees, an inventory of hazardous materials, and an emergency 39 plan (Cal OES 2015). All storage, handling, and disposal of these materials would be done in
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-76 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 accordance with regulations established by DTSC, USEPA, OSHA, Cal OES, CUPA, and 2 Cal/OSHA.
3 Additionally, as described in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the Proposed 4 Project would prepare a SWPPP as part of its compliance with applicable NPDES permits. The 5 SWPPP would include appropriate spill prevention and other construction BMPs to prevent 6 or minimize potential for releases of hazardous materials or risks to workers during routine 7 activities.
8 As a result of compliance with the applicable regulations as described above, no significant 9 risks would result to construction workers, the public, or the environment from the 10 construction-related transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, 11 this impact would be less than significant.
12 Operations 13 Operation of the Proposed Project would necessitate the use and storage of several hazardous 14 items and materials. Items and materials that would be on-site and could pose a risk to human 15 health and safety and the environment include the following: 16 . Two 55-gallon bulk oil drums for use in on-site automobile servicing; 17 . One 30-gallon used oil drum for collecting used oil from the automobile service 18 station; 19 . Miscellaneous lubricants from the automobile service station; 20 . One 12,000-gallon above-ground tank of gasoline for vehicle refueling; 21 . One 240-gallon waste oil tank; 22 . Storage area for tires; 23 . One above-ground tank of diesel fuel to power the emergency generator; 24 . Gun cleaning materials, including various solvents; 25 . Flares and ammunition; 26 . Propane tanks to supply natural gas; and 27 . Communications tower. 28 29 Hazardous materials would be stored on-site and used or disposed of at regular intervals. If 30 adequate precautions are not taken, accidental spills or improper use, storage, transport, or 31 disposal of these hazardous materials could result in a public hazard or the transport of 32 hazardous materials (particularly during storm events) to the underlying soils and 33 groundwater.
34 However, all hazardous materials would be either contained within the buildings (e.g., 35 solvents used for cleaning guns) or have appropriate containment measures.
36 Specifically, hazardous materials stored outdoors would be kept in containers that have 37 secondary or tertiary containment, and additionally would be equipped with safe wells 38 downstream of the containers that would capture any leaks or spills in the event of a failure
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-77 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 and allow for appropriate treatment and disposal. All storage, handling, and disposal of these 2 materials would comply with the applicable regulations of DTSC, USEPA, OSHA, Cal OES, and 3 Cal/OSHA to ensure that no significant risks would result to workers, the public, or the 4 environment from the operation-related transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous 5 materials.
6 Finally, the Proposed Project would include the installation and use of a communications 7 tower. Compliance with existing FCC regulations regarding RF radiation (see Section 3.8.1 8 above) would reduce potential for any adverse effects to human health or the environment 9 associated with RF exposure from the communications tower proposed as part of the 10 Proposed Project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
11 b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 12 reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the 13 release of hazardous materials into the environment—Less than 14 Significant
15 Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project, including clearing, grubbing, 16 and soil excavation, have the potential to come into contact with existing sources of 17 contamination if any are present. However, as described above in section 3.8.2, the Project 18 site supported agricultural uses from at least 1938 through the late 1980’s. A Phase II 19 Environmental Site Assessment (Avocet 2017) detected trace amounts of dichloro-diphenyl- 20 dichloroethylene and Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane in soils at the Project site, but at 21 levels far below residential and commercial/industrial U.S. EPA and DTSC risk screening 22 levels. Therefore, soil excavation activities would have a low potential to expose construction 23 workers or nearby sensitive receptors to existing on-site hazardous materials, and would not 24 create a significant hazard through upset or accident conditions involving excavated 25 materials. In addition, arsenic was detected in soil samples but at concentrations 26 representative of regional background levels.
27 The Proposed Project’s construction would require the use, transport, and disposal of 28 hazardous materials; however, as detailed above, compliance with the applicable regulations 29 and implementation of SWPPP and permit BMPs would ensure that no significant risks would 30 result to construction workers, the public, or the environment from reasonably foreseeable 31 upset or accident conditions involving the use of hazardous materials for the Proposed 32 Project’s construction activities.
33 Operations associated with the Proposed Project would include the use of hazardous and/or 34 flammable materials, such as ammunition, tires, fuels, and flares. These materials would pose 35 a potential health and safety risk to employees on-site and to individuals nearby in 36 foreseeable upset and/or accident (e.g., fire) conditions. However, as discussed above, all 37 hazardous materials would be either contained within the buildings (e.g., solvents and 38 ammunition), or have appropriate containment measures. For example, flares would be 39 stored in a fusee enclosure that is designed to allow flares to burn until all flames are 40 extinguished. Cement-block walls surrounding the fusee enclosure on three sides would 41 further minimize the potential for risk to humans or the environment from a potential 42 accident/fire risk. In addition, implementation of the applicable provisions of USEPA, OSHA, 43 Cal/OSHA, CalEPA, Cal OES, CAL FIRE, and CUPA permitting processes would fully address 44 potential risks associated with all hazardous or flammable materials used during the
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-78 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Proposed Project’s operation. Storage and use of these materials would not be significantly 2 different from their use at the existing CHP Inland Division San Bernardino Area Office.
3 Therefore, with compliance with the applicable regulations and implementation of applicable 4 BMPs, this impact would be less than significant.
5 c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely 6 hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of 7 an existing or proposed school—No Impact
8 No existing schools are located within 0.25-mile of the Project site. Mission Elementary 9 School is located at the intersection of California Street and Redlands Boulevard, 10 approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
11 d. Located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials 12 sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a 13 result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment— 14 No Impact
15 The Proposed Project is not located on a Historic Cortese list site. The nearest Historic Cortese 16 list site is a former leaking underground storage tank at a gas station (i.e., ARCO Station) 17 located at 25715 Redlands Boulevard, approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site (SWRCB 18 2017). Remediation activities occurred at this site and the case deemed closed by the RWQCB 19 in 2003. Because the Project site is not included on the Cortese list of hazardous materials 20 sites compiled by DTSC in accordance with Government Code § 65962.5, the Proposed Project 21 would not create a hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there would be no 22 impact.
23 e, f. Located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan 24 has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a private airport or public 25 airport and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working 26 in the study area—Less than Significant
27 The Project site is located approximately 1.8 miles south of the San Bernardino International 28 Airport. This facility is a former military installation (i.e., Norton Air Force Base) repurposed 29 for civilian use. In order to protect the public health and safety in the area of the airport by 30 minimizing exposure to crash hazards and high noise levels that may be generated by airport 31 operations, Airport Overlay Districts have been established around the airport facilities. 32 Although the Project is not located in the airport approach or departure flight paths, the 33 Project site is within the conical airspace area limiting the height of structures. A proposed 34 148-foot communications tower would be constructed as part of the Proposed Project. 35 However, the Project site is within a conical airspace area allowing for structures up to 215 36 feet (approximately) in height.
37 In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with the rules and regulations of CFR Title 38 47, Telecommunication, regarding the location and construction of the communications 39 tower, registering the communications tower with FCC, and marking and lighting of the 40 communications tower. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-79 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 2 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan—Less than 3 Significant with Mitigation
4 Construction 5 Construction-related employee vehicle trips and truck trips for the Proposed Project would 6 potentially increase traffic on Redlands Boulevard and Bryn Mawr Avenue over the duration 7 of the construction period. An increase in traffic could impair emergency responders. 8 However, construction-related traffic would be temporary and only a limited number of 9 employee vehicles and trucks would travel to and from the Project site on a daily basis. Access 10 to the Project site and surrounding properties for fire and emergency response vehicles 11 would be maintained at all times. To minimize the potential for the Proposed Project to 12 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, 13 implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require preparation of a construction 14 traffic management plan. With implementation of mitigation, the impact from construction- 15 related activities associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant with 16 mitigation.
17 Operation 18 Following Project construction, operation of the Proposed Project would result in an increase 19 in trips to and from the Project site along Redlands Boulevard. The Proposed Project would 20 generate 487 total daily trips, 28 of which would occur during the AM peak hour and 40 of 21 which would occur during the PM peak hour. This would not substantially affect existing LOS 22 with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2 (adjusted signal timing) and would not 23 affect roadway safety. For a more detailed discussion on potential traffic impacts of the 24 Proposed Project, please refer to Section 3.16, Transportation and Traffic. The Proposed 25 Project’s operations would be comparable to operation of the existing Inland Division San 26 Bernardino Area Office facilities. The Proposed Project location would not adversely affect 27 CHP activities or other emergency response activities for the region. Therefore, the impact 28 from operations-related activities of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
29 Overall, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 and TRA-2, the Proposed 30 Project’s impacts on emergency response would be less than significant with mitigation.
31 h. Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or 32 Death Involving Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands Are 33 Adjacent to Urbanized Areas or Where Residences Are Intermixed 34 with Wildlands—Less than Significant
35 The Project site is within an urban, developed area identified as a non-VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 36 2008). The Project site is routinely disked to prevent significant vegetation growth, although 37 some urban landscaped areas lie within the Project site’s southern portion. The Proposed 38 Project’s construction equipment within or near vegetated areas could potentially present an 39 ignition source and fire hazard; however, the Proposed Project would be required to comply 40 with Public Resources Code requirements for construction activities at sites covered by 41 forest, brush, or grass (see Section 3.8.1 above, under “California Department of Forestry and
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-80 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Fire Protection Wildland Fire Management”). Compliance with these measures would 2 minimize the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of wildland fires.
3 Operational activities associated with the Proposed Project would include the storage of 4 flares, ammunition, tires and other flammable materials on-site that might impact nearby 5 vegetated areas. However, CHP would comply with extensive regulations so that substantial 6 risks would not result. Examples of compliance with these regulations would include a 7 training program for employees and an emergency plan (Cal OES 2015). Implementation of 8 the applicable provisions of OSHA, Cal/OSHA, California Emergency Management Agency (Cal 9 EMA), and CAL FIRE would fully address potential risks associated with these flammable 10 materials. Therefore, the impact from construction- and operation-related activities 11 associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-81 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less than Potentially Significant with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-site or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year-flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year-flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect floodflows?
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-82 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Less than Potentially Significant with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1 3.9.1 Regulatory Setting
2 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 3 Clean Water Act 4 CWA is the primary federal law that protects the quality of the nation’s surface waters, 5 including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. Key sections pertaining to water quality 6 regulation for the hydrology and water quality impact evaluation are CWA § 303 and § 402.
7 CWA is the primary federal law that protects the quality of the nation’s surface waters, 8 including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. Key sections pertaining to water quality 9 regulation for the hydrology and water quality impact evaluation are CWA § 303 and § 402.
10 Section 303(d)— Listing of Impaired Water Bodies
11 Under CWA § 303(d), states are required to identify “impaired water bodies” (i.e., those not 12 meeting established water quality standards), identify the pollutants causing the impairment, 13 establish priority rankings for waters on the list, and develop a schedule for the development 14 of control plans to improve water quality. USEPA then approves the State’s recommended list 15 of impaired waters or adds and/or removes waterbodies.
16 The reach (Reach 5) of the Santa Ana River that passes approximately 1.5 miles north of the 17 Project site is not listed as impaired under CWA, Section 303(d). However, downstream 18 reaches (Reaches 4, 3, and 2) are identified as impaired for various contaminants, including 19 pathogens, lead, copper, and indicator bacteria (SWRCB 2012).
20 Section 402—NPDES Permits for Stormwater Discharge
21 CWA § 402 regulates stormwater discharges to surface waters through the NPDES, which is 22 officially administered by USEPA. In California, USEPA has delegated its authority to the State 23 SWRCB, which, in turn, delegates implementation responsibility to the nine RWQCBs, as 24 discussed below in reference to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
25 The NPDES program provides for both general (those that cover a number of similar or 26 related activities) and individual (activity- or project-specific) permits.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-83 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 General Permit for Construction Activities: Most construction projects that disturb 1.0 or 2 more acre of land are required to obtain coverage under SWRCB’s General Permit for Storm 3 Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 4 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ). The general 5 permit requires that the applicant file a public notice of intent to discharge stormwater and 6 prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP must include a site map and a description of 7 the proposed construction activities, demonstrate compliance with relevant local ordinances 8 and regulations, and present a list of BMPs that will be implemented to prevent soil erosion 9 and protect against discharge of sediment and other construction-related pollutants to 10 surface waters. Permittees are further required to monitor construction activities and report 11 compliance to ensure that BMPs are correctly implemented and are effective in controlling 12 the discharge of construction-related pollutants.
13 General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an 14 Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality. The Santa Ana RWQCB issued Order 15 No. R-8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001 in 2009 to provide waste discharge 16 requirements for discharges to surface waters that pose limited threat to water quality, 17 including construction dewatering wastes and dewatering wastes from subterranean 18 seepage (except for discharges from utility vaults). Requirements of the Order include 19 prohibitions on the discharge of any substances in concentrations toxic to aquatic life, animal 20 life, or plant life, and/or the discharge of wastes to property not owned or controlled by the 21 Discharger. The Order also specifies effluent limitations (e.g., there shall be no visible oil and 22 grease in the discharge) and receiving water limitations (e.g., discharge of wastes shall not 23 cause a violation of any applicable water quality standard).
24 Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program: SWRCB regulates stormwater discharges 25 from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) through its Municipal Storm Water 26 Permitting Program (SWRCB 2013). Permits are issued under two phases depending on the 27 size of the urbanized area/municipality. Phase I MS4 permits are issued for medium 28 (population between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (population of 250,000 or more 29 people) municipalities, and are often issued to a group of co-permittees within a metropolitan 30 area. Phase I permits have been issued since 1990. Beginning in 2003, SWRCB began issuing 31 Phase II MS4 permits for smaller municipalities (population less than 100,000).
32 The City of Loma Linda is a co-permittee under the Phase I MS4 permit issued to the San 33 Bernardino County Flood Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and incorporated 34 cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2010-0036, 35 NPDES No. CAS618036). This permit includes requirements related to discharge 36 prohibitions, effluent limitations, receiving-water limitations, water quality improvement 37 plans, and discharges from new development (Santa Ana RWQCB 2010).
38 Federal Emergency Management Agency 39 FEMA produces flood insurance rate maps that identify special flood hazard areas. The maps 40 further classify these areas into “zones” that broadly characterize the potential risk of an area 41 being inundated by a 100-year or 500-year flood in any given year.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-84 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 2 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act 3 The Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act (known as the Porter–Cologne Act), passed in 4 1969, dovetails with CWA (see discussion of the CWA above). It established SWRCB and 5 divided the state into nine regions, each overseen by an RWQCB. SWRCB is the primary State 6 agency responsible for protecting the quality of the state’s surface water and groundwater 7 supplies; however, much of the SWRCB’s daily implementation authority is delegated to the 8 nine RWQCBs, which are responsible for implementing CWA §§ 401, 402, and 303[d]. In 9 general, SWRCB manages water rights and regulates statewide water quality, whereas 10 RWQCBs focus on water quality within their respective regions.
11 The Porter–Cologne Act requires RWQCBs to develop water quality control plans (also 12 known as basin plans) that designate beneficial uses of California’s major surface-water 13 bodies and groundwater basins and establish specific narrative and numerical water quality 14 objectives for those waters. Beneficial uses represent the services and qualities of a 15 waterbody (i.e., the reasons that the waterbody is considered valuable). Water quality 16 objectives reflect the standards necessary to protect and support those beneficial uses. Basin 17 plan standards are primarily implemented by regulating waste discharges so that water 18 quality objectives are met.
19 The Project site is located in the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit, Redlands Hydrologic Sub- 20 Area, and is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995). The 21 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Region (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995) 22 establishes the following beneficial uses of the Upper Santa Ana River (Reach 5 – San Jacinto 23 Fault in San Bernardino to Seven Oaks Dam): municipal water supply, agricultural water 24 supply, groundwater recharge, non-contact water recreation, water contact recreation 25 (REC1), warm freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, and rare, threatened, or endangered 26 species.
27 3.9.2 Environmental Setting
28 Topography and Climate 29 The Project site is located in the City of Loma Linda in the Santa Ana Region of Southern 30 California. In very broad terms, the Santa Ana Region is a group of connected inland basins 31 and open coastal basins drained by surface streams flowing generally southwestward to the 32 Pacific Ocean (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995). The east-west alignment of the crest of the San 33 Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains separates the Santa Ana River basin from the Mojave 34 Desert. Near Corona, the Santa Ana River cuts through the Santa Ana Mountains and flows 35 down onto the Orange County coastal plain (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995).
36 The climate of the Santa Ana Region is classified as Mediterranean: generally dry in the 37 summer with mild, wet winters. The average annual rainfall in the region is about 15 inches, 38 most of it occurring between November and March (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-85 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Surface Water Hydrology and Quality 2 Three major surface water drainage features occur in the Project site vicinity: the Mission 3 Creek/Zanja Channel (Zanja system) approximately 0.1 mile to the north, San Timoteo Creek 4 approximately 1 mile to the south, and the Santa Ana River approximately 1.5 miles to the 5 northwest (Avocet 2016). The Zanja system, which diverts water from Mill Creek, is an 6 irrigation canal that was first dug in 1819 to provide water for farms west of Mill Creek. The 7 Zanja system is approximately 5 miles long and passes through the cities of Loma Linda, 8 Redlands, and San Bernardino until it reaches the Santa Ana River. The Zanja system has both 9 concrete-lined and unlined (i.e., earthen) channel segments (Avocet 2016).
10 San Timoteo Creek is a tributary of the Santa Ana River with a drainage basin of roughly 125 11 square miles (Avocet 2016). The creek flows northwest through San Timoteo Canyon, after 12 which it flows through Loma Linda before reaching the Santa Ana River.
13 The Santa Ana River drains a watershed of approximately 2,650 square miles, flowing from 14 its headwaters in the San Bernardino Mountains southwest through San Bernardino, 15 Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange counties before draining into the Pacific Ocean (Avocet 16 2016). The Project site is nearest to Reach 5 of the Santa Ana River, which extends from Seven 17 Oaks Dam to San Bernardino, to the San Jacinto Fault (Bunker Hill Dike) (Santa Ana RWQCB 18 1995). Most of this reach tends to be dry, except as a result of storm flows, and the channel is 19 largely operated as a flood control facility (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995).
20 As noted in Section 3.9.1 above, the water quality of Reach 5 of the Santa Ana River is not 21 designated as impaired under CWA Section 303(d); however, downstream reaches (i.e., 4, 3, 22 and 2) are designated as impaired for multiple contaminants.
23 Stormwater 24 Stormwater infrastructure and maintenance in the project vicinity is provided by the City of 25 Loma Linda’s Public Utilities Department. No apparent stormwater infrastructure exists 26 within the Project site. As the site is currently a vacant, undeveloped lot, it can be presumed 27 that water falling as precipitation on the site would either infiltrate into the soil and 28 subsurface or sheet-flow off the site to adjacent properties/roads.
29 Groundwater Levels, Flows, and Quality 30 The Project site lies above the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Bunker Hill 31 Subbasin (Groundwater Basin No. 8-2.06). The Bunker Hill Subbasin consists of the alluvial 32 materials that underlie the San Bernardino Valley, and is bounded by contact with 33 consolidated rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and Crafton 34 Hills, and by several faults (DWR 2004). The water-bearing material in the subbasin consists 35 of Holocene and Pleistocene age alluvial deposits of sand, gravel, and boulders interspersed 36 with deposits of silt and clay (DWR 2004).
37 In general, the far eastern and northwestern portions of the Bunker Hill Subbasin show the 38 largest decreases in groundwater levels, while the rest of the subbasin (including the area 39 below the Project site) have shown mostly stable or increasing groundwater elevations over 40 time (DWR 2004). Near the City of Loma Linda, groundwater generally flows toward the 41 Santa Ana River (i.e., in a northwest direction from the Project site). Recharge to the subbasin
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-86 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 has historically resulted from infiltration of runoff carried by the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, 2 and Lytle Creek, which together contribute more than 60 percent of the total recharge to the 3 groundwater system (DWR 2004). Lesser recharge occurs from infiltration of water from 4 Cajon Creek, San Timoteo Creek, and other creeks, as well as deep percolation of water from 5 precipitation and resulting runoff, percolation of delivered water, and water spread in 6 streambeds and spreading grounds (DWR 2004).
7 Information on depth to groundwater beneath the Project site is limited; however, historical 8 information from a site about 0.5 mile to the east of the site indicates depth to groundwater 9 at the Project site may be as shallow as 88 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Avocet. 2016).
10 The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the Proposed Project showed no 11 indications or records of former buildings, underground or aboveground storage tanks, 12 wastewater clarifiers, sumps, disposal pits, or other potential sources of subsurface 13 contamination (Avocet 2016). DWR notes a contamination plume in Redlands between 14 Judson Street and Mountain Avenue that is primarily composed of trichloroethylene, with 15 lower levels of perchloroethylene and 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DWR 2004).
16 Floodplains, Tsunamis, and Dam Inundation 17 The Project site is outside of any designated FEMA flood hazard area, such as the 100-year 18 floodplain (FEMA 2008). Additionally, being located approximately 50 miles inland from the 19 coast, the Project site is outside of any tsunami inundation area. The Project site also would 20 not be within the mapped dam inundation area for Seven Oaks Dam or any other dam (San 21 Bernardino County 2010).
22 3.9.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 23 a, f. Violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements 24 or otherwise substantially degrade water quality—Less than 25 Significant
26 Construction Activities 27 Construction of the Proposed Project would involve ground disturbance that could result in 28 sediments being transported into local storm drainage systems, thereby degrading the 29 quality of receiving waters. Construction would also include the potential storage, use, 30 transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, oils, solvents) used for 31 construction equipment. Accidental spills of these materials or improper material disposal 32 could pose a risk to the groundwater underlying the spill or disposal area if the materials seep 33 into the soil or groundwater. In addition, ground-disturbing activities (such as trenching) 34 during Project construction could potentially expose groundwater, thereby providing a direct 35 pathway by which hazardous materials could enter groundwater and potentially impair its 36 quality. Improper disposal of dewatering effluent could also pose a potential threat to surface 37 water or groundwater quality if the dewatered groundwater was polluted and transported 38 to surface waters or groundwater. Hazardous materials spills on the project site could affect 39 surface water if they enter the existing stormwater system near the project site and 40 ultimately were transported to the stormwater system’s receiving waterbodies.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-87 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 As discussed further in Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” storage or use of 2 hazardous materials for Project construction activities would be limited and would be 3 performed in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials and 4 hazardous waste regulations. No chemical processing or storage or stockpiling of substantial 5 quantities of hazardous materials would take place at the Project site other than what would 6 be necessary for standard construction activities. Furthermore, CHP and/or its contractor 7 would dispose of hazardous materials at an appropriate hazardous materials disposal facility 8 or landfill in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials and 9 hazardous waste regulations.
10 The Proposed Project also would be required to comply with applicable NPDES permits such 11 as the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities and the Santa Ana RWQCB’s general 12 permit for low-threat discharges to surface waters, which provides coverage for discharges 13 of construction dewatering wastes. As part of its compliance with these NPDES permits, CHP 14 and/or its contractor would prepare a SWPPP and prevent polluted dewatered groundwater 15 from being discharged to surface waters or groundwater. Compliance with these measures 16 would prevent substantial impacts to surface or groundwater quality from occurring. 17 Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
18 Operational Activities 19 As detailed in Chapter 2, Project Description, and Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous 20 Materials,” operation of the Proposed Project would include the use and storage of hazardous 21 materials, including fuel and oils, and would generate hazardous wastes from vehicle 22 maintenance activities. These hazardous materials and wastes could result in an impact on 23 water quality if transported to downstream surface waters (through the stormwater 24 infrastructure) or into soils or groundwater; however, all hazardous materials would be 25 either contained within the buildings (e.g., solvents used for cleaning of guns) or have 26 appropriate containment measures. Specifically, hazardous materials stored outdoors would 27 be kept in containers that have secondary or tertiary containment. With implementation of 28 the above protocols, this impact would be less than significant.
29 In conclusion, given compliance with existing regulations, groundwater and surface water 30 quality would be protected during construction and operation of the Proposed Project. 31 Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
32 b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially 33 with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer 34 volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level—Less than 35 Significant
36 The Project site is currently a vacant, undeveloped parcel that has no impervious surfaces. 37 The Proposed Project would result in the addition of approximately 3.9 acres of impervious 38 surfaces, which could reduce groundwater recharge at the Project site. In addition, 39 construction activities would require soil excavation and trenching that could encounter 40 groundwater and require dewatering. Both construction and operational activities for the 41 Proposed Project also would require water supplies that could be met from groundwater.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-88 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 As described in Section 3.9.2 above, recharge in the Bunker Hill Subbasin occurs principally 2 through infiltration of runoff from the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, in 3 particular via percolation of water from the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, and Lytle Creek. 4 Much less recharge occurs via deep percolation of precipitation falling on exposed soils. As 5 such, while the additional 3.9 acres of impervious surface that would result from the 6 Proposed Project could reduce groundwater recharge to some degree, it would not 7 substantially affect overall rates of recharge in the subbasin. Additionally, given that available 8 information indicates that depth to groundwater at the site is likely in the range of 80 to 90 9 feet bgs, Project construction activities are unlikely to encounter substantial quantities of 10 groundwater or require substantial dewatering, so groundwater is unlikely to be significantly 11 depleted in this way.
12 Construction-related water demands for dust control over the anticipated 24-month 13 construction period would be met using water trucks. While the source of water provided by 14 the water trucks could derive from groundwater, the amount of water used during 15 construction would not be sufficient to substantially affect regional groundwater supplies. 16 Project water demands during operation would be met using the City’s municipal water 17 supplies, which are derived from groundwater, as described in Section 3.17, “Utilities and 18 Service Systems.” As discussed in Section 3.10, “Land Use and Planning,” however, the 19 Proposed Project would use water-efficient LEED practices and technologies, and would be 20 consistent with applicable land use designations and general plan policies. Therefore, Project 21 water demands would not substantially impact groundwater water supplies or exceed the 22 City’s anticipated water demands from planned development.
23 Overall, the Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or result 24 in a substantial net deficit in the underlying groundwater aquifer. As a result, this impact 25 would be less than significant.
26 c, e. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 27 including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, 28 resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site, or 29 create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of 30 existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide 31 substantial additional sources of polluted runoff— Less than 32 Significant
33 The project site is an undeveloped vacant parcel underlain with no impermeable surfaces or 34 on-site surface water or stormwater drainages. Development of the Proposed Project would 35 involve ground-disturbing construction activities and the creation of impermeable surfaces, 36 both of which would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site.
37 During construction, clearing, vegetation removal, grading, and other ground-disturbing 38 activities would expose soils within the project site and alter the on-site drainage patterns, 39 thereby potentially increasing on-site susceptibility to erosion. As described in Section 3.9.3 40 item (a) and (f) above, however, the Project would be subject to the NPDES General 41 Construction Permit, which would require preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, 42 including measures to prevent erosion and discharge of contaminants. As such, impacts
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-89 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 associated with erosion and siltation from construction site stormwater discharges would be 2 avoided or minimized.
3 The Proposed Project would create 3.9 acres of impermeable surfaces, which could increase 4 the project site’s runoff flow patterns and quantities, potentially resulting in erosive flows 5 off-site. In addition, during Project operation, vehicular use of the Project’s parking areas 6 could result in the transfer of pollutants (such as fuels and oils) onto the parking area surface, 7 which could potentially be flushed into local stormwater drainages and, ultimately, into 8 surface waters.
9 The design of the Proposed Project would include infrastructure to capture on-site runoff 10 flows, dissipate erosive energy, and provide water quality treatment before discharging 11 captured runoff into the existing City’s stormwater system. The Proposed Project’s 12 stormwater infrastructure is anticipated to include, but would not be limited to, a stormwater 13 detention basin. Inclusion of these features would avoid or minimize the potential impacts 14 described above. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
15 d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 16 including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 17 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting 18 in flooding on-site or off-site—Less than Significant
19 Although no streams or other surface waters are present within the Project site, as discussed 20 in items 3.9.3(c) and (e) above, the Proposed Project would include construction-related 21 grading activities and the development of impermeable surfaces that would alter the project 22 site’s existing drainage patterns; however, the Proposed Project’s stormwater infrastructure 23 would ensure that the rate or amount of surface runoff from the project site would be reduced 24 before discharge to the existing stormwater infrastructure. Thus, the Proposed Project would 25 not result in flooding on- or off-site. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
26 g, h. Place housing or structures within a 100-year-flood hazard area, as 27 mapped on a federal flood hazard boundary or flood insurance map 28 or other flood hazard delineation map—No Impact
29 No housing would be constructed as part of the Proposed Project. In addition, the Project site 30 is not within a 100-year-flood hazard area. As such, the Proposed Project would not place 31 housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur.
32 i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or 33 death involving flooding, including flooding resulting from the failure 34 of a levee or dam—No Impact
35 As described above, the Proposed Project is not within a 100-year floodplain and not 36 downstream of any large surface waters. The Project site also is not within any mapped dam 37 inundation area, and is not protected from flooding by levees. Therefore, the risk of flooding 38 from failure of a dam or levee is low to nonexistent. As such, no impact would occur.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-90 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow—No Impact
2 The Project site is not near any large standing bodies of water in which seiche could occur, 3 and is not within a tsunami-inundation area. The Project also is relatively flat and not near 4 any sloped areas that could generate mudflow. Therefore, no impact would occur.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-91 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
2 3.10.1 Regulatory Setting 3 Development activities on state-owned land are exempt from local laws, regulations, and 4 policies. However, such laws, regulations, and policies may apply to development activities 5 not located on the project site (e.g., connections to infrastructure within the public right-of- 6 way). Local laws, regulations, and policies applicable to the Proposed Project are listed in 7 Appendix A.
8 3.10.2 Environmental Setting 9 The project site is located in northeast Loma Linda. The site is vacant. Surrounding land uses 10 generally include commercial/light industrial buildings and office space. The site is bordered 11 by a surgery center and medical building to the northwest, a distribution business to the 12 north across Business Center Drive, and other business offices on the west, across Enterprise 13 Drive. The VA Loma Linda Ambulatory Care Center is to the south of the Project site across 14 Redlands Boulevard.
15 According to the City general plan land use diagram, the project site is within the City’s urban 16 limits and is designated as Business Park (City of Loma Linda 2009) and is designated as 17 General Business by the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (San Bernardino County 1989). 18 The site is zoned as General Business (C2). Refer to Appendix A for additional information on 19 this land use designation and zoning district.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-92 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.10.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 2 a. Divide an established community—No Impact
3 The proposed CHP facility would be compatible with surrounding land uses. The project site 4 is designated for business parks and is surrounded by other office buildings, commercial, and 5 institutional uses. The Proposed Project would be constructed on a vacant property and 6 would not divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact.
7 b. Conflicts with land use plans or policies—Less than Significant
8 As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, because the project site is owned by the State, 9 the County does not have jurisdiction over the site, and thus the City’s land use plans and 10 policies only apply to Proposed Project activities that would occur off-site (e.g., infrastructure 11 tie-ins). Off-site activities would be conducted consistent with local requirements. 12 Additionally, as described throughout in Sections 3.1 through 3.9 and 3.11 through 3.17, with 13 the identified mitigation, the Proposed Project would not have any significant environmental 14 impacts and therefore would not conflict with any local plans or policies adopted for the 15 purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact would be less than 16 significant.
17 c. Conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or natural community 18 conservation plan—No Impact
19 The Project site is not located within the area of an adopted habitat conservation plan or 20 natural community conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-93 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
2 3.11.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 No federal laws, regulations, or policies apply to mineral resources and the Proposed Project.
5 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 6 Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 7 The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires that the State Mining and 8 Geology Board identify, map, and classify aggregate resources throughout California that 9 contain mineral resources of regional significance. The main objective of the MSARA 10 classification-designation process is to ensure that mineral resources will be available when 11 needed. Local jurisdictions are required to enact planning procedures to guide mineral 12 conservation and extraction at particular sites and to incorporate mineral resource 13 management policies into their general plans.
14 There are four Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) classification-designations used in SMARA. 15 These MRZ’s are defined below (CDOC 2000):
16 . MRZ – 1: Areas where adequate geologic information indicates no presence of 17 significant mineral deposits, or where it is determined that there is little likelihood 18 of the existence of these deposits. 19 . MRZ – 2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral 20 deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence 21 exists. This zone shall be applied to known mineral deposits or where well 22 developed lines of reasoning, based upon economic, geologic principles and 23 adequate data demonstrate that the likelihood for occurrence of significant mineral 24 deposits is high.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-94 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 . MRZ – 3: Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be 2 evaluated from available data. 3 . MRZ – 4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any 4 other MRZ zone.
5 3.11.2 Environmental Setting 6 The City of Loma Linda consists of heavily urbanized lands approximately 60 miles to the east 7 of the greater Los Angeles area and is located within the County of San Bernardino. Currently, 8 the major mining activity within the County is aggregate mining located in the major washes 9 and associated alluvial fans draining the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains (CDOC 10 1994a). The vast majority of this aggregate is found in natural and gravel deposits of Cajon 11 Wash, Lytle Creek, Warm Creek, City Creek, and the Santa Ana River (City of San Bernardino 12 2005). Aside from these aggregate resources, other known mining operations that can be 13 found within the County are gold, silver, limestone, and metasomatic (skarn) deposits of 14 precious and base metals.
15 The Proposed Project is located on land that is designated MRZ-3. As a result, the type and 16 value of the minerals that could occur in this area are unknown (CDOC 1994b). Furthermore, 17 this land is not designated as an MRZ for Portland cement concrete-grade aggregate and is 18 considered an urban area (CDOC 2008). Approximately 0.25-mile to the southeast of the 19 Proposed Project site is land designated as MRZ-1 (CDOC 1994b).
20 There are no mining operations located on the Proposed Project site, nor are there any known 21 wells. The closest two mining operations are the Vern Anthony Gunite Sand Pit (Mine ID #91- 22 36-0065) located approximately 2.3 miles west of the site, and the California Landfill Borrow 23 Area (Mine ID #91-36-0122), located approximately 2.1 miles northeast of the site. The Vern 24 Anthony site produces sand and gravel while the latter site produces fill dirt (CDOC 2016a, 25 2016b, 2016c).
26 3.11.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 27 a. Loss of availability of known mineral resources that would be 28 valuable to the region or state—Less than Significant
29 The Proposed Project would be built on land that is designated MRZ-3. Therefore, this Project 30 would result in the loss of unknown mineral resources whose value has yet to be determined. 31 The two mining operations that are closest to the Project site are located over 2 miles away 32 and along the Santa Ana River where the primary resources mined are sand/gravel and fill 33 dirt. The Project site is not located on or near known sand/gravel and fill dirt resource areas, 34 which generally occur in major washes and alluvial fans (CDOC 1994), nor is it designated as 35 an MRZ for Portland cement concrete-grade aggregate (CDOC 2008). Therefore, it would be 36 unlikely for these resources to be found on or near the Project site. In addition, this parcel of 37 land is also designated as an urban area that is heavily developed and built up (CDOC 2008), 38 indicating that the potential for this site to be used for mining operations would not be likely 39 or significant. As a result, the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-95 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 b. Loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery 2 site delineated on a local planning document—No Impact
3 The City of Loma Linda’s General Plan does not analyze any mineral resources, nor does it 4 provide any goals and policies regarding the preservation of any mineral resources within 5 the City (City of Loma Linda 2009). The County’s General Plans also does not provide any 6 information on any recovery sites located near the Project site. Thus, the Proposed Project is 7 not located on or near a locally-important mineral resource recovery site and the Proposed 8 Project would have no impact.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-96 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.12 NOISE Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public-use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels?
2 3.12.1 Overview of Noise and Vibration Concepts and Terminology
3 Noise 4 In the CEQA context, noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by 5 various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed 6 of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound 7 pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient 8 sound level, or sound intensity. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. 9 Because sound pressure can vary enormously within the range of human hearing, a 10 logarithmic scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable 11 level. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the spectrum, so noise
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-97 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive, 2 creating the A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale.
3 Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. 4 Below are brief definitions of these measurements and other terminology used in this 5 chapter.
6 . Decibel (dB) is a measure of sound on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared 7 ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The 8 reference pressure is 20 micro-pascals. 9 . A-weighted decibel (dBA) is an overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels 10 that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
11 . Maximum sound level (Lmax) is the maximum sound level measured during a given 12 measurement period.
13 . Minimum sound level (Lmin) is the minimum sound level measured during a given 14 measurement period.
15 . Equivalent sound level (Leq) is the equivalent steady-state sound level that, in a 16 given period, would contain the same acoustical energy as a time-varying sound 17 level during that same period.
18 . Percentile-exceeded sound level (Lxx) is the sound level exceeded during x 19 percent of a given measurement period. For example, L10 is the sound level exceeded 20 10 percent of the measurement period.
21 . Day-night sound level (Ldn) is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels 22 occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels 23 during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (typical sleeping hours). This 24 weighting adjustment reflects the elevated sensitivity of individuals to ambient 25 sound during nighttime hours. 26 . Community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is the energy average of the 27 A-weighted sound levels during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the 28 A-weighted sound levels between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the 29 A-weighted sound levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 30 31 In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is barely 32 noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as 33 doubling or halving the sound level. Table NOI-1 presents approximate noise levels for 34 common noise sources, measured adjacent to the source.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-98 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Table NOI-1. Examples of Common Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 110 Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 100 Diesel truck at 50 feet traveling 50 miles per hour 90 Noisy urban area, daytime 80 Gas lawnmower at 100 feet, commercial area 70 Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Quiet urban area, daytime 50 Quiet urban area, nighttime 40 Quiet suburban area, nighttime 30 Quiet rural area, nighttime 20 2 Source: Caltrans 2009
3 Vibration 4 Ground-borne vibration propagates from the source through the ground to adjacent 5 buildings by surface waves. Vibration may be composed of a single pulse, a series of pulses, 6 or a continuous oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly 7 it is oscillating, measured in Hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a 8 composite, or “spectrum,” of many frequencies. The normal frequency range of most ground- 9 borne vibrations that can be felt generally starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz to a 10 high of about 200 Hz. Vibration information for this analysis has been described in terms of 11 the peak particle velocity (PPV), measured in inches per second, or of the vibration level 12 measured with respect to root-mean-square vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), with a 13 reference quantity of 1 micro-inch per second.
14 Vibration energy dissipates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude 15 to decrease with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations reduce much 16 more rapidly than do those characterized by low frequencies, so that in a far-field zone 17 distant from a source, the vibrations with lower frequency amplitudes tend to dominate. Soil 18 properties also affect the propagation of vibration. When ground-borne vibration interacts 19 with a building, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss usually results but the vibration also 20 can be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors. Vibration in buildings 21 is typically perceived as rattling of windows, shaking of loose items, or the motion of building 22 surfaces. In some cases, the vibration of building surfaces also can be radiated as sound and 23 heard as a low-frequency rumbling noise, known as ground-borne noise.
24 Ground-borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain 25 types of industrial operations and construction/demolition activities, such as pile driving. 26 Road vehicles rarely create enough ground-borne vibration amplitude to be perceptible to 27 humans unless the receiver is in immediate proximity to the source or the road surface is 28 poorly maintained and has potholes or bumps. Human sensitivity to vibration varies by 29 frequency and by receiver. Generally, people are more sensitive to low-frequency vibration. 30 Human annoyance also is related to the number and duration of events; the more events or 31 the greater the duration, the more annoying it becomes.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-99 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.12.2 Regulatory Setting
2 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 3 No federal laws, regulations, or policies for construction-related noise and vibration that 4 apply to the Proposed Project. However, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Guidelines 5 for Construction Vibration in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment state that for 6 evaluating daytime construction noise impacts in outdoor areas, a noise threshold of 90 dBA 7 Leq and 100 dBA Leq should be used for residential and commercial/industrial areas, 8 respectively (FTA 2006).
9 For construction vibration impacts, the FTA guidelines use an annoyance threshold of 80 VdB 10 for infrequent events (fewer than 30 vibration events per day) and a damage threshold of 11 0.12 inches per second (in/sec) PPV for buildings susceptible to vibration damage (FTA 12 2006).
13 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 14 California requires each local government entity to implement a noise element as part of its 15 general plan. California Administrative Code, Title 4, presents guidelines for evaluating the 16 compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. The state land 17 use compatibility guidelines are listed in Table NOI-2.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-100 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Table NOI-2. State Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise Environment
Community Noise Exposure - Ldn or CNEL (db) Land Use Category 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
Residential - Multi-Family
Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any Normally Acceptable buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed Conditionally Acceptable analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new Normally Unacceptable construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
New construction or development generally should not be undertaken. Clearly Unacceptable
2 Source: California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2017
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-101 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.12.3 Environmental Setting 2 With respect to groups that could be exposed to noise generated by the Proposed Project, 3 medical, residential, commercial, and office land uses are located near the site. The 4 approximate distance to nearby sensitive receptors was determined from the center of the 5 project site, as recommended by the FTA (2006).
6 Mountain View Surgery Center is located adjacent to the project site on the northwest side, 7 275 feet from the center of the project site. The VA Ambulatory Care Center is located across 8 Redlands Boulevard to the south of the project site. The closest residence is located 9 approximately 430 ft east of the site on Bryn Mawr Avenue. Oasis Church and Redlands 10 KinderCare day care center are approximately 1,150 and 1,650 feet to the west of the Project 11 site, respectively.
12 The area is subject to noise emanating from vehicular traffic, in particular from Interstate 10 13 and Redlands Boulevard. The project is located approximately 1.8 miles south of the San 14 Bernardino International Airport. Ambient noise in the project site is also influenced by the 15 nearby commercial, medical, office, and residential activities (i.e., landscape maintenance, 16 delivery vehicles, people talking, parking lot vehicle movements, and car doors closing).
17 3.12.4 Discussion of Checklist Reponses 18 a. Noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general 19 plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state or federal 20 standards—Less than Significant with Mitigation
21 The Proposed Project would generate noises associated with construction activities, which 22 would be temporary and cease once construction is complete. Operational noise sources 23 would include vehicle traffic from CHP staff, visitors, and delivery vehicles, short testing of 24 vehicle sirens as CHP vehicles are taken on shift, and noise from automobile maintenance 25 repair activities. Periodic noises would be associated with operation of the emergency 26 generator during power outages, and testing of building sirens associated with CHP 27 operations.
28 Activities on the state-owned land would be exempt from local noise standards. Regardless, 29 the City of Loma Linda Noise Ordinance is informative as it indicates what is typically 30 considered appropriate for construction-related noise and public safety sirens in the project 31 vicinity. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Loma Linda Noise Ordinance, 32 which considers construction between 10:00pm and 7:00am to be a nuisance and allows 33 permitted construction projects to exceed maximum noise levels between 7:00 am and 8:00 34 pm Monday through Friday, provided that all equipment is properly equipped with standard 35 noise muffling technology. The Loma Linda General Plan contains a policy of achieving and 36 maintaining an exterior noise level of 65 dBA at multifamily residential land uses, however 37 the nearest residences are 430 feet east of the project site and, like the project site, are located 38 within the 65 CNEL noise contour provided in the General Plan due to noise from I-10 and 39 Redlands Blvd. Therefore, the Proposed Project should ensure that the proposed uses do not 40 result in a noise increase greater than 3.0 dBA above existing background levels. Warning 41 devices necessary for the protection of public safety, such as police, fire, and ambulance 42 sirens, are also exempt from regulation.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-102 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Further discussion of the anticipated noise associated with Proposed Project’s construction 2 and operation, and consistency with relevant guidance, is provided below.
3 Construction 4 Because some residential, medical, commercial, and office areas are located near the project 5 site, an evaluation of the noise levels compared to the values recommend by FTA was also 6 conducted. The FTA has established guidance on noise and vibration impact assessments for 7 construction equipment (FTA 2006). The FTA recommends that for a rough estimate of 8 construction noise levels that the noisiest two pieces of equipment be used to analyze the 9 anticipated noise levels at sensitive receptors assuming the following:
10 . full power operation for a full one hour is assumed, 11 . there are no obstructions to the noise travel paths, 12 . typical noise levels from construction equipment are used, and 13 . all pieces of equipment are assumed to operate at the center of the project site. 14 Using these assumptions, the noise levels at specific distances can be obtained using the 15 following equation:
16
17 Where:
18 Leq (equip) = the noise emission level at the receiver at distance D over 1 hour.
19 EL50ft = noise emission level of a particular piece of equipment at reference distance 20 of 50 feet.
21 D = the distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment in feet.
22 In order to add the two noisiest pieces of equipment together, the following equation applies:
23
24 Where:
25 Ltotal = The noise emission level of two pieces of equipment combined
26 L1 = The noise emission level of equipment type 1
27 L2 = The noise emission level of equipment type 2
28 Noise levels at the Proposed Project’s nearest sensitive receptors generated by equipment 29 used during project construction were estimated by using the FTA reference guide (FTA 30 2006) and a preliminary list of equipment based on general construction assumptions. The 31 values used for the reference noise level at 50 feet were 88 and 85 dBA.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-103 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Using the equations above and the two noisiest pieces of equipment, the noise levels at the 2 nearest receptor (a medical facility), located 275 feet from the center of the project area, 3 would be 75 dBA. Residential, medical, and commercial land uses fall with 487 feet of the 4 project site, however the Loma Linda noise ordinance states that construction noises may 5 exceed maximum noise levels from 7:00 am – 8:00 pm on weekdays “provided that all 6 equipment is properly equipped with standard noise muffling apparatus specifically for such 7 equipment” (City of Loma Linda 2017).
8 In addition, the noise level estimates at the nearest sensitive receptors are below the FTA’s 9 recommended level of 90 dBA. Furthermore, construction would be short-term and 10 intermittent. The use of diesel powered construction equipment would be temporary and 11 episodic, affecting only a few nearby receptors for a limited period of time. Implementation 12 of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure the Proposed Project’s construction equipment 13 complied with the City’s construction noise restrictions. For these reasons, and because such 14 work would not violate the City’s noise standards, the temporary increases in ambient noise 15 levels associated with construction would be less than significant with mitigation.
16 Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Implement Noise-Reducing Measures on 17 Construction Equipment.
18 Standard noise-muffling apparatus shall be included and in good working order on 19 construction equipment.
20 Operation 21 During operation of the proposed CHP San Bernardino Area Office, noise would derive from 22 a variety of sources, including activities at the automobile service building, the emergency 23 generator, radio equipment, and testing of sirens. The secured portion of the facility would 24 be completely surrounded by a 6-foot concrete block masonry fence, which would serve as a 25 sound barrier for the noise associated with the automobile service activities. The emergency 26 generator would also be surrounded by a noise barrier and would only be operated during 27 emergencies (i.e. power outages) or up to 100 hours per year for testing and maintenance.
28 During Project operations, all CHP vehicles would be required to test their emergency sirens 29 prior to the beginning of and completion of each work shift. These siren tests last no longer 30 than one second and average between 113 and 120 dBA when activated. CHP vehicles could 31 be approximately 275 feet from the Mountain View Surgery Center and 430 feet from 32 sensitive receptors in the nearby apartment complex. These noise levels would be clearly 33 audible at the closest sensitive receptors, but would be brief in nature. The use of such sirens, 34 including for testing purposes, is exempted in the City’s noise ordinance.
35 The ambient noise levels at and near the project site are heavily influenced by traffic noise 36 caused by vehicles not related to the Proposed Project from Interstate 10 and Redlands 37 Boulevard. The Proposed Project is estimated to add an additional 487 trips per day. Given 38 the nearby Interstate, this number of trips would not noticeably affect the traffic-influenced 39 ambient noise.
40 The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site, the Mountain View Surgery Center and the 41 apartments on Bryn Mawr Avenue are located in an area with ambient noise (>65 dB) that 42 exceeds the City’s policy for exterior noise levels in multifamily residential areas. For areas
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-104 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 with existing ambient noise levels exceeding the City’s noise level limits, an increase above 2 the existing ambient noise of up to 5 dB would be acceptable. The Proposed Project’s 3 operational activities would not result in ambient noise increases greater than 5 dB at the 4 nearest sensitive receptors because of barriers surrounding stationary noise sources 5 (automotive shop and emergency generator) that would reduce noise, limited operation of 6 the emergency generator, and the exemption of the CHP vehicle siren testing.
7 Overall, the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable standards and this impact 8 would be less than significant.
9 b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 10 vibration or groundborne noise levels—Less than Significant
11 Vibration thresholds for buildings occur at a PPV of 0.12 in/sec for buildings extremely 12 susceptible to vibration damage; the human perception threshold is at 65 VdB. Vibration and 13 ground-borne noise levels were estimated following methods described in the FTA Noise and 14 Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) to determine the PPV that would potentially impact 15 buildings and the VdB for annoyance. It was assumed that the equipment would have similar 16 vibration sound levels as a large bulldozer. Table NOI-3 below shows relevant parameters 17 for the construction equipment used for the Proposed Project and distance to sensitive 18 receptors to be below vibration thresholds.
19 Table NOI-3. Construction Equipment and Vibration Distance Distance to PPV Noise Vibration Distance to Noise Equipment PPV at 25 ft of 0.12 in/sec Level at 25 ft Vibration of 65VdB Large Bulldozer 0.089 in/sec 20.5 feet 87 VdB 135 feet 20
21 At the proposed CHP Area Office, there would be no noise sensitive receptors located closer 22 than the building vibration or noise vibration annoyance threshold distances. In addition, the 23 Proposed Project’s vibration-causing construction activities would be barely perceptible due 24 to the temporary duration of these activities and their limited occurrence near the project 25 site boundary. Therefore, the impact of ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise 26 vibration would be less than significant.
27 c. Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project 28 vicinity above levels existing without the project—Less than 29 Significant
30 Construction of the Proposed Project would be short-term and would not result in any 31 permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Proposed Project operations would not involve 32 any sources of permanent, ongoing noise outside of noise associated with automobile care 33 center and some minor traffic increases not large enough to substantially change the noise 34 levels at nearby sensitive receptors above the 3.0 dBA increase. Therefore, this impact would 35 be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-105 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 d. Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in 2 the project vicinity above levels existing without the project—Less 3 than Significant
4 As discussed under item 3.12.3(a) above, there would be temporary increases in ambient 5 noise levels due to the Proposed Project construction activities. In addition, there would be 6 periodic increases in ambient noise levels during operations related to activities such as 7 emergency generator testing and use and testing of sirens for emergency response vehicles. 8 The limited operation of the emergency generator, and the brief CHP vehicle siren testing 9 would not create substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise level increases. Therefore, 10 this impact would be less than significant.
11 e. For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or, within 12 2 miles of a public airport or public-use airport, would the project 13 expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive 14 noise levels—Less than Significant
15 The project is located 1.8 miles south of San Bernardino International Airport. As described 16 above under checklist questions (c) and (d), operation of the CHP facility itself would not 17 expose people working in the project site to excessive noise levels. There would be no 18 individuals residing in the project site.
19 However, noise from this nearby airport could expose people working at the project site to 20 excessive noise levels. The Airport Layout Plan Narrative Report for San Bernardino 21 International Airport contains noise contour maps and the Proposed Project site is outside of 22 the 65 CNEL contour for noise generated by the airport (San Bernardino International Airport 23 Authority 2010), therefore the impacts to the project from public airports would be less than 24 significant.
25 f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 26 project expose people residing or working in the project site to 27 excessive noise levels—No Impact
28 There are no private airstrips within 2 miles of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed 29 Project would not expose people working in the project site to excessive noise levels from 30 private airstrips. There would be no impact.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-106 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
2 3.13.1 Regulatory Setting 3 No laws, regulations, or policies are applicable to population and housing in relation to the 4 Proposed Project.
5 3.13.2 Environmental Setting 6 The City of Loma Linda has a current population estimate of 24,528 (California Department 7 of Finance 2017). The City’s population has steadily increased since 1990 with an average 8 annual increase of 1 percent. Table PH-1 summarizes past population estimates and 9 forecasts population projections up to 2035.
10 Table PH-1. Population estimates and forecast for the City of Loma Linda.
Average Annual Increase Average Annual 19901 20001 20101 20172 20202 20353 (Numerical) Increase (Percent) Loma 17,400 18,681 23,261 24,528 26,700 31,700 310.87 +1.0% Linda Notes: 1City of Loma Linda 2014, citing 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census; 2DOF 2017; 3SCAG 2012.
11
12 The current housing unit estimates within the City are approximately 9,685 units, with 13 approximately 9,030 of these units already occupied. The current vacancy rate is 14 approximately 6.8 percent. The average number of persons per household is 2.64 (California 15 Department of Finance 2017).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-107 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 The workforce within the City was estimated at approximately 19,388 persons ages 16 years 2 and older in 2011 with an unemployment rate of approximately 7.7 percent (U.S. Census 3 Bureau 2011). The majority of jobs have historically been in the educational services, health 4 care and social assistance industry, accounting for 44 percent of the City’s workforce in 2011. 5 The second largest industry was retail trade, which accounted for 13 percent (City of Loma 6 Linda 2014). Employment numbers as of 2015 were 19,384 persons ages 16 years and older 7 with an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2015).
8 Directly east of the Project site, on the opposite side of Bryn Mawr Avenue, is the Rosewood 9 Apartments complex, The Orangewood Apartment Complex is located approximately 0.1 10 road mile southwest of the Proposed Project.
11 3.13.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 12 a. Induce population growth—Less than Significant
13 The Proposed Project would result in an increase of fifteen employees over ten years. Twelve 14 of these employees would be uniformed officers, while the remaining three would be 15 considered other staff. In total, the proposed new CHP San Bernardino Area Office would be 16 staffed by 116 employees. The addition of these fifteen new employees would have the 17 potential to result in a minor increase in the local population. As described in Section 3.1.2, 18 the City of Loma Linda’s population has increased steadily since 1990 and is expected to 19 continue to increase. In addition, the City has a vacancy rate of 6.8 percent, indicating that 20 sufficient housing is available to meet the minor increase in the local population, if needed 21 (City of Loma Linda 2014). Also, the new office is approximately 10 road miles southeast of 22 the existing San Bernardino Area Office. Employees would be able to commute to the 23 proposed new office without having to relocate if desired. Furthermore, the addition of 15 or 24 more employees is expected to occur over a period of 10 years. The Proposed Project would 25 also not involve any activities that would remove an obstacle to growth.
26 It is expected that the regional labor force would be sufficient to meet the construction 27 workforce demand associated with the Proposed Project. While some workers may 28 temporarily relocate from other areas, the resulting population increase would be minor and 29 temporary. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
30 b, c. Displace Population or Housing—No Impact
31 The Project site is vacant and would not displace any existing housing units or people. The 32 Proposed Project would not require construction of any replacement housing. Furthermore, 33 all of the Proposed Project facilities would be constructed within the 5.3-acre site boundary. 34 As a result, no impact would occur.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-108 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the Project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities?
2 3.14.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 No federal laws, regulations, or policies apply to public services and the Proposed Project.
5 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 6 California Fire Code 7 The California Fire Code (Title 24 CCR, Part 9) establishes minimum requirements to 8 safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or 9 dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings. Chapter 33 of CCR contains 10 requirements for fire safety during construction and demolition as follows:
11 3304.4 Spontaneous ignition. Materials susceptible to spontaneous ignition, such 12 as oily rags, shall be stored in a listed disposal container.
13 3304.5 Fire watch. When required by the fire code official for building demolition, 14 or building construction during working hours that is hazardous in nature, qualified 15 personnel shall be provided with at least one approved means for notification of the
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-109 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 fire department and their sole duty shall be to perform constant patrols and watch 2 for the occurrence of fire.
3 3308.1 Program superintendent. The owner shall designate a person to be the fire 4 prevention program superintendent who shall be responsible for the fire prevention 5 program and ensure that it is carried out through completion of the project. The fire 6 prevention program superintendent shall have the authority to enforce the 7 provisions of this chapter and other provisions as necessary to secure the intent of 8 this chapter. Where guard service is provided, the superintendent shall be 9 responsible for the guard service.
10 3308.2 Prefire plans. The fire prevention program superintendent shall develop and 11 maintain an approved prefire plan in cooperation with the fire chief. The fire chief 12 and the fire code official shall be notified of changes affecting the utilization of 13 information contained in such prefire plans.
14 3310.1 Required access. Approved vehicle access for firefighting shall be provided 15 to all construction or demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within 100 16 feet of temporary or permanent fire department connections. Vehicle access shall be 17 provided by either temporary or permanent roads, capable of support vehicle loading 18 under all weather conditions. Vehicle access shall be maintained until permanent fire 19 apparatus access roads are available.
20 3316.1 Conditions of use. Internal combustion–powered construction equipment 21 shall be used in accordance with all of the following conditions:
22 5. Equipment shall be located so that exhausts do not discharge against 23 combustible material.
24 6. Exhausts shall be piped to the outside of the building.
25 7. Equipment shall not be refueled while in operation.
26 8. Fuel for equipment shall be stored in an approved area outside of the building.
27 3.14.2 Environmental Setting
28 Fire 29 Fire protection services in the Project area are provided by the Loma Linda Fire Department 30 (LLFD). LLFD has two fire stations, as follows (City of Loma Linda 2016a):
31 . Fire Station 1: 11325 Loma Linda Drive (approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the 32 Project site) 33 . Fire Station 2: 10520 Ohio Street (approximately 1.2 miles west of the Project site) 34 LLFD is a career fire department consisting of 1 Chief Officer, 6 captains, 6 Engineers, 6 35 Firefighter/Paramedics, and 6 Firefighters (City of Loma Linda 2016b). The average 24-hour 36 shift consists of 2 Captains, 2 Engineers, 2 Firefighter/Paramedics, and 2 Firefighters (City of 37 Loma Linda 2016b). LLFD station(s) house the following equipment/apparatus:
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-110 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 . Two structure engines; 2 . One ladder truck which can pump up to 2,000 gallons per minute (used for structure 3 fires/rescue); 4 . One water tender which carries a 1,500-gallon water supply and is all wheel drive 5 (used for brush fires); 6 . One brush engine (used for wildland interface/brush fires); 7 . One squad (used for emergency medical services/rescue/structure); 8 . One medium rescue/hazardous materials unit fully equipped with lighting and air 9 support. 10 11 During 2014, the last year for which data was available, LLFD received 3,892 calls for service 12 (City of Loma Linda 2016c). Response time varies within the City and is difficult to measure 13 due to the daily influx of traffic from the University and the related medical center (City of 14 Loma Linda 2009). To ensure adequate fire protection services in an emergency, the City 15 maintains a joint response/automatic aid agreement with the fire departments in 16 neighboring cities, including Colton, Redlands, and San Bernardino (City of Loma Linda 17 2009).
18 Police 19 The City of Loma Linda contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department 20 (SBSD) for police services. SBSD contracts with 14 of the 24 cities in San Bernardino County 21 and has roughly 3,570 employees (SBSD 2015). Within the City of Loma Linda, SBSD serves a 22 population of 23,751 over an area of 8 square miles (SBSD 2015). Table PS-1 provides 23 information on SBSD’s activities within the City of Loma Linda.
24 Table PS-1. 2015 Police and Crime Statistics for the City of Loma Linda Police Activity Totals Per Deputy Calls for Service 19,485 1,949 Deputy Reports 2,369 237 Arrests (Adult Bookings) 696 70 Traffic Collision Investigations 138 14 Traffic Citations Issued 1,292 129 Residents per Deputy 2,375 Patrol Deputies 10 25 Source: SBSD 2015
26 SBSD operates out of its headquarters located at 655 East Third Street in San Bernardino, but 27 the City also provides a workstation at City Hall, which provides deputies and a sheriff’s 28 service specialist with an area for completing reports, conducting interviews, and crime 29 prevention activities (City of Loma Linda 2009). SBSD has an average response time within 30 the City of Loma Linda of 3.25 minutes (City of Loma Linda 2009).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-111 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Schools 2 Schools in Loma Linda are provided by the Redlands Unified School District (RUSD), except 3 for the western portion of the City (not including the Project site), which is served by Colton 4 Joint Unified School District. RUSD operates a total of 26 schools, including 15 elementary 5 schools, 5 middle schools, and 6 high schools. In 2016-2017, RUSD had a total enrollment of 6 21,395 students (California Department of Education 2017).
7 All the RUSD schools serving the City of Loma Linda have exceeded their original capacities 8 (City of Loma Linda 2009). To accommodate student enrollment, the three elementary 9 schools serving the City (Bryn Mawr, Smiley, and Victoria) are on a year-round schedule, 10 which increases the seats available for students by approximately 25 percent. RUSD 11 converted these schools to year-round schedules because funding was not available to 12 construct new schools to meet enrollment needs (City of Loma Linda 2009).
13 Parks 14 The City owns and administers nine parks, varying in size and amenities from the ¼-acre Sun 15 Avenue Portal Park to the 50-acre Hulda Crooks Park (City of Loma Linda 2009). Over 73 16 acres of parks and open space areas are located within the City, over 64 acres of which are 17 developed (the remaining 10 acres were awaiting development as of 2009) (City of Loma 18 Linda 2009). The nearest parks to the Project site include Baseball Park (approximately 0.8- 19 mile southwest of the Project site), Elmer Digneo Park (approximately 1.5 miles west- 20 southwest of the Project site), and Heritage Park (approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the 21 Project site). Please see Section 3.15, Recreation for additional information on parks.
22 Other Public Facilities 23 The Project site is located directly adjacent to the VA Loma Linda Ambulatory Care Center, 24 which was recently built on the property to the south of the Project site across Redlands 25 Boulevard. Additionally, Loma Linda University owns various medical facilities throughout 26 the City, including the Loma Linda University Medical Center, which is located approximately 27 1.85 miles southwest of the Project site. The Loma Linda Public Library is a branch of the San 28 Bernardino County Library system and is located approximately 1.2 miles south-southwest 29 of the Project site.
30 3.14.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 31 a. Result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 32 new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new 33 or physically altered governmental facilities
34 The Proposed Project is a replacement of an existing police protection facility. The physical 35 environmental impacts of this new facility are discussed throughout this IS/MND and are 36 therefore not discussed here. The Proposed Project would not require closure of any public 37 facilities during construction. However, because the replacement CHP Area Office would 38 support 116 employees, an increase of 15 from the existing facility that supports 101 39 employees, the Proposed Project could marginally increase the demand on public services. 40 Potential impacts from the Proposed Project on specific public services are discussed below.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-112 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Project construction has been evaluated for its potential to impede public services as a result 2 of truck trips and construction-related traffic in Section 3.16, “Transportation/Traffic.”
3 i. Fire protection—Less than Significant
4 Construction activities on the project site would take place on a site that has some ruderal 5 vegetation (see Section 3.4, “Biological Resources”). Operation of power tools and equipment 6 during project construction could potentially provide an ignition source and increase fire risk 7 in the area, especially considering the dry local climate. Storage of flammable materials (e.g., 8 fuel) during project construction could also increase fire risk. However, project construction 9 activities would follow the requirements for fire safety during construction contained in the 10 California Fire Code (see the regulatory setting section above). Adherence to the 11 requirements of the California Fire Code would reduce the potential increase in fire risk 12 during project construction to a less-than-significant level.
13 As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and in Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous 14 Materials,” the Proposed Project would include storage of flammable materials on-site. Two 15 liquefied petroleum gas tanks would store 12,000 gallons of fuel (gasoline) for CHP vehicle 16 and equipment use. An enclosure would store flares, and the facility would include an armory 17 to store guns and ammunition. Storage of these materials could potentially increase the 18 demand on fire protection services in the event of an upset; however, storage and 19 containment facilities would follow all applicable safety regulations. Storage of these 20 materials at the new facility would not differ substantially from storage at the existing facility.
21 The replacement facility would be equipped with a sprinkler system and would be 22 constructed in accordance with the California Fire Code. The additional employees associated 23 with the Proposed Project would not generate substantial demand for fire protection, 24 significantly affect average response times or other performance metrics, or require 25 provision of new fire protection facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
26 ii. Police protection—No Impact
27 As mentioned above, the Proposed Project would provide police protection services to the 28 San Bernardino area. CHP is responsible for enforcing vehicular and traffic laws on state 29 highways and freeways, and the Proposed Project would replace the existing CHP area office 30 facility in San Bernardino. The additional officers at the new facility and improved and 31 expanded facilities would most likely improve police protection services in the area. This may 32 marginally decrease average response times or improve other service performance 33 objectives. Overall, the Proposed Project’s impact on police protection service would be 34 beneficial; therefore, there would be no impact.
35 iii. Schools—Less than Significant
36 The small increase in employment associated with the Proposed Project may result in some 37 population growth, and related school enrollment. However, this increase would not be 38 substantial or require construction of new schools and would occur over a ten-year period. 39 The impact on schools would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-113 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 iv. Parks—Less than Significant
2 The Proposed Project would not involve construction of any parks or recreational facilities, 3 and it would not displace any existing parks or recreational facilities. No existing parks or 4 recreational facilities are located on the project site. Likewise, project construction would not 5 require the temporary closure of any parks or recreational facilities or otherwise affect the 6 access or use of such facilities. The small potential increase in population resulting from the 7 Proposed Project could marginally increase the demand for parks, but would not require 8 construction of new parks or recreational facilities. As a result, this impact would be less than 9 significant.
10 v. Other public facilities—Less than Significant
11 Project construction activities (e.g., equipment movement, materials and waste hauling) 12 could potentially cause local traffic delays in the area, which may marginally decrease ease of 13 access to the VA Ambulatory Care Center across Redlands Boulevard (see Section 3.16, 14 “Transportation and Traffic” for additional discussion of Project traffic impacts). However, 15 these potential impacts would not be significant and would not require or result in the need 16 to construct new or expanded public facilities.
17 As for other public services discussed above, the marginal potential population increase 18 resulting from project operations would not require provision of any new public facilities, 19 such as hospitals or libraries. This impact would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-114 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.15 RECREATION Less than Potentially Significant Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
2 3.15.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal and State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 There are no federal or state laws, regulations, or policies regarding recreation that are 5 applicable to the Proposed Project.
6 3.15.2 Environmental Setting
7 City of Loma Linda 8 The City of Loma Linda consists of over 73 total acres of parks and open space areas. In 2009, 9 upon adoption of the General Plan, the adopted population to parkland acreage ratio goal was 10 5 acres per 1,000 people while the actual population to parkland ratio was 3.30 (City of Loma 11 Linda 2009). As of 2016, this population to parkland ratio is 3.23 based on a total parkland 12 acreage of approximately 73 acres and a population of approximately 23,000(City of Loma 13 Linda 2016a).
14 There are nine City-owned parks ranging from 0.25-acre in size (Sun Avenue Portal Park) to 15 50 acres (Hulda Crooks Park). These parks are described in further detail in Table REC-1 16 below.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-115 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Table REC-1. Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Approximate Distance and Direction from Park/Facility Name Ownership Features Proposed Project Site (aerial miles) Barbeque pits, picnic tables, City of Loma Hulda Crooks Park 1.7 southwest playground, volleyball court, Linda trail/open space Baseball field, tennis courts, City of Loma Leonard Bailey Park 1.3 southeast playground, turf/landscaping, Linda soccer field (proposed) Barbeque pits, basketball City of Loma Elmer Digneo Park 1.4 southwest courts, picnic tables, youth play Linda area City of Loma Sun Avenue Portal Park - Picnic tables Linda City of Loma Baseball fields, little league field Baseball Park 0.8 southwest Linda (proposed) City of Loma Turf/landscaping, playground Cottonwood Road Park 0.5 southwest Linda (proposed) City of Loma Trail/open space, benches, Edison Easement Park* 1.0 south Linda drinking fountains City of Loma Ted and Lila Dawson Park 1.3 west Unknown Linda Small dog area, large dog area, City of Loma Dog Park* 1.7 south dog drinking fountains, waste Linda disposal area City of San Splash Kingdom Water Park 0.4 northeast Water park Bernardino
Notes: City of Loma Linda 2009 *City of Loma Linda 2016b
2
3 3.15.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 4 a. Increase use of existing parks or recreational facilities—Less than 5 Significant
6 The Proposed Project would be built on an undeveloped parcel of 5.3 acres with the closest 7 park being Cottonwood Park located approximately 0.5-mile southwest of the Project site 8 along Mountain View Avenue. There is a class-1 bicycle path that starts on Redlands 9 Boulevard and runs adjacent to the Camper Shell Depot towards Edison Easement Park 10 where it connects to a trail (City of Loma Linda 2009). This path is located approximately 0.1- 11 mile from the Project site. As noted in Section 3.13, “Population and Housing,” the Proposed 12 Project would not result in substantial population growth. Furthermore, the Proposed Project
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-116 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 would not remove any existing recreational facilities or substantially increase the demand 2 for, or result in accelerated deterioration of, recreational facilities. Project construction 3 activities would be anticipated to cause only temporary, minimal disruption to use of the bike 4 path as a result of potential construction-related traffic. As a result, this impact would be less 5 than significant.
6 b. Creation of new or altered recreational facilities—No Impact
7 The Proposed Project would not create or alter any recreational facilities. Likewise, the 8 Project would not introduce substantial numbers of people to the area or otherwise cause the 9 need to construct new or altered recreational facilities. As a result, no impact would occur.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-117 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-118 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.16.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION TERMINOLOGY 2 The following are definitions of key traffic and transportation terms used in this section and 3 based on materials published by the Transportation Research Board (2010) and the Loma 4 Linda Transportation and Circulation Element.
5 Level of Service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing 6 operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as 7 speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and 8 convenience. Intersection LOS is defined according to methods presented in the 9 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010). Using the Highway 10 Capacity Manual procedures, the quality of traffic operation is graded into one of six 11 service levels, LOS A through F (see Table TR-1).
12 To measure the operating conditions of the local transportation system, the study 13 area was evaluated in terms of LOS. Table TR-1 below contains the standards for the 14 six service levels used in the study area.
15 Table TR-1. Level of Service Definitions for Intersections Delay (seconds/vehicle) Level of Signalized Unsignalized Service Description Intersection Intersection A Free-flow speeds prevail. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver ≤ 10 0-10 within the traffic stream. B Free-flow speeds are maintained. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly > 10-20 > 10-15 restricted. C Flow with speeds at or near free-flow speeds. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane changes require > 20-35 > 15-25 more care and vigilance on the part of the driver.
D Speeds decline slightly with increasing flows. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited, and the driver > 35-55 > 25-35 experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort. E Operation at capacity. There are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver. Any disruption can be expected to > 55-80 > 35-50 produce a breakdown with queuing.
F Represents a breakdown in flow. > 80 > 50 16 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010 & Highway Capacity Manual, 2010
17 Delay. Delays refer to the additional travel time experienced by a driver or traveler 18 that results from the inability to travel at optimal speed, and stops resulting from 19 congestion or traffic control.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-119 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Freeway. Freeways are divided highways with full control of access and grade 2 separations for all intersecting traffic flows. There are no intersections at-grade, 3 traffic signals, pedestrians, or parking on freeways to interfere with the continuity of 4 high-capacity, high-speed traffic flow. Freeways are designed to provide regional 5 rather than local traffic movement.
6 Four-lane Divided Highway. A four-lane (two in each direction) primary arterial 7 highway with a landscaped, raised median. Direct access for individual uses along 8 four lane divided highways is limited to intersecting streets and major driveways 9 serving larger uses. Four-lane divided highways have been proposed to provide 10 sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through 11 traffic into residential neighborhoods. Additional turning lanes are typically provided 12 at intersections.
13 Four-lane Undivided Highway. A secondary arterial highway with four lanes of 14 roadway (two in each direction) and no median. Arterials need to have sufficient 15 carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of through traffic into 16 residential neighborhoods. Four-lane undivided highways have been proposed to 17 provide sufficient carrying capacity so as to prevent the undesirable diversion of 18 through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Left-turn lanes are typically provided 19 at intersections.
20 Two-lane Undivided Highway. A collector street with relatively moderate-speed, 21 moderate volume, with two through lanes (one in each direction), designed for 22 circulation within and between neighborhoods. These roads serve relatively short 23 trips, and are meant to collect and distribute traffic from local streets to the arterial 24 network. Left-turn lanes are typically provided at major intersections.
25 3.16.2 REGULATORY SETTING
26 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 27 The FAA has conducted an aeronautical study for the construction of the CHP 28 communications tower at the project site. See Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials”, 29 for further discussion.
30 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 31 Caltrans manages the state highway system and ramp interchange intersections. This state 32 agency is also responsible for highway, bridge, and rail transportation planning, construction, 33 and maintenance.
34 3.16.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 35 The existing CHP area office is located at 2211 Western Avenue North, San Bernardino, 36 California. The project site for the replacement area office is approximately 6.85 miles 37 southeast of the existing San Bernardino Area CHP office at the intersection of Redlands 38 Boulevard & Bryn Mawr Avenue in Loma Linda, CA. The following subsections describe 39 regional and local access to the project area.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-120 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Existing Vehicle Access 2 The project site is situated within the City of Loma Linda and is bounded by Business Center 3 Drive to the north, Redlands Boulevard to the south, Bryn Mawr Avenue to the east, and 4 undeveloped parcels to the west. The Project site is served by a network of freeways, 5 highways, freeways, and local roads and the following text provides a brief discussion of the 6 major components of the study area street network.
7 Interstate 10, located north of the project site, is a multi-lane freeway which serves 8 as a major regional connector for the City and links to cities within the Inland Empire, 9 Los Angeles, and coastal cities to the west, and to the Coachella Valley and southern 10 states to the east. The segment of I-10 closest to the project site is a 6 to 8-lane 11 freeway. Access to the freeway from the study area is provided via ramps located at 12 Mountain View Avenue and California Street.
13 Mountain View Avenue is a 4-lane undivided highway located west of the project site 14 which runs between East Central Avenue in San Bernardino to the north and 15 Beaumont Avenue in Loma Linda to the south. Mountain View serves as a major 16 access road from I-10 to areas of the City of Loma Linda and the project site.
17 California Street is a 2 to 6-lane arterial road located east of the project site which 18 runs between a cul-de-sac north of Palmetto Avenue in Redlands to the north and 19 Barton Road in Redlands to the south. California Street serves as a major access road 20 from I-10 to parts of the City of Loma Linda, the City of Redlands, and the project site.
21 Redlands Boulevard is a 4-lane divided highway which runs in an east/west direction 22 between South Hunts Lane in San Bernardino to the west and I-10 in Redlands to the 23 east. It connects the project site to both California Street and Mountain View Avenue 24 along with Downtown Redlands.
25 Business Center Drive is a 2-lane undivided highway which runs between Mountain 26 View Avenue to the west and Bryn Mawr Avenue to the east within the City of Loma 27 Linda. It serves primarily commercial land uses that exist around the project site.
28 Bryn Mawr Avenue is a 2-lane undivided highway which runs between a cul-de-sac 29 north of Business Center Drive and the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System building on 30 the south side of Redlands Boulevard, across the street from the project site.
31 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 32 The nearest bicycle facility to the proposed project site is a Class II bike lane traveling 33 eastbound along Redlands Boulevard. This bike lane begins 700 feet prior to the Redlands 34 Boulevard & Bryn Mawr Avenue intersection and ends approximately 700 feet after the 35 intersection. The Orange Blossom Trail, a Class I bike path, begins at the intersection of 36 Redlands Boulevard & California Street, and travels south into the City of Redlands. A Class II 37 bike lane is proposed for Mountain View Avenue, south of Redlands Boulevard. No other bike 38 facilities are planned along any of the roads in the study area.
39 There are sidewalks with landscaped buffers between the sidewalk and street along both 40 sides of Bryn Mawr Avenue and Redlands Boulevard near the proposed project site. Both
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-121 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 California Street and Mountain View Avenue have pedestrian facilities on at least one side of 2 the road north of Redlands Boulevard toward I-10. Business Center Drive does not have 3 continuous sidewalks.
4 Existing Transit Service 5 Omnitrans Route 8 travels along Redlands Boulevard past the project site and provides access 6 to Downtown Redlands (Redlands Mall Transfer Center) and Downtown San Bernardino (San 7 Bernardino Transit Center). The closest Route 8 bus stop is located at the intersection of 8 Redlands Boulevard & Bryn Mawr Avenue. Service runs on weekdays with 30-minute 9 headways beginning at 5:00 a.m. and operating until 11:00 p.m. Service runs on weekends 10 with one-hour headways from 6:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
11 There have been discussions regarding potentially extending Metrolink service to the Loma 12 Linda area in the future.
13 Existing Commute Trips
14 The existing CHP San Bernardino Area Office accommodates 96 employees comprised of 81 15 uniformed CHP officers and 15 civilian support personnel. To fulfill its law enforcement and 16 public safety activities at all times, the existing office is staffed 7 days a week, 24 hours a day 17 by shift employees. Uniformed employee shifts generally run from early morning (around 18 6:00 a.m.) to mid-afternoon, mid-afternoon to evening, and evening to early morning (6:00 19 a.m.). Non-uniformed employee (civilian support staff) shifts run from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
20 The total number of trips to and from the existing CHP San Bernardino Area Office by all 21 employees (including uniformed officers and other staff) was determined in a 24-hour 22 driveway counting exercise. Cameras collected data on the two driveways serving the 23 existing CHP facility, to count the daily number of trips generated by the facility. These full- 24 access driveways are both situated off of Western Avenue North in San Bernardino. Twelve 25 inbound trips and 12 outbound trips occurred during the a.m. peak hour of 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. 26 for a total of 24 trips. The number of trips generated by employees in the evening was 15 27 inbound trips and 19 outbound trips for a total of 34 trips in the p.m. peak hour of 4:15 to 28 5:15 p.m.
29 3.16.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
30 Methodology 31 For this analysis, traffic volumes at the study intersections were collected in August 2017. 32 Traffic volumes and LOS were compared between conditions with and without the Project. 33 Levels of service for all intersections were calculated based on the Highway Capacity Manual 34 (HCM) methodology parameters using Synchro 9 software, which is typically done for 35 projects in the City of Loma Linda, City of Redlands, City of San Bernardino, as well as the 36 County of San Bernardino. Project-related impacts were assessed based on the thresholds 37 identified by Caltrans, the City of Loma Linda, and the City of Redlands. Consultation with City 38 of Loma Linda and City of Redlands engineers occurred between August – October 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-122 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Study Intersections 2 The project site is regionally connected and primarily accessed via I-10 and the Mountain 3 View Avenue and California Street exits. The intersections along Mountain View Avenue and 4 California Street are most likely to be affected by the Proposed Project and were selected for 5 analysis. The six selected study intersections are as follows:
6 1. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 westbound (WB) Ramps 7 2. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 eastbound (EB) Ramps 8 3. Mountain View Avenue & Business Center Drive 9 4. California Street & I-10 WB Ramps 10 5. California Street & I-10 EB Ramps 11 6. California Street & Redlands Boulevard
12 All six study intersections are signalized locations. The four intersections at the I-10 ramps 13 are controlled and maintained by Caltrans. Intersection #6, California Street & Redlands 14 Boulevard is within the City of Redlands jurisdiction, as are the two California Street and I-10 15 ramp intersections.
16 Traffic Count Data 17 Turning movement volumes, including pedestrian and bicycle volumes, were collected at six 18 intersections near the proposed CHP facility location during the peak travel periods in the 19 morning and evening. Morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak hour 20 traffic counts were collected on August 3, 2017. Driveway counts were also collected for a 24- 21 hour period at the existing CHP San Bernardino facility entrance/exits on August 3, 2017.
22 Trip Generation 23 The CHP replacement facility’s projected employment in 10 years is 110 employees: 92 24 uniformed CHP personnel and 18 civilian support staff.
25 Driveway counts were collected at the existing San Bernardino facility, and therefore a trip 26 generation rate was able to be determined for daily and peak period hours based on number 27 of employees. Table TR-2 below shows both the trip generation rate of the existing CHP San 28 Bernardino Area Office, and the estimated trip generation for the replacement area office in 29 Loma Linda, given a projection of 15% growth in personnel between the two facilities.
30
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-123 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Table TR-2. Trip Rates & Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Rate Daily In Out Total In Out Total Site Specific Trip Ratesa per 4.43 50% 50% .83 44% 56% 1.17 Employee California Highway Patrol
Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Sizeb Tripsc In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Project 34 487 California Highway Patrol Employees 14 14 28 18 22 40 Plan Buildout Net New Trips 487 14 14 28 18 22 40
Notes: a. Rates developed via driveway counts collected at existing CHP San Bernardino Area Office in August 2017. b. 29 employees were present when driveway counts were collected, this was grown by 15% to reflect future conditions. c. Daily trips are based on the max number of employees (110) at new CHP facility
2
3 The Proposed Project would generate approximately four more AM peak hour trips and six 4 more PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing CHP facility.
5 Trip Distribution 6 For the purposes of this analysis, and given the project site’s proximity to Interstate 10, it is 7 presumed that 90% of trips would use I-10 (60% to and from the west and 30% to and from 8 the east), and the remaining 10% would use local roads (1% on Mountain View Avenue north 9 and south of the project site, 2% on California Street north and south of the project site, and 10 2% on Redlands Boulevard east and west of the project site). Employee home zip codes were 11 used in determining directionality of trips to and from the proposed project site.
12 The analysis considered two different project access points as seen in the proposed site plan 13 (see Figure 2-3): one driveway directly off Redlands Boulevard and the other from Bryn 14 Mawr Avenue. The driveway off of Redlands Boulevard is presumed to be limited to right- 15 turns in and right-turns out only due to medians along Redlands Boulevard. The truck and 16 bus citation clearance area connects to Bryn Mawr Avenue only and has also been accounted 17 for in trip distribution.
18 LOS Standards and Impact Thresholds 19 Both the City of Loma Linda’s and the City of Redland's traffic impact thresholds were used 20 to assess the significance of the traffic volumes generated by the Proposed Project due to the 21 study intersections falling within the two jurisdictions. The Caltrans’ Guide for the 22 Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) does not provide specific traffic 23 impact thresholds; therefore, the cities’ significance criteria in which the Caltrans 24 intersection was located was applied to each specific Caltrans’ facility.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-124 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Performance Standard 2 . Loma Linda: LOS C is the minimum acceptable level of service for intersections. 3 . Redlands: LOS C as the minimum level of service for its intersections. Any signalized 4 intersection operating at LOS D or worse will be considered deficient.
5 Threshold of Significance 6 . Loma Linda: Projects that degrade LOS C to LOS D, E, or F, or worsen conditions at 7 facilities already operating at LOS D, E, or F will result in a significant impact. 8 . Redlands: Projects that reduce intersection LOS to below level C are considered 9 significant impacts and are required to mitigate to acceptable conditions. If the 10 facility is already operating unacceptably, it is the responsibility of the Project to 11 improve the facility to the pre-project conditions. 12 The performance standard and threshold of significance for both jurisdictions are the same, 13 therefore all study intersections could be evaluated for impacts similarly.
14 3.16.5 DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES 15 a, b. Conflict with applicable circulation plans, ordinances, or policies 16 and applicable congestion management programs—Less than 17 Significant with Mitigation
18 Construction Impacts 19 During the Proposed Project’s construction period, traffic impacts on public streets would be 20 related to the movement of construction equipment and construction worker trips. Project 21 construction would result in a temporary increase in vehicle traffic along nearby roadways, 22 including Redlands Boulevard, Bryn Mawr Avenue, Business Center Drive, and I-10. Based on 23 the scale of the facility, it has been assumed that up to 34 construction workers would 24 commute to the site daily over the course of the construction period, though the number of 25 workers on-site would vary by construction phase. During the site preparation phase, up to 26 171 hauling trucks are expected to enter and leave the site per day. Work activity would 27 result in a maximum total of approximately 873 one-way trips (worker commute and haul 28 trips) on a given construction work day during the grading phase (accounting for passenger 29 car equivalent trips). Construction trip generation tables can be found in Appendix G.
30 Project–related truck traffic and incoming/outgoing equipment could increase conflicts 31 between bicyclists, pedestrians, and cars. Slow-moving trucks requiring access to the project 32 site from Redlands Boulevard or Bryn Mawr Avenue could increase conflicts with bicyclists, 33 pedestrians, and cars. These potential conflicts with other roadway users could lead to 34 inconsistency with policies established in the City of Loma Linda’s Circulation Element as 35 seen in Appendix A. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which requires the 36 development and implementation of a traffic management plan, would decrease potential 37 traffic safety hazards.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-125 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic 2 Management Plan.
3 The Contractor shall prepare and implement a construction traffic management plan 4 to reduce potential interference with an emergency response plan, as well as to 5 reduce potential traffic safety hazards and ensure adequate access for emergency 6 responders. Development and implementation of this plan shall be coordinated with 7 the City of Loma Linda. CHP or the California Department of General Services (DGS) 8 shall ensure that the plan is implemented during construction. The plan shall include, 9 but will not be limited to, the following items: 10 . Identify construction truck haul routes to limit truck and automobile traffic 11 on nearby streets. The identified routes will be designed to minimize 12 impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation, and safety. Identified 13 haul routes will be recorded in the contract documents. 14 . Implement comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of 15 major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, warning and 16 detour signs (if required), lane closure procedures (if required), and cones 17 for drivers. 18 . Evaluate the need to provide flaggers or temporary traffic control at key 19 intersections along the haul route during all or some portion of the 20 construction period. 21 . Notify adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding 22 timing of major deliveries, detours, and lane closures. 23 . Develop a process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to 24 construction activity, including identification of an on-site complaint 25 manager. Post 24-hour contact information for the complaint manager on 26 the site. 27 . Document road pavement conditions for all routes that would be used by 28 construction vehicles before and after project construction. Make provisions 29 to monitor the condition of surface streets used for haul routes so that any 30 damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks could be identified and 31 corrected. Roads damaged by construction vehicles shall be repaired to the 32 level at which they existed before project construction. 33 Due to the limited amount of time the heaviest construction traffic will be added to the roads, 34 the temporary nature of construction trips, and the implementation of this mitigation 35 management plan, potential conflicts with the circulation system that could decrease the 36 performance or safety of transportation facilities would be less than significant with 37 mitigation.
38 Transportation Impact Analysis 39 Signalized intersections in the study area are analyzed based on the methodology developed 40 in the 2010 edition of the HCM. This methodology calculates average total vehicle delay of all 41 movements through an intersection. LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per 42 vehicle during a specified time period.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-126 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Existing Year Analysis (Year 2017)
2 For this impact analysis, impacts at the study intersections were evaluated during AM and 3 PM peak-hour conditions. Traffic conditions with the Proposed Project have been calculated 4 by adding project–generated volumes to existing traffic volumes. The Project’s effects on 5 traffic delay and LOS at the study intersections are compared to existing conditions in Table 6 TR-3.
7 Table TR-3. LOS and Delay for Existing Conditions and Project Conditions
EXISTING EXISTING + DELAY PEAK SIGNIFICANT NO. INTERSECTION (2017) PROJECT (sec) HOUR IMPACT? Delay LOS Delay LOS INCREASE 1 Mountain View Ave & I- AM 40.3 D 40.3 D 0.0 No 10 WB Ramps PM 26.0 C 26.0 C 0.0 No 2 Mountain View Ave & I- AM 53.2 D 54.3 D 1.1 Yes 10 EB Ramps PM 15.9 B 16.0 B 0.1 No 3 Mountain View Ave & AM 6.1 A 6.2 A 0.1 No Business Center Dr PM 6.6 A 7.2 A 0.6 No 4 California St & I-10 WB AM 58.2 E 59.7 E 1.5 Yes Ramps PM 65.2 E 66.5 E 1.3 Yes 5 California St & I-10 EB AM 288.9 F 290.6 F 1.7 Yes Ramps PM 101.1 F 102.0 F 0.9 Yes 6 California St & Redlands AM 64.4 E 65.4 E 1.0 Yes Blvd PM 66.6 E 67.6 E 1.0 Yes 8 Notes: LOS = level of service; sec = seconds
9 As shown in Table TR-3, LOS would remain the same at all six study intersections during both 10 the AM and PM peak periods when project trips are added. Due to Loma Linda and Redlands 11 performance standards, all intersections except Number 3: Mountain View Avenue & 12 Business Center Drive are considered deficient during at least one peak period because they 13 operate at LOS D or worse. Any delay added to these deficient intersections results in a 14 significant impact based on the two cities’ criteria. The following four intersections are 15 significantly impacted due to added delay as a result of project traffic during the existing 16 scenario:
17 2. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (AM peak hour only) 18 4. California Street & I-10 WB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour) 19 5. California Street & I-10 EB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour) 20 6. California Street & Redlands Boulevard (AM & PM peak hour)
21 Due to these four significantly impacted intersections, mitigations will be necessary in order 22 to make project-related trip impacts less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-127 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Future Year Analysis (Year 2020)
2 To evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on future conditions at the 3 projected build out year (2020), it was necessary to develop estimates of future traffic 4 conditions in the area both without and with project traffic. First, estimates of traffic growth 5 were developed for the study area to forecast future conditions without the Proposed Project. 6 These forecasts included traffic increases as a result of both regional ambient traffic growth 7 and traffic generated by specific developments in the vicinity of the Proposed Project (related 8 projects).
9 Traffic volume forecasts were developed using the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis 10 Model (SBTAM), a subregional model based on the Southern California Association 11 Governments (SCAG) Regional Travel Demand Model.1 Two model scenarios were utilized in 12 the forecasting process, the Base Year Model (2008) and Future Year Model (2035). The Base 13 Year and Future Year model outputs were compared to one another and used in conjunction 14 with existing traffic counts to develop future traffic forecasts. In this study, the difference 15 between the Base Year and Future Year model outputs were utilized to develop volume 16 forecasts by adding the proportioned growth to the existing counts. This method is known as 17 the difference method and is a state of the practice approach consistent with National 18 Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255. For the AM peak travel period, a yearly 19 growth rate of 0.8 percent was applied to existing 2017 AM volumes and used to estimate 20 2020 AM volumes. For the PM peak travel period, a yearly growth rate of 1.3 percent was 21 applied to existing 2017 PM volumes and used to estimate 2020 PM volumes.
22 The future traffic forecasts also include the effects of known specific projects, called related 23 projects, expected to be implemented in the vicinity of the proposed project site prior to the 24 buildout date of the Proposed Project. The related project list was provided by the City of 25 Loma Linda. Trips generated by the related projects can be seen in Appendix G.
26 In 2018, Intersection Number 6: California Street & Redlands Boulevard will be undergoing 27 reconfiguration. The southern leg of California Street will be widened to accommodate 28 additional lanes and better align with the northern leg. The other intersection approaches 29 will be restriped for more efficient operation. As a result of the construction, the following 30 changes to the intersection will occur:
31 Northbound Leg: Changes from a shared left/through/right lane to one left-only lane, 32 two through lanes, and one right-only lane.
33 Southbound Leg: Adds an additional through lane to the current shared right-only 34 lane and a left-only lane.
1 SBTAM is based on the traditional 4-step sequential modeling methodology with “feedback loop” procedures to ensure internal modeling consistency. These transportation models use socioeconomic data to estimate trip generation, mode choice, as well as several submodels to address complex travel behavior and multi-modal transportation issues. The model responds to changes in land use types, household characteristics, transportation infrastructure, and travel costs such as transit fares, parking costs, tolls, and auto operating costs.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-128 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Eastbound Leg: Changes from one left-only lane, one through lane, and one shared 2 through/right lane to one left-only lane, two through lanes, and a channelized right- 3 only turn lane.
4 Westbound Leg: No changes
5 The new intersection configuration at California Street & Redlands Boulevard has been 6 included as part of the future analysis.
7 Note: There are additional future improvements planned at the I-10 ramps and Mountain 8 View Avenue intersections. These improvements were not considered as part of the future 9 analysis, due to design plans and construction timelines not yet finalized by the jurisdictions.
10 Project trips were added to the future year volumes to analyze project level impacts in the 11 future. The Project’s effects on delay and LOS at the study intersections are compared to Year 12 2020 conditions in Table TR-4.
13 Table TR-4. LOS and Delay for Future Conditions and Future plus Project Conditions FUTURE FUTURE + DELAY PEAK SIGNIFICANT NO. INTERSECTION (2020) PROJECT (sec) HOUR IMPACT? Delay LOS Delay LOS INCREASE 1 Mountain View Ave & I- AM 41.5 D 41.6 D 0.10 Yes 10 WB Ramps PM 28.7 C 28.6 C -0.102 No 2 Mountain View Ave & I- AM 62.4 E 63.6 E 1.20 Yes 10 EB Ramps PM 17.4 B 17.6 B 0.20 No 3 Mountain View Ave & AM 6.2 A 6.6 A 0.40 No Business Center Dr PM 6.7 A 7.3 A 0.60 No 4 California St & I-10 WB AM 80.7 F 82.5 F 1.80 Yes Ramps PM 96.4 F 98.0 F 1.60 Yes 5 California St & I-10 EB AM 294.7 F 295.7 F 1.00 Yes Ramps PM 122.7 F 123.6 F 0.90 Yes 6 California St & Redlands AM 49.9 D 50.0 D 0.10 Yes Blvd PM 46.6 D 46.8 D 0.20 Yes 14 Notes: LOS = level of service; sec = seconds
15 As shown in Table TR-4, LOS would remain the same at all six study intersections during both 16 the AM and PM peak periods when project trips are added. As in the existing scenarios, due 17 to the cities of Loma Linda and Redlands performance standards, all intersections except 18 Number 3: Mountain View Avenue & Business Center Drive are considered deficient during 19 at least one peak period because they operate at LOS D or worse. Any delay added to these 20 deficient intersections results in a significant impact based on the two cities’ criteria. The
2 Change in delay is negative at this intersection due to delay being calculated on a weighted average. The movement with the largest volume increase at this intersection is also the movement with the lowest delay (northbound). This leads to a decrease in the overall intersection delay as the movement with the lower delay and highest volume is weighted the heaviest.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-129 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 following five intersections are significantly impacted due to added delay as a result of project 2 traffic during the future scenario:
3 1. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 WB Ramps (AM peak hour only) 4 2. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (AM peak hour only) 5 4. California Street & I-10 WB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour) 6 5. California Street & I-10 EB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour) 7 6. California Street & Redlands Boulevard (AM & PM peak hour)
8 Due to these five significantly impacted intersections, mitigation measures will be necessary 9 to reduce the project related trip impacts to less than significant.
10 Mitigation Measures 11 Mitigation measures were developed for the significantly impacted intersections to minimize 12 the impact of the Proposed Project on the study area for both existing and future scenarios.
13 As shown in Table TR-3, the following four study intersections are forecasted to operate at 14 a deficient LOS and be significantly impacted based on agency thresholds of significance for 15 Existing Year (2017) plus Project conditions:
16 2. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (AM peak hour only) 17 4. California Street & I-10 WB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour) 18 5. California Street & I-10 EB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour) 19 6. California Street & Redlands Boulevard (AM & PM peak hour)
20 According to the cities of Loma Linda and Redlands policy, for Project-level impacts, the CHP 21 would be responsible for mitigating the impacts by implementing Mitigation Measure 22 TRA-2.
23 Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Adjust and Optimize Signal Timing Plans for 24 Existing and Future Year Plus Project Conditions
25 To mitigate the Project impact at the significantly impacted intersections for both 26 existing year and future year conditions, the CHP will work with the local agencies 27 (Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands) to develop and implement measures such that 28 the Project does not reduce LOS or increase delay. This would most likely involve 29 modifying traffic signal splits for the signal timing plans such that they are adjusted 30 and optimized for the expected traffic volume demand, which would not require 31 changing the coordinated cycle length; in general, this mitigation measure should not 32 require any physical modifications to the intersections or roadways, although this 33 would be confirmed with the local agencies. The potential impacted intersections are 34 as follows (this list may be reconfirmed or adjusted in coordination with the local 35 agencies once Project designs are finalized): Existing Year (2017) includes Mountain 36 View Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (AM peak hour only), California Street & I-10 WB 37 Ramps (AM & PM peak hour), California Street & I-10 EB Ramps (AM & PM peak 38 hour), and California Street & Redlands Boulevard (AM & PM peak hour); Future Year 39 (2020) includes Mountain View Avenue & I-10 WB Ramps (AM peak hour only), 40 Mountain View Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (AM peak hour only), California Street & I-
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-130 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 10 WB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour), California Street & I-10 EB Ramps (AM & PM 2 peak hour), and California Street & Redlands Boulevard (AM & PM peak hour). 3 Adjusting the traffic signal splits for the signal timing plans would improve intersection 4 performance to pre-Project conditions at the significantly impacted intersections, as seen in 5 Table TR-5 below. Several of the intersections remain at deficient LOS levels, but the 6 significant impact due to project-related trips have been removed, and the mitigated 7 intersections operate better than pre-Project conditions. As such, with implementation of 8 Mitigation Measure TRA-2, the Project’s contribution to the impact would be mitigated to a 9 less-than-significant level.
10 Table TR-5. LOS and Delay for Existing Conditions and Project Conditions with 11 Mitigations EXISTING + EXISTING DELAY PEAK PROJECT WITH SIGNIFICANT NO. INTERSECTION (2017) (sec) HOUR MITIGATION IMPACT? INCREASE Delay LOS Delay LOS 2 Mountain View Ave & I- AM 53.2 D 41.7 D -11.5 No 10 EB Ramps ------4 California St & I-10 WB AM 58.2 E 28.8 C -29.4 No Ramps PM 65.2 E 35.5 D -29.7 No 5 California St & I-10 EB AM 288.9 F 31.2 C -257.7 No Ramps PM 101.1 F 30.7 C -70.4 No 6 California St & Redlands AM 64.4 E 63.8 E -0.6 No Blvd PM 66.6 E 66.6 E 0.0 No 12
13 As shown in Table TR-4, the following five study intersections are forecasted to operate at a 14 deficient LOS and be significantly impacted based on agency thresholds of significance for 15 Future Year (2020) plus Project conditions:
16 1. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 WB Ramps (AM peak hour only) 17 2. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (AM peak hour only) 18 4. California Street & I-10 WB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour) 19 5. California Street & I-10 EB Ramps (AM & PM peak hour) 20 6. California Street & Redlands Boulevard (AM & PM peak hour)
21 Similar to the requirements for Project-level impacts in the existing year (2017), the CHP 22 would be responsible for mitigating the future year (2020) impacts, according to the cities of 23 Loma Linda and Redlands policy, by implementing Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
24 With adjustments to the traffic signal splits for the signal timing plans as described under 25 Mitigation Measure TRA-2, operations for future year (2020) impacts would be improved to 26 pre-Project conditions at the significantly impacted intersections, as seen in Table TR-6 27 below. Several of the intersections remain at deficient LOS levels, but the significant impact 28 due to project-related trips have been removed, and the mitigated intersections operate 29 better than pre-Project conditions. As such, the Project’s contribution to the impact would be 30 mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-131 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Table TR-6. LOS and Delay for Future Conditions and Future plus Project Conditions 2 with Mitigations
FUTURE + FUTURE DELAY PEAK PROJECT WITH SIGNIFICANT NO. INTERSECTION (2020) (sec) HOUR MITIGATION IMPACT? INCREASE Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Mountain View Ave & I- AM 41.5 D 41.4 D -0.10 No 10 WB Ramps PM ------2 Mountain View Ave & I- AM 62.4 E 49.3 D -13.10 No 10 EB Ramps PM ------4 California St & I-10 WB AM 80.70 F 31.4 C -49.30 No Ramps PM 96.40 F 52.2 D -44.20 No 5 California St & I-10 EB AM 294.70 F 33.5 C -261.20 No Ramps PM 122.70 F 34.8 C -87.90 No 6 California St & Redlands AM 49.90 D 49.4 D -0.50 No Blvd PM 46.60 D 46.6 D 0.00 No 3
4 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis
5 The CMP for San Bernardino County, published and periodically updated by San Bernardino 6 Associated Governments (SANBAG), defines a network of state highways and arterials in the 7 county and provides guidelines regarding level of service standards, impact criteria, and a 8 process for mitigation of impacts on CMP facilities in the county. The minimum acceptable 9 level of service (LOS) for CMP facilities is LOS E, with certain exceptions. The 2016 Congestion 10 Management Program was updated in June 2016.
11 Five of the six study intersections are CMP designated intersections, they include:
12 1. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 WB Ramps 13 2. Mountain View Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps 14 4. California Street & I-10 WB Ramps 15 5. California Street & I-10 EB Ramps 16 6. California Street & Redlands Boulevard
17 Due to City of Loma Linda and City of Redlands having an LOS standard that is more stringent 18 than the CMP standard of E or better, any significant impacts captured by the analysis using 19 those local jurisdiction standards is captured under a CMP analysis as well. With project- 20 related trips added to the network, four of the CMP intersections were significant impacted 21 in the Existing plus Project scenario, and all five CMP intersections were significantly 22 impacted in the Future plus Project scenario. As a result of the proposed mitigation of 23 optimizing signal split timing per Mitigation Measure TRA-2, all significant impacts occurring 24 at the CMP intersection locations have been removed. The five CMP intersections operate 25 better than pre-Project conditions with the applied mitigation as seen in Table TR-5 and 26 Table TR-6.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-132 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 In addition, with the mitigations applied to the CMP intersections, all five locations operate 2 at the acceptable SANBAG standard LOS of E or better. As such, the Project’s impact at CMP 3 intersections would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
4 Transportation Impact Analysis Summary 5 The Proposed Project results in four significant impacts in the Existing plus Project scenario 6 and five significant impacts in the Future plus Project scenario. The proposed mitigation, 7 signal split timing optimization (Mitigation Measures TRA-2), removes the significant 8 impacts at all affected intersections. The mitigation also improves the CMP intersections to 9 operate at acceptable LOS E or better. As a result, traffic impacts due to project operations 10 would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
11 c. Change in air traffic patterns—No Impact
12 The San Bernardino International Airport facilities (runways) are located approximately 2 13 miles north of the project site. As indicated in Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” 14 the FAA aeronautical study (FAA 2015) indicates that the proposed tower would not exceed 15 obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Therefore, construction 16 of the new communications tower would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
17 d. Increased hazards resulting from design features—Less than 18 Significant
19 The Proposed Project would not require changes to any road configurations that could create 20 sharp curves or dangerous intersections. For discussion regarding potential safety hazards 21 during construction (e.g., resulting from the presence of slow-moving trucks and equipment), 22 refer to the discussion under items 3.1.5(a) and 3.1.5(b).
23 The Proposed Project would include new vehicular access driveways to the project site that, 24 if not properly designed and constructed, could potentially result in safety hazards. However, 25 the Proposed Project site plan would be designed such that all access roads, driveways, and 26 parking areas are accessible to emergency service vehicles. This impact would be less than 27 significant.
28 e. Inadequate emergency access—Less than Significant with Mitigation
29 During project construction, emergency access could be temporarily restricted from the 30 presence of slow-moving trucks on local roads. As discussed under items 3.1.5(a) and 31 3.1.5(b), implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require the construction 32 contractor to identify construction haul routes that minimize traffic on nearby streets. 33 Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce construction-related impacts on 34 emergency access to a less-than-significant level.
35 As previously described under items 3.1.5(a) and 3.1.5(b), operational traffic would not 36 substantially reduce the effectiveness of nearby roadways or impair emergency access on 37 these roads. For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in 38 inadequate emergency access and, even with increased activity, any impacts of project 39 operation would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-133 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 In conclusion, impacts related to emergency access as a result of the Proposed Project would 2 be less than significant with mitigation.
3 f. Conflict with alternative transportation policies, plans, or 4 programs—No Impact
5 The Proposed Project would not adversely affect future transit service planned nor would it 6 create a demand for alternative transportation systems or affect public transit services. In 7 addition, the magnitude of increased traffic on the road resulting from the Proposed Project 8 would not affect pedestrian and bicycle safety, and thus would not conflict with the goals and 9 policies established in the Loma Linda Transportation and Circulation Element. Because the 10 Proposed Project would not modify or conflict with any alternative transportation policies, 11 plans, or programs, it would have no impact on such programs.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-134 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Less than Potentially Significant with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 1
2 3.17.1 Regulatory Setting
3 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 Federal law does not address tribal cultural resources (TCRs), as these resources are defined 5 in the California Pub. Res. Code (Pub. Res. Code). However, similar resources, called TCPs, fall 6 under the purview of Section 106 of the NHPA, which was referenced in Section 3.5, Cultural 7 Resources. TCPs are locations of cultural value that are historic properties. A place of cultural 8 value is eligible as a TCP “because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 9 community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in 10 maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and King 1990, rev. 11 1998). A TCP must be a tangible property, meaning that it must be a place with a referenced 12 location, and it must have been continually a part of the community’s cultural practices and 13 beliefs for the past 50 years or more. Unlike TCRs, TCPs can be associated with communities 14 other than Native American tribes, although the resources are usually associated with tribes. 15 By definition, TCPs are historic properties; that is, they meet the eligibility criteria as a 16 historic property for listing in the NRHP. Therefore, as historic properties, TCPs must be
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-135 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 treated according to the implementing regulations found under Title 36 CFR §800, as 2 amended in 2001.
3 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 CEQA and CEQA Guidelines 5 AB 52, which was approved in September 2014 and which went into effect on January 1, 2015, 6 requires that state lead agencies consult with any California Native American tribe that is 7 traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if so 8 requested by the tribe. The bill, chaptered in Pub. Res. Code § 21084.2, also specifies that a 9 project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR 10 is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
11 Defined in Pub. Res. Code § 21074(a)Pub. Res., TCRs are: 12 (1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural value 13 to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
14 (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of 15 Historical Resources; or
16 (B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) 17 of Section 5020.1.
18 (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by 19 substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of 20 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for 21 the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the 22 resource to a California Native American tribe.
23 TCRs are further defined under Pub. Res. Code § 21074 as follows:
24 (b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a TCR to the extent that 25 the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape; 26 and
27 (c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as 28 defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” 29 as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if 30 it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
31 Mitigation measures for TCRs must be developed in consultation with the affected California 32 Native American tribe pursuant to newly chaptered § 21080.3.2, or according to § 21084.3. 33 Section 21084.3 identifies mitigation measures than include avoidance and preservation of 34 TCRs and treating TRCs with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal 35 cultural values and meaning of the resource.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-136 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.17.2 Environmental Setting 2 As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the Proposed Project is in the traditional 3 ancestral territory of the Serrano. Prior to initiation of the Project, the San Manuel Band of 4 Mission Indians (SMBMI), in a letter dated June 15, 2015, had requested consultation with 5 CHP on department projects pursuant to Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.1. In response, DGS, on 6 behalf of CHP, notified the tribe of the Proposed Project on July 10, 2017. Furthermore, in the 7 spirit of Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.1, DGS notified additional local tribes who were identified 8 by the NAHC as having a traditional and cultural association with the Project area about the 9 Proposed Project via letters dated July 10, 2017.
10 Table TCR-1 lists all those contacted and summarizes the results of the consultation, to date. 11 All correspondence between the Native American Heritage Commission, Native American 12 Tribes, CHP, and DGS is provided in Appendix E.
13 Table TCR-1. Native American Consultation
Name of Tribal Organization/Tribe Contact Letter Date Response Comments
Agua Caliente Band of Jeff Grubb, 07/10/2017 No response, to None Cahuilla Indians Chairperson date.
Augustine Band of Amanda 07/10/2017 Responded Unaware of specific TCRs in the Cahuilla Mission Vance, 07/17/2017. Project area; encourages a full Indians Chairperson time tribal monitor; requests notification of unanticipated discoveries.
Cabazon Band of Doug Welmas, 07/10/2017 No response, to None Mission Indians Chairperson date. Indio, CA 92203
Cahuilla Band of Daniel 07/10/2017 No response, to None Indians Salgado, date. Chairperson
Los Coyotes Band of Shane 07/10/2017 No response, to None Mission Indians Chapparosa, date. Chairperson
Morongo Band of Robert Martin, 07/10/2017 Responded Requested records search Mission Indians Chairperson 07/24/2017 materials, presence during the pedestrian survey, and a copy of the technical report. DGS provided access to records search materials on 07/26/2017 and the technical report on 11/14/2017.
Pauma Band of Luiseno Temet Aguilar, 07/10/2017 No response, to None Indians - Pauma & Chairperson date. Yuima Reservation
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-137 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Name of Tribal Organization/Tribe Contact Letter Date Response Comments
Ramona Band of Joseph 07/10/2017 No response, to None Cahuilla Indians Hamilton, date. Chairperson
San Fernando Band of John 07/10/2017 No response, to None Mission Indians Valenzuela, date. Chairperson
San Manuel Band of Lee Clauss, 07/10/2017 08/09/2017 Aware of cultural resources in Mission Indians Director of the general vicinity. Would like Cultural to review study results; will Resources provide comments about cultural resources after reviewing documents. DGS provided access to records search materials and the technical report on 10/05/2017. SMBMI responded with comments on the report and notified DGS that information on a cultural landscape, that included the project site, had recently been submitted to the NAHC for listing as a sacred site.
Santa Rosa Band of Steven 07/10/2017 No response, to None Mission Indians Estrada, date. Chairperson
Serrano Nation of Goldie Walker, 07/10/2017 No response, to None Mission Indians Chairperson date.
Soboba Band of Rosemary 07/10/2017 No response, to None Luiseno Indians Morillo, date. Chairperson
Torres-Martinez Desert Mary 07/10/2017 No response, to None Cahuilla Indians Resvaloso, date. Chairperson 1
2 To date, DGS has heard from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Augustine Band of 3 Cahuilla Mission Indians, and the SMBMI. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians requested 4 copies of the records search materials received by DGS from the California Historical 5 Resources Information System, participation in the pedestrian survey and the archaeological 6 survey report in a letter dated July 24, 2017. DGS provided the tribe access to the records 7 search materials on July 26, 2017 and to the draft technical report on November 14, 2017. 8 DGS also received a letter from the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians on July 17, 9 2017. The tribe does not know of any TCRs within the Project area and did not request 10 consultation under Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.1. They did, however, recommend that a tribal
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-138 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 monitor be present during construction and they requested notification of any Native 2 American archaeological materials potentially discovered during construction. The SMBMI 3 emailed DGS on August 9, 2017 to express their interest in the project. The tribe is aware of 4 Native American resources within the Project vicinity and requested review the results of the 5 record search and pedestrian survey before providing more information to DGS. DGS 6 provided the tribe access to the records search materials and draft technical report on 7 October 10, 2017.
8 Consultation Results 9 As noted above, the SMBMI was the only tribe to contact CHP and request notification of 10 projects pursuant to Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.1. The tribe provided comments on the draft 11 technical report, after reviewing the records search materials and draft technical report, via 12 email on October 30, 2017. In that email, the SMBMI also indicated that they had recently 13 submitted information on a cultural landscape, which includes the Project site, to the NAHC 14 for listing in their sacred lands files as a TCR. The cultural landscape covers a broad expanse 15 that measures approximately 13 miles west to east, and up to 4 miles north to south. From 16 the northwest corner of the landscape, the northern boundary generally follows the south 17 side of the Santa Ana River until it diverges from this trajectory and extends eastward south 18 of the Redlands Municipal Airport, then across to the north side of Mill Creek and on to the 19 northeast corner of the resource near the junction of Fish Hatchery Road and Mill Creek Road. 20 The eastern boundary is just east of the Crafton Hills. The southern boundary generally 21 follows the south base of the Crafton Hills southwest to I-10, and follows the freeway 22 northwest to approximately East Redlands Boulevard; from there, the boundary continues 23 west to cross the mouth of San Timoteo Canyon and follow along the base of the Box Springs 24 Mountains to about Loma Linda University. The western boundary extends from the 25 University north to the south side of the Santa Ana River. Included in the cultural landscape 26 are pre-contact sites that are important to the Serrano and their traditional way of life, as well 27 as significant mission period features such as the Guachama Mission Station, Asistencia and 28 zanja, all of which were built by the Serrano under Spanish rule. (See Section 3.5.2 29 Environmental Setting, History for additional information about the Mission Period features.) 30 For the reasons described above, and otherwise shared with the DGS as part of their CEQA- 31 based consultation with the SMBMI, this landscape is also considered to be a TCR. The Project 32 site is embedded in the western portion of this cultural landscape/TCR.
33 DGS consulted with the SMBMI on developing the text for Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR- 34 3 (see Section 3.5, Cultural Resources), and TCR-1 below. The SMBMI and DGS mutually 35 agreed on the language found in the mitigation measures found within this MND, and 36 consultation Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.2 was concluded via email on January 29, 2018.
37 3.17.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 38 a. Cause a Substantial Adverse Change to Tribal Cultural Resources 39 Listed or Eligible for Listing in the California Register of Historical 40 Resources or a Local Register of Historical Resources—No Impact
41 No TCRs listed or eligible for listing listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local 42 register of historical resources are known to occur in the project vicinity. As a result, there 43 would be no impact to known TCRs on state or local historical registers.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-139 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 b. Cause a Substantial Adverse Change to Tribal Cultural Resources 2 Determined by the Lead Agency to Be Significant—Less than 3 Significant with Mitigation
4 The SMBMI identified one cultural landscape/TCR that includes the parcel identified for 5 construction of the new CHP San Bernardino facility. Although no cultural resources were 6 identified on the ground surface during a pedestrian survey of the Project site, the SMBMI, 7 through AB 52 consultation, requested that archaeological and tribal monitors be present 8 during ground-disturbance activities to watch for buried materials associated with the TCR. 9 The development of a Monitoring, Discovery, and Treatment Plan prior to construction was 10 also requested by the tribe. The CHP/DGS has respectfully agreed to the presence of 11 archaeological and tribal monitors, and preparation of the Monitoring, Discovery, and 12 Treatment Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 (Preconstruction Preparation of a 13 Monitoring, Discovery, and Treatment Plan, and Construction Monitoring). Preparation of 14 this mitigation measure, in tandem with Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-3, would result in 15 a less–than-significant impact with mitigation to TCRs.
16 Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Preconstruction Preparation of a Monitoring, 17 Discovery, and Treatment Plan, and Construction Monitoring
18 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the State shall prepare a 19 Monitoring, Discovery, and Treatment Plan in consultation with the SMBMI. The 20 Monitoring, Discovery, and Treatment Plan will describe when archaeological and 21 tribal monitors will be required on site; outline the protocols to be followed for 22 stopping work, should there be unanticipated archaeological finds; provide for points 23 of contact; present a timeline for notifications; and discuss possible treatments of 24 cultural resources found on site.
25 A qualified archaeological monitor and a SMBMI tribal monitor will be retained to 26 monitor all ground disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth buried 27 cultural materials. Due to the agricultural history of the site, it is anticipated that the 28 top 12 inches of soil is highly disturbed and unlikely to produce cultural materials. 29 Therefore, monitoring will be conducted during activities where excavations extend 30 below 12 inches of existing grade (i.e. native soils), such as extensive grading, and 31 excavations for utilities and building foundations. If any prehistoric or historic-era 32 features are exposed during construction, the monitors will have the authority to stop 33 work in the vicinity of the finds and implement Mitigation Measure CR-1. If human 34 remains are uncovered, Mitigation Measure CR-3 will be implemented.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-140 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less than Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or an expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or an expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
h. Encourage activities that resulted in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, or used these resources in a wasteful manner?
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-141 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.18.1 Regulatory Setting
2 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 3 Energy Policy Act of 2005 4 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides loan guarantees or tax credits for entities that 5 develop or use fuel-efficient and/or energy-efficient technologies (USEPA 2017). The act also 6 increases the amount of biofuel that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States 7 (USEPA 2017).
8 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 9 California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 10 The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Public Resources Code, Division 11 30) requires all California cities and counties to implement programs to reduce, recycle, and 12 compost wastes by at least 50 percent by 2000 (Public Resources Code § 41780). The state, 13 acting through the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), determines 14 compliance with this mandate. Per-capita disposal rates are used to determine whether a 15 jurisdiction’s efforts are meeting the intent of the act.
16 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 17 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (Public Resources Code 18 §§ 42900-42911) requires that all development projects applying for building permits 19 include adequate, accessible areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials.
20 California Integrated Energy Policy 21 Senate Bill 1389, passed in 2002, requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare 22 an Integrated Energy Policy Report for the governor and legislature every 2 years. The report 23 analyzes data and provides policy recommendations on trends and issues concerning 24 electricity and natural gas, transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and public 25 interest energy research. The 2016 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update includes policy 26 recommendations, such as continued renewable energy development and development and 27 implementation of distributed energy resource technologies (CEC 2017).
28 Title 24–Building Energy Efficiency Standards 29 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Building Code are intended to 30 ensure that building construction, system design, and installation achieve energy efficiency 31 and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality (CEC 2012). The standards are 32 updated on an approximately 3-year cycle. The 2016 standards went into effect on January 1, 33 2016.
34 Urban Water Management Planning Act 35 California Water Code §§ 10610 et seq. requires that all public water systems providing water 36 for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre- 37 feet per year (AFY), prepare an urban water management plan (UWMP).
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-142 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 Other Standards and Guidelines 2 Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design 3 Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification 4 program, operated by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), which recognizes energy- 5 efficient and/or environmentally friendly (green) components of building design (USGBC 6 2017a). To receive LEED certification, a building project must satisfy prerequisites and earn 7 points related to different aspects of green building and environmental design. The four levels 8 of LEED certification are related to the number of points a project earns (USGBC 2017b):
9 1) certified (40–49 points);
10 2) Silver (50–59 points)
11 3) Gold (60–79 points);
12 4) Platinum (80+ points).
13 Points or credits may be obtained for various criteria, such as indoor and outdoor water use 14 reduction, and construction and demolition (C&D) waste management planning. Indoor 15 water use reduction entails reducing consumption of building fixtures and fittings by at least 16 20 percent from the calculated baseline and requires all newly installed toilets, urinals, 17 private lavatory faucets, and showerheads that are eligible for labeling to be WaterSense 18 labeled (USGBC 2017c). Outdoor water use reduction may be achieved by showing that the 19 landscape does not require a permanent irrigation system beyond a maximum 2-year 20 establishment period, or by reducing the project’s landscape water requirement by at least 21 30 percent from the calculated baseline for the site’s peak watering month (USGBC 2017d). 22 C&D waste management points may be obtained by diverting at least 50 percent of C&D 23 material and three material streams, or generating less than 2.5 pounds of construction waste 24 per square foot of the building’s floor area (USGBC 2017e). CHP, as a state agency, is required 25 at a minimum to meet LEED silver requirement for new facilities.
26 3.18.2 Environmental Setting
27 Water 28 Water service is provided to the project site and surrounding areas by the City of Loma Linda. 29 The City’s water production division provides water from the City’s own six production wells 30 (City of Loma Linda 2016). The City’s main water source is groundwater pumped from the 31 Bunker Hill Subbasin. In addition to its groundwater wells, the City has two emergency 32 connections with the City of San Bernardino, although no contract is in effect that guarantees 33 a specified amount of water from this source (City of Loma Linda 2009). The City’s water 34 facilities include four above-ground steel reservoirs and two in-ground concrete reservoirs, 35 which have a combined storage capacity of 14 million gallons (City of Loma Linda 2016). 36 Existing waterlines in the area run along Redlands Boulevard, Bryn Mawr Avenue, and along 37 Business Center Drive and Industrial Circle. An existing 2-inch-diameter service line with 38 water meter is on Bryn Mawr Ave.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-143 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 The City provides water service to over 23,000 people in its 10.6-square-mile service area, 2 although notably, two large institutional water users within the City’s boundaries, Loma 3 Linda University and Loma Linda University Medical Center, have their own water 4 production and distribution system (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2016). Table UTL-1 5 shows actual and projected potable water demands within the City of Loma Linda.
6 Table UTL-1. City of Loma Linda Actual 2015 and Projected Potable Water Demands Water Use Type 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Single Family 2,171 2,454 2,609 2,773 2,948 Multi-Family 784 886 942 1,001 1,064 Commercial / Institutional 530 600 637 677 720 Landscape 639 745 792 841 894 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Sales / Transfers / Exchanges to 0 0 0 0 0 Other Agencies Non-revenue1 538 515 548 582 619 Total 4,682 5,200 5,527 5,875 6,245 1 Non-revenue water is the difference between the amount of water produced and the amount of water billed to customers and may include fire hydrant testing and flushing, fire operations by the fire department, customer meter inaccuracies, reservoir overflow, and leaky water lines.
7 Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2016
8 Sewer 9 The City’s Public Works Department provides sewer service to the Project site and vicinity. 10 However, wastewater generated within the City’s boundaries is transmitted to the San 11 Bernardino Water Reclamation Facility (SBWRF), located at 399 Chandler Place in San 12 Bernardino (approximately 3 miles west-northwest of the Project site), which is operated by 13 the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (City of San Bernardino 2017). Existing 14 sewer lines in the project area include pipes along Redlands Boulevard, Bryn Mawr Avenue, 15 and along Business Center Drive and Industrial Circle.
16 The SBWRF is a 33 million gallon per day (MGD) facility that provides wastewater treatment 17 services for the cities of San Bernardino, Loma Linda, and East Valley, San Bernardino 18 International Airport, Patton State Hospital, and unincorporated San Bernardino County 19 areas (City of San Bernardino 2017). The SBWRF employs primary and secondary treatment 20 processes to meet the discharge standards specified in its NPDES permit. Secondary treated 21 wastewater from the SBWRF discharges to an offsite tertiary treatment facility operated 22 jointly by the cities of San Bernardino and Colton (City of San Bernardino 2017). As of 2009, 23 the City of Loma Linda used less than half of its assigned 7 MGD allotment of wastewater 24 treatment capacity at the SBWRF (City of Loma Linda 2009).
25 Storm Water 26 The City’s Public Works Department manages stormwater in the Project area. No apparent 27 stormwater infrastructure currently exists on the Project site. A landscaped strip consisting 28 of grass, trees, and a sidewalk exists along the southern border of the property. Three storm
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-144 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 sewer manholes are in the sidewalk along the western side of Bryn Mawr Avenue. The Project 2 site itself is undeveloped with areas of ruderal vegetation. Water falling on the site as 3 precipitation may be expected to infiltrate into the soil or sheetflow off the site to adjacent 4 properties/roadways.
5 Solid Waste 6 The collection of solid waste within the City is contracted to Waste Management of the Inland 7 Empire (City of Loma Linda 2009). Loma Linda University, Loma Linda University Medical 8 Center and the Veterans Hospital maintain their own separate solid waste collection 9 contracts (City of Loma Linda 2009). Solid waste collected within the City that cannot be 10 recycled or composted is transported to San Timoteo Solid Waste Disposal Site in Redlands. 11 As of 2012, this landfill had a remaining capacity of 13,605,488 cubic yards (cy) out of a total 12 maximum permitted capacity of 20,400,000 cy (California Department of Resources 13 Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2017). The estimated closure date is 2043 (CalRecycle 14 2017).
15 Recyclable waste generated in the City is taken to a transfer station in Moreno Valley, where 16 it is consolidated with loads from surrounding municipalities and then transported to 17 appropriate segregation facilities (City of Loma Linda 2009). Green waste is transported to 18 Inland Empire Composting in Riverside.
19 Three fully-permitted, Class I landfills exist in California for disposal of hazardous waste: 20 Chemical Waste Management’s facility in Kettleman City, Clean Harbors’ facility in 21 Buttonwillow, and Clean Harbors’ facility in Westmorland (DTSC No Date). The nearest of 22 these to the Project site is Clean Harbors’ Westmorland facility, which is approximately 112 23 miles southeast of the Project site.
24 Electricity and Natural Gas 25 The Southern California Edison Company (SCE) provides electrical service in the City of Loma 26 Linda (City of Loma Linda 2009). Southern California Gas Company (SGC) provides natural 27 gas service in the City.
28 3.18.3 Discussion of Checklist Responses 29 a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana 30 Regional Water Quality Control Board—Less than Significant
31 Construction activities for the Proposed Project would not generate any wastewater that 32 would be discharged directly to the municipal sewer system; rather, sanitary portable 33 restrooms would be used by construction workers. During operation, employees and visitors 34 at the Proposed Project facilities would generate limited volumes of wastewater from hand 35 washing, toilet flushing, and other domestic activities. This wastewater would be routed to 36 the SBWRF. Wastewater generated during operation of the Proposed Project would not 37 contain any toxic or persistent contaminants and would not affect the City’s or SBWRF’s 38 capability to meet the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. This 39 impact would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-145 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 b. Require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment 2 facilities or expansion of existing facilities—Less than Significant
3 The Proposed Project would require limited volumes of water for employee and visitor 4 handwashing, toilet flushing, landscape irrigation, and other miscellaneous activities. In 5 accordance with LEED standards, the Proposed Project would have water-efficient fittings 6 and fixtures and would feature limited and drought-tolerant landscaping. In this respect, the 7 Proposed Project would be more water-efficient than the existing CHP facility in San 8 Bernardino. The Proposed Project’s water demand would be a small fraction of the City’s total 9 water demand and would not in itself require construction of any new water treatment 10 facilities or expansion of existing facilities. During project construction, water would be 11 supplied by a water truck and sanitary portable restrooms would be used. As noted under “a” 12 above, the Project would generate limited volumes of wastewater during operation, which 13 would be within the capacity of the SBWRF.
14 The Proposed Project would require construction of connections to the City’s water and 15 sewer systems. These connections are considered part of the Proposed Project, and the 16 potential environmental effects of their construction are discussed throughout this 17 document. This impact would be less than significant.
18 c. Require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or 19 expansion of existing facilities—Less than Significant
20 The Proposed Project would include drainage infrastructure, and would most likely include 21 a stormwater retention pond to capture runoff on-site; these elements are considered part of 22 the Proposed Project and their potential environmental impacts are evaluated throughout 23 this document. The Proposed Project would create an additional 3.9 acres of impervious 24 surface. This impervious area could generate additional stormwater runoff compared to that 25 generated at the site under existing conditions, but the stormwater retention pond would be 26 adequately sized to capture it. See Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” for additional 27 discussion of stormwater. Overall, the Proposed Project would not require or result in the 28 construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities (apart 29 from those included as part of the project). Therefore, this impact would be less than 30 significant.
31 d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 32 existing entitlements and resources—Less than Significant
33 Construction activities for the Proposed Project would rely on water trucks to meet water 34 supply needs (e.g., for dust control, equipment cleaning, and fill conditioning). During 35 operation, the project site would obtain water from the City’s municipal system. As described 36 above, the City currently obtains 100 percent of its water from groundwater and, therefore, 37 does not require surface water entitlements. The City’s groundwater supplies are considered 38 sufficient to accommodate growth (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2016), such as any new 39 water demand from the Proposed Project.
40 As noted above under “b,” as a State facility, the Proposed Project would be required to obtain 41 LEED silver certification and would feature water-efficient fittings and fixtures to conserve 42 water. In this regard, the new facility would likely be more water-efficient than the existing
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-146 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 CHP San Bernardino area office. Overall, the City would have sufficient water supplies 2 available to serve the Proposed Project. Therefore, this impact would be less than 3 significant.
4 e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 5 serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to 6 serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s 7 existing commitments—Less than Significant
8 As described under “a” and “b” above, the Proposed Project would not generate municipal 9 wastewater during construction because sanitary portable restrooms would be used. During 10 operation, employees and visitors on the project site would generate wastewater from toilet 11 flushing, hand washing, and other related activities. The limited volume of wastewater that 12 may be generated by the Proposed Project would not be expected to materially affect the 13 remaining capacity at the SBWRF. As noted under Section 3.17.2 above, as of 2009, the City 14 was only using roughly half of its 7 MGD allotment of capacity at the SBWRF. Therefore, the 15 Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 16 that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand. As a result, this 17 impact would be less than significant.
18 f-g. Comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste and 19 have available landfill capacity to accommodate the project’s solid 20 waste disposal needs—Less than Significant
21 The Proposed Project would generate some construction debris. No demolition of existing 22 structures would be required because no structures are present on the site and the existing 23 site would be decommissioned and sold as surplus rather than be demolished. During 24 operation, the Proposed Project would generate typical domestic solid waste (e.g., 25 employees’ trash) as well as hazardous wastes (e.g., fuel, oil, and other automotive fluids) 26 from automobile servicing. Hazardous wastes generated by the Proposed Project would be 27 stored on-site and transported approximately quarterly to an appropriate hazardous waste 28 facility (a local facility that accepts used tires and oil, or to Clean Harbor’s Westmorland 29 landfill facility, which accepts the full range of hazardous waste) for disposal or recycling.
30 The Proposed Project would be LEED silver certified and would have recycling bins on-site. 31 In accordance with the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Proposed Project would seek 32 to divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste. The project site is served by Waste Management 33 of the Inland Empire and non-recyclable solid waste generated by the Proposed Project 34 would be taken to the San Timoteo Solid Waste Disposal Site. As described in Section 3.17.2, 35 this landfill has substantial remaining capacity and is not projected to close until 2043. The 36 relatively minimal amounts of solid waste that would be generated by the Proposed Project 37 would not meaningfully affect this landfill’s capacity.
38 As such, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid 39 waste and would not substantially remaining capacity at any existing landfills. Therefore, this 40 impact would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-147 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 h. Encourage activities that result in the use of substantial amounts of 2 fuel or energy, or used these resources in a wasteful manner—Less 3 than Significant
4 The Proposed Project would not use substantial amounts of fuel or energy, or use these 5 resources in a wasteful manner. The facilities would be state-of-the-art and LEED certified 6 and, therefore, would be more energy efficient than the existing area office and other older 7 development in the area. The CHP fleet would also become more fuel efficient over time, like 8 the rest of the transportation sector in California. Additionally, as described in Section 3.3, 9 “Air Quality,” the Proposed Project would comply with existing regulations during 10 construction which prohibit unnecessary idling of construction equipment and vehicles. As a 11 result, this impact would be less than significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-148 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 3.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less than Potentially Significant with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
2 3.19.1 Discussion of Checklist Responses 3 a. Effects on environmental quality, fish or wildlife, and historic 4 resources—Less than Significant with Mitigation
5 Wildlife Habitat and Populations; Rare and Endangered Species 6 The Proposed Project would have limited potential to adversely impact wildlife habitat and 7 populations or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered 8 plant or animal species. As described in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” no special-status 9 plant species were determined to have the potential to occur at the Project site because 10 suitable habitat is not present or the habitat is very marginal. Likewise, the site does not 11 support suitable habitat for any special-status aquatic or terrestrial wildlife species that have 12 the potential to occur in the Project vicinity (bats may forage at the site but there is no 13 roosting habitat), and therefore would not be impacted during Project construction or 14 operation. The Project site does potentially provide suitable nesting habitat for birds that 15 may be protected under MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, but Mitigation 16 Measure BIO-1, which would require performance of a pre-construction survey for nesting 17 birds and implementation of no-work buffers in the event of a discovery, would prevent
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-149 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 substantial impacts on these species. Ongoing operational activities associated with the 2 facility would not be anticipated to reduce habitat quality and/or disturb wildlife.
3 Overall, given that the Project would implement measures to avoid or minimize potential 4 impacts to special-status species, and that the Project would develop a vacant parcel in an 5 urban area zoned for commercial use, impacts on wildlife habitat and population would not 6 be significant. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
7 California History and Prehistory
8 The Project site is a vacant parcel in a developed area of Loma Linda that is zoned for 9 commercial use. As discussed in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” no historical resources 10 were identified on the Project site. Additionally, the record search did not identify any 11 previously recorded archeological sites within the Project site. However, the SMBMI provided 12 information that indicates the Project site is within the boundaries of a TCR. Furthermore, 13 archaeological remains may be buried with no surface manifestation and may be impacted 14 by Project excavation activities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would implement 15 Mitigation Measure CR-1, which would require that construction be immediately halted and 16 resources be properly evaluated should cultural resources be discovered during 17 construction. For any discovered resources eligible for listing in the CRHR that would be 18 rendered ineligible by the effects of Project construction, Mitigation Measure CR-1 would 19 require that additional mitigation be implemented.
20 Although no previously-recorded paleontological resources were identified in the Project 21 vicinity, the geological formation at the site has been known to contain fossils. As a result, to 22 ensure the Project would not substantially affect buried unknown paleontological resources, 23 Mitigation Measure CR-2 would be implemented. This mitigation measure would require 24 that construction work be immediately halted if paleontological resources are discovered. 25 The resources would have to be properly evaluated for their significance, and addition 26 mitigation measures may need to be implemented, if necessary.
27 Human remains are not known to exist in the project site and no evidence of human remains 28 was observed during the site visit. Nevertheless, although it is considered unlikely, there is 29 the possibility that human remains could be discovered during construction. The Proposed 30 Project would implement Mitigation Measure CR-3, which would require that construction 31 work be immediately halted and applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety 32 Code be implemented in the event of a discovery of human remains. This includes notification 33 of the County coroner, and, if the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native 34 American, notification of NAHC.
35 Through consultation under AB 52, the SMBMI provided information that indicates the 36 project site is within the boundaries of a TCR. Through AB 52 consultation, the SMBMI also 37 requested preconstruction preparation of a Monitoring, Discovery, and Treatment Plan, and 38 the presence of archaeological and tribal monitors at the project site during ground- 39 disturbance activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would provide for 40 these protective measures.
41 Implementation of the mitigation measures described above would ensure that potential 42 impacts of the Proposed Project on cultural/tribal resources would be less than significant,
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-150 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 and that the Project would not eliminate important examples of California history or 2 prehistory. As a result, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
3 b. Cumulative Impacts—Less than Significant with Mitigation
4 A cumulative impact refers to the combined effect of “two or more individual effects which, 5 when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other 6 environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). Cumulative impacts reflect “the change 7 in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to 8 other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. 9 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects 10 taking place over a period of time” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355[b]).
11 Lead agencies may use a “list” approach to identify related projects, or may base the 12 identification of cumulative impacts on a summary of projections in an adopted general plan 13 or related planning document (CEQA Guidelines § 15130[b]), also known as the “projection” 14 approach. This document utilizes a combination of the list and projection approaches. Project 15 contributions to localized cumulative impacts (air quality, biological resources, noise and 16 vibrations) are evaluated using the list approach, while Project contributions to regional 17 cumulative impacts (greenhouse gas emissions and traffic) are evaluated using the projection 18 approach.
19 Projects with the potential to contribute to the same cumulative impacts as the Proposed 20 Project are to a large extent within close geographic proximity to the project area, except for 21 certain resources (e.g., air quality, GHGs). Table MAND-1 defines the geographic scope that 22 will be used in the impact analysis for applicable resource areas.
23 Table MAND-1. Geographic Scope for Resources with Potential Cumulative Impacts
Resource Scope Air Quality The South Coast Air Basin Biological Resources Migratory nesting sites in the project site and surrounding area Cultural Resources Project site and surrounding areas Greenhouse Gas Emissions The geographic scope for GHG emissions is the State of California where GHG policies and regulations have been established. However, the true impact of GHG emissions is global in nature. Noise and Vibrations Project site and surrounding areas exposed to noise and vibration generated in the project site Traffic and Transportation City of Loma Linda and surrounding jurisdiction roadways with traffic generated by the Proposed Project Tribal Cultural Resources Project site and surrounding areas within identified TCR 24
25 The list approach is applied by developing a list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable 26 projects. Projects considered in this analysis are listed in Table MAND-2. The list of projects 27 used for this analysis was developed by identifying projects posted on CEQAnet, an online 28 database of CEQA documents (including pending projects). Several of these projects may 29 have construction activities occurring at the same time as the Proposed Project. While not
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-151 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 every possible cumulative project is likely listed, the list of cumulative projects is believed to 2 be comprehensive and representative of the types of impacts that would be generated by 3 other projects related to the Proposed Project. The cumulative impact evaluation assumes 4 that the impacts of past and present projects are represented by baseline conditions, and 5 cumulative impacts are considered in the context of baseline conditions alongside reasonably 6 foreseeable future projects.
7 Table MAND-2. List of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects that May Cumulatively Affect 8 Resources of Concern for the Proposed Project Project Title Brief Description Capital Improvement Projects City Hall Improvements This project would involve a number of improvements to the City of Loma Linda’s City Hall building, including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) modifications, installing a new generator, replacing the carpet in the lobby, re-roofing, and new exterior paint. These improvements are variously planned from 2017 to 2021. City Hall is located at 25541 Barton Road, approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the Project site. Fire Department Various improvements would be made to the City of Loma Linda’s Fire Station No. 1 Improvements as part of the City’s capital improvement program (CIP), including replacing the roof and expanding the emergency operations center. Fire Station No. 1 is located at 11325 Loma Linda Drive, which is approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the Project site. City Yard Upgrades This project would involve upgrades to the Loma Linda City Yard, including electrical upgrades and constructing a new building. The City Yard is located at the Public Works Department at 25541 Barton Road, approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the Project site. The new building is scheduled to be constructed in 2021-2022. Library Improvements The City of Loma Linda library would be improved, including installation of new carpet, exterior painting, and related improvements, as part of the City’s CIP. The City library is located at 25581, approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the Project site. These improvements are scheduled to be completed from 2017 to 2020. Elmer Digno Park The City of Loma Linda plans to construct a new restroom building at Elmer Digno Restroom Building Park in Loma Linda. This park is located approximately 1.5 miles west-southwest of the Project site. This project is scheduled to be completed in 2017-2018. Storm Drain The City of Loma Linda plans to improve, repair, or install new storm Improvements drains/stormwater infrastructure in several locations in the City, including: • Benton Street from Lawton Street to Barton Road • Dirt channel between Benton Street and Anderson Street • New Jersey Street from Orange Avenue to Citrus Avenue • Van Leuvan Street from the railroad to Orange Grove Street • Barton Road from New Jersey Street to California Street The closest of these to the Project site is the improvements along New Jersey Street, which are approximately 1 mile away from the site. These improvements are scheduled to be completed from 2019 to 2022. Water System The City of Loma Linda plans to complete a number of improvements to its water Improvements system, primarily replacement of water lines along City streets. These projects would be anticipated to require trenching within the roadway to install the new pipelines. The closest of these specific planned improvements is along Richardson Street, which is approximately 1 mile west of the Project site.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-152 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Project Title Brief Description Sewer System The City of Loma Linda plans to conduct improvements on its sewer system, Improvements including replacing 8-inch sewer lines with 12-inch sewer lines along Rincon Street and Lilac Street using pipe bursting (i.e., trenchless) methods. These improvements would be conducted from 2018 to 2020, and are approximately 0.9 miles (Lilac Street) and 1.9 miles (Rincon Street) southwest from the project site Street System The City of Loma Linda plans to conduct a number of improvements to its street Improvements system, including pavement rehabilitation, street widening, traffic signal replacement/installation, intersection improvement, striping, and sidewalk projects. These include several projects near the Proposed Project: widening of the east/west bound off ramps to the I-10 Freeway at Mountain Avenue (approximately 0.5-mile west-northwest of the Project site), intersection improvement at Redlands Boulevard and California Street (approximately 0.5-mile east of the Project site), and pavement rehabilitation of Business Center Drive from Mountain Avenue to Bryn Mawr Avenue (adjacent to the Project site to the north). These projects are planned to be completed between 2017 and 2022. Development Projects Loma Linda Medical This project would include construction of a new 16-story, 1,060,000 square foot Center hospital with 719 bed capacity at the corner of Barton Road and Anderson Street (approximately 1.75 miles southwest of the Project site). This project has been approved by the City and is scheduled for completion in 2021. Medical Office This project would involve construction a 2-story, 15,880 square foot medical office building at 25915 Barton Road in Loma Linda (approximately 1 mile south of the Project site). The project has been approved by the City and is scheduled for completion in 2018/2019. Townplace Suites Hotel This project would involve construction of a 95-room, 63,000 square foot hotel at 10336 Richardson Street (approximately 1 mile west of the Project site). This project has been approved by the City and is scheduled for completion in November 2017. Car Wash This project would involve construction of a 3,560-square foot car wash facility at 24965 Redlands Boulevard in Loma Linda (approximately 1.3 miles west of the Project site). The project has been approved by the City and is scheduled for completion in December 2017. Palm Center This project would involve construction of a 17,000-square foot retail/industrial center at 24559 Redlands Boulevard in Loma Linda (approximately 1.85 miles west of the Project site). Citrus Trails This project would provide for the development of 581 residences, including 231 Development Project detached, single-family homes, 125 senior housing residences, and 225 multiple- family residential units within the community’s mixed-use development component. The project would also include 12.9 acres of commercial and office uses, as well as 21.8 acres of parkland, paseo and trail. The project would be located south of Redlands Boulevard, west of California Street and north of Mission Road (approximately 0.5-mile southeast of the Project site). The project has been approved by the City and is scheduled for completion in 2018. Orchard Heights This project would include construction of 95 single-family residences at a location east of California Street, south and west of Mission Creek/Zanja Channel, west of Nevada Street, and north of Barton Road (approximately 0.75-mile east of the Proposed Project). The project has been approved by the City and was scheduled for completion by 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-153 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Project Title Brief Description Citrus Lane This project would include construction of 35 single-family residences on the east side of California Street between Orange Avenue and Citrus Avenue (approximately 0.85-mile southeast of the Proposed Project). This project has been approved by the City and is scheduled for completion in 2018. Veterans Village This project would construction an 117,700-square foot apartment complex with 87 Apartments units. The project would be located at 25281 Van Leuven Street in Loma Linda (approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the Proposed Project). The project has been approved by the City and is scheduled for completion in 2018/2019. Auto Retail and Repair This project would be constructed on the corner of Redlands Boulevard and Poplar Shop Street in Loma Linda (approximately 1 mile west of the Proposed Project). This project is in the conceptual stages and has not yet been approved by the City. Enterprise Truck Sale This project would be constructed near the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and and Rental Richardson Street (approximately 0.9-mile west of the Proposed Project site). This project is in the conceptual stages and has not yet been approved by the City. 1 Source: City of Loma Linda 2017a, 2017b
2 Detailed analysis of a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts is required when (1) a 3 cumulative impact to which a project may contribute is expected to be significant, and (2) the 4 project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is expected to be cumulatively considerable, 5 or significant in the context of the overall (cumulative) level of effect. Table MAND-3 6 summarizes cumulatively significant impacts and identifies the Proposed Project’s 7 contribution. Additional analysis follows for those impacts to which the Proposed Project 8 would contribute.
9 Table MAND-3. Summary of Cumulative Significant Impacts and Proposed Project’s 10 Contribution Resource Topic Cumulatively Significant Impacts Proposed Project’s Contribution Aesthetics None identified. No analysis required. Agricultural Proposed Project would have no impacts No analysis required. Resources related to agricultural resources. Air Quality Western San Bernardino County is Construction of the Proposed Project would designated as a federal and state non- increase emissions above South Coast Air attainment area for ozone, PM10, and Quality Management District (SCAQMD) PM2.5. The area is designated as a federal cumulative thresholds for significant air and state attainment or unclassified area for quality impacts. Further analysis is provided all other federal and state criteria air below. pollutants.
Biological Past and present actions have adversely Construction activities have the potential to Resources affected regionally sensitive biological impact nesting birds. Further analysis resources. Development and land use provided below. changes could further degrade regionally sensitive species and habitat. These impacts would be considered cumulatively significant.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-154 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Resource Topic Cumulatively Significant Impacts Proposed Project’s Contribution Cultural Resources Throughout California, the Native American Construction activities have the potential to cultural legacy, including culturally important encounter unknown archeological, sites and traditional cultural practices, has paleontological, and historic resources. been substantially affected by land Although implementation of mitigation management practices and urbanization over measures would prevent project-level the past 150 years. While the City and impacts from being significant, further County general plans of various jurisdictions analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential contain policies regarding preservation of contributions to cumulative impacts is important cultural resources, ongoing provided below. development could lead to the cumulative loss of significant historic, archeological, and paleontological resources. This impact would be considered cumulatively significant. Geology, Soils, and None identified. No analysis required. Seismicity Greenhouse Gas Anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are widely Vehicle and equipment use would result in Emissions accepted in the scientific community as emissions of GHGs. The Proposed Project contributing to global warming. This impact would potentially contribute to cumulative is considered cumulatively significant. impacts related to GHG emissions. Further analysis is provided below. Hazards and None identified. No analysis required. Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water quality of the Santa Ana River Compliance with the NPDES General Water Quality downstream of San Bernardino is listed as Construction Permit would prevent adverse impaired under CWA § 303(d) for various impacts on water quality during construction, contaminants. Water quality is influenced by and inclusion of stormwater management local land uses, stormwater runoff, and features as part of Project design would treated sewage discharges. prevent water quality impacts during operation. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Land Use and None identified. No analysis required. Planning Mineral Resources None identified. No analysis required. Noise Reasonably foreseeable construction Noise impacts from the Proposed Project projects could combine in the same place would be limited to the immediate area of and time and contribute to or create a the project site. Cumulative impacts could significant cumulative noise impact on result if other projects were to be sensitive receptors. As presented in Table constructed at the same time as the MAND-2, there is one project either under Proposed Project and in same area (i.e., construction or in the planning phase in the roughly ¼ mile), such that ambient noise project vicinity. The City of Loma Linda is levels could increase. Further analysis of the planning pavement rehabilitation of Business Proposed Project’s potential contributions to Center Drive from Mountain Avenue to Bryn cumulative noise impacts is provided below. Mawr Avenue (adjacent to the Project site to the north). This project is planned to be completed between 2017 and 2022. Population and None identified. No analysis required. Housing
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-155 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
Resource Topic Cumulatively Significant Impacts Proposed Project’s Contribution Public Services None identified. No analysis required. The Proposed Project would benefit public services in the area. Recreation None identified. No analysis required. Transportation and Future increased growth in traffic volumes in The future year analysis described in Section Traffic the County could affect load and capacity of 3.16, “Transportation and Traffic,” which the street system. considered the potential impacts on future conditions of the Proposed Project in addition to that of specific identified cumulative projects near the project site, in the City of Loma Linda and Redlands, found that traffic conditions, with implementation of mitigation, would not substantially worsen due to these combined effects. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative traffic impact with implementation of mitigation. No further analysis is required.
Tribal Cultural As with cultural resources, TCRs throughout The Project site is located within the Resources the State have been substantially affected by boundaries of a TCR identified by the SMBMI. land management practices and urbanization Construction activities have the potential to over the past 150 years. Most City and encounter unknown archaeological features County general plans of various jurisdictions, associated with the TCR. Although to date, do not contain policies regarding implementation of mitigation measures preservation of TCRs and ongoing would prevent project-level impacts from development could lead to the cumulative being significant, further analysis of the loss of these significant resources. This Proposed Project’s potential contributions to impact would be considered cumulatively cumulative impacts is provided below. significant. Utilities and None identified. No analysis required. Service Systems 1
2 The following sections provide a detailed analysis of the Proposed Project’s contribution to 3 existing significant cumulative impacts. As identified in Table MAND-3, the following 4 resource issues are discussed: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, global 5 climate change, noise, and tribal cultural resources.
6 Air Quality: Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants—Less than Significant with Mitigation
7 Western San Bernardino County is located in a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and 8 PM2.5. Construction of the Project would involve ground disturbance and vehicle usage that 9 would emit criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Project-related construction 10 and operational emissions are minimal and below screening level significance thresholds, 11 with the exception of NOx during construction, which means they are unlikely to result in a 12 cumulatively considerable impact. In addition, the project will comply with fugitive dust 13 regulations and will implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which implements NOx control 14 measures so that the Project’s NOx emissions would be below screening level significance
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-156 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not have a considerable impact on the cumulative 2 effect. This impact is less than significant with mitigation.
3 Biological Resources: Impacts to Special-Status Species–Less Than Significant with 4 Mitigation 5 As described in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” no special-status plants have the potential 6 to occur at the Project site. Additionally, the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for 7 the special-status amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals that are known to occur in the 8 vicinity. Special-status bats could potentially forage over the Project site, but there is not 9 suitable roosting habitat for these species. As such, the analysis concludes that the Project 10 would not adversely affect special-status species. Project construction activities could 11 potentially impact nesting birds, as several trees along the Project site perimeter could 12 provide nesting habitat, and the site itself could provide nesting habitat for birds that may be 13 protected under MBTA and various sections the California Fish and Game Code. To avoid or 14 minimize impacts on nesting birds, the Proposed Project would implement Mitigation 15 Measure BIO-1, which would require performance of pre-construction surveys for nesting 16 birds and implementation of no work buffer areas around any identified active nests, if 17 necessary. Implementation of this mitigation measure would prevent substantial impacts on 18 biological resources during construction. Project operation would not result in any on-going 19 impacts on special-status species.
20 Other projects in the Proposed Project vicinity and greater San Bernardino County, including 21 many of those listed in Table MAND-2, would have the potential to impact biological 22 resources. However, given that the area of San Bernardino County surrounding the Project 23 site is already highly developed with urban uses, it is unlikely that many special-status 24 species or substantial high-quality habitat would be present and potentially affected by 25 activities within the urban area.
26 As described above, the Project would not adversely affect biological resources at the project- 27 level. Considering that the Project would be developed on a vacant parcel surrounded by 28 urban/commercial development that is zoned for commercial use, and would not 29 substantially affect remaining biological resources in the Valley Region of San Bernardino 30 County (these are typically concentrated along river corridors) (San Bernardino County 31 2007), the Project also would not considerably contribute to impacts at the cumulative level. 32 As a result, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
33 Cultural Resources/TCRs: Impacts to Unknown Cultural Resources—Less than Significant 34 with Mitigation 35 Many of the projects listed in Table MAND-2 would have the potential to disturb or impact 36 archaeological or paleontological resources, while several could potentially impact historic 37 resources. Likewise, the Proposed Project could potentially impact unknown buried cultural 38 resources that may be present at the Project site. All of the projects listed in Table MAND-2 39 are located within the TCR identified by the SMBMI and could potentially affect features 40 associated with the TCR.
41 As described in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” CHP would implement Mitigation Measure 42 CR-1, which requires that construction be immediately halted if cultural resources are 43 discovered and that such resources be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. For any
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-157 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 resources eligible for listing in the CRHR that would be rendered ineligible by the effects of 2 Project construction, appropriate mitigation measures would be developed. Mitigation 3 Measure CR-2 would be implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts to 4 paleontological resources by requiring that construction be suspended and resources be 5 properly evaluated if paleontological resources are discovered on-site. Finally, Mitigation 6 Measure CR-3 would be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts on human remains that 7 may be discovered during Project construction. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 augments 8 Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-3 by requiring preparation of a Monitoring, Discovery, and 9 Treatment Plan and the presence of archaeological and tribal monitors during ground 10 disturbing activities. Refer to Sections 3.5 and 3.17 for a complete description of Project 11 mitigation measures.
12 Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the Proposed Project’s 13 potential impacts on cultural resources and TCRS to a level that is less than significant at the 14 project level. At the cumulative level, given the Project’s relatively limited scale and the 15 mitigation measures that would be implemented to prevent substantial loss in artifacts or 16 significant resources, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be 17 less than considerable. As a result, this impact would be less than significant with 18 mitigation.
19 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions of GHGs—Less than Significant 20 GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental 21 impacts of global climate change. Climate change may contribute to an increase in the number 22 of days of extreme heat, higher concentrations of air pollutants, sea level rise, and impacts to 23 water supply and water quality, public health, ecosystems, agriculture, and other 24 environmental areas. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably 25 change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, 26 present, and future projects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate 27 change and its associated environmental impacts.
28 The Proposed Project would require the use of construction equipment that emits GHG and 29 thus may have some potential to contribute to climate change. As described in Section 3.7, 30 “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” project-related net emissions would be well below the 31 established screening level threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e. Because GHG emissions are by 32 nature a cumulative problem, the mass emissions threshold for GHG emissions also serves as 33 the cumulative emissions threshold. Because the project would result in GHG emissions at a 34 level that is less than the threshold and implemented mitigation to ensure consistency with 35 the local climate action plan, the contribution of the Proposed Project toward a cumulatively 36 significant impact would not be considerable. As a result, this impact would be less than 37 significant.
38 Cumulative Impacts Related to Noise and Vibration-Less than Significant
39 Construction of other projects in the immediate area of the Proposed Project could add to, or 40 exacerbate, noise generated by construction of the Proposed Project. The sole project that is 41 within close proximity to the project site is the City of Loma Linda’s planned pavement 42 rehabilitation of Business Center Drive from Mountain Avenue to Bryn Mawr Avenue 43 (adjacent to the Project site to the north), which is planned to be completed between 2017 44 and 2022. Because the precise schedule for the City of Loma Linda’s pavement rehabilitation
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-158 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
1 is unknown and/or is subject to change, this analysis makes the conservative assumption that 2 overlaps would occur, potentially producing significant cumulative effects.
3 As described in Section 3.12, Noise, the Proposed Project’s construction and operation would 4 not generate noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise 5 ordinance. Therefore, this would not be a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts. 6 As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
7 Conclusion 8 In summary, the Proposed Project would not contribute considerably to any cumulatively 9 significant impacts. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures, all impacts 10 would be less than significant. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
11 c. Effects on Human Beings—Less than Significant with Mitigation
12 As discussed under the applicable resource areas above, the Proposed Project would not 13 result in significant and unavoidable impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 14 Compliance with existing regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials would 15 prevent creation of substantial hazards to workers, the public, or the environment from use 16 of hazardous materials during Project construction or operation. Additionally, 17 implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would prevent or minimize substantial air 18 emissions during Project construction, while Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would minimize 19 potential hazards associated with construction traffic. The Project also would not be 20 constructed on an existing hazardous materials contamination site or in an area subject to 21 probable flooding. Following construction, the new CHP facility would provide improved 22 facilities for law enforcement and emergency response, and therefore would protect against 23 possible effects on human beings. As a result, this effect would be less than significant with 24 mitigation.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-159 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Highway Patrol Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project 3-160 February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 Chapter 4 2 REFERENCES
3 Chapter 1, Introduction 4 No references cited.
5 Chapter 2, Project Description 6 Avocet. See Avocet Environment, Inc.
7 Avocet Environmental, Inc. 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Corporate Business 8 Center, Loma Linda, California Report prepared for the California Department of 9 General Services.
10 California Highway Patrol. 2017. About us. www.chp.ca.gov/home/about-us. Accessed March 11 17, 2017.
12 CHP. See California Highway Patrol.
13 USGBC. See U.S. Green Building Council.
14 U.S. Green Building Council. 2017. LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction Addenda. 15 Updated January 27, 2017. www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/ 16 LEED%20v4%20BDC_01.27.17_current.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2017.
17 Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist
18 SECTION 3.1, AESTHETICS 19 Avocet. See Avocet Environment, Inc.
20 Avocet Environmental, Inc. 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Corporate Business 21 Center, Loma Linda, California Report prepared for the California Department of 22 General Services.
23 California Department of Transportation. 2017. The California Scenic Highway Program. 24 www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/mtce/scenic.htm. Accessed August 18, 2017.
25 City of Loma Linda. 2009. General Plan. Available: www.lomalinda- 26 ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7279443/File/Our%20City/General%20Plan/GP- 27 Adopted-May09.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-1
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 SECTION 3.2, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 2 Avocet. See Avocet Environment, Inc.
3 Avocet Environmental, Inc. 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Corporate Business 4 Center, Loma Linda, California Report prepared for the California Department of 5 General Services.
6 California Department of Conservation. 2016a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 7 webpage. Available at: www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx. 8 Accessed May 9, 2017.
9 ______. 2016b. Important Farmland Categories webpage. Available at: 10 www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/mccu/Pages/map_categories.aspx. Accessed May 11 9, 2017.
12 ______. 2016c. The Land Conservation Act. Available at: www.conservation.ca.gov/ 13 dlrp/lca/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed May 9, 2017.
14 ______. 2016d. San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, Sheet 2 of 2.
15 ______. 2017. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: 16 maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed August 15, 2017.
17 CDOC. See California Department of Conservation.
18 City of Loma Linda. 2009. General Plan. Available: www.lomalinda- 19 ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7279443/File/Our%20City/General%20Plan/GP- 20 Adopted-May09.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2017.
21 City of San Bernardino. 2005. San Bernardino General Plan. Land Use. Available at: www.ci.san- 22 bernardino.ca.us/pdf/DevSvcs/General%20Plan%20Document.pdf. Accessed. August 23 15, 2017.
24 SECTION 3.3, AIR QUALITY 25 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 1997. Gasoline Service Station 26 Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/ab2588/rrap- 27 iwra/GasIWRA.pdf.
28 CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.
29 California Air Resources Board. 2005. California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and 30 Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at: 31 www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
32 ______. 2011. Appendix 1. Five Factor Analyses for California Air Basins. Available at: 33 www.arb.ca.gov/desig/so2a1.pdf
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-2
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 ______.2015. Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards, Visibility Reducing 2 Particles. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/2015/state_vrp.pdf. Accessed July 3 28, 2017.
4 ______. 2017, Chronology of Area Designations for State Standards. Available at: 5 www.arb.ca.gov/desig/changes.htm#summaries.
6 CARB. See California Air Resources Board.
7 City of Loma Linda 2009. City of Loma Linda General Plan. Available at: www.lomalinda-ca.gov 8 /our_city/general_plan. Accessed August 2, 2017.
9 OEHHA. See Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
10 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Risk 11 Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. 12 Available at: oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/ 13 crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
14 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 15 (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for 16 South Coast Air Basin. Available at: www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air- 17 plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2017.
18 ______. 2017a. SCAQMD Rule Book. Available at: www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/rules/ 19 scaqmd-rule-book. Accessed July 26, 2017.
20 ______. 2017b. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: 21 www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- 22 plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016- 23 aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15. Accessed July 26, 2017.
24 SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District.
25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. California Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for 26 Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants, USEPA Green Book. Available at: 27 www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ca.html. Accessed April 3, 2017.
28 USEPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
29 World Climate 2017. Average Weather Data for San Bernardino, California. Available at: 30 www.worldclimate.com/climate/us/california/san-bernardino. Accessed July 28, 2017.
31 SECTION 3.4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 32 California Native Plant Society. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California 33 (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed 31 July 2017.
34 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. CNDDB database search for the San 35 Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project area. Accessed 18 July 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-3
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
2 City of Loma Linda. 2009. General Plan, Conservation Element. May. Available at: 3 www.lomalinda-ca.gov/our_city/general_plan. Accessed August 18, 2017.
4 CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.
5 ebird.org. 2017. Observations for Loma Linda VA Hospital. Available at: ebird.org/ebird/ 6 hotspot/L1090553. Accessed 1 August 2017.
7 eBird. See ebird.org.
8 Moyle, P.B. 2002. Arroyo Chub, Gila orcutti. In Inland Fishes of California. University of 9 California Press, Berkeley.
10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae) 5-Year Review: 11 Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 12 Office, Carlsbad, CA. March.
13 ______. 2017. IPaC Resource List for the San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project
14 USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
15 SECTION 3.5, CULTURAL RESOURCES 16 Bean, L. J. 1978. Cahuilla. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of North 17 American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, 18 Washington, D.C.
19 Caballeria, Reverend Father Juan. 1902. History of San Bernardino Valley 1810-1851; From the 20 Padres to the Pioneers. Copyright by Reverend Father Juan Caballeria. Reprinted in 1994 21 by Times-Index Press, San Bernardino, CA.
22 California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2017. San Bernardino Asistencia and Guachama 23 Rancheria State Historical Landmarks. Available at: ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21476. 24 Accessed August 9, 2017.
25 City of Loma Linda. 2009. General Plan. Available at: www.lomalinda-ca.gov/our_city/ 26 general_plan. Accessed August 2, 2017.
27 City of Loma Linda. 2017. Our History. Available at: www.lomalinda-ca.gov/our_city/ 28 our_history. Accessed August 14, 2017.
29 Kyle, D. E., M. B. Hoover, H. E. Rensch, E. G. Rensch, and W. N. Abeloe. 2002. Historic Spots in 30 California. Stanford University Press, CA.
31 McCarthy, D. F. 2015. Serrano Ancestral Territory Map attached to the letter from the San 32 Manuel Band of Mission Indians to the California Highway Patrol requesting notification 33 of CHP projects pursuant to Public Resources Code Subsection 21080.3.1(b)(1). June 18, 34 2015.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-4
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 San Bernardino County. 2017. The “Asistencia.” Historical Landmark #42. Available at: 2 www.sbcounty.gov/museum/branches/asist.htm. Accessed August 13, 2017.
3 Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 4 Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Publication 38. National Park Service, 5 Washington, DC. Revised 1998.
6 Warren, C. N. 2004. The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. J. Moratto. Coyote Press, 7 Salinas, California. Reprinted from 1984, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
8 SECTION 3.6, GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 9 California Geological Survey. 2003. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Saticoy 10 Quadrangle. Earthquake Fault Zones and Seismic Hazard Zones. Available at: 11 gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_sat.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2017.
12 ______. 2008. Ground Motion Interpolator. Based on data from Earthquake Shaking Potential 13 for California, by D. Branum, S. Harmsen, E. Kalkan, M. Petersen, and C. Wills. Available 14 at: www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html. Accessed August 10, 2017.
15 ______. 2010. Fault Activity Map of California. CGS Data Map No. 6. Compilation and 16 interpretation by C. W. Jennings and W.A. Bryant. Available at: 17 www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html. Accessed August 10, 2017.
18 California Division of Mines and Geology. 1976. Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San 19 Bernardino County, California. Special Report 113. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/ 20 pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_113/SR_113_Text.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2017.
21 California Department of Water Resources. 2017. Water Data Library. Groundwater Levels for 22 Station 340698N1172489W001. Available at: www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. 23 Accessed August 14, 2017.
24 DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.
25 CGS. See California Geological Survey.
26 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). 2017. Background and History. 27 Available at: www.nehrp.gov/about/history.htm. Accessed May 10, 2017.
28 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Available at: 29 websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov. Accessed August 10, 2017.
30 NEHRP. See National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
31 NRCS. See Natural Resource Conservation Service.
32 SCEDC. See Southern California Earthquake Data Center.
33 Southern California Earthquake Data Center. 2017. Significant Earthquakes and Faults. 34 Available at: scedc.caltech.edu/significant/index.html. Accessed August 10, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-5
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey.
2 U.S. Geological Survey. 2015. Redlands Quadrangle, California. 7.5-Minute Series Topographic 3 Map. Available at: store.usgs.gov/map-locator. Accessed August 10, 2017.
4 SECTION 3.7, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5 California Air Resources Board. 2014. First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at: 6 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm.
7 ______. 2017a. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ 8 scopingplan.htm
9 ______. 2017b. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/ 10 cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf
11 ______. 2017c. 2017 Edition California GHG Emission Inventory. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/ 12 cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2015/ghg_inventory_trends_00-15.pdf. Accessed 13 August 11, 2017.
14 CARB. See California Air Resources Board.
15 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2018. Federal Vehicle Standards. Accessed: January 4, 16 2018. Available: www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-sector-carbon- 17 emissions/.
18 San Bernardino County. 2014. Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Available at: 19 www.gosbcta.com/plans-projects/plans/greenhouse-gas/SBC- 20 RegionalGreenHouseGasReduction-Final.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2017.
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2017. Final Rule for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel 22 Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2. 23 Available at: www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule- 24 greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-fuel-efficiency.
25 USEPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
26 SECTION 3.8, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 27 Avocet. See Avocet Environment, Inc.
28 Avocet Environmental, Inc. 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Corporate Business 29 Center, Loma Linda, California. Prepared for California Department of General Services. 30 July 20.
31 ______. 2017. Phase II Investigation, Corporate Business Center, Redlands Boulevard and Bryn 32 Mawr Avenue, Loma Linda, California. Prepared for California Department of General 33 Services. July 13.
34 CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-6
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 California Office of Emergency Services. 2015. Business Plan/EPCRA 312. Available at: 2 www.caloes.ca.gov/Hazardous Materials/Pages/Business-Plan.aspx. Accessed 3 April 7, 2015.
4 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2008. Very High Fire Severity Zones in 5 LRA, San Bernardino County. Fire Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). November 6 13. Available at: www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones 7 _maps. Accessed August 11, 2017.
8 Cal OES. See California Office of Emergency Services.
9 SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.
10 SWRCB 2017. GeoTracker Database. Available at: geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed 11 August 14, 2017.
12 SECTION 3.9, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 13 Avocet. See Avocet Environment, Inc.
14 Avocet Environmental, Inc. 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Corporate Business 15 Center, Loma Linda, California.
16 California Department of Water Resources. 2004. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118: Upper 17 Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Bunker Hill Subbasin. www.water.ca.gov/ 18 pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/8-2.06.pdf. Accessed August 1, 19 2017.
20 DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.
21 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map: San Bernardino 22 County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 8703 of 9400, Map Number 23 06071C8703H.
24 FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency.
25 San Bernardino County. 2010. San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Hazard 26 Overlays. www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/HazMaps/FH31B_20100309.pdf. Accessed 27 August 1, 2017.
28 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin 29 Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin. www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/ 30 water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml. Accessed August 21, 2017.
31 ______. 2010. Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036, National Pollutant Discharge 32 Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the San 33 Bernardino County Flood Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and the 34 Incorporated Cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region. 35 www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2010/10 36 _036_SBC_MS4_Permit_01_29_10.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-7
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 Santa Ana RWQCB. See Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
2 State Water Resources Control Board. 2012. Final 2012 Integrated Report (CWA Section 3 303(d)/303(b) Report) – Category 5 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. 4 Accessed August 21, 2017, 5 www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2012state_ir_reports/category 6 5_report.shtml.
7 SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.
8 SECTION 3.10, LAND USE AND PLANNING 9 City of Loma Linda. 2009. General Plan. Available at: www.lomalinda-ca.gov 10 /our_city/general_plan. Accessed August 2, 2017.
11 San Bernardino County. 1989. East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. lomalinda-ca.gov/UserFiles/ 12 Servers/Server_7279443/File/Services/Code%20Enforcement/Planning%20Division/ 13 East_Valley_Corridor_Specific_Plan.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017.
14 SECTION 3.11, MINERAL RESOURCES 15 CDOC. See California Department of Conservation.
16 California Department of Conservation. 1994a. Mineral Land Classification of a Part of 17 Southwestern San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California 1995. 18 Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/ 19 dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_94-08/OFR_94-08_Text.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2017.
20 ______. 1994b. Mineral Land Classification of a Part of Southwestern San Bernardino County: 21 The San Bernardino Valley Area, California (East) – Composite Map Showing MRZs, and 22 Mines, Prospects, and Active Aggregate Pits. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub 23 /dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_94-08/OFR_94-08_East.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2017.
24 ______. 2008. Updated Mineral Land Classificaiton Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade 25 Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption (P-C) Region, San Bernardino 26 and Riverside Counties, California. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs 27 /sr/SR_206/SR206_Plate1.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2017.
28 ______. 2016a. DMR Mines Online – San Bernardino. Available: 29 maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. Accessed August 2, 2017.
30 ______. 2016b. DMR Mines Online – Mine ID #91-36-0056. Available: 31 maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. Accessed August 2, 2017.
32 ______. 2016c. DMR Mines Online – Mine ID #91-36-0122. Available: 33 maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. Accessed August 2, 2017.
34 City of Loma Linda. 2009. City of Loma Linda General Plan. Available: www.lomalinda- 35 ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7279443/File/Our%20City/General%20Plan/GP- 36 Adopted-May09.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-8
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 City of San Bernardino. 2005. San Bernardino General Plan. Land Use. Available at: www.ci.san- 2 bernardino.ca.us/pdf/DevSvcs/General%20Plan%20Document.pdf. Accessed. August 3 15, 2017.
4 SECTION 3.12, NOISE 5 California Department of Transportation. 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Available at: 6 www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf.
7 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017. State of California General Plan 8 Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines. Available at: 9 opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/. Accessed January 10, 2018.
10 Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.
11 City of Loma Linda. 2017. City of Loma Linda Noise Regulations. Available at: qcode.us/codes/ 12 lomalinda/view.php?topic=9-9_20&frames=on. Accessed August 2, 2017.
13 Federal Transit Authority. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Available at: 14 www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf 15 . Accessed August 14, 2017.
16 FTA. See Federal Transit Authority.
17 San Bernardino International Airport Authority. 2010. Airport Layout Plan Narrative Report. 18 Available at: www.sbiaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ALP-Narrative-Report- 19 Complete.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2017.
20 SECTION 3.13, POPULATION AND HOUSING 21 California Department of Finance. 2017. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, 22 Counties, and the State, 2011-2017 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at: 23 www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed May 16, 2017.
24 City of Loma Linda. 2014. 2014-2021 Housing Element. Available: www.hcd.ca.gov/community- 25 development/housing-element/docs/loma_linda_5th_adopted021414.pdf. Accessed 26 August 10, 2017.
27 California Department of Finance. 2017. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, 28 Counties, and the State, January 2011-2017, with 2010 Benchmark. Available: 29 www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed August 10, 30 2017.
31 DOF. See California Department of Finance.
32 SCAG. See Southern California Association of Governments.
33 Southern California Association of Governments. 2012. Adopted 2012 RTP Growth Forecast. 34 Available: gisdata.scag.ca.gov/Pages/SocioEconomicLibrary.aspx?keyword 35 =Forecasting. Accessed August 10, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-9
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Employment Status: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year 2 Estimates (City of Loma Linda). Available: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf 3 /pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_S2301&prodType=table. Accessed August 4 21, 2017.
5 ______. 2015. Employment Status: 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 6 (City of Loma Linda). Available: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 7 productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_S2301&prodType=table. Accessed August 21, 8 2017.
9 SECTION 3.14, PUBLIC SERVICES 10 California Department of Education. 2017. 2016-2017 Enrollment by Grade: Redlands Unified 11 District Report (36-67843). dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds 12 =3667843&agglevel=district&year=2016-17. Accessed August 8, 2017.
13 CDE. See California Department of Education.
14 City of Loma Linda. 2009. General Plan. www.lomalinda-ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/ 15 Server_7279443/File/Our%20City/General%20Plan/GP-Adopted-May09.pdf. Accessed 16 August 9, 2017,
17 ______. 2016a. Fire Stations. www.lomalinda-ca.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7279530&pageId 18 =7871333. Accessed August 8, 2017.
19 ______. 2016b. Fire. www.lomalinda-ca.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7279530&pageId 20 =7857774. Accessed August 8, 2017.
21 ______. 2016c. Call Volume. www.lomalinda-ca.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId= 22 7279530&pageId=7871858. Accessed August 8, 2017.
23 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. 2015. Annual Report. cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/ 24 34/AnnualReports/Sheriff_2015_AR.pdf?ver=2016-03-18-145858-567. Accessed 25 August 8, 2017.
26 SBSD. See San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
27 SECTION 3.15, RECREATION 28 City of Loma Linda. 2009. City of Loma Linda General Plan. Available: www.lomalinda- 29 ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7279443/File/Our%20City/General%20Plan/GP- 30 Adopted-May09.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2017.
31 ______. 2016a. City Statistics. Available: www.lomalinda-ca.gov/cms/ 32 One.aspx?portalId=7279530&pageId=7746951. Accessed August 7, 2017.
33 ______. 2016b. Hulda Crooks Park (List of City Parks). Available: www.lomalinda- 34 ca.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7279530&pageId=7746956. Accessed August 7, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-10
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 SECTION 3.16, TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 2 CHP. See California Highway Patrol.
3 California Highway Patrol. 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. 4 www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr_ceqa_files/tisguide.pdf. Accessed September 5 2017.
6 City of Loma Linda. 2009. The Loma Linda General Plan – Transportation and Circulation 7 Element. www.lomalinda-ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7279443/File/Our%20City 8 /General%20Plan/Chapter%206%20-%20Transportation%20&%20Circulation 9 %20Element.pdf. Accessed September 2017.
10 City of Redlands. 1995 (Updated 2010). Circulation Element – Redlands General Plan. 11 www.cityofredlands.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6255662/File/City%20Hall/Depart 12 ments/Development%20Services/Planning%20Division/General%20Plan/Section%20 13 5.pdf. Accessed September 2017.
14 Dyett & Bhatia. 2017. City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan. 15 gis.cityofredlands.org/DEIR/_RedlandsDEIRCompiled_Appendices_071917.pdf. 16 Accessed September 2017.
17 Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. 2012. San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model – 18 SBTAM, Model Development and Validation Report and User’s Guide. 19 www.gosbcta.com/plans-projects/CMP/SBTAM_DocumentationUserGuide.pdf. 20 Accessed October 2017.
21 San Bernardino Associated Governments. 2016. San Bernardino County Congestion 22 Management Program. www.gosbcta.com/plans-projects/CMP/CMP16-Complete- 23 061416.pdf. Accessed October 2017.
24 Transportation Research Board. 2010. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
25 SECTION 3.17, TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 26 Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 27 Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Publication 38. National Park Service, 28 Washington, DC. Revised 1998.
29 SECTION 3.18, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 30 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2017. Facility/Site Summary 31 Details: San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0087). www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ 32 SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0087/Detail/. Accessed August 11, 2017.
33 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. No Date. California Commercial Offsite 34 Hazardous Waste Facilities. www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/ 35 LIST_HWM_Commercial_Facilities.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-11
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 California Energy Commission. 2017. Final 2016 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. 2 docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-IEPR-01/TN216281_ 3 20170228T131538_Final_2016_Integrated_Energy_Policy_Report_Update_Complete_Re 4 po.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2017,
5 CEC. See California Energy Commission.
6 CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
7 City of Loma Linda. 2009. General Plan. www.lomalinda-ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/ 8 Server_7279443/File/Our%20City/General%20Plan/GP-Adopted-May09.pdf. Accessed 9 August 9, 2017.
10 ______. 2016. Water & Sewer. www.lomalinda-ca.gov/our_city/departments/public_works 11 /water___sewer/. Accessed August 11, 2017.
12 City of San Bernardino. 2017. San Bernardino Water Reclamation Facility. www.sbcity.org/ 13 water/divisions/water_reclamation/default.asp. Accessed August 11, 2017.
14 DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
15 USEPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Summary of the Energy Policy Act. Available at: 17 www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-policy-act. Accessed April 20, 2017.
18 USGBC. See U.S. Green Building Council.
19 U.S. Green Building Council. 2017a. LEED. Available at: www.usgbc.org/leed. Accessed April 21, 20 2017.
21 U.S. Green Building Council. 2017b. Checklist: LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction. 22 Available at: www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-building-design-and-construction- 23 checklist. Accessed April 21, 2017.
24 U.S. Green Building Council. 2017c. Indoor Water Use Reduction. Available at: 25 www.usgbc.org/node/1734960?return=/credits. Accessed April 21, 2017.
26 U.S. Green Building Council. 2017d. Outdoor Water Use Reduction. Available at: 27 www.usgbc.org/node/2611372?return=/credits. Accessed April 21, 2017.
28 U.S. Green Building Council.2017e. LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction. Available at: 29 www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%20v4%20BDC_04.14.17_current_0.pdf. 30 Accessed April 21, 2017.
31 Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2016. 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water 32 Management Plan. www.sbvmwd.com/home/showdocument?id=4196. Accessed 33 August 11, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-12
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 SECTION 3.19, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 2 City of Loma Linda. 2017a. Capital Improvement Program, Project Summary Spreadsheets.
3 ______. 2017b. Planning Division’s Land Development Projects asp of August 10, 2017.
4 San Bernardino County. 2007. General Plan. www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeneralPlan/ 5 FINALGP.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2017.
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-13
California Highway Patrol Chapter 4. References
1 This page intentionally left blank
San Bernardino Area Office Replacement Project February 2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-14