Mayor and City Council
June 1, 2022

Public Hearing
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: June 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Robert D. Field, City Manager
By: Alex Qishta, Deputy Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Subject: Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 2022-103 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021030193), adopting the findings of fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving the vacation of a portion of “I” Street between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a portion of “J” Street at its intersection with 17th Street and 21st Street and reservation of utilities therein.

Background
Streets and Highways Code (SHC) section 8312, gives a city legislative body the power to vacate all or part of a street and sets forth the procedures by which the power to vacate may be executed. The requested street vacation would be conducted under the General Vacation Procedures outlined in SHC sections 8320 through 8325. First, a legislative body may initiate proceedings either on its own initiative or upon a petition or request of an interested person or persons. The initiation of proceedings starts with fixing the date, hour and place of the hearing, followed by publishing and posting of notices prior to the hearing. After the hearing, if the legislative body finds that the street described in the notice of hearing or petition is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, the legislative body may adopt a resolution vacating the street. The street vacation is then recorded with the County Recorder’s office.

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Ono Lead Track Extension Project (“Project”) proposes to install a fourth lead track extending the existing BNSF San Bernardino Intermodal Facility (SBD Intermodal) lead track to tow existing Ono Storage Sidings.

The project would involve construction of a fourth lead track within/along approximately

4.3 miles of an existing BNSF corridor generally from the BNSF overpass at State Street/University Parkway on the north to the existing SBD Intermodal at West 5th Street on the south. The proposed Project would close the existing gap between the two existing Ono Storage Sidings, creating a continuous lead track and improving the flow of trains in and out of the BNSF yard.

The Project does not propose to increase rail line operations. Instead, it would improve 8 Packet Pg. 277
8890

the Yard’s operational efficiency by reducing train congestion along the existing lead tracks and reducing train idling, as they wait to enter/exit the yard.

As part of the Ono Project, BNSF has requested that the City approve the vacation of “I” Street and “J” Street as follows:
• Portion of “I” Street between Spruce Street and 6th Street • Portion of “I” Street between 6th Street and 7th Street • Portion of “I” Street between 7th Street and 8th Street • Portion of “I” Street between 8th Street and 10th Street • Portion of “I” Street between 10th Street and 11th Street • Portion of “I” Street between 11th Street and Home Avenue and between Home Avenue and 14th Street
• Portion of “I” Street between 10th Street and 11th Street and 10th Street and Olive Street
• Portion of “J” Street where it intersects with 17th Street and 21st Street between Turrill Avenue and Existing Railroad ROW, 10th Street and Olive Street Discussion
On January 11, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, after extensively reviewing the Project and touring the Project sites, adopted Resolution No. 2022-004-PC, recommending, to the Mayor and City Council of San Bernardino, the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No. 20201030193), the adoption of the findings of fact and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program under the California Environmental Quality Act, and the approval of the real property street vacation 15.30-434 for the proposed Project. In its Resolution, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor and City Council impose the following conditions upon the Project: (1) to extend the sound wall to the maximum extent possible, subject to BNSF’s restrictions under the California Public Utilities Commission regulations; (2) to add landscaping (e.g., vines) on the sound walls for anti-graffiti and beautification purposes; and (3) to install additional street lighting.

The Mayor and City Council adopted on March 16, 2022 a Resolution of Intention that set the date, time, and place of the public hearing as May 4, 2022, at 7:00PM at 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, California in the City Council Chambers. At that meeting, the item was continued to the May 18, 2022 meeting. The applicant then requested that the item be continued to the June 1, 2022 meeting. At that time, interested parties may present comments or evidence to the Mayor and City Council regarding the proposed street vacation. As directed by the Resolution of Intention, staff will publish notices of the public hearing in the newspaper, as well as post notices along the proposed street vacation as required by the SHC sections 8322 and 8323.

Following the public hearing, staff will present, for the Mayor and City Council’s consideration, a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (California State Clearinghouse No. 2021030193), adopting the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ordering the Real Property Street Vacation 15.30- 8 Packet Pg. 278
8890

434, with reservation of utility easements therein, and make a final order of vacation for the street as described in the Real Property Street Vacation.

The property vacation proceedings are not completed until the Resolution making the final order for Real Property Street Vacation 15.30-434 has been recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder’s office pursuant to SHC section 8325. Pursuant to SHC section 8324, the resolution of vacation may provide that the vacation occurs only after conditions required by the legislative body have been satisfied and may instruct the clerk that the resolution of vacation is not recorded until the conditions have been satisfied.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15063 (Initial Study), the applicant submitted and the Planning Division accepted an Initial Study prepared in connection with the BNSF Ono Project for Real Property Street Vacation 15.30-434. Based on the Initial Study provided, the proposed project has the potential to result in significant effects on the environment, for which feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce all of those effects to below thresholds of significance. Therefore, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15063(b)(1), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed project and focused on potential environmental impacts.

Accordingly, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released on September 23, 2019, for the CEQA-mandated thirty (30) day public review period for the purpose of announcing the preparation of the Draft EIR for the proposed project, and to allow general public and other agencies with the opportunity to submit comments as to the contents of the Draft EIR.

Subsequently, the applicant submitted, and the Planning Division accepted the Draft EIR prepared, and pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15085, a Notice of Completion was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse No. 2021030193). Additionally, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15087, the Draft EIR was released on March 8, 2021, for the CEQA-mandated forty-five (45) day public review period.

Lastly, in accordance with Sate CEQA Guidelines §15132, the applicant submitted, and the Planning Division accepted the Final EIR prepared. The Final EIR consists of the following: 1) Public review Draft EIR and technical studies; 2) revised Draft EIR; 3) responses to comments on the Draft EIR; 4) Facts and Findings; and 5) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

An Environmental Justice Review (EJR) was completed and reviewed by City Staff. The EJR reviewed the following potential impacts related to the community: air quality, aesthetics and visual impacts, noise, traffic and access. The findings of the EJR concluded that there are Environmental Justice Communities located within the Project area, and due to mitigation efforts, there will not be a disproportionately high and adverse effect on Environmental Justice populations from the Project construction or operations.
8 Packet Pg. 279
8890

2021-2025 Key Strategic Targets and Goals
This project is consistent with Key Target 2d: Develop and implement a community engagement plan and Key Target 4: Economic Growth & Development. Public Hearings conducted in response to requests for street vacations provide an opportunity for surrounding property owners and members of the public to engage with the Mayor and City Council, provide input through public comments, and share in the discussion regarding vacating the public right of way. The proposed street vacations are necessary to facilitate the BNSF Ono Lead Track Extension Project in order to accommodate the improvement of railway goods movement operations and improve vehicular circulation.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the City. The applicant has submitted fees in the amount of $8,160 to cover the cost of the vacation.

Conclusion
Adopt Resolution 2022-103 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021030193), adopting the findings of fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving the vacation of a portion of “I” Street between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a portion of “J” Street at its intersection with 17th Street and 21st Street and reservation of utilities therein.

Attachments
Attachment 1 Resolution No. 2022-103
Attachment 2 Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact
Attachment 3 Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment 4 Final Environmental Report
Attachment 5 Environmental Justice Review Technical Memorandum Attachment 6 Spruce Street & 6th Street - Legal Description & Map Attachment 7 6
th & 7th
- Legal Description & Map
Attachment 8 7
th & 8th
- Legal Description & Map
Attachment 9 8
th & 10th
- Legal Description & Map
Attachment 10 10th & 11th & Olive Street - Legal Description & Map Attachment 11 11th & 14th- Legal Description and Map
Attachment 12 “J” Street & 17th Street & 21st Street - Legal Description & Map Attachment 13 Resolution No. 2022-004-PC
Attachment 14 Aerial Map
Attachment 15 PowerPoint Presentation
Ward: 3
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

March 16, 2022 The Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopted Resolution 2022-64, declaring its intent to conduct a public hearing to order the vacation of a portion of I Street between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a portion of J 8 Packet Pg. 280
8890

Street at its intersection with 17th Street and 21st Street and the reservation of utilities therein.

May 4, 2022 The Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Continued the Public Hearing on the Vacation of a Portion of “I” Street Between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a Portion of “J” Street at Its Intersection with 17th Street and 21St Street and Reservation of Utilities Therein Until May 18, 2022 at 7:00 P.M.

May 18, 2022 The Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Continued the Public Hearing on the Vacation of a Portion of “I” Street Between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a Portion of “J” Street at Its Intersection with 17th Street and 21St Street and Reservation of Utilities Therein Until June 1, 2022 at 7:00 P.M.
8 Packet Pg. 281
Resolution No. 2022-103
Resolution 2022-103

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-103

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021030193),

ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF “I”

STREET BETWEEN SPRUCE STREET AND OLIVE
STREET, AND A PORTION OF “J” STREET AT ITS
INTERSECTION WITH 17TH STREET AND 21ST STREET,

AND RESERVATION OF UTILITIES THEREIN
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department previously received a petition to vacate a portion of “I” Street between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a portion of “J” Street at its intersection with 17th Street and 21st Street (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2020, the Mayor and City Council authorized staff to proceed with an investigation and analysis to vacate the street; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2021, notices were sent out to City Departments, San Bernardino County Fire, utility providers, including the Water Department, and residents within 500 feet informing them of the proposed street vacation; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2022, the Planning Commission, after extensively reviewing the Project and touring the Project sites, adopted Resolution No. 2022-004-PC forwarding a recommendation of approval to the Mayor and City Council for the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (California State Clearinghouse Schedule No. 2021030193), and Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approval of Real Property Street Vacation 15.30-0434 for the proposed BNSF Ono Lead Track Extension Project; and WHEREAS, in its Resolution, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor and City Council impose the following conditions upon the Project: (1) to extend the sound wall to the maximum extent possible, subject to BNSF’s restrictions under the California Public Utilities Commission regulations; (2) to add landscaping (e.g., vines) on the sound walls for antigraffiti and beautification purposes; and (3) to install additional street lighting; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) (CEQA) and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.),

8.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-103 (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Resolution No. 2022-103
Resolution 2022-103

the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency for the proposed BNSF Ono Lead Track Extension Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City determined an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(d) and 15082(a), the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021030193) for the Project on September 23, 2019, and circulated the NOP for the CEQA-mandated thirty (30) day public review period to allow the general public and other agencies the opportunity to submit comments on the contents of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City incorporated comments received during the NOP public review period and released a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR for the Project on March 8, 2021 for the CEQA-mandated forty-five (45) day public review and comment period; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the City accepted the Final EIR prepared by Kimley-Horn non behalf of and submitted by the applicant (BNSF Railway Company) for the proposed Project, which consists of the following: 1) the public review Draft EIR and technical studies, 2) the revised Draft EIR, 3) responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and 4) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on November 9, 2021, December, 14, 2021, and January 11, 2022, at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Final EIR and Real Property Street Vacation 15.20- 434; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Special Meeting on January 8, 2022 to visit the location of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council certify the Final EIR for Real Property Street Vacation 15.30-434, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Project based on Findings of Fact; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2022, the Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-64 declaring its intention to conduct a public hearing on May 4, 2022, to order the street vacation; and
WHEREAS, the May 4, 2022 public hearing was continued to May 18, 2022 and again to June 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2022, a public hearing was held where all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation areas appeared before the Mayor and City Council of San

8.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-103 (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Resolution No. 2022-103
Resolution 2022-103

Bernardino, California and offered evidence in relation to the vacation of a portion of “I” Street between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a portion of “J” Street at its intersection with 17th Street and 21st Street, and the reservation of utilities therein; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of identified in the EIR that the City finds are of no impact or constitute a less than significant impact and do not require mitigation are described in Section II of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section III of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City finds that there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, as set forth in Section IV of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the Project, which are identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the mitigation measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with adopting the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and

8.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-103 (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Resolution No. 2022-103
Resolution 2022-103

WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that constitute substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or any portion thereof under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. As the decision-making body for the City, and in the City’s roll as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City Council has reviewed and considered the information relating to the Project contained within the EIR and all supporting documentation, together with all oral and written comments received during the public review process, and all other related documents, which are available at City Hall and which are incorporated by reference herein. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council further finds that the EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of environmental impacts associated with the Project, and was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds and declares that the City has not received any evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5, after circulation of the EIR which would require recirculation.

No substantial changes to the Project have occurred that would require a supplemental or subsequent EIR.

SECTION 3. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 4. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15090, the City Council hereby certifies that:

8.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-103 (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Resolution No. 2022-103
Resolution 2022-103

A. The EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

B. The City Council has been presented with and has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the Project.

C. The EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

SECTION 5. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that the MMRP is designed to ensure that, during the implementation of the Project, the City and any other responsible parties implement the components of the Project and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. To the extent there is any conflict between the MMRP, the EIR, or the Findings of Fact, the terms and provisions of the MMRP shall control.

SECTION 6. The Mayor and City Council of San Bernardino, California, in vacating a portion of “I” Street between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a portion of “J” Street at its intersection with 17th Street and 21st Street, elects to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the “Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law,” being Division 9, Part 3, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.

SECTION 7. The Mayor and City Council of said City do hereby vacate that portion of “I” Street between Spruce Street and Olive Street, and a portion of “J” Street at its intersection with 17th Street and 21st Street as described on each of the attached legal descriptions as Exhibit “A,” and on each of the maps attached as Exhibit “B,” subject to the following conditions:
1) The sound wall shall be extended to the maximum extent possible, subject to BNSF’s restrictions under the California Public Utilities Commission regulations; 2) Landscaping (e.g., vines) shall be installed on the sound walls for anti-graffiti and beautification purposes; and
3) Additional street lighting shall be installed.

SECTION 8. Approval of this Resolution shall not affect or disturb any other existing easements for public utility purposes belonging either to the City of San Bernardino or public entity that existed prior to these vacation proceedings. Reservations of easements are made in accordance with the provisions of Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 5, Article 1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, with reservations of the easement as requested from Public Utility Company or other public entity.

SECTION 9. Custodian of Records. The location and custodian of the documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located as follows: Genoveva Rocha, City Clerk, 201 North E Street (Building A), 909-384-5002.

8.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-103 (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Resolution No. 2022-103
Resolution 2022-103

SECTION 10. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.

SECTION 11. Notice of Determination. The City Council hereby directs staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino within five working days of the execution of this Resolution and approval of the Project and with the Office of Planning and Research.

SECTION 12. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this ___ day of ____ 2022.

John Valdivia, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney

8.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-103 (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Resolution No. 2022-103
Resolution 2022-103

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2022-103, adopted at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of _______ 2022 by the following vote:

Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ _____ _____ _______ _______
IBARRA _____ _____ _______ _______
FIGUEROA _____ _____ _______ _______
SHORETT _____ _____ _______ _______
REYNOSO _____ _____ _______ _______
CALVIN _____ _____ _______ _______
ALEXANDER _____ _____ _______ _______
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this ___ day of ____________ 2022.

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk

8.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-103 (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 1 EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, Public Resources Code section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Public Resources Code section 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may

8.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 2 nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Public Resources Code, section 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Public Resources Code, section 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)

8.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 3 SECTION II: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-21 - 4.1-22) Explanation: The City of San Bernardino General Plan (SBGP) designates the San Gabriel Mountains ─ approximately 23 miles to the northwest of the Project site ─ and the San Bernardino Mountains ─
approximately 25 miles to the east ─ as scenic vistas. Typically, building and structural massing, height, and location have the potential to adversely impact scenic vistas. Property acquisitions would result in the removal of vertical features (i.e., buildings and structural massing) at various heights, which depending on their location and intervening structures, could improve local views of distant scenic vistas of San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains.

Most of the proposed improvements would be at or near grade (ground level), thus, would not impede any views of distant scenic vistas. Additionally, the proposed improvements involving vertical features (i.e., cantilevered signals, signal bungalows, street lighting poles, and relocated overhead utilities) would generally involve relocations. None of the Project features would involve new buildings or structural massing and all are at ground level, except the sound walls required as mitigation; therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

By improving train traffic efficiency, the Project would also reduce the average idle time of trains along the corridor by approximately 50 percent. Trains and train traffic would therefore be less visible and would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-22)

8.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 4 Explanation: No state scenic highways traverse or are near the Project site. There are no native trees or rock outcroppings on the Project site.

Additionally, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a recorded historical resource.

Therefore, the Project would not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

3. Visual Character
Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-23)
Explanation: The Project site is in an urbanized area, thus, zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality are relevant to the Project’s analysis. The Project is zoned as RS (Residential Suburban), CG-1 (Commercial General), CH (Commercial Heavy), IL (Industrial Light) Zone, and RR (Railroad)—none of which are included in the group of zones that are regulated for scenic quality. Additionally, the Project does not require a General Plan land use designation or zone change. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and a less than significant impact would occur. Additionally, the Project would mostly occur within/immediately adjacent to an existing BNSF corridor; thus, would not be aesthetically incompatible with the surrounding environment.

4. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-23 - 4.1-24) Explanation: There is no proposed nighttime construction, therefore, there would no new sources of light related to construction activities. The Project does not propose to increase line operations or number of trains.

Although the Project proposes to relocate/upgrade as many as four existing cantilevered signals, no new signals would be added.

Therefore, the existing lighting associated with passing trains and signals would not increase with Project implementation. The Project

8.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 5 would not increase train traffic such that it would add any new or more substantial lighting sources. The lighting associated with the trains and signals is temporary and localized, thus, would not cause glare impacts on nighttime views.

The Project proposes stormwater drainage/water quality, circulation/ roadway, and utility improvements/modifications that are ancillary and related to the lead track extension, however these improvements would not generate light or glare. The Project also proposes some circulation and roadway improvements that would entail the replacement of existing lighting. The levels of lighting produced would be comparable to existing lighting and would have a less than significant effect on day and nighttime views.

B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 7.0-1)
Explanation: The San Bernardino County Important Farmland 2016 map published by the California Department of Conservation indicates that the Project occurs within Urban and Built-Up Land. The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to any other uses. As such, the Project would result in no impact.

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 7.0-1)
Explanation: All parcel zoning was identified and it was shown that none of the parcels are zoned for agricultural uses nor preserved as such under the Williamson Act. Therefore, there would be no conflicts with zoning for agricultural uses, or a Williamson Act contract.

3. Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section

8.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 6 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 7.0-1)
Explanation: Zoning was identified for each parcel and it was shown that none of the parcels are zoned as forest land, timberland, timberland-zoned Timberland Production areas (as defined in the PRC sections 4526 and 12220(g) and Government Code section 51104(g)) nor
agricultural land. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, cause rezoning of, forest land, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, or involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. The Project would result in no impact in this regard.

C. AIR QUALITY

1. Compatibility with Existing Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.2-30 - 4.2-31) Explanation: The Project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD) jurisdiction. The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State (California) and federal air quality standards. Among other factors, the AQMP’s pollutant control strategies are based on Southern California Council of Governments’ (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP.

8.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 7 The Project would not exceed the short-term construction standards based on worst-case day scenarios. Therefore, a delay in the timely attainment of the AQMP’s air quality standards is not expected.

Additionally, Project implementation is expected to contribute to improved long-term operational emissions. The Project does not propose to increase rail traffic or rail line operations; instead it would improve efficiency. The Project proposes a fourth lead track extension, which would enhance the A Yard’s efficiency by reducing congestion along the existing lead tracks serving BNSF’s east-west corridor. Increased rail operations efficiency would decrease train idling by approximately 43 percent (from 15 hours of daily locomotive diesel engine idling to 8.5 hours), which would contribute to improved long-term operational emissions. These improved long-term operational emissions would offset the short-term construction emissions exceedances. The Project would be consistent with the first criterion; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.

The Project is consistent with both SBGP and 2016 RTP/SCS goals.

The Project would not change any General Plan land use
designations and does not propose any new land uses, additional operational vehicle trips, or new train trips. To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, the Project requires the acquisition of approximately 29 acres of adjacent properties where residential and non-residential land uses are located. Project implementation would require removal of as many as 43 dwelling units (DU) and approximately 78,000 square feet (SF) of nonresidential (commercial and industrial) land uses. Therefore, the Project would not generate population growth or cause the South Coast AQMD’s population or job growth projections used to develop the AQMP to be exceeded.

South Coast AQMD’s Emission Reductions at Rail Yards and Intermodal Facilities Mobile Source Measure (MOB-02) aims to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions at rail yards and intermodal facilities. The objectives of the proposed Project are to reduce train congestion and improve the efficiency of rail operations. There are no plans to increase the number of trains currently using the corridor. Since improved efficiency of rail operations would reduce locomotive idling by approximately 43 percent, the Project would be consistent with MOB-02 goals. As previously noted, the Project would not contribute to population growth or cause the South Coast AQMD’s population or job growth projections used to develop the AQMP to be exceeded. Given the Project is consistent with the first and second criterion, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.

8.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 8 2. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.2-36 - 4.2-43) Explanation: CONSTRUCTION
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)
Because Project construction is anticipated to disturb up to 12.2 acres in a single day, additional health risk analysis is necessary for criteria pollutants exceeding the conservative thresholds for 5.0 acres of grading.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project construction limit are single-family homes in the residential neighborhoods approximately 50 feet (15 meters) to the west. Therefore, as recommended by the South Coast AQMD, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were used in this analysis for receptors closer than 25 meters.

It is shown that PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed the conservative 5.0-acre thresholds on a peak day of Project construction. To determine if the Project would result in significant concentrations of these two criteria pollutants (as well as NOX and carbon monoxide (CO)) at nearby sensitive receptors, air pollution dispersion modeling was conducted. Pollutant concentrations would not exceed South Coast AQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning LSTs for construction and no mitigation is required.

Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
Project construction would generate DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required. Use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment would dissipate rapidly. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residential uses approximately 50 feet (15 meters) west of the proposed construction limit, and further from the major Project construction areas. Most construction emissions would be from haul trucks and would be dispersed along off-site roadways at intermittent periods. Additionally, Project construction would occur in a linear fashion, progressing along the BNSF corridor/Project alignment, and would not operate equipment adjacent to sensitive receptors for extended periods of time.

8.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 9 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not identified short-term health effects from DPM. Construction activities would be subject to compliance with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than 5 minutes to further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions.

The maximum 1-hour concentration of PM10 during construction would be 0.09 μg/m3 and the annual concentration would be 0.02 μg/m3. The maximum exposed residential receptor (MER) would generally occur at the residences nearest the construction area between West 9th Street and Spruce Street. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from Project construction would be 6.38 per million.

Acute and chronic non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below the

1.0 threshold. As described above, construction risk levels based on conservative assumptions would be below the applicable thresholds.

Therefore, construction risk impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Additionally, as the construction emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD risk thresholds, the Project would not adversely impact neighboring disadvantaged communities (as defined by CalEnviroScreen). Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires exhaust control measures (including the use of Tier 4 off-road engines) that would further minimize exposure to DPM.

OPERATIONS
Project operations would result in reduced idling and increased efficiency, but would not increase train volumes. Although the lead track would place idling trains nominally closer (approximately 15 feet) to sensitive receptors, the reduced idling and associated emissions would offset the slight relocation. Additionally, the properties immediately adjacent to the alignment would be acquired and removed, which would maintain a separation from the nearest sensitive receptors. Notwithstanding, air dispersion modeling using AERMOD and risk assessment was performed for the Projectrelated locomotive idling emissions.

The Health Risk Assessment results indicate the maximum annual concentration of PM10 would be 0.027 μg/m3, which would be below the existing concentration of 0.045 μg/m3. Acute and chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) below 1.0 indicate that adverse non-cancer health effects from long- or short-term exposure, respectively, are not expected. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from Project operations would decrease existing carcinogenic risk levels to 16.00 in one million. Acute and chronic non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below the HI 1.0 threshold. As described above, risk levels based on conservative assumptions would be below the applicable

8.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 10 thresholds. Therefore, operational risk impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. As the operational emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD risk thresholds, the Project would not adversely impact neighboring disadvantaged communities (as defined by CalEnviroScreen).

Localized Significance Thresholds
As previously stated, the Project would not increase daily train trips.

The Project is anticipated to improve existing rail operations by reducing locomotive idling times by 43 percent and improving rail efficiency. The reduction in locomotive idling times would reduce current rail operational emissions. Project vehicle trip reassignment and removal of the acquired land uses is also expected to reduce offsite operational emissions. Therefore, Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors and would result in a less than significant localized impact during operations.

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
Projects that do not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.

The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS. As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors were found to be less than significant. As concluded above, Projectrelated emissions would not exceed the regional or localized thresholds, thus, would not exceed the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to criteria pollutant levels in excess of the health-based ambient air quality standards. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The Project would result in a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm federal standard. The proposed Project would not generate new vehicle trips and does not have the potential to cause an intersection to reach the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of South Coast AQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. Additionally, the anticipated reduction in locomotive idling would reduce operational CO emissions in the

8.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 11 Project area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

2. Odors
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.2-43 - 4.2-44) Explanation: During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. Additionally, since Project construction would progress linearly along the proposed rail corridor, construction-related odors would not be emitted at any location for an extended amount of time.

Therefore, there the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors.

The South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project does not include any of these land uses. The anticipated reduction of locomotive idling would also reduce emissions and any odors associated with locomotive exhaust.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Sensitive Natural Communities
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game [now Department of Fish and Wildlife] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.3-39)
Explanation: The Project site does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, the Project would not impact such habitats. No impact would occur.

8.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 12 2. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Less than Significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.3-41)
Explanation: The City of San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC) section

19.28.100 requires a tree removal permit from the City where more than five trees will be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, or removed within a 36-month period. Compliance with SBMC section 19.28.100 may require an arborist survey and report to evaluate existing trees prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit, as determined by the Community & Economic Development Director. Unless there is a pre-approved tree replacement plan, each tree that is removed and is determined to be of significant value by the Community & Economic Development Director would be replaced with a 36-inch box specimen tree in addition to any other required landscaping.

SBMC section 19.28.100 does not necessarily require a tree for tree replacement provision. Following compliance with SBMC section

19.28.100, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

3. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.3-42)
Explanation: The Project site is not within jurisdiction of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with such plans. No impact would occur.

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.4-23 - 4.4-24)

8.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 13 Explanation: Of the 43 historical/archaeological resources within 0.5-mile of the Project alignment, 22 resources were identified within or adjacent to the Project alignment, including 18 previously unrecorded properties and four previously recorded resources.

None of the 18 buildings appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Further, since none of the 18 buildings or groups of buildings has been included in a local register of historical resources, the 18 properties do not meet CEQA’s definition of “historical resources.”
The historical significance and potential impacts to the four previously recorded resources within the Project area (i.e., Historic Route 66 (36-002910), ATSF/Kite-Shaped Track (36-006793/36- 006847), Culligan USA Plant (36-008303), and San Bernardino Baseline/Baseline Street (36-015497)) was analyzed.

In summary, 22 historical resources were identified as within, partially within, or adjacent to the Project area. Of the 22 historical resources, 20 resources are not considered eligible for the CRHR and do not qualify as a “historical resource,” and one resource no longer exists. The Project’s impacts to the only historical resource within the Project area (Site 36-002910) would be less than significant. The Project proposes to install additional tracks within the BNSF ROW near Site 36-002910. However, the Project would not affect Cajon Boulevard’s current conditions or appearance. Since Project implementation would not alter any of Site 36-002910’s character-defining features, either directly or indirectly, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this “historical resource.” A less than significant impact would occur with Project implementation.

Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Impacts would be less than significant.

2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-26)
Explanation: The archaeological records search and field survey did not reveal any resources known to contain human remains within or near the Project site. The Project area is not considered sensitive for archaeological resources due to the urbanized nature of the surrounding and long history of ground-disturbing activities. Although

8.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 14 low, there is potential for Project construction to reveal as-yet unidentified human remains. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including Health & Safety Code sections 7050.5- 7055 and Public Resources Code sections 5097.98 and section 5097.99. HSC sections 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for treatment of human remains. Specifically, Health & Safety Code section 7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. Health & Safety Code section 7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As required by state law, the procedures set forth in Public Resources Code section 5087.98 would be implemented, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission would then designate the MLD of the unearthed human remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., Health & Safety Code sections 7050.5-7055 and Public Resources Code sections 5097.98 and 5097.99) would ensure Project impacts concerning human remains are reduced to a less than significant level.

F. ENERGY

1. Energy Waste
Threshold: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.5-9 - 4.5-12) Explanation: CONSTRUCTION
To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, the Project would require acquisition of approximately 29 acres of adjacent properties where residential and non-residential land uses are located. Project implementation would remove as many as 43 dwelling units (36 single-family, seven multi-family), six commercial buildings (approximately 46,000 SF), and three industrial buildings (approximately 32,000 SF). Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, their corresponding energy demands would also be removed.

Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment would be powered by a generator. The amount of electricity used during construction would be minimal; typical demand would stem from the use of electrically powered hand tools

8.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 15 and several construction trailers by managerial staff during the hours of construction activities. Most of the energy used during construction would be from petroleum. The electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and minimal.

Fossil fuels for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during site clearing, grading, and construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Project construction would generate a total of approximately 50,534 round truck trips.

Energy consumption associated with the proposed Project for both hauling and idling fuel consumption was estimated.

The Project’s fuel from construction hauling and idling would be 328,833 gallons, which represents 0.26 percent of the South Coast portion of San Bernardino County’s annual fuel consumption. Total construction fuel is not anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is noted that construction fuel use would be temporary and cease upon completion of construction.

There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. There are no aspects of the Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities.

Contractors would be required to minimize air quality emissions of construction activities through Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1, which would indirectly relate to construction energy conservation because reduced air pollutant emissions through monitoring and efficient use of equipment and materials, reduces energy use. Thus, energy usage would be further minimized.

The Project’s fuel from the entire construction period would increase fuel use in the County by approximately 0.26 percent for diesel and

0.01 percent for gasoline. A 0.26 percent increase in construction

8.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 16 fuel demand is not anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity. Longer phases would result in lower construction intensity and lower annual fuel consumption, resulting in lower annual demand on energy supplies. Additionally, use of construction fuel would cease upon Project completion. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. The Project would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies, or resources and new capacity would not be required.

OPERATIONS
The proposed Project would enhance the train traffic efficiency by reducing congestion along the existing lead tracks. By improving train traffic efficiency, the Project would also reduce the average idle time of trains, reducing locomotive fuel consumption. Improvements to the rail lines would not increase the number of train trips and there would be no permanent increase in the number of employees or traffic in/out of the A Yard. Project implementation would reduce locomotive fuel consumption, resulting in a net decrease. With Project implementation, annual idling fuel consumption would decrease to 655,989 gallons compared to 1,158,173 gallons under existing conditions, a 43 percent improvement in efficiency.

Additionally, Project implementation would enable the train that is currently detained at the A Yard to leave, rather than being detained and idling due to congestion on the existing lead track, thus, accounting for improved travel times. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project operations. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Project implementation would result in a beneficial impact concerning fuel consumption.

2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.5-13)
Explanation: The Project does not propose to construct or operate any new buildings or structures. Therefore, the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards are not applicable to the proposed Project.

8.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 17 The proposed Project would not cause inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur. The Project is estimated to reduce operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 121 MTCO2e annually, directly from reduced train idling and congestion (total annual emissions would increase by 30 MTCO2e per year with amortized construction). The Project would further help the City achieve sustainability goals by lowering annual GHG emissions and therefore would be consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Long-term energy consumption related to locomotive hauling and idling would occur over the Project’s lifetime. Energy consumption would be reflected in the change in train idling resulting from Project implementation. By improving train traffic efficiency, the Project would also reduce the average idle time of trains, reducing locomotive emissions along the corridor. Improvements to the rail lines would not increase the number of train trips and there would be no permanent increase in the number of employees or trucks in and out of BNSF facilities. Therefore, locomotive idling time would decrease resulting in a net improvement in GHG emissions.

Additionally, the Project would not generate an increase in vehicle trips and the reassignment of vehicle trips resulting from the roadway modifications would be limited. As such, the Project would not generate additional vehicle emissions. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of SCAG’s Connect SoCal – The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Therefore, the Project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets outlined in the 2016 RTP/SCS. Potential impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.6-12)
Explanation: Several active and potentially active fault zones traverse the City (i.e., San Andreas Fault system and San Jacinto Fault system). The

8.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 18 San Jacinto Fault is likely within the Earthquake Fault Zone mapped for this fault, however, it does not traverse the Project site. The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No impact would occur.

2. Strong Seismic Groundshaking
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.6-13 - 4.6-14) Explanation: There is a possibility of strong seismic ground shaking for the Project due to the nature of Southern California’s geographic region and its seismic activity. Additionally, the Project site could experience strong ground shaking during an earthquake along faults in the region. The intensity of earthquake motion and seismic hazards that may impact the Project site would depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the earthquake fault, earthquake magnitude, earthquake duration, and site-specific geologic conditions. Likely sources for strong ground motion are nearby known active faults (e.g., the San Jacinto Fault and San Andreas Fault).

The Project site has experienced earthquake-induced ground shaking in the past and can be expected to experience further shaking in the future. Therefore, Project implementation could expose people or structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. The intensity of ground shaking on the Project site would depend upon the earthquake’s magnitude, distance to the epicenter, and geology of the area between the Project site and epicenter.

The proposed track extension would be supported on engineered sections of ballast and subballast on a prepared subgrade.

Concerning sound walls and other structures, the 2021 Design Report notes that engineering design services for these improvements will be provided in a separate report and recommends that these be analyzed using seismic design criteria in the governing design code.

BNSF currently implements earthquake monitoring systems that would notify the train operator of earthquake activity. Upon an earthquake being reported, the train dispatcher would initiate a

8.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 19 response pursuant to BNSF Earthquake Response Protocol. These response protocols would reduce impacts from seismic activity by reducing or halting train speeds to prevent derailment.

Based on-site review, subsurface exploration, and engineering analyses, the 2021 Design Report concluded that the proposed Project improvements are suitable for construction provided the recommendations in these reports are incorporated into their design.

Following compliance with standard engineering practices and compliance with the 2021 Design Report recommendations, the Project’s potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

3. Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.6-14 - 4.6-15) Explanation: The Project site is in a seismically active area and contains two to five feet of artificial fill, underlain by alluvial fan deposits, which could be prone to liquefaction and collapse during ground shaking.

Notwithstanding, various data sources report various degrees of onsite liquefaction potential, ranging from low to high liquefaction susceptibility.

The analyses also concluded that although regional groundwater elevations are currently deep, site-specific evaluations of the subsurface conditions should be performed to consider the potential for liquefaction susceptibility for varying future ground water conditions underlying the Project. Therefore, the Project could result in adverse effects involving liquefaction. Following compliance with standard engineering practices and the 2021 Design Report recommendations, the Project’s potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving liquefaction (i.e., unstable geologic units) would be less than significant.

8.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 20 4. Landslides
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.6-15)
Explanation: The Project site is not in an area of the City that is potentially susceptible to slope failure. The Project site is relatively flat with no evidence of on-site landslides/debris flows. Natural rock outcroppings are not present on the Project site. Additionally, the Project site is not identified on the California Geological Survey Landslide Maps as being subject to landslide hazards. Projectrelated excavation and trenching activities would be required to demonstrate compliance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 29 Part 1926 excavation and trenching standards. Therefore, the Project would not directly/indirectly cause potential adverse effects involving landslides and impacts would not occur.

5. Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less Than Significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.6-16)
Explanation: The Project alignment is on relatively level built-up terrain, and the potential for significant erosion along the Project alignment would be low. The Project site consists mainly of fill soil consisting of loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt. Occasional track ballast, organic matter, and debris within the fill were identified through preliminary subsurface exploration of the track extension with soil borings and exploratory test pits. Below the fill, native soils consisted of sand with variable amounts of silt and clay, occasionally with gravel and cobbles. These materials were unconsolidated, Quaternary-age alluvial fan gravel and sand deposits. The alluvial fan deposits were generally medium dense. Construction activities such as excavation and grading may have the potential to cause soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Construction activities related to the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. Construction would be required to comply with the erosion control measures stipulated through the then current California Building Standards Code, which requires the development of an approved Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP).

Construction would also be required to comply with other applicable ordinances and federal, state, and local permits. Implementation of

8.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 21 these permitting requirements would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction are less than significant.

Project implementation would not involve operations which would result in substantial soil erosion that would cause significant property damage or result in the loss of topsoil/sedimentation into local drainage facilities and water bodies. Therefore, the Project would not cause substantial soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant.

6. Expansive Soil
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Finding: Less Than Significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.6-17)
Explanation: Soils encountered during explorations were generally granular and not considered expansive. Clays encountered during explorations were determined to be sandy lean clays. Near-surface natural soils mapped underlying the Project alignment consist primarily of coarsegrained materials that are considered to have low expansion potential. The analysis concluded that surficial expansive soils should not be a significant factor in site development. Therefore, the Project would not be on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property and impacts would be less than significant.

6. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.6-17)
Explanation: The Project consists of a railroad lead track extension and various ancillary improvements (i.e., stormwater drainage/water quality improvements, circulation/roadway improvements/modifications, signal improvements/modifications, utility improvements/ modifications, and soundwalls). Given the proposed improvements, the Project would not generate wastewater and does not propose the use of septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system.

Moreover, sewers are available in the Project area for wastewater disposal. Therefore, no impact would occur.

8.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 22 H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. GHG Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.7-20 - 4.7-22) Explanation: Project construction-related activities would generate approximately 4,530 MTCO2e of GHG emissions during construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the Project’s lifetime (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. It is noted that a 30-year project lifetime assumption is likely overly conservative for rail infrastructure and provides a worst-case estimate of one-time emissions from construction activities. The Project’s amortized construction-related GHG emissions would be 151 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would cease.

The Project does not propose to increase rail line operations; instead it would improve the A Yard’s operational efficiency. By improving train traffic efficiency, the Project would also reduce the average idle time of trains, reducing locomotive emissions along the corridor.

Project rail operations would result in approximately 8.5 hours of daily locomotive diesel engine idling, an approximately 43 percent reduction from existing operating conditions (15 hours of daily locomotive diesel engine idling). Therefore, locomotive idling time would decrease resulting in a net improvement in GHG emissions.

The Project does not propose any new land uses, thus, would not generate additional operational vehicle trips. Additionally, reassignment of vehicle trips resulting from the proposed transportation improvements would be nominal and localized. As such, Project implementation would not generate additional vehicle emissions.

Project operational GHG emissions, combined with constructionrelated GHG emissions, would generate approximately 30 MTCO2e on an annual basis as compared to existing conditions. It is noted that Project implementation would reduce operational emissions by 121 MTCO2e per year. The GHG emissions estimates are
conservative because emissions credits have not been applied for the existing land uses that would be removed. Removal of the existing land uses would further decrease the Project’s GHG emissions. It is noted: rail projects tend to have a much longer project

8.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 23 lifetime than other development projects and, after 30 years, it is assumed the Project would continue to reduce GHG emissions due to changing regulatory framework and advanced technologies. The Project’s annual emissions with amortized construction of 30 MTCO2e would not exceed any South Coast AQMD GHG
thresholds. Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions would be less than significant, thus, no mitigation is required.

1. Plan, Policies, and Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.7-22 - 4.7-27) Explanation: San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency
In March 2014, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) adopted the San Bernardino County Regional
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP) with the goal of
inventorying municipal GHG emissions and establishing GHG reduction targets. The GHGRP also outlines City-specific SBGP goals. Given the Project’s objective to improve the existing rail operations’ efficiency and reduce train congestion, the resulting locomotive emissions decrease would be consistent with GHGRP goals.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for
automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035, and an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with the AB 32 target and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Order 5-03-05 and Executive Order B-30-15.

GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent emissions sources, and therefore analyzing the Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would prevent achieving the State’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals. The GHGRP and RTP/SCS goals were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously stated.

The analysis indicates the Project would comply with the applicable RTP/SCS goals. The 2020 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) has been approved by the SCAG Regional Council and is now applicable to the Proposed Project. As there is no federal nexus for the Project,

8.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 24 conformity does not apply, and the 2020 RTP/SCS is the regional plan most applicable to the proposed Project.

CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan provides a range of GHG reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as the cap-andtrade program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program.

The Scoping Plan identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. The analysis found the Project’s impacts concerning Scoping Plan consistency would be less than significant.

The Project is estimated to result in 30 MTCO2e annually, directly from amortized construction and reduced train idling and congestion.

The emissions estimates are conservative because emissions credits have not been applied for the existing land uses that would be removed. The Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions are nominal, would not exceed any South Coast AQMD proposed thresholds, and would be less than significant.

Concerning Executive Order S-3-05 2050 goals, it can be anticipated that Project operations would benefit from current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials and Upset Conditions Involving Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-18 - 4.8-21)

8.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 25 Explanation: The transport of hazardous materials by rail creates a potential for spills and accidents along delivery routes. Regulations require registration of hazardous waste transporters, manifesting procedures for hazardous waste transport, operational procedures for transport, and requirements for the condition of vehicles and containers used to transport hazardous waste.

Construction activities have the potential to result in temporary direct and indirect effects from the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Project construction would temporarily increase the regional transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. However, these materials present no substantial hazard to the community when properly handled, transported, and stored according to the manufacturers’ guidelines and regulatory agency rules and regulations.

Demolition of existing structures within the Project site would likely require the transportation of asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead based paint (LBP), and, potentially, other chemical wastes such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), from the construction site to appropriate disposal sites. Additionally, before Project construction at recognized environmental condition (REC) sites, remediation (i.e., cleanup) of contaminated soil could generate hazardous waste for transporting to appropriate offsite disposal facilities. Remediation of contaminated soil along freeways, highways, major thoroughfares, and railroad and utility corridors would generate soil that could be classified as hazardous waste for transporting to off-site disposal facilities.

Federal and state hazardous materials transportation regulations and response to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are enforced by California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. Additionally, the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) (i.e., San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division) regulates the proper management of all hazardous materials and wastes in the County.

To minimize potential effects on study area roadways and intersections associated with the transport of hazardous materials by oversized or overweight trucks, BNSF would be required to secure all applicable California Highway Patrol and Caltrans
permits/licenses. Compliance with existing regulations governing the transport of hazardous materials would prevent significant adverse impacts associated with accidents and spills. Compliance with transport regulations identified herein would result in less than significant impacts related to the transport of hazardous materials.

8.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 26 In addition, any ACM and LBP within the on-site structures that would be demolished to accommodate the Project would need to be disposed of properly in accordance with all applicable federal and state regulations. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, potential impacts associated with an accidental release of hazardous materials to the environment would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Proper hazardous waste disposal, regardless of the method selected, often affects the environment. Waste management strategies that seek to prevent pollution by reducing waste generation at its source are considered the most desirable approach.

The pollution prevention priority would be reflected in rail operations through BNSF protocols for handling hazardous materials and wastes, which include restricting the amount and type of certain hazardous materials and wastes, thereby reducing the quantity of hazardous wastes that would be transported.

The potential for contamination as a result of Project operations would be the same as potential contamination within the existing BNSF corridor. Dwelling units within the site would be acquired prior to construction; thus, none would be at risk from contamination as a result of Project operations.

The transportation of hazardous materials would comply with all federal and state laws and regulations regarding the safe transportation of hazardous materials, which would be effective in preventing a hazard to the public. Additionally, occasional track maintenance would be required.

Railroad companies are required to implement and consistently apply U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) rules and regulations to enhance safety of the employees and of the communities through which they operate. Only hazardous material shipments that conform to DOT regulations can be accepted or transported by rail. A hazardous material cannot be transported in commerce unless the hazardous material is handled and transported according to DOT regulations. Further, a hazardous material cannot be accepted for shipment by rail unless a crew member has the required documentation (i.e., acceptable shipping papers, acceptable emergency response information, and a document showing the current position of the hazardous material shipment in the train). This documentation is intended to provide railroad personnel and emergency response personnel with accurate information about the hazardous materials.

8.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 27 Additionally, BNSF has prepared a System Emergency Response Plan to respond to emergencies. The Response Plan describes procedures for responding to hazardous release emergencies, persons, and agencies to contact, locations for personnel to evacuate to, and prevention practices to limit the potential of these emergencies. In 2017, BNSF handled over 1.3 million hazardous materials shipments. On average per year, only 0.0002 percent of these shipments were involved in an accident that resulted in a hazardous material release to the environment. Therefore, the hazard to the public from these activities would be less than significant.

2. Emissions Near Schools
Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-21 - 4.8-22) Explanation: The nearest school to the Project construction limit is Riley Elementary School, approximately 0.2 mile to the east. Interstate215 (I-215) is situated between the school and the Project site (the existing BNSF railway). Federal, state and local regulations regarding hazardous materials would apply to the Project and require monitoring the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.

In compliance with California Public Resources Code section 21151.4, the affected school district is afforded ample opportunity to comment on the Project and express any related concerns that may result in potential prescriptive actions, such as limits on the materials used, or restrictions on the transport and storage of such materials.

Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and regional regulations regarding hazardous material generation, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would preclude potential impacts to any schools within the Project vicinity to less than significant levels.

3. Airport
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.8-24)

8.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 28 Explanation: The airport nearest the Project site is San Bernardino International Airport (SBD), which is approximately 2.8 miles to the southeast.

Therefore, the Project site is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport or public use airport. SBGP Land Use Element Figure LU-4 depicts SBD’s Airport Influence Area and indicates the Project site is outside the area. Further, the Project does not propose construction of any new structures. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to airport- or airstrip-related safety hazards or excessive noise and no mitigation is required.

4. Emergency Plan
Threshold: Would the project Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than Significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-24 - 4.8-25) Explanation: The Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The City’s Emergency Operating Plan (EOP) was prepared to guide the integration and coordination with other governmental agencies that are required during an emergency to serve the City’s existing and future public safety needs. The EOP identifies emergency facilities and City personnel, and describes the overall responsibilities of federal, state, regional, Operational Area, and City entities. The EOP does not identify emergency evacuation routes. No revisions to the adopted EOP would be required, as a result of the proposed Project. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during Project construction and operations, as required by City Public Works Department standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

5. Wildfire
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.8-25)
Explanation: The Project site is in a developed urban area and it is not adjacent to any wildland areas. In addition, the Project site is mapped as a non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) per CAL Fire and not within a Fire Safety Area Boundary per the County of San Bernardino Hazard Overlay Map. No impact would occur.

8.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 29 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-21 - 4.9-24) Explanation: The analysis evaluates three design options for stormwater runoff and water quality: Design Option 1, Design Option 2a, and Design 2b. The 2020 Drainage Study examines potential hydrology and water quality impacts of all three design options. Since Design Option 1 would result in the greatest disturbance and earthwork activities, Design Option 1 is the most conservative approach for impact analysis. Therefore, Design Option 1 is used to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts for all resource areas.

All design options would be constructed within the Project footprint.

No difference in Project size, scope, or scale would occur under any design option. Exact soil import and export quantities may differ depending on which design option is chosen, but only nominally. The greatest soil export would occur under Design Option 1, given it assumes construction of all seven basins. The seven potential basins would provide a storage volume of approximately 13.0 acrefeet (AF). Given that the storage volume required to mitigate the Project’s increase runoff volume totals 2.0 AF, the Project’s basins actually constructed would be fewer. The assumed import and export quantities are anticipated to be likely one-half the assumed, given not all seven basins would be constructed. Therefore, concerning basin construction, the EIR assumed all seven basins (Design Option 1) would be constructed, providing a highly conservative analysis.

Project construction would involve clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, drainage structure installation, utility installation/relocation, street improvements, and track placement, which would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, and other solvents with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short‐term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during Project construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures.

The Project would implement the requirements outlined in the San Bernardino County “Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality

8.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 30 Management Plan” (TG-WQMP) and would address water quality and potential pollutants as required by the TG-WQMP.

Based on the depths to groundwater within the proposed Project site, construction dewatering is not anticipated.

The Project would disturb more than 1.0 acre of land surface and would, therefore, be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES stormwater program and in compliance with SBMC section 8.80.502.

To minimize water quality impacts during construction, construction activities would be required to comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) consistent with the Construction General Permit. To obtain coverage, the Project Applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent prior to construction activities and develop and implement an SWPPP and monitoring plan. Erosion-control best management practices (BMPs) are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. These requirements would ensure that potential project impacts related to soil erosion, siltation, and sedimentation remain less than significant and avoid violation to any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

BMPs are designed to control and prevent discharges of pollutants that can adversely impact the downstream surface water quality.

Construction activities are also required to comply with the City of San Bernardino’s Urgency Ordinance, the Lot Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, and other required regulations. With the implementation of BMPs as described in the SWPPP, the Project is not anticipated to violate water quality standards during construction.

Therefore, construction impacts would be considered less than significant.

To collect and treat stormwater and runoff, a drainage plan is proposed, which includes underground storm drains, culvert extensions, earthen and concrete swales, and infiltration basins.

Three design options are considered. Design Option 1 involves seven potential infiltration basins, Design Options 2a and 2b would include two infiltration basins and seven storm drain connections.

The basins are designed to weaken runoff and treat for pollutants.

The storm drains are designed to discharge to Lytle Creek Channel.

The San Bernardino County Flood Control District has been designated “Principal Permittee” under the municipal separate storm sewer (drain) systems (MS4) Permit and administers and
coordinates many of the permit requirements on behalf of all the Permittees. The MS4 Permit Order requires development and implementation of a Planning and Land Development Program for all

8.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 31 “New Development” and “Redevelopment” projects subject to the Order. New development and redevelopment projects/activities include all development projects equal to 1.0 acre or greater of disturbed area and residential new or redeveloped projects that create, add, or replace 10,000 SF or greater impervious surface area. The Project would include 1.0 acre or more of disturbed area, thus, is subject to these regulations. The Project would maintain water quality through the use of infiltration basins. Additionally, the Project would include storm drain improvements, which would improve flood conditions. Following compliance with NPDES requirements, Project operations would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Design Option 1
Design Option 1 involves seven potential infiltration basins that would mitigate the Project’s runoff, water quality, and groundwater impacts.

The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements under Design Option 1. Although the Project would introduce approximately 1.7 acres of impervious area that is primarily attributed to the proposed concrete channels along the railway, the Project would maintain water quality by proposing the use of infiltration basins to treat the Project’s runoff. Additionally, to accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, the Project would require acquisition of approximately 29 acres of adjacent properties where residential and non-residential land uses are located. Property acquisitions would result in demolition/removal of structures, pavement, and other impervious surfaces. As a result, the Project site’s impervious area would be reduced from 9.26 acres to 3.12 acres, thus, improving infiltration and groundwater recharge.

Design Options 2a and 2b
Design Option 2 would implement two bio-treatment basins (infiltration basins 3 and 6) as well as seven storm drain systems to connect to the existing 42-inch Caltrans storm drain laterals at the westerly limit of I-215, which would discharge into Lytle Creek Channel. Both options would occur within the Project footprint and both would improve existing flooding conditions, resulting in a beneficial effect. Infiltration basins 3 and 6 would provide treatment of proposed or existing runoff that would offset the water quality impacts that are associated with an area equal or greater than the impervious area created by the Project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

8.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 32 2. Groundwater Recharge
Threshold: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than Significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-25 - 4.9-26) Explanation: The Project site is comprised of railroad ROW, does not contain any active or decommissioned groundwater wells, and construction activities do not require the use of groundwater wells. No construction-related impacts are anticipated.

Groundwater was not observed as a part of subsurface explorations conducted for the Project and was not encountered during exploration of the track extension area and has been reported at over 200 feet below ground surface (bgs).

The Project is within the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) service area where approximately 75 percent of the regional water needs are met by local groundwater supplies. The SBVMWD relies on San Bernardino Basin Area (SBBA) groundwater for 100 percent of its water supplies. The current level of usage does not require recharging of the sources from the water agencies.

Stormwater drainage/water quality improvements are proposed at numerous locations along the Project route through three potential design options. Runoff would be collected by existing/proposed swales along the west side of the tracks, where it would be routed to as many as seven infiltration basins under Design Option 1 (totaling approximately 5.3 acres) situated adjacent to/west of the BNSF corridor, or two infiltration basins and various storm drain facilities under Design Options 2a or 2b. The Project would not significantly impact groundwater recharge because the proposed basins would allow for infiltration and the proposed storm drains would discharge into the Lytle Creek Channel, a tributary to Warm Creek Channel, which is a tributary of the Santa Ana River. Additionally, due to demolition of structures, pavement, and other impervious surfaces required for the Project, the Project site’s impervious area would decrease from 9.26 acres to 3.12 acres, thus improving groundwater recharge.

During construction, some water resources would be used for dust control; however, this demand would be short-term. Concerning long-term operations, the Project involves construction of a fourth lead track intended to increase the A Yard’s operational efficiency,

8.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 33 but not increase BNSF line operations. Given its nature and scope, it is not a land use typically associated with long-term water demand.

Further, property acquisitions required to accommodate the proposed Project would result in the removal of land uses; thus, the corresponding water demands would also be removed. The removal of the land uses would decrease water demands by approximately 105,084 gallons per day (GPD) or 117.7 acre-feet per year (AFY).

Therefore, Project operations would not decrease groundwater supplies.

Design Option 1
The infiltration basins would provide a benefit for the area by promoting infiltration of surface runoff that would address impacts associated with 1) water quality, 2) groundwater recharge and 3) increase runoff volume. Because Design Option 1 includes seven infiltration basins, Design Option 1 would have the greatest beneficial effect. It is noted, while Design Option 1 involves seven basins, only those basins needed to offset water quality impacts and provide the necessary storage capacity would ultimately be constructed.

Design Options 2a and 2b
Design Options 2a and 2b would result in a net reduction of impervious surfaces and include two infiltration basins, thus would also be a beneficial effect to groundwater recharge and water quality.

Design Options 2a and 2b are also beneficial, since the Project would be able to connect to an existing storm drain system that was designed to intercept the regional flows from the watershed area west of the westerly BNSF ROW.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts are less than significant.

3. Erosion, Flooding, Runoff, and Flows
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

8.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 34 iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-26 - 4.9-31) Explanation: Project construction would involve approximately 101,000 tons of debris/materials (import and export) and approximately 217,700 cubic yards of subcut, soil, and concrete (import and export). Grading activities and sediment stockpiles can lead to exposed areas of loose soil that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow and wind erosion.

Impacts can also occur from sediment laden runoff and mobilization of pollutants associated with vehicle staging and operation.

In compliance with NPDES regulations, construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil is required to comply with the General Construction Permit. The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants.

Through compliance with existing regulatory framework, construction activities associated with the Project would have a less than significant impact on surface water quality and would not significantly impact the beneficial uses of receiving waters.

The Project site consists mainly of fill soil consisting of loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt. Native soil materials were unconsolidated, Quaternary-age alluvial fan gravel and sand deposits. The alluvial fan deposits were generally medium dense.

Construction activities such as excavation and grading could cause soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Project-related construction activities would be required to comply with the General Construction Permit. Construction would be required to comply with the erosion control measures stipulated through the then current California Building Code, which requires the development of an approved Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). Construction would also be required to comply with other applicable ordinances and federal, state, and local permits. Implementation of these permitting requirements would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil are less than significant.

Based on the depths to groundwater within the proposed
development areas, construction dewatering is not anticipated.

Should groundwater be unexpectedly encountered that would

8.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 35 require dewatering, the Project would apply for coverage and adhere to the monitoring and reporting program under Order No. R8-2009- 0003 (SC 4.8-3).

On-site soils would be excavated, repositioned, and compacted to bring the site to finish grade. Underground pipelines would be relocated/reinforced in place to accommodate the proposed Project.

On-site soils could require environmental remediation prior to or during construction. If contamination is encountered, testing and disposal would be conducted pursuant to regulatory requirements.

Through compliance with NPDES permitting requirements and SBMC, erosion control measures and BMPs would be implemented which would prevent construction debris from contributing to erosion, siltation, or runoff.

The Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. The Project would utilize earthen swales that would be sized sufficiently to reduce velocities to non-erosive rates. If it is determined during final engineering non-erosive rates cannot be achieved, hard lined channels would be implemented with the use of proposed energy dissipation structures that would prevent erosion or siltation.

Typically, sandy soil on steep slopes, subject to high-velocity water flow, or non-vegetated areas are susceptible to erosion. Considering the Project alignment is on relatively level built-up terrain, the potential for significant erosion along the Project alignment would be low.

Project implementation would involve trains traveling on new rail lines. No contact with soil, or potential for soil erosion is anticipated.

Therefore, Project operations would not cause substantial soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project would decrease the impervious area, which would increase the area available for infiltration of stormwater and decrease the rate of surface runoff generated by the Project site.

Design Option 1
The Project would decrease surface runoff and use infiltration basins, which would provide storage volume and promote
groundwater recharge to mitigate any increase in flow. The Project would not contribute water which would impact the conveyance of any existing drainage systems. The Project would decrease the amount of runoff generated by the Project area thus would not impact any existing drainage systems and would not alter existing drainage

8.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 36 patterns. Infiltration basins would provide water quality treatment, storage volume, and promote infiltration to decrease pollutants and flow rates to existing drainage systems.

Design Options 2a and 2b
Both Design Options 2a and 2b would connect to existing systems, maintain existing drainage patterns, and reduce the flood potential within the Project site. Thus, the Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Both Design Options 2a and 2b would improve flooding conditions when compared to the existing condition, thus, would not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

The cumulative intercepted flow rate for both design options would improve flood conditions and be below Caltrans maximum flood capacity. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

4. Risk of Flood, Tsunami, and Seiche
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project result in the risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-33)
Explanation: See Section I: Hydrology and Water Quality above concerning potential water quality impacts. The City of San Bernardino General Plan Figure S-1 depicts the Project site outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. The site is also outside of the Seven Oaks Dam inundation area, as depicted on General Plan Figure S-2. No part of San Bernardino County where the Project site is located is within a tsunami inundation area. The Project site is not near any water bodies, thus, would not be subject to impact from seiches.

Therefore, the Project would not result in risk from floods, tsunamis, or seiches. No impact would occur.

5. Water Quality Control Plan and Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-33 - 4.9-34) Explanation: The Project site is within the Upper Santa Ana Valley – Bunker Hill sub basin (Bunker Hill sub basin). The Project would include BMPs

8.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 37 to reduce the potential for construction-related water quality impacts, including complying with the established regulatory framework, which requires a SWPPP to be developed for the Project site.

The Project would include infiltration basins which would prevent any obstruction of a water quality control plan. Project operations would maintain or improve existing drainage. Due to the Project nature, Project operations would not generate a water demand and thus would not increase groundwater withdrawals or impede a
sustainable groundwater management plan. Additionally, due to demolition of structures, pavement, and other impervious surfaces required for implementing the Project, the Project site’s impervious area would be reduced from 9.26 acres to 3.12 acres, thus improving groundwater recharge.

Under the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), high and medium priority basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization identified 94 basins/sub-basins as medium or high priority. The Project site is located in a low priority basin.

Moreover, as discussed above, the Project includes removal of land uses with corresponding decreases in water demands
(approximately 105,084 GPD or 117.7 AFY). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

J. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-5 – 4.10-7) Explanation: The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The Project site is within a fully urbanized area. An established San Bernardino community is adjacent/west of the BNSF corridor. To accommodate the proposed Project, land acquisitions on adjacent properties outside the existing BNSF ROW would be required. The proposed improvements would be within and along the existing BNSF corridor at the edge of the San Bernardino community located to the west. Therefore, because the improvements are proposed within and along the existing BNSF corridor and at the community’s edge, Project implementation would not bisect an established community or create a barrier to movement within that community.

8.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 38 Although the Project proposes improvements and modifications to multiple City roadways to accommodate the proposed rail improvements, analysis concluded that the Project would not create barriers to movement within the adjacent community and significant impacts/changes to circulation and property access would not occur.

In general, parcels with existing access from the removed roadways would also be acquired/removed, thus, avoiding impacts to the remaining parcels. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant.

2. Conflicts With Plans
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-7 – 4.10-9) Explanation: The Project would expand the existing rail use onto public rights-ofway adjacent residential-, commercial-and industrial-zoned parcels.

The analysis concludes that the Project would not conflict with the relevant General Plan goals and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Additionally, there is no General Plan land use designation amendment or zone change proposed for the properties being condemned, as they are unnecessary under the Eminent Domain Law and Public Utilities Commission regulations. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant land use impact related to a conflict with the relevant San Bernardino General Plan goals and policies or any San Bernardino Municipal Code plan policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

K. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 7.0-2)
Explanation: The Project is located within an urban area that is occupied by existing development. Therefore, the Project would not 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.

8.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 39 2. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 7.0-2)
Explanation: The Project is located within an urban area that is occupied by existing development. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

L. NOISE

1. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.11-47 - 4.11-49) Explanation: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION (SHORT-TERM IMPACTS) Construction activities could expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, causing a potentially significant impact. Project construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the equipment used and operations involved. Construction equipment vibration velocities at the nearest sensitive receptor would not exceed 0.081 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold for building damage and Caltrans’ 0.1 in/sec PPV threshold for human annoyance. Vibration impacts associated with Project construction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

OPERATIONAL VIBRATION (LONG-TERM IMPACTS)
Operational vibration in the Project vicinity would be generated by train movements within the Project area. The proposed Project improvements would not increase the number of train trips. Since the Project does not increase the number of train trips, operational vibrations would not increase in frequency and vibration levels from train movements would be similar to current existing conditions. The Project would locate tracks closer to sensitive receptors. Therefore, new effects could if the relocation would result in more than a 3 VdB increase in vibration level, per FRA standards. The analysis shows that the calculated increases would be less than 3 VdB. Sensitive receptors near the Project site would continue to experience similar

8.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 40 level of vibrations during Project operations, as under existing conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

2. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.11-49)
Explanation: The Project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The airport nearest the Project site is the San Bernardino International Airport (SBD), approximately 2.8 miles to the southeast. Therefore, the Project site is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport or public use airport. SBGP Land Use Element Figure LU-4 depicts SBD’s Airport Influence Area and indicates the Project site is outside the area.

Further, the Project does not propose construction of any new structures. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related noise levels and no mitigation is required.

M. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.12-10)
Explanation: The Project would require property acquisition resulting in the displacement of various land uses, including residential to accommodate the proposed track extension and ancillary
improvements (i.e., sound walls, detention basins, ROW extensions, and ROW setbacks). As properties are acquired to expand the BNSF ROW, existing buildings and structures would be removed and the properties cleared. Partial acquisition of some properties would create remnant parcels that would not be required for the Project.

The Project does not propose to redevelop these remnant parcels.

No zone change is proposed; thus, the underlying/existing zoning would be retained making remnant parcels available for
reuse/redevelopment in the future consistent with their existing underlying zoning. Additionally, no new infrastructure would be

8.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 41 provided on the acquired properties to support future residential or non-residential development. Remnant parcels would remain vacant and fenced.

To accommodate the proposed improvements, the Project would remove 43 DUs. Assuming the City average of 3.47 persons per household, the proposed Project would result in a population decrease of approximately 149 persons. Construction jobs associated with the Project are temporary in nature and would cease once the Project is completed. Furthermore, the proposed additional track would not expand or increase railroad operations and therefore would not induce population growth. Therefore, given the Project’s scope and nature, the Project would not induce any population growth and no significant impact would occur

2. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.12-11)
Explanation: The Project requires partial and full property acquisitions of residential and commercial properties to accommodate the lead track extension, and ancillary and related improvements/ modifications. As previously mentioned, 43 DUs would be acquired, displacing approximately 149 persons. The City’s current vacancy rate is approximately 7 percent, or approximately 4,596 DU. The County’s current vacancy rate is approximately 11 percent, or approximately 79,935 DU. Given the vacant housing supply within the City and County, displacement of existing housing would not necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Further, the City’s Housing Element concludes the City has residential development opportunities with sufficient capacity to meet future housing needs. None of the residential properties that would be demolished as a result of Project implementation are designated as affordable housing or listed as opportunity sites in the City’s Housing Element. Therefore, removal of the affected residential properties would not impact the City’s capacity to meet their RHNA allocation.

Under the California Relocation Assistance Law, BNSF is required to provide fair and equitable treatment relocation assistance to property owners displaced as a result of condemnation. The law aims to minimize the hardship of displacement on these persons. The City also offers several housing programs including the HOME program

8.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 42 and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program which would further assist homeowners during the relocation process and search to regain stable housing.

Although the proposed Project would displace several commercial and industrial uses resulting in the loss of approximately 417 jobs, the City is currently reviewing several projects that would offer similar job types. In the past five years, the City has experienced a steady two percent annual decrease in unemployment. The declining unemployment rate, as well as the other future projects in the City offering similar job types, would enable employees displaced by the Project to find employment opportunities elsewhere in the City.

Project implementation would displace housing, people, and commercial businesses. However, the City’s housing stock and employment opportunities can provide other housing and job opportunities for residents and commercial businesses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace a substantial number of people or housing. Impacts would be less than significant.

N. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

1. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.13-7 – 4.13-8) Explanation: CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS (SHORT-TERM)
The Project site is near three San Bernardino County Fire District (SBCFD) fire stations (Station 222 is approximately 0.43 mile from Segment 09); thus, the Project area already receives adequate fire protection. The Project’s construction-related activities would temporarily increase the demand for fire protection at and near the Project site due to the potential increased hazards associated with demolition and construction activities and use of materials. However, this temporary increase in demand is nominal and SBCFD response times would not be affected. Additionally, Project construction would not significantly affect major roadways or impede emergency access to adjacent properties. Project staging areas and construction activities, including those that require the modification of roadways,

8.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 43 would maintain access for emergency vehicles. Project construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable state and local fire safety regulations.

The Project would require relocation of one fire hydrant at Station 246-38. In coordination with the SBCFD, this hydrant would be relocated and brought back into operation during the Project’s construction phase. This relocation would not substantially impact fire service operations. Impacts would be less than significant.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS (LONG-TERM)
To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, as many as 43 dwelling units (DU) and approximately 78,000 square feet (SF) of non-residential (commercial and industrial) land uses would be acquired. Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, the corresponding demands for fire protection would also be removed. Additionally, because the Project would only increase the A Yard’s operational efficiency, but would not increase BNSF line operations, an increased demand for fire protection services would not occur. Therefore, Project operations would not create a demand for new or physically altered fire protection facilities and no environmental impact would occur in this regard.

2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.13-8)
Explanation: CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS (SHORT-TERM)
The City divides its service area into four police patrol districts to ensure adequate service to all areas. The proposed Project is in two SBPD patrol districts, each patrolled by law enforcement personnel from their available 225-officer law enforcement team. Construction activity in the Project area would temporarily increase the demand for law enforcement in the area because of construction equipment and supplies. However, this temporary increase in demand is nominal and SBPD response times would not be affected. Project construction activities would comply with all applicable law

8.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 44 enforcement regulations and policies. Therefore, Project construction would not create a demand for new or physically altered fire protection facilities and no environmental impact would occur.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS (LONG-TERM)
To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, as many as 43 DU and approximately 78,000 SF of non-residential (commercial and industrial) land uses would be acquired. Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, the corresponding demands for police protection would also be removed. Therefore, Project operations would not create a demand for new or physically altered police protection facilities and no environmental impact would occur in this regard.

3. Schools
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.13-8 – 4.13-9) Explanation: Construction of the lead track extension and ancillary improvements would occur within and immediately adjacent to the BNSF ROW and would not physically impact any San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) school. To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, as many as 43 DU and approximately 78,000 SF of non-residential (commercial and industrial) land uses would be acquired. Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, SBCUSD schools could experience corresponding decreases in student population. In 2018, there were 61,717 households in the City, and 52,503 total students, creating a student-per-household ratio of approximately 0.85 student per household. The Project would acquire as many 43 DU, which could displace as many as 37 students. It is unknown where these displaced students would relocate. However, given the nominal amount of relocated students, and since it is unlikely they would all relocate to the same school district, this nominal displacement is not expected to overcrowd school facilities either within or outside the SBCUSD. Therefore, the Project would not create a demand for new or physically altered school facilities and no environmental impact would occur in this regard.

8.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 45 4. Parks
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
Threshold: Would the Project 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? Threshold: Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.13-9)
Explanation: Construction of the lead track extension and ancillary improvements would occur within and immediately adjacent to the BNSF ROW and would not physically impact any park or recreational facility. To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, as many as 43 DU and approximately 78,000 SF of non-residential (commercial and industrial) land uses would be acquired. Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, parks and recreational facilities could experience corresponding decreases in usage and demand. Therefore, the Project would not create a demand for new or physically altered park or recreational facilities and no environmental impact would occur in this regard.

Similarly, the Project would not increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Accordingly, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact.

5. Libraries
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities, need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for libraries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.13-9 – 4.13-10)

8.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 46 Explanation: To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, as many as 43 DU and approximately 78,000 SF of non-residential (commercial and industrial) land uses would be acquired. Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, library facilities could experience corresponding decreases in usage and demand. Therefore, the Project would not create a demand for new or physically altered library facilities and would result in a less than significant impact.

O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

1. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.14-34)
Explanation: Based on the City’s Guidelines, a VMT analysis should be conducted for land use projects that have the potential to increase the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population (e.g., population plus employment) compared to the City boundary. There are three types of screening that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening; Low VMT Area Screening; and Project Type Screening.

Based on Project Type Screening, projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips can also be screened from project-level analysis.

The Project would both generate fewer than 110 trips per day and replace existing VMT-generating land uses, including as many as 43 DU, six commercial buildings (approximately 46,000 SF), and three industrial buildings (approximately 32,000 SF). Due to removal of these land uses, the Project is forecast to decrease traffic by 572 trips per day, thus, leading to a proportionate decrease in VMT.

Additionally, the Project does not propose to increase BNSF line operations, rather, it would increase the A Yard’s operational efficiency and, as a result, no employment increase is expected.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant transportation impact concerning VMT.

2. Transportation Design Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.14-34 – 4.14-36)

8.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 47 Explanation: The Project proposes to remove three segments of North I Street: (1) between 7th Street and 8th Street; (2) between 10th Street and 11th Street; and (3) between Home Avenue and Evans Street. Current intersections along these three segments would be converted into cul-de-sacs.

In general, parcels with existing access from these removed roadways would also be acquired/removed; therefore, no impacts would occur to the remaining parcels. The proposed roadway improvements would be subject to a final plan set review to verify compliance with the City of San Bernardino Public Works standards for cul-de-sacs, roadway bends/knuckles, and roadway segments.

Following compliance with City standards, no potential safety hazards would occur. Since no potential safety hazards are identified, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

3. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.14-36)
Explanation: The Project was evaluated to determine if proposed roadway improvements would impact access for emergency vehicles. The Project would result in circulation and roadway improvements and modifications to multiple City roadways, including vacations, realignments, and cul-de-sacs. The Project proposes to remove existing development on parcels adjacent to the vacated roadways therefore eliminating the need for vehicle access in these locations.

The proposed roadway improvements would be subject to a final plan set review to verify compliance with the City of San Bernardino Public Works standards for cul-de-sacs, roadway bends/knuckles, and roadway segments to avoid any emergency access restrictions.

Unimpeded access throughout the Project site would be maintained; construction equipment and materials would not be parked or placed in a manner that would impede access for emergency response vehicles. Site conditions, during and after the workday, would be maintained or left in a condition that adheres to Division of Occupational Safety and Health (better known as Cal/OSHA) safety standards to prevent hazardous conditions for construction staff and emergency responders. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in emergency access impacts during construction or operations and would result in a less than significant impact.

Following compliance with City of San Bernardino Public Works standards for cul-de-sacs, roadway bends/knuckles, and roadway segments, no potential safety hazards would occur. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

8.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 48 P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.16-15)
Explanation: The SBVMWD supplies water to the Project site. SBVMWD’s 2015 RUWMP indicates water supplies would meet the service area’s water demands, that includes the Project site, for normal, single-dry, and multiple dry-year conditions through 2040. UWMP water demand forecasts are based on adopted General Plans. Project construction activities would generate short-term water demands for dust control and soil compaction. These water demands would be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities.

To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, as many as 43 DUs and approximately 78,000 SF of non-residential (commercial and industrial) land uses would be acquired. Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, the corresponding water demands would also be removed. Additionally, because the Project would only increase the A Yard’s operational efficiency, but would not increase BNSF line operations, an increased water demand would not occur. Analysis indicates removal of the land uses would decrease water demands by approximately 105,084 GPD or 117.7 AFY. Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the proposed Project. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

3. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.16-16)
Explanation: SBVMWD provides wastewater service to the Project area. To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, as many as 43 DUs and approximately 78,000 SF of non-residential (commercial and industrial) land uses would be acquired. Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, the corresponding wastewater generation would also be removed.

8.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 49 Additionally, because the Project would only increase the A Yard’s operational efficiency, but would not increase BNSF line operations, no increase in wastewater generation would occur. Analysis indicates removal of the land uses would decrease wastewater generation by approximately 17.3 AFY. Therefore, the Project would not impact the wastewater treatment provider’s capacity to serve existing commitments. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

4. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less than significant. Draft EIR p. 4.16-17 - 4.16-18) Explanation: CONSTRUCTION
The City contracts all solid waste services to Burrtec Waste Industries, which provides all trash, recycling, and organic waste services. The property acquisitions needed to accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements would total approximately 29 acres and would include as many as 43 dwelling units and approximately 78,000 SF of non-residential (commercial and industrial). Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses and all improvements on the respective properties.

Therefore, during demolition and construction, the Project would increase solid waste generation and demand for disposal services over existing conditions.

State law requires a 65 percent diversion rate for construction and demolition activities. The City has established a Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Program as set forth in SBMC 8.24.100 and Resolution No. 2010-325 to help in diverting construction and demolition waste from landfills. The exported demolition debris (demolition, street relocation debris) is expected to be approximately 26,845 tons. The civil improvements (street excavations, railroad track corridor, sound walls, infiltration basin construction) would require the export of approximately 184,300 cubic yards of material.

Compliance with the 65 percent diversion rate requirements would divert approximately 17,449 tons of demolition debris and 119,795 cubic yards of civil improvement materials from landfills. Additional solid waste would be generated during construction.

8.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 50 Solid waste would be transported to the Agua Mansa MRF in the City of Jurupa Valley and West Valley MRF in the City of Fontana. After solid waste has been separated and diverted, it is transferred to local landfills. The estimated exported construction and demolition solid waste, which would not be diverted (approximately 9,396 tons of demolition debris) associated with the land uses demolished would occur over the property acquisitions/demolition construction subphase of 19.5 months. The Project’s waste not diverted from landfills (9,396 tons) would equate to approximately 16 tons per day of construction waste. This daily total represents a negligible percentage (less than one percent) of both landfill’s daily maximum throughput. Therefore, the Project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s construction-related solid waste disposal needs. No significant impact to solid waste facilities would occur. Additionally, Project construction would not conflict with federal, state, or local management and reduction solid waste regulations.

OPERATIONS
To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, as many as 43 dwelling units and approximately 78,000 SF of nonresidential (commercial and industrial) land uses would be acquired.

Property acquisitions would result in the removal of these land uses; thus, the corresponding solid waste generation would also be removed. Additionally, because the Project would only increase the A Yard’s operational efficiency, but would not increase BNSF line operations, no increase in solid waste generation would occur. The proposed Project would decrease solid waste generation by approximately 1,003 lbs/day. Therefore, Project operations would not impact landfill capacities. No significant impact to solid waste facilities would occur. Additionally, Project operations would not conflict with federal, state, or local management and reduction solid waste regulations.

Q. WILDFIRE

1. Response Plans, Pollutant Concentrations, Infrastructure Risks, and Slopes Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and

8.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 51 thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Threshold: Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 7.0-2)
Explanation: See Section I: Hydrology and Water Quality above concerning drainage changes. The Project site is not within or near a state responsibility area or land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones pursuant to CalFire’s San Bernardino Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The Project site is surrounded by existing development and does not propose new slopes or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Further, the Project site is not in an area of the City that is potentially susceptible to slope failure. The Project site is relatively flat with no evidence of on-site landslides/debris flows. Therefore, the Project would result in no impact concerning wildfires or exposure of people or structures to significant risk from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

8.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 52 SECTION III: IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

INCORPORATED
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Mitigation Measures will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

A. AIR QUALITY

1. Ambient Air Quality Standard
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Finding: Less than significant with Standard Condition and mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.2-31 - 4.2-34) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: CONSTRUCTION
The Project’s construction phase would not result in emissions levels that exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds for constructionrelated emissions with standard conditions and mitigation incorporated. This conclusion is based on modeling done in CalEEMod that shows all mitigated construction emissions fall under each threshold. If emissions went unmitigated, NOx emissions would be exceeded. MM AQ-1 requires that Tier 4-level emission compliant construction equipment be used. NOx would be mitigated to below SQAMD’s threshold since Tier 4-level equipment emits less NOx than other equipment. Fugitive dust may also be an issue, however Standard condition AQ-1 (SQ AQ-1) minimizes fugitive dust through watering and removal of the source. Therefore, the Project’s construction phase would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

OPERATIONS
The Project operations phase would create emissions associated with train operations and motor vehicles. The Project does not propose an increased number of trains using the track, and instead would result in less idling time for trains passing through. Project operations would reduce the amount of emissions generated after its completion. Therefore, the Project’s emissions would result in a less

8.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 53 than significant long-term regional air quality impact and no mitigation is required.

MM AQ-1: Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino Planning Division and City Traffic Engineer that the following measures will be implemented during construction:
a) Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.
b) Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment both on and off of the Project site. c) Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and
maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications.
d) Require the use of electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline-powered generators, as feasible. e) Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX emissions
requirements. Note that CARB’s Truck and Bus regulation specifies that trucks and buses shall be required to have 2010 or newer model year engines by January 1, 2023.
f) During Project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction, equipment operating on the Project site shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 4 emissions standards, or higher according to the following:
• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 4 final offroad emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than
what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
• A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or South Coast AQMD
operating permit shall be provided at the time of
mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.

8.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 54 • During construction, the Construction Contractor shall maintain a list of all on-site operating equipment for City verification. The on-site construction equipment list
shall specify the equipment makes, models, and
quantities. The reporting and maintenance records for
each equipment shall be available for inspection and
remain on-site for at least two years after completion of construction.

SC AQ-1: Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino Planning Division that the grading plans and specifications require the Applicant to ensure that all construction contractors comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. South Coast AQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

South Coast AQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible beyond the property line of the emission source. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Rule 403 lists the BACMs that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) The Project would disturb more than 50 acres and would be considered a large operation by Rule 403. The Project shall submit Large Operation Notification Forms to the South Coast AQMD.
b) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
c) All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
d) All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

8.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 55 e) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times.
f) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

The City Council finds Standard Condition SCAQ-1 and Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce air quality impacts. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts regarding air quality, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Standard Conditions and mitigation measures will further reduce air quality impacts. (Draft EIR pp. 4.2-34 - 4.2-36) B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game [now Department of Fish and Wildlife] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service[USFWS]?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-37 - 4.3-38) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: The analysis found the Project would not impact any native vegetation community. Approximately 41 acres of non-native and disturbed vegetation and other areas would be impacted by the proposed Project, however, except burrowing owl habitat, no portion of the Project survey area involves suitable habitat for the specialstatus plant or wildlife species.

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) results included historical occurrences of 12 special-status plant species and 12 special-status wildlife species within one mile of the Project site. The USFWS query results included historical occurrences of three special-status wildlife species within 1.0 mile of the Project site.

8.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 56 There is no potential for occurrence of the 12 special-status plant species and 12 special-status wildlife species within the Project survey area since suitable habitat is not present. Therefore, the Project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status plant or wildlife species, or their habitats. No impact would occur in this regard. The Western burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. The CNDDB query results did not contain any historical occurrences of burrowing owl within one mile of the Project site. Further, no burrowing owl individuals or burrowing owl sign were observed within the Project survey area during the field surveys. Notwithstanding, the Project site has low potential to support burrowing owl given California ground squirrel activity that can result in future suitable burrows for burrowing owl refuge and nesting. Therefore, Project construction could have a significant adverse effect on burrowing owl. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1, which requires a pre-construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls prior to any construction activity, potential impacts to burrowing owls would be reduced to less than significant.

MM BIO-1: Prior to construction activity resulting in ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction
presence/absence survey for burrowing owls. Survey results shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino for review. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 30 days of site disturbance on the Project survey area plus a 500-foot buffer. If the survey determines burrowing owls are absent, the Project may proceed without further restrictions related to burrowing owls. If the survey determines burrowing owls are present, protective measures shall be implemented to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and other applicable California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) requirements and include, but are not limited to the following:
a) Occupied burrowing owl habitat shall not be disturbed during nesting season (February 1-August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging
independently and are capable of an independent survival flight.
b) If relocation is required, a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for review and approval prior to relocation of owls. The Burrowing Owl Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall describe

8.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 57 proposed relocation and monitoring plans. The plan shall include the number and location(s) of occupied sites and details on adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial burrows (numbers, locations, and type of burrows) shall be included in the plan. The plan shall also describe specific procedures to compensate for impacts to burrowing owl/occupied burrows.

Such procedures may include, but are not limited to, the purchase/conservation of off-site suitable habitat that is known to support burrowing owl. Specific ratios would be determined in consultation with CDFW.
c) If burrowing owl must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques shall be used. Owls must be relocated by a qualified biologist from any occupied burrows that would be impacted by Project activities.

Required relocation shall be approved by the CDFW. A report summarizing the results of the relocation and monitoring shall be submitted to the City and the CDFW within 30 days
following completion of the burrowing owl relocation and monitoring.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to sensitive wildlife species. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts to sensitive wildlife species, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to sensitive wildlife species. (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-38 - 4.3-39)

2. Wetlands
Threshold: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-39 - 4.3-40) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))

8.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 58 Explanation: There are two potentially jurisdictional features in the Project survey area (Features 1 and 2). Features 1 and 2 are considered nonjurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as they are ephemeral ditches, which are specifically classified as “non-jurisdictional waters” in 33 CFR 328.3(b)(1), (b)(3), and/or (b)(5). Therefore, no USACE permitting would be required for the proposed Project.

The Project would permanently impact approximately 0.07-acre (701 linear feet) of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)- jurisdictional ephemeral waters of the State/surface waters and 0.12- acre (701 linear feet) of CDFW-jurisdictional ephemeral streambed.

Impacts on RWQCB and CDFW jurisdictional features would require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), a Water Quality
Certification, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively.

Additionally, compensatory mitigation may be required by the regulatory agencies to offset the proposed Project impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2, impacts to jurisdictional “waters of the State” would be reduced to less than significant.

MM BIO-2: Based on the results of the Project’s Jurisdictional Delineation, the proposed Project would permanently impact 0.07-acre of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)-jurisdictional waters of the State and 0.12-acre of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-jurisdictional ephemeral streambed (i.e., Feature 1, sparsely vegetated earthen- and concrete-lined ditch; Feature 2, concrete- and riprap-lined ditch and basin). Prior to any ground disturbing activity near the jurisdictional features, applicable permits shall be obtained through the RWQCB and CDFW for impacts to jurisdictional features. The Applicant shall implement/comply with the mitigation required by the resource agencies regarding impacts within their respective jurisdictions.

Given the on-site jurisdictional features’ disturbed and limited aquatic resource functions, it is expected that permanent impacts to jurisdictional features would be compensated for at a 1:1 mitigation ratio. Potential compensatory mitigation to offset impacts to jurisdictional resources may be implemented through off-site, permittee-responsible mitigation, in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank credit purchase, or a combination of these options depending on availability. The proposed mitigation strategy shall prioritize inkind and in-watershed options per the regulatory agencies’ preferences. The regulatory agencies will make the final determination of the final compensatory mitigation requirements during the permit evaluation process.

8.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 59 The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to jurisdictional waters. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional waters as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts to jurisdictional waters. (Draft EIR p. 4.3-40)

3. Migratory Species and Corridors
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-40 - 4.3-41) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: The Project site is in a highly developed area and therefore, does not support any wildlife corridors. However, the Project site has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed or ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season (January 15 to August 31). Impacts on nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and CFGC. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-3, impacts on migratory wildlife species (i.e., nesting birds) would be less than significant.

MM BIO-3: Vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (January 15 to August 31) to the extent feasible. If avoidance of the nesting season is infeasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within ten days prior to any ground disturbance, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. Survey results shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino for review. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Bird nest buffers shall be established by the biologist in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Generally, raptor species will have an avoidance buffer of 200 to 500

8.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 60 feet and passerine bird species will have an avoidance buffer of 50 to 300 feet. The biologist shall record the results of the recommended protective measures and shall submit a memo summarizing any nest avoidance measures to the City of San Bernardino to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM BIO-3 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts on migratory wildlife species (i.e., nesting birds). Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts on migratory wildlife species (i.e., nesting birds), as identified in the EIR.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related on migratory wildlife species (i.e., nesting birds). (Draft EIR p. 4.3-41)
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-25) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: The Project’s archaeological survey concluded that the Project area and surrounding lands have been greatly disturbed by past development, such as construction and maintenance of the railroad, roads, and the many nearby buildings would result in unlikely archaeological remains from the prehistoric period or the early historic period to survive intact. Further, General Plan EIR Exhibit

5.4-2 indicates that the Project site is not within an area of concern for archaeological resources.

Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Missions Indians, upon review of the Project Geotechnical Report, Cultural Resources Report, and Project exhibits, concluded that the Project is highly unlikely to disturb previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Nonetheless, there is potential to encounter previously unknown significant

8.b
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 61 archaeological resources during excavation, and a potentially significant impact would occur. Therefore, the Project would be subject to compliance with Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 to mitigate any potentially significant impacts. MM CUL-1 requires that Native American tribes be contact in the event of a find, and MM CUL-2 requires preparation of a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, if significant pre-contact cultural resources are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured. Potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant, with mitigation incorporated.

MM CUL-1: Contact Native American Tribe In the Event of a Find: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease, the City shall be notified and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input concerning significance and treatment.

MM CUL-2: Monitoring and Treatment Plan: If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI and the City for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to archeological resources. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts to archeological resources, as identified in the EIR.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to archeological resources. (Draft EIR pp. 4.4-25 - 4.4-26)

8.b
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 62 D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.6-17 - 4.6-18) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: Surface deposits in the Project area typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers.

However, these deposits may be underlain at relatively shallow depth by older Quaternary deposits that do contain significant fossil vertebrate remains. Shallow excavations (less than 5.0 feet bgs) in the younger Quaternary alluvium exposed throughout the Project area are unlikely to encounter significant vertebrate fossils. Deeper excavations (greater than 5.0 feet bgs) that extend down into older Quaternary deposits, however, may encounter significant remains of fossil vertebrates. Due to the presence of older Quaternary deposits throughout the Project site, there is high potential for paleontological resources to be present where excavations extend deeper than 5.0 feet bgs. Potential effects to paleontological resources would primarily be associated with ground disturbing activities at these locations. Any deep excavations in the Project area’s older Quaternary deposits should be monitored closely to quickly and professionally recover any fossil remains while not impeding development. Also, sediment samples should be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the proposed Project area. Any fossils collected should be placed in an accredited scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.

Ground-disturbing activities deeper than 5.0 feet bgs could destroy a unique paleontological resource. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1, which requires paleontological construction monitoring and a compliance program, would be required. With implementation of MM GEO-1, the Project’s potential impacts concerning the destruction of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature would be less than significant.

Project operations would not involve any activities that would impact paleontological resources. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard.

8.b
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 63 MM GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Program. a. Retain a Qualified Project Paleontologist. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Owner shall retain a qualified Project Paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist, to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. b. Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Program. After Project design has been finalized to determine the precise extent and location of ground disturbing activities, and prior to ground disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Program to be implemented during the Project’s ground disturbing activities. The Program shall be prepared in accordance with the standards set forth by current Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010). Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Program shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino.

Ground disturbing activities deeper than 5.0 feet below ground surface in areas mapped as high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., older Quaternary deposits) shall be monitored on a full-time basis by a qualified paleontological monitor during initial ground disturbing activities.

The Program shall be supervised by the Project Paleontologist in coordination with the City of San Bernardino. The duration and timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the Project Paleontologist. If the Project Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend to the City that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated, if reduction or suspension would need to be reconsidered by the Project Paleontologist.

The Program shall outline the procedures for construction staff Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, paleontological monitoring extent and duration, salvage and preparation of fossils, the final mitigation and monitoring report, and paleontological staff qualifications.
c. Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).

Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct construction personnel training regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be presented at a preconstruction meeting that a qualified paleontologist shall attend.

8.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 64 d. Fossil Discovery. In the event of a fossil discovery by construction personnel, all work in the find’s immediate vicinity shall cease, and the City of San Bernardino and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If ground disturbing activities bring potentially sensitive geologic deposits to the surface in areas considered to have an undetermined paleontological sensitivity, these areas shall be inspected and further assessed. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the following conditions:
e. Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, the Project paleontologist or paleontological monitor should recover them. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case, the paleontologist would have the authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

1. Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, the City would ensure that significant fossils would be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curationready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the San Diego County Natural History Museum), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined
significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Project paleontologist. Field collection and preparation of fossil specimens shall be performed by the Project paleontologist with further preparation as needed by an accredited museum repository institution at the time of curation. f. Final Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activities (and curation of fossils, if necessary) the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a Final Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Report outlining the results of the Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Program. The report shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino and shall include discussion of the location, duration, and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to paleontological resources. Accordingly, the City Council finds that,

8.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 65 pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to paleontological resources. (Draft EIR pp. 4.6-18 - 4.6-20)
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-22 - 4.8-23) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: The Project site is not included on a hazardous site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code section 65962.5. However, there are 13 properties that are identified as REC sites and would be acquired to accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements. Therefore, construction activities could encounter contaminants or interfere with ongoing remediation efforts.

Construction could also result in the discovery of previously unknown contamination.

The effects of hazardous-waste containing chemical compounds would generally be limited to the immediate areas where the materials would be excavated, handled, and stored because exposure would be most likely in these areas. For this reason, the individuals most at risk would be the construction workers, operations personnel, or others in the immediate vicinity during excavation, transportation, or storage of hazardous waste, or during construction.

Compliance with federal and state regulations and policies, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, All Appropriate Inquiry, Public Resources Code section 21151.4, and the certified Unified Program administered by the CUPA, would require environmental site assessment procedures

8.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 66 (due diligence) for improvements on or near a potentially hazardous or contaminated site. Potential hazards would be minimized through the careful design and placement of Project elements, avoiding contaminated sites where possible. All necessary remediation would be conducted before construction. If necessary, regulatory approval for construction at contaminated sites would be sought and planned for.

Interference with any ongoing remediation activities at a given site could increase the risk of a release of contaminants or result in an interruption in cleanup; thus, construction at sites of environmental concern would require coordination with regulatory agencies before proceeding with construction. In accordance with Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would be conducted during the property acquisition phase, and appropriate remediation including removal of contamination, in-situ treatment, or soil capping would be conducted prior to acquisition. MM HAZ-1 requires a qualified Site Characterization specialist to conduct a site characterization for each of these 13 properties identified as REC sites prior to ground disturbing activities. Upon completion of site characterization activities, remedial activities, if necessary, would be recommended and implemented in consultation with the San Bernardino Environmental Health Division (EHD). With
implementation of MM HAZ-1, potential impacts associated with soil and groundwater contamination on the Project site would be reduced to less than significant levels.

MM HAZ-1: Environmental Site Assessment. Prior to ground disturbing activities, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted on the 13 properties identified as recognized environmental concerns (REC) in the Hazardous Materials Assessment (KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc., January 9, 2019) and provided to the City of San Bernardino. The Phase I ESA’s shall include a
recommendation on whether or not a Phase II ESA is required for the property. If a Phase I ESA recommends a Phase II ESA, a Phase II ESA shall be prepared for the property. The Phase II ESA shall include soil and groundwater sampling and shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino. The sampling shall be conducted by a qualified Phase II/Site Characterization specialist. Upon completion of site characterization activities, the Site Characterization specialist shall recommend remedial activities, if necessary, in consultation with the San Bernardino Environmental Health Division (EHD). This recommendation from the Phase II ESA shall be implemented to the satisfaction of EHD.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to hazardous

8.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 67 materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts regarding hazardous materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to hazardous materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-23 – 4.8-24)
F. NOISE
Threshold: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.11- 24 - 4.11- 44) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: CONSTRUCTION
Project construction-related activities could affect the exterior noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residential land uses immediately south and west of the Project site). These sensitive receptors may be exposed to elevated noise levels during Project construction. However, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the Project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding noise-sensitive receptors. Additionally, the Project proposes three construction staging areas that would be sited to maximize distances between sensitive receptors and construction areas. The construction equipment used near the existing residences would include jack hammers, heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, and scrapers.

The highest noise level from these types of equipment is 88 dBA at 50 feet. Construction activities would generally be limited to weekday daytime hours when most people would typically be out of their houses, and grading activities would conform to the time-of-day restrictions of SBMC section 8.54.070, the City’s Noise Ordinance, prohibiting construction except within the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. However, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 90 dBA Leq to evaluate construction noise impacts.

8.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 68 Based on the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018), a reasonable worst-case assumption is that the two loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously within a focused area and occur continuously over at least one hour. The combined sound level of a jack hammer and dozer is 90 dBA when measured at 50 feet from the noise source. The distance from the closest area where heavy equipment would operate to the sensitive receptor’s area of frequent human use would be 94 feet. Based on distance attenuation alone, this maximum noise level would be reduced to 85 dBA at the closest receptor. Therefore, construction noise would not exceed the worst-case FTA construction noise criteria of 90 dBA for residential land uses.

Actual construction-related noise levels would be lower than the conservative levels described above and would cease upon completion of construction. Due to the variability of Project construction activities and equipment, overall construction noise levels would be intermittent and would fluctuate over time. These assumptions represent the worst-case noise scenario because construction activities would typically be spread out throughout the Project site, and thus some equipment would be farther away from the affected receptors. In addition, the noise modeling assumes that construction noise is constant, when, in fact, construction activities and associated noise levels would fluctuate and generally be brief and sporadic, depending on the type, intensity, and location of construction activities.

The Contractor would equip all construction equipment, fixed and mobile, with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers, consistent with manufacturer’s standards (Project Design Feature).

Additionally, Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1 is required to ensure that construction would be consistent with the assumptions described in the analysis provided and would reduce or minimize the severity of construction noise impacts through a variety of noise abatement methods. This measure includes requirements for the proper maintenance and use of equipment; specifies the locations of stationary equipment and maintenance; places limits on engine idling; and restricts the use of noise-producing signals for safety warning purposes only. Mitigation Measures MM NOI-2 and MM NOI-3 require notification of sensitive receptors within 100 feet of the construction limits, and placement of signage related to construction activities, respectively. Implementation of MMs NOI-1 through NOI-3 would minimize construction noise impacts. Additionally, adherence to SBMC section 8.54.070 and proposed Project design features including strategically-placed construction staging areas and use of noise mufflers would reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.

8.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 69 Construction Traffic Noise. Construction noise may be generated from vehicular traffic moving materials to and from the Project site.

The Project would generate up to 1,351 worker trips during rail construction and 170 haul trips per day during grading. These trips would be dispersed through various roadways along the Project’s

4.3-mile alignment and would not occur all along one particular roadway.

Large trucks would be necessary to deliver construction equipment and materials, as well as to import and export soil. Haul trucks associated with construction would occur during the allowable hours for construction specified in SBMC section 8.54.070 (7:00 AM and 8:00 PM). The State establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads using a pass-by test procedure. Pass-by noise refers to the noise level produced by an individual vehicle as it travels past a fixed location. Additionally, for heavy trucks, the State pass by standard is consistent with the Federal limit of 80 dB. The State pass by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than

4.5 tons gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dB at 15 meters from the centerline. According to the FHWA, dump trucks typically generate noise levels of 76 dBA and flatbed trucks typically generate noise levels of 74 dBA, at a distance of 50 feet from the truck (FHWA, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006). As such, noise from truck trips associated with the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed FTA threshold levels of 90 dBA (one-hour Leq) or 80 dBA (eight-hour Leq). Therefore, the Project’s constructionrelated activities (mobile) would result in a less than significant impact concerning generation of an increase in ambient noise levels in the Project’s vicinity, based on applicable standards.

OPERATIONS
Operational Vehicular Noise. The Project is proposed to enhance the BNSF Intermodal A Yard’s efficiency by reducing train congestion along the existing lead tracks. Project implementation would not increase the number of permanent employees or A Yard traffic. To accommodate the proposed rail and ancillary improvements, the Project requires acquisition of approximately 29 acres of adjacent properties where residential and non-residential land uses are located. As many as 43 DU (36 single-family, seven multi-family), six commercial buildings (approximately 46,000 SF), and three industrial buildings (approximately 32,000 SF) would be acquired. Because the Project would remove these existing land uses, the Project is forecast to decrease traffic by 672 trips per day (-58 AM peak hour trips and -70 PM peak hour trips), thus, a proportionate decrease in vehicular noise would also occur. Partial acquisition of some properties would create remnant parcels not required for the Project.

8.b
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 70 The Project does not propose any General Plan land use designation or zone change on these remnant parcel and their underlying/ existing land use designations/zoning would be retained.

Additionally, reassignment of vehicle trips resulting from the proposed circulation/roadway improvements/modifications to multiple City roadways (i.e., vacations, realignments, and cul-desacs) would be nominal and localized. In general, a traffic noise increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. The Project would not create additional operational vehicle trips that would result in a noticeable change in traffic noise levels. Therefore, the Project’s operational vehicular trips would result in a less than significant offsite traffic noise impact.

Operational Train Noise. The Project is proposed to enhance the BNSF Intermodal A Yard’s efficiency by reducing train congestion along the existing lead tracks. Construction of the proposed fourth lead track would not increase the number of train trips and operations would not increase the train speeds. Along certain portions of the rail corridor, Project implementation would encroach train traffic to the west, closer to sensitive receptors. Noise modeling was calculated for the nearest receivers west and southwest of the Project alignment for existing plus Project conditions. Existing plus Project conditions modeling results indicate that train noise levels under Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project conditions would exceed the applicable FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Project thresholds, as well as the City’s normally acceptable threshold of 60 dBA and conditionally acceptable threshold of 70 dBA for residential land uses. Railroad noise levels under existing conditions already exceed the City’s noise standards for residential uses generally within 250 feet. Project implementation would potentially increase levels by up to 6 dBA in some locations.

A moderate noise impact would occur along Segments 4 and 7 (south of West Evans). Removal of structures and building row barriers would expose the second row of receptors to increased train noise levels. The Project’s property acquisitions would also occur at locations where residences are nearest the railroad corridor. A Severe Impact would occur along Segments 7 (north of West Evans), 8, 9, 10, and 11. Severe Impacts would cause annoyance to a significant percentage of people. Therefore, implementation of MM NOI-4, which requires construction of sound barriers (i.e., sound walls) at various locations along the Project site to attenuate rail noise impacts on sensitive receptors. The sound walls required by

8.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 71 MM NOI-4 would sufficiently reduce noise levels at the severely impacted receptors to comply with FTA criteria resulting in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

MM NOI-1: Prior to any ground-disturbing or other noise-generating activities, the Construction Manager shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of San Bernardino Community and Economic Development Director that:
o All construction vehicles and equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in good operating condition and be equipped with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust muffles, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
o Where stationary equipment, such as generators, cranes, and air compressors, is within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor including offices, the equipment shall be equipped with appropriate noise reduction measures (e.g., silencers,
shrouds, or other devices) to limit noise.
o Equipment maintenance, vehicle parking, and material
staging areas shall be as far away from sensitive receptors (including offices) adjacent to the construction site, as feasible.
o Electrically powered equipment instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment shall be used to the extent possible.
o All internal combustion engine idling both on the site and at nearby queuing areas shall be limited to no more than five minutes for any given vehicle or machine. Signs shall be posted at the construction site and along queueing lanes to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. o The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells shall be for safety warning purposes only.

Use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters.

MM NOI-2: A minimum of 30 days prior to any ground-disturbing or other noise generating activities, the Contractor shall notify all businesses within 100 of the Project site of the planned start date, duration, nature of the construction activity, and the proposed noise abatement

8.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 72 measures. The notification shall include a contact telephone number for questions and the submittal of any complaints of excess, unanticipated noise or vibration.

MM NOI-3: Prior to any ground-disturbing or other noise generating activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the construction site, clearly visible to the public, that contains the Contractor or their designee’s contact name and telephone number to respond in the event of a vibration or noise complaint. If the Contractor or their designee receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City of San Bernardino Community and Economic Development Director.

MM NOI-4: BNSF (or its designee) shall construct sound walls along the west side of the proposed Ono Lead Extension in areas where a Severe Impact has been identified (see Table 4.11-11). The sound wall shall be approximately 8.0 feet high and shall be sufficient to block the line-of-sight from sensitive receptors to the noise source and designed such that any gaps in material are no greater than 10 percent of the barrier’s total area. Specifically, sound walls shall be provided along the following locations:
o Segment 7: A sound wall approximately 200 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way
(approximately Stations 256 to 258) adjacent to where the proposed residential property full take would occur.

Specifically, Property Nos. 29-33 located north and south of Evans Place would result in full private property takes to accommodate the proposed sound wall.
o Segment 8: A sound wall approximately 500 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way
(approximately Stations 265 to 270) adjacent to where the proposed property full take would occur.
o Segment 9: A sound wall approximately 670 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way
(approximately Stations 288.5 to 295) adjacent to where the proposed property full take would occur.
o Segment 10: A sound wall approximately 430 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way
(approximately Stations 307 to 311.5) adjacent to where the proposed property full take would occur.
o Segment 11: A sound wall approximately 330 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way

8.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 73 (approximately Stations 313 to 317) adjacent to where the proposed private property full take would occur.

The proposed sound walls shall be a minimum of 8.0 feet high and of sufficient height to block the line-of-sight from nearby sensitive receptors to the railway. The proposed sound walls shall be designed such that any gaps in material are no greater than 10 percent of the wall’s total area.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures MM NOI-1 through MM NOI-4 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to ambient noise levels. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts regarding ambient noise levels, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to ambient noise levels. (Draft EIR pp.

4.11-45 – 4.11-46)
G. TRANSPORTATION

1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.14-27 - 4.14- 34) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: CONSTRUCTION
The Project would generate 38 peak hour trips. A traffic study is warranted if a project’s trip generation adds at least 500 daily trips or at least 50 AM or PM peak hour trips. Because Project construction activities would generate fewer than 500 daily trips or 50 AM or PM peak hour trips, the Project’s construction-related transportation impacts would be less than significant.

The trips removed from the roadway network associated with the acquired properties would be greater than the trips generated by construction activities. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related transportation impacts would be less than significant.

8.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 74 The City of San Bernardino does not designate truck routes. To avoid or reduce conflicts between construction traffic and nearby land uses, Project-related construction vehicles would use the following study area designated Freeways/Highways, Major Arterials, and Secondary Arterials for access to/from the Project area: I-215, State Route 210 (SR-210), State Street/University Parkway, California Street, Medical Center Drive, Mount Vernon Avenue, H Street, North G Street, North E Street, 5th Street, 9th Street, Base Line Street, 16th Street, Highland Road, and Cajon Boulevard.

Truck deliveries would occur intermittently throughout the day, and consistent with SBMC section 8.54.070, would be restricted to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Further, SBGP Policy

6.5.2 states “continue to regulate on-street parking of trucks to prevent truck parking on residential streets or in other locations where they are incompatible with adjacent land uses.” The proposed construction staging areas where construction traffic would park vehicles were identified to minimize impacts to the nearby residential areas. BNSF would be required to comply with Caltrans, City of San Bernardino, and other relevant jurisdictions concerning limitations for encroachment into the public ROW and secure the necessary encroachment permits.

To ensure Project compliance with weight, size, time of movement, and route restrictions established by the City, County, and Caltrans, Mitigation Measure MM TRA-1 would be incorporated. MM TRA-1 requires that BNSF provide documentation of the necessary transportation permits in order that project-related construction traffic does not conflict with nearby land uses. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The Project would also be required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM TRA-2, which requires preparation and implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP, which would be implemented during all construction phases, would include traffic and parking management techniques to reduce construction-related traffic disruptions and congestion around the Project area. Therefore, construction-related traffic impacts on existing circulation patterns and intersections and roadways would be less than significant.

OPERATIONS
The Project does not propose to increase BNSF line operations. It would increase the A Yard’s operational efficiency and no employment increase is expected. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate vehicle trips or change vehicle travel patterns to or from the Project site. While Project operations would not generate any vehicle trips, the Project would displace existing land uses. Trips

8.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 75 generated by these displaced land uses would be deducted from existing traffic volumes.

The Project is forecast to reduce traffic by 572 trips per day (-50 AM peak hour trips and -61 PM peak hour trips). Since the proposed Project would decrease vehicle trips on the roadway network through removal of existing buildings, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact transportation impact during Project operations.

To accommodate the proposed rail improvements, the proposed Project includes circulation and roadway improvements and modifications to multiple City roadways, including street vacations, realignments, and cul-de-sacs. Proposed street vacations and construction of cul-de-sacs would occur prior to commencing Project construction. To provide a conservative analysis, the impacts associated with these improvements are included with the Project’s assumed improvements and are evaluated in the DEIR.

The Project would remove existing sidewalks along the west side of North I Street between 10th Street and 11th Street, and between 14th Street and Evans Street, as well as the existing development on the parcels that front these existing sidewalks. Because all improvements would be consistent with City standards, the proposed Project would not conflict with any program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian facilities.

No bicycle facilities or transit facilities are along the portions of roadways proposed for vacation or modification. The nearest bicycle facilities, transfer points, and bus stops would not be impacted by the Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or programs regarding bicycle and transit facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

MM TRA-1: Prior to Grading Permit issuance, BNSF (or its designee) shall comply with Caltrans, the City of San Bernardino, and other relevant jurisdictions concerning limitations on vehicle sizes and weights. In addition, BNSF (or its designee) shall secure the necessary transportation permits for roadway use..

MM TRA-2: Traffic Management Plan (TMP). At least 60 days prior to start of site mobilization, BNSF (or its designee) shall submit the TMP to the City of San Bernardino and each affected jurisdiction for review and approval. The TMP, which shall be implemented during all construction phases, shall include traffic and parking management techniques to reduce construction-related traffic disruptions and

8.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 76 congestion around the Project area. The TMP shall at a minimum address the following factors:
o Traffic Flow Route and Timing: Local and alternate routes and emergency access. Haul routes based on construction
staging areas and City-designated routes. Timing heavy
construction equipment and building material deliveries. o Site and Surrounding Property Access: Vehicle access and circulation.
o On-site Parking: Construction worker parking lot assignment. o Traffic Control: Street and intersection controls (e.g., flag persons, temporary travel lane closure, etc.).

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures MM TRA-1 and MM TRA-2 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to transportation/circulation system. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts regarding transportation/circulation systems, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.14-34 – 4.14-34)
H. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is:
• 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), or
• 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.

8.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 77 Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.15-6 - 4.14-7) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: The City sent AB 52 invitations for consultation to various California Native American tribes.

The City received an AB 52 request for consultation from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The San Manuel Band of Missions Indians, upon review of the Project Geotechnical Report, Cultural Resources Report, and Project exhibits, concluded that it is highly unlikely to disturb previously unknown tribal cultural resources, especially given the amount of existing disturbance and since between 2.0 and 5.0 feet of artificial fill is located within the Project footprint. The Project site is an urban developed environment and on-site properties have previously involved grading activities such as over-excavation, deep excavation for foundation support, and scarifying. These activities would have disturbed substantial amounts of material such that the likelihood of there being an unknown tribal cultural resource is low. Additionally, proposed excavations would generally be less than 5.0 feet deep except at basins, ditches, and utility installations. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TCR-1 and MM TCR-2 (see also MM CUL1 and MM CUL-2), potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Native American coordination and cultural resource analyses conducted for the Project did not identify a tribal cultural resource, listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR or local register, that would undergo substantial adverse change as a result of the Project.

Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

MM TCR-1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) and City of San Bernardino shall be contacted (see also CUL-1 and CUL-2) if any pre-contact cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input concerning significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

8.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 78 MM TCR-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents generated as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures MM TCR-1 and MM TCR-2 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, as identified in the EIR.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources. (Draft EIR p. 4.15-7)
J. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Relocation and Construction of New Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pp. 4.16-9 – 4.16-18) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))
Explanation: To accommodate the new lead track and ancillary improvements, the proposed Project would require relocation of existing utility/service system infrastructure (i.e., water, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications) and construction of new stormwater drainage and treatment infrastructure. The analysis addresses various affected utilities. Three storm drain and water quality treatment design options are being considered. Because Design Option 1 involves more infiltration basins, deeper excavation and proportionately greater soil export would be required. Therefore, to provide a conservative analysis, this EIR analyzes the Project’s construction-related impacts under Design Option 1.

8.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 79 Construction impacts related to utility relocations and stormwater improvements, such as dust, noise, soil erosion, and transportation, are evaluated in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of the EIR. As concluded in these sections, construction-related environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and implementation of the specified mitigation measures. Therefore, utility construction and relocation associated with the proposed Project would not cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. See Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM GEO-1, MM HAZ-1, MMs NOI-1 through
NOI-4, MM TRA-1, and MM TRA-2.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1, MM CUL1, MM CUL-2, MM GEO-1, MM HAZ-1, MMs NOI-1 through NOI-4, MM TRA-1, and MM TRA-2 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts related to relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities. (Draft EIR pp. 4.16-9 – 4.16-18)

8.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 80 SECTION IV: IMPACTS THAN CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. As a result, no Statement of Overriding Considerations is warranted.

8.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 81 SECTION V: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

A. AESTHETICS
Development within the City’s planning area could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. No damage to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway would occur because none traverse the City’s planning area. Potential aesthetic impacts would depend upon the development’s characteristics and the respective development sites and their surroundings. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential aesthetic impacts. Future development would be subject to compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning aesthetics. Additionally, implementation of project-specific mitigation would reduce potential impacts. As such, cumulative impacts to aesthetics would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the City’s established regulatory framework.

Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to aesthetics associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and site-specific mitigation. San Bernardino(Draft EIR p. 4.1-25)
B. AIR QUALITY

CONSTRUCTION
The Project’s construction-related emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants with implementation of SC AQ-1 and MM AQ-1. Because these significance thresholds indicate whether individual project emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that project-related construction emissions would not potentially be cumulatively considerable. The South Coast AQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be used during construction, including frequent water applications. South Coast AQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB that would include related cumulative projects. The Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Compliance with South Coast AQMD rules and regulations would help minimize the proposed Project’s construction-related emissions. Project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not be expected to substantially deteriorate the local air quality. Because the Project would not

8.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 82 exceed the South Coast AQMD’s construction thresholds, the Project would not significantly contribute to a cumulatively considerable construction emissions impact.

OPERATIONS
The Project would not generate additional operational emissions to exceed South Coast AQMD thresholds. As a result, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Adherence to South Coast AQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Project operations would not significantly contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of nonattainment criteria pollutants.(Draft EIR pp. 4.2-44 - 4.2-45)
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOUCES
Development within the City’s planning area could cause impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and sensitive species, riparian habitat, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdictional waters, and wildlife movement corridors present in undeveloped portions of the City and its Sphere of Influence. All future development with the potential to impact biological resources would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal and state regulatory requirements, including SBGP goals and policies, intended to reduce and/or avoid potential adverse environmental effects. As such, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework, through the established regulatory review process.

Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to biological resources associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR pp. 4.3-42 - 4.3-43) D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Development within the City’s planning area could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource, or disturb human remains.

Potential cultural resource impacts associated with the individual developments would be specific to each site. Implementation of site-specific mitigation would reduce potential project impacts to as-yet unidentified archaeological resources to less than significant levels. As such, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated on a projectby-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework, through the established regulatory review process.

Concerning the significant unavoidable impact to historical resources resulting from SBGP implementation (i.e., Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan), the Project’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable given the Project would result in no impact to historical resources. The Project would not cause a cumulatively significant effect concerning impacts to historical resources.

8.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 83 The combined cumulative impacts to archaeological resources and human remains associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-27) E. ENERGY
Development within the City’s planning area could cause urbanization and result in increased energy use. Potential impacts from energy consumption would be projectspecific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts concerning energy usage. All development would be subject to compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning energy usage. As such, cumulative impacts concerning energy usage would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework, through the established regulatory process.

Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts concerning energy usage associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR p. 4.5-14) F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Development within the City’s planning area could cause potential substantial adverse effects concerning geology and soils, or disturb paleontological resources. Potential geology, soils, and paleontological resource impacts associated with the individual developments would be specific to each development site. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to involving geology and soils, and potential impact to paleontological resources. All development would be subject to compliance with the existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning seismic design, soil measures, and protection of paleontological resources. Additionally, implementation of site-specific mitigation would reduce potential project impacts to as-yet unidentified paleontological resources to less than significant levels. As such, cumulative impacts involving geology and soils, and potential impact to paleontological resources would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the City’s established regulatory framework.

Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to geology, soils, and paleontological resources associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant upon compliance with the established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR p. 4.6-20) G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern.

8.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 84 Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (approximately one day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric lifetimes of one year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the world. It is generally the case that an individual project and nature, including development within the City’s planning area, is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. Project-related GHG emissions would decrease, thus, the Project would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. In addition, the Project and other cumulative related projects, would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Project’s GHG emissions would be less than significant. As discussed above, the Project would reduce the annual GHG emissions from rail operations. Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to GHG emissions associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with Project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR pp. 4.7-27 - 4.7-28)
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Development within the City’s planning area could cause a substantial increase in the transport, use, or disposal of hazards or hazardous materials, which could be near onequarter mile of a school. Potential hazardous material impacts associated with the individual developments would be specific to each site. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. All development would be subject to compliance with the existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning the transport, use, and disposal of hazards or hazardous materials. Additionally, implementation of site-specific mitigation would reduce potential project impacts from as-yet unidentified hazards to less than significant levels.

As such, cumulative impacts from hazards and hazardous materials would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework.

Therefore, combined cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework. (Draft EIR pp.

4.8-25 - 4.8-26)
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Development within the City’s planning area would be evaluated at the project-level, as they are implemented. Cumulative development would undergo a plan review process for potential to impact hydrology and water quality. The degree of hydrology and water quality

8.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 85 impacts would depend upon the type of land use proposed, the change in impervious surface area, existing and proposed stormwater infrastructure, and water demands. All future development would be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations concerning hydrology and water quality. Each project would also be required to comply with existing water quality standards at the time of development review and include BMPs, as necessary. Payment of required permitting fees, as well as adherence to existing federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, and any project-specific conditions of approval would limit impacts to hydrology and water quality. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Future development would be subject to compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning hydrology and water quality. Additionally, implementation of site-specific mitigation would reduce potential impacts. As such, cumulative impacts concerning hydrology and water quality would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-34 - 4.9-36) J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Development within the City’s planning area would be evaluated at the project-level when individual projects are implemented. Cumulative development would undergo a plan review process for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, California Zoning and Planning Law, and the California Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development. Each cumulative project would be analyzed independently and within the context of their respective land use and regulatory settings.

It is assumed that cumulative development would be processed in accordance with the SBGP and SBMC.

Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to land use and planning associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-10) K. NOISE
As with the Project, cumulative development would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate. The City permits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels. There would be periodic, temporary, noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. Future development within the project area would be required to comply with City, State and Federal guidelines regarding noise abatement and insulation standards. This would ensure that noise levels

8.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 86 in the City’s planning area are maintained within acceptable standards that prevent excessive disturbance, annoyance, or disruption.

Concerning the significant unavoidable impacts (i.e., airport-related noise, long-term operation-related noise in excess of local standards, and groundborne vibration) resulting from SBGP implementation (i.e., AHS), the Project’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable given the Project’s impacts would not interact with or occur near AHS construction and operations, where these impacts would occur (a distance of approximately ten miles).

Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to noise associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR pp. 4.11-6 – 4.11-7) L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Development within the City’s planning area would occur consistent with SBGP build-out, thus, is anticipated to be consistent with SBGP growth projections. Because SCAG growth projections are based on adopted General Plans, future development is anticipated to be consistent with SCAG growth projections. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts concerning population and housing.

Any potential SBGP amendments or conflicts with growth projections would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. All development would be subject to compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework. As such, cumulative impacts concerning population and housing would be mitigated on a project-specific basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework. (Draft EIR p. 4.12-7) M. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Development within the City’s planning area would be subject to development impact fees to finance public services and parks/recreational facilities attributable to each new development. Payment of these fees would minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, impacts from cumulative development. Development within the City’s planning area could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with new or physically altered governmental or parks/recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project-specific basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential environmental impacts. Additionally, implementation of sitespecific mitigation would reduce potential impacts. As such, cumulative impacts associated with new or physically altered governmental and parks/recreational facilities would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework. Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to public services and parks/recreational facilities associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the

8.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 87 established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation. (Draft EIR pp.

4.13-10 - 4.13-11)
N. TRANSPORTATION
Development within the City’s planning area could conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), increase hazards due to a geometric design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. Potential transportation impacts associated with the individual developments would be specific to each site. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential transportation impacts. All development would be subject to compliance with the existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework. As such, cumulative transportation impacts would be mitigated on a projectby-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework.

Concerning the significant unavoidable impact to designated intersections, roads, and/or highways resulting from SBGP implementation, with recent changes to the State CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by LOS, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Additionally, the Project’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable given the Project is forecast to decrease traffic by 572 trips per day, thus, no increases in traffic volumes or VMT would occur. The Project would not cause a cumulatively significant effect concerning transportation impacts.

Therefore, the combined cumulative transportation impacts associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR pp. 4.13-26 - 4.13-37) O. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Development within the City’s planning area could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological/tribal cultural resource or disturb human remains.

Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with the individual developments would be specific to each site. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project-by-project basis, including AB 52 and SB 18 consultation, as needed, pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. All development would be subject to compliance with the existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning the protection of tribal cultural resources, including concerning Native American consultation. Additionally, implementation of site-specific mitigation would reduce potential project impacts to as-yet unidentified archaeological resources to less than significant levels. As such, cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would be mitigated through Native American consultation and recommended measures on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework.

8.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 88 Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework, which includes Native American consultation, and with project-specific mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR pp. 4.15-7 - 4.15-8)
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Development within the City’s planning area would be evaluated at the project-level, as they are implemented. Cumulative development would undergo a plan review process for potential to impact existing utilities and service systems or requirements for new utilities and service systems. All future development would be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations concerning utilities and service systems. Further, all future development would be subject to all applicable connection fees and ongoing user fees related to the provision of wastewater treatment, sewer, and water services. Connection fees are used in part to defray the cost of any necessary facility upgrades. Payment of required connection fees and ongoing user fees, as well as adherence to existing federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, and any project-specific conditions of approval would ensure that adequate wastewater, sewer, and water services are available to serve future developments. As with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to utilities and service systems. Future development would be subject to compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning utilities and service systems.

Additionally, implementation of site-specific mitigation would reduce potential impacts. As such, cumulative impacts concerning utilities and service systems would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework.

Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with project-specific mitigation incorporated.(Draft EIR p. 4.16-19)

8.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 89 SECTION VI: FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
According to State CEQA Guidelines section 15126, an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should a proposed project be implemented. As stated in State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d):
…..uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the Project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter likely, Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts [such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area] generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

The proposed Project would use limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. This use would occur during the Project’s construction phase and would continue to a lesser degree throughout its operational lifetime. Project construction activities would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials; (2) fuel and operational materials/resources; and (3) the transportation of goods and persons to and from individual construction sites. Construction would require the consumption of resources that are not renewable or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies: lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt; metals; and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed to power construction vehicles and equipment.

The resources that would be committed during future Project operations would be similar to those currently consumed by the existing rail operations, given the Project does not propose to increase rail line operations; instead it would improve the A Yard’s operational efficiency.

Several portions of the Project site are developed to varying degrees and would require demolition activities to accommodate the Project. The demolition activities must

8.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 90 comply with the established regulatory requirements to ensure that asbestos and leadbased paints are not released into the environment, as well as proposed Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the established regulatory framework and recommended mitigation would protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials.

In summary, Project implementation would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future generations or for other uses during the Project’s life. However, use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale in a regional context. Although irreversible environmental changes would result from Project implementation, such changes would not be considered significant.

8.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 91 SECTION VII: GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires that an EIR “discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” This section analyzes potential growth-inducing impacts, based on the criteria outlined below, as suggested in the State CEQA Guidelines. In general terms, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area, if it meets any one of the following criteria:
• Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service and provision of new access to an area); • Fostering of economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base and employment expansion);
• Fostering of population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing or employment generating land uses), either directly or indirectly; • Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning and general plan amendment approval); or
• Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an in-fill project).

Should a project meet any one of the above-listed criteria, it may be considered growth-inducing under CEQA.

The Project’s potential growth-inducing impacts are evaluated below against these criteria. The State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to “discuss the ways” a project could be growth-inducing and to “discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage…activities that could significantly affect the environment.” However, the State CEQA Guidelines do not require that an EIR predict (or speculate) specifically where such growth would occur, in what form it would occur, or when it would occur. The answers to such questions require speculation, which CEQA discourages; refer to State CEQA Guidelines section 15145, Speculation. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(e), the Project’s potential growth-inducing impacts are discussed below.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Removal of an Impediment to Growth
Project implementation would not increase demands for public services (i.e., fire and police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, and libraries) or utility and service systems (water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste). The proposed Project would continue to operate as transportation use. The Project would enhance the Yard’s

8.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 92 train traffic efficiency by reducing congestion along the existing lead tracks servicing BNSF’s east-west corridor. No new public service, recreational facility, or provision of new access to an area would occur. The Project does not propose to establish an essential public service, recreational facility, or utility or service system, nor would the Project require that a new essential public service or utility or service system be established.

Economic Growth
The proposed Project would not result in additional permanent full-time employment opportunities. The Project is not a land use or typical project associated with job growth, such as commercial businesses or residential housing developments. Therefore, the Project is not considered growth inducing concerning economic expansion.

Population Growth
A project could induce population growth in an area either directly (i.e., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (i.e., through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). As discussed in the Removal of an Impediment to Growth Section above, the Project is not considered growth-inducing concerning the expansion or extension of roads or other infrastructure. The proposed Project is not a land use typically associated with population growth. No new employment opportunities would be created as a result of Project implementation. The Project would enhance the rail yard’s efficiency. To accommodate the proposed improvements, the Project would remove 43 dwelling units, resulting in a population decrease of approximately 149 persons. Therefore, the Project would not induce population growth.

Precedent-Setting Action
The Project would not require any General Plan amendments or zone changes that would serve as a precedent-setting action. The proposed Project would require General Construction Storm Water permits, rail crossing modifications, encroachment permits, a Water Quality Management Plan, Petition to Vacate, right-of-way (ROW) acquisitions, signal improvements and modifications, and circulation roadway improvements.

Therefore, the Project would not be considered growth-inducing concerning establishing a precedent-setting action.

Development or Encroachment of Open Space
The Project site is in southwestern San Bernardino County, at the southern portion of the City of San Bernardino. The Project site is situated along (west of) I-215, north of the City of Colton, south of the unincorporated County area known as Muscoy, and east of the City of Rialto. The Project area extends from the BNSF crossing at State Street/University Parkway on the north to West 5th Street on the south. The existing BNSF SBD Intermodal Facility/A Yard is immediately south of the Project area’s southern extent, at 1535 West 4 th Street in the City of San Bernardino. There are no open spaces near the Project site.

Although the proposed Project would require ROW and residential and commercial property acquisitions, no open space or encroachment into open space would occur.

8.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 93 Therefore, the proposed Project would not be growth-inducing concerning development or encroachment into an isolated area of open space.

Summary of Growth-Inducing Impacts
In summary, Project implementation would not be growth-inducing concerning removing an impediment to growth (i.e., establishing an essential public service or through providing new access to the area), encroaching on an isolated area of open space, fostering economic or population growth, or establishing a precedent setting action.

At the regional level, the emphasis regarding growth has been placed primarily on achieving a balance of employment and housing opportunities within the subregions. This regional concept, referred to as jobs/housing balance, encourages the designation and zoning of sufficient vacant land for residential uses with appropriate standards to ensure adequate housing is available to serve the needs derived from the local employment base. The jobs/housing ratio can be used as the general measure of balance between a community’s employment opportunities and the housing needs of its residents. A ratio of

1.0 or greater generally indicates that a City provides adequate employment opportunities, potentially allowing its residents to work within the City. A desirable jobs to housing balance improves regional mobility (traffic), reduces vehicle miles traveled, and improves air quality. Conversely, imbalance between a City’s jobs and housing increases commutes, with resultant increases in traffic volumes and air emissions, and overall reduces the quality of life. Although the proposed Project would not add permanent jobs or new housing in the area, the ROW and adjacent property acquisitions would result in the removal of 43 dwelling units and commercial properties, therefore nominally impacting the jobs to housing ratio.

Communities with more than 1.5 jobs per dwelling unit are considered job-rich and those with fewer than 1.5 jobs per dwelling unit are considered housing-rich. As identified in the following table, the jobs to housing balance is higher in the City compared to the County.

Comparing the jobs-to-housing ratio between San Bernardino County and the City indicates a need for more job growth in San Bernardino County.

Table 5-1: Jobs-Housing Balance for San Bernardino County and San Bernardino San Bernardino 2012 2018 2040
Jobs 88,900 77,500 128,900
Housing Units 53,900 65,677 77,100
Jobs to Housing Ratio 1.65 1.18 1.67
San Bernardino
County 2012
2018
2040
Jobs 513,500 886,8001 1,028,100
Housing Units 615,300 719,911 854,300
Jobs to Housing Ratio 0.83 1.23 1.20
Source: SCAG RTP/SCS, 2016.
1 San Bernardino County. (2018). Community Indicators Report. Page 6. San Bernardino County.

8.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 94 The City’s current jobs to housing ratio is approximately 1.18, indicating the City is currently housing rich with housing opportunities for its residents to potentially live within the City. The proposed Project would decrease the City’s housing stock by removing 43 dwelling units and displacing approximately 16 employees. The Project’s impact to the jobs-housing balance would be nominal and localized. Project implementation would not affect the City’s job to housing balance.

8.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 95 SECTION VIII: ALTERNATIVES
A. BACKGROUND
The EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives. The City finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below.

Where significant impacts are identified, State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

State CEQA Guidelines subsection 15126.6(c) describes the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly

8.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 96 explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.

Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project.

Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.

However, when a project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives to lessen or avoid environmental impacts, even if the alternative would reduce the impact to a greater degree than the proposed project. (Public Resources Code section 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.)
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project (Draft EIR p. 2.10):

A. Enhance the effectiveness of goods movement by increasing efficiency of train traffic entering/ exiting the A Yard in service of BNSF’s east-west corridor.

B. Improve safety and operational efficiency for the critical BNSF east-west corridor.

C. Relieve traffic congestion along the three existing lead tracks that serve the BNSF east-west corridor by connecting two existing Ono Storage Sidings located near the State Street/University Parkway Grade Separation.

D. Improve long-term operational air emissions by improved efficiency/reduced train idling, as they wait to enter and exit the A Yard.

E. Maintain adequate local and emergency access to land uses adjacent to/west of the Project site.

F. Reinstate/extend the pre-existing franchise to construct, operate, and maintain an existing lead track in the City of San Bernardino, between 4th Street and the City’s northern boundary, as the northern boundary existed in 1906, or in the alternative, vacate the railroad bed and convey title of same to the Project Applicant.

8.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 97 C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could lessen the Proposed Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives. Those alternatives are:
• “No Project/No Construction” Alternative
• “No Project/Existing Land Use Designations” Alternative • “Reduced Footprint” Alternative

1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Construction Alternative Description: The No Project Alternative is included pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Under the No Project/No Construction Alternative, the Proposed Project would not occur and existing land uses would remain. (Draft EIR p. 6.0-3.)
Impacts: Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts related to the topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils (including paleontological resources), hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and utilities. These impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Because no development would occur, Alternative 1 would have no new significant impacts but would also not provide beneficial impacts associated with the Proposed Project.

With respect to aesthetics, beneficial impacts associated with the removal of existing light sources as a part of implementation of the Proposed Project would not occur.

Alternative 1 would not result in a decrease in long-term air quality emissions, and therefore, would be inferior to the proposed Project regarding air quality impacts.

Energy consumption under. Although no significant energy impacts were identified for the Proposed Project, Alternative 1 would not result in decreased long-term fuel consumption Therefore, energy consumption under Alternative 1 would be greater than the Proposed Project.

Although the Proposed Project would generate more GHG emissions during construction when compared to Alternative 1, GHG contributions under Alternative 1 would be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be greater than the proposed Project since no decreases in GHG emissions associated with train idling and no improvements to street conditions would occur.

8.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 98 Transportation impacts would be greater than the Proposed Project because there would not be a reduction in traffic nor would any circulation or roadway improvements be implemented.

The proposed Project would remove 43 DUs and 78,000 sf of nonresidential land uses and would decrease the demand for water, wastewater, and solid waste generation and need for public services.

Project Objectives: While this alternative would decrease or eliminate significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project, none of the objectives of the Proposed Project would be achieved. (Draft EIR p. 6.0-10.) Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative 1: No Project/No Construction Alternative because the alternative fails to meet any of the Project Objectives and fails to reduce of impacts that would be experienced with Project implementation.

2. Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Land Use Designations Alternative Description: The No Project/Existing Land Use Designations Alternative assumes that additional development could occur consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designations and zoning designations. This Alternative assumes retaining the existing 43 DUs, 32,000 SF of industrial uses, and 46,000 SF of commercial uses that would be removed by the Project. Additionally, this Alternative proposes new development including approximately 17 DUs and 7,841 SF of light industrial uses on the currently vacant land. (Draft EIR pp. 6.0-10 –

6.0-11.)
Impacts: When compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would have less impacts to the following topical areas: biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and population and housing.

Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to the environmental topics of cultural resources and tribal cultural resources.

Aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be less than significant. However, these impacts would be greater than the Proposed Project since existing sources of light and glare would not be removed.

Alternative 2 would have greater impacts than the Proposed Project for the following topical areas: air quality, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, transportation, public services, and utilities.

Air quality emissions would be greater under this alternative scenario associated with operational mobile and stationary criteria air

8.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 99 pollutant sources as a result of maintaining and expanding residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Maintenance and expansion of these land uses would result in increased average daily trips as well as the amount of stationary sources of emissions, and therefore would increase mobile and stationary emissions.

Additionally, greater impacts to energy use would occur under Alternative 2 since no reduction in long-term fuel consumption associated with reduced train idling would occur. In addition, increased energy usage from new development would cause impacts on energy to be greater than the Proposed Project.

Impacts to geology and soils would be greater under Alternative 2 associated with increased residential and structural exposure to seismic hazards.

Alternative 2 would not result in decreased GHG emissions associated with reduced train idling and would increase emissions associated with new residential and industrial land uses. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have a greater impact on GHG emissions than the proposed Project.

Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be greater under Alternative 2 since no expansion to existing water drainage infrastructure would occur as it would under the proposed Project.

Impacts to land use and planning would be greater than the proposed Project. Although future development associated with Alternative 2 would be consistent with existing General Plan land use designations, Alternative 2 would allow for more residential development close to BNSF tracks, which would potentially expose residents to excessive noise and increased criteria air pollutants.

Therefore, impacts to land use and planning as well as noise would be greater under Alternative 2. Increases in the local population as a result of Alternative 2 would lead to greater demand on public facilities, utilities, and transportation, and therefore, would have greater impacts in these resource areas. (Draft EIR pp. 6.0-12 - 6.0-

19.)
Project Objectives: Under the No Project/Existing Land Use Designations Alternative, none of the objectives of the Proposed Project would be achieved. (Draft EIR p. 6.0 - 19.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: No Project/General Plan Consistency Alternative because the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives and fails to reduce impacts that would be experienced with Project implementation.

8.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 100

3. Alternative 3: Reduced Footprint Alternative
Description: The Reduced Footprint Alternative assumes development of the Project site similar to the Proposed Project, however, it proposes fewer partial acquisitions/avoids acquisitions through variances, in coordination with the City, where these modifications would cause properties to conflict with development standards concerning minimum lot sizes, minimum setbacks, or minimum street widths.

Therefore, there would result less residential, commercial and industrial displacement. Lead tracks would still be developed, however various street improvements would be reduced and fewer acquisitions would occur. This Alternative would displace 19 DUs (17 fewer DUs than the Proposed Project). As with the Project, this Alternative would displace approximately 46,000 SF of commercial uses and approximately 32,000 SF of industrial uses. (Draft EIR p.

6.0-47.)
Impacts: When compared to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would have fewer impacts associated with the following environmental topical areas: biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.

Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to the following topical areas: land use and planning,
Implementation of Alternative 3 would allow retain more existing housing units, and as a result, more residents would continue to live close to the BNSF tracks with continued exposure to criteria air pollutants and noise. Alternative 3 would not removed as many existing sources of light and glare. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not result in reduced long-term emissions associated with train idling and would not lead to reductions in vehicular traffic.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in reduced average daily trips and thus would result in reductions in mobile sources of emissions. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have greater impacts to GHG emissions than the proposed Project.

The retention of some of the land uses would not incrementally reduce the demand on public services and utilities and service systems. (Draft EIR pp. 6.0-48 - 6.0-54.)
Project Objectives: The Reduced Footprint Alternative would fulfill all the Applicant’s objectives to improve the A Yard’s operational efficiency by:
improving the A Yard’s ability to assemble and hold outbound trains, as well as move around railroad cars without obstructing mainline

8.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) 101
movements; reducing train congestion along the existing lead tracks; and reducing train idling, as they wait to enter and exit the A Yard. (Draft EIR p. 6.0-54.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3: Reduced Footprint Alternative, on the following grounds because this alternative would not be environmentally superior to the Proposed Project.

D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
According to State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2), “No Project” Alternative, “If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” The environmentally superior alternative is the No Project/No Construction Alternative. Among the other Alternatives, the Reduced Footprint Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. It would be environmentally superior to the Project for various issue areas analyzed, except air quality, aesthetics, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services and recreational facilities, and utilities and service systems, for which it would be environmentally inferior to the Project, and except land use and planning, for which it would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Project. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the Project primarily because fewer acquisitions would occur. Fewer acquisitions would result in greater environmental impacts as compared to the Project concerning aesthetics, air quality, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems because the impacts to these existing uses that would be reduced with the Project would be maintained under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. Fewer acquisitions would also increase the number of sensitive receptors (i.e., residential land uses) near the Project site, resulting in greater incompatibilities. (Draft EIR p. 6.0-54 – 6.0-56.)

8.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3))

EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS

AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-1: Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino Planning Division and City Traffic Engineer that the following measures will be implemented during construction:
a) Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. b) Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment both on and off of the Project site.
c) Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications.
d) Require the use of electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline-powered generators, as feasible.
e) Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX emissions requirements. Note that CARB’s Truck and Bus regulation specifies that trucks and buses shall be required to have 2010 or newer model year engines by January 1, 2023.
f) During Project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction, equipment operating on the Project site shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 4 emissions standards, or higher according to the following:
• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 4 final off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
• A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or South Coast AQMD operating
Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
and During
Construction
Provide Evidence
the Specified
Measures Will Be
Implemented
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and City
Traffic Engineer

8.c
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS
permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
• During construction, the Construction Contractor shall maintain a list of all on-site operating equipment for City verification. The on-site construction equipment list shall specify the equipment makes, models, and quantities. The reporting and maintenance records for each equipment shall be available for inspection and remain on-site for at least two years after completion of construction.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: Prior to construction activity resulting in ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls. Survey results shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino for review. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 30 days of site disturbance on the Project survey area plus a 500-foot buffer. If the survey determines burrowing owls are absent, the Project may proceed without further restrictions related to burrowing owls. If the survey determines burrowing owls are present, protective measures shall be implemented to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and other applicable California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) requirements and include, but are not limited to the following:
a) Occupied burrowing owl habitat shall not be disturbed during nesting season (February 1-August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of an independent survival flight.
b) If relocation is required, a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for review and approval prior to relocation of owls. The Burrowing Owl Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall describe proposed relocation and monitoring plans. The plan shall include the number and location(s) of occupied sites and details on adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial burrows (numbers, locations, and type of burrows) shall be included in the plan. The plan shall also describe specific procedures to compensate Within 30 Days of
Site Disturbance
If Survey Determines
Burrowing Owls Are
Present,
Conduct a PreConstruction
Presence/Absence
Survey For
Burrowing Owls on
the Project Survey
Area Plus A 500-
Foot Buffer.

Prepare a
Burrowing Owl
Mitigation
Monitoring Plan
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and
Qualified Biologist

8.c
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS
for impacts to burrowing owl/occupied burrows. Such procedures may include, but are not limited to, the purchase/conservation of offsite suitable habitat that is known to support burrowing owl. Specific ratios would be determined in consultation with CDFW.
c) If burrowing owl must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques shall be used. Owls must be relocated by a qualified biologist from any occupied burrows that would be impacted by Project activities. Required relocation shall be approved by the CDFW. A report summarizing the results of the relocation and monitoring shall be submitted to the City and the CDFW within 30 days following completion of the burrowing owl relocation and monitoring.

MM BIO-2: Based on the results of the Project’s Jurisdictional Delineation, the proposed Project would permanently impact 0.07-acre of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)-jurisdictional waters of the State and 0.12-acre of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)- jurisdictional ephemeral streambed (i.e., Feature 1, sparsely vegetated earthen- and concrete-lined ditch; Feature 2, concrete- and riprap-lined ditch and basin). Prior to any ground disturbing activity near the jurisdictional features, applicable permits shall be obtained through the RWQCB and CDFW for impacts to jurisdictional features. The Applicant shall implement/comply with the mitigation required by the resource agencies regarding impacts within their respective jurisdictions.

Given the on-site jurisdictional features’ disturbed and limited aquatic resource functions, it is expected that permanent impacts to jurisdictional features would be compensated for at a 1:1 mitigation ratio. Potential compensatory mitigation to offset impacts to jurisdictional resources may be implemented through off-site, permittee-responsible mitigation, in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank credit purchase, or a combination of these options depending on availability. The proposed mitigation strategy shall prioritize in-kind and in-watershed options per the regulatory agencies’ preferences. The regulatory agencies will make the final determination of the final compensatory mitigation requirements during the permit evaluation process.

Prior to any Ground
Disturbing Activity
Near Jurisdictional
Features
Obtain Applicable
RWQCB and
CDFW Permits
Implement Off-Site,
PermitteeResponsible
Compensatory
Mitigation
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and
RWQCB and CDFW
MM BIO-3: Vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (January 15 to August 31) to the extent feasible. If avoidance of the nesting season is infeasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within ten days prior to any ground disturbance, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. Survey results shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino for If Vegetation Clearing
and GroundDisturbing Activities
Occur During Bird
Nesting Season and
No More Than 10
Conduct Nesting
Bird Survey
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and
Qualified Biologist

8.c
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS
review. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Bird nest buffers shall be established by the biologist in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Generally, raptor species will have an avoidance buffer of 200 to 500 feet and passerine bird species will have an avoidance buffer of 50 to 300 feet.

The biologist shall record the results of the recommended protective measures and shall submit a memo summarizing any nest avoidance measures to the City of San Bernardino to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds.

Days Prior to Ground
Disturbance Activities

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: Contact Native American Tribe In the Event of a Find: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease, the City shall be notified and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input concerning significance and treatment.

During Project
Ground Disturbing
Activities
If Cultural
Resources are
Discovered, Cease
Work Within the
Find’s Immediate
Vicinity and
Conduct
Archaeological
Resource
Evaluation
Contact SMBMI
Community and
Economic
Development
Director Qualified
Archaeologist
SMBMI
MM CUL-2: Monitoring and Treatment Plan: If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI and the City for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.

During Ground
Disturbing Activities,
if Significant PreContact Cultural
Resources are
Discovered and
Avoidance Cannot
be Ensured
Develop a
Monitoring and
Treatment Plan
Community and
Economic
Development
Director Qualified
Archaeologist
SMBMI

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Program. a) Retain a Qualified Project Paleontologist. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Owner shall retain a qualified Project Paleontologist, Prior to Ground
Disturbance Activities
Prepare a
Paleontological
Resources
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and

8.c
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS
defined as a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist, to direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. b) Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Program. After Project design has been finalized to determine the precise extent and location of ground disturbing activities, and prior to ground disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Program to be implemented during the Project’s ground disturbing activities. The Program shall be prepared in accordance with the standards set forth by current Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010). Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Program shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino.

Ground disturbing activities deeper than 5.0 feet below ground surface in areas mapped as high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., older Quaternary deposits) shall be monitored on a full-time basis by a qualified paleontological monitor during initial ground disturbing activities.

The Program shall be supervised by the Project Paleontologist in coordination with the City of San Bernardino. The duration and timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the Project Paleontologist.

If the Project Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend to the City that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely.

Monitoring shall be reinstated, if reduction or suspension would need to be reconsidered by the Project Paleontologist.

The Program shall outline the procedures for construction staff Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, paleontological monitoring extent and duration, salvage and preparation of fossils, the final mitigation and monitoring report, and paleontological staff qualifications.
c) Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).

Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct construction personnel training regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be presented at a preconstruction meeting that a qualified paleontologist shall attend.
d) Fossil Discovery. In the event of a fossil discovery by construction personnel, all work in the find’s immediate vicinity shall cease, and During Ground
Disturbing Activities
Deeper Than 5.0
Feet Below Ground
Surface in Areas
Mapped as High
Paleontological
Sensitivity
Prior to Ground
Disturbing Activities
In the Event of a
Fossil Discovery
Upon Completion of
Ground Disturbing
Activities
Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan
Conduct
Paleontological
Monitoring
Conduct a WEAP
Cease Work Within
the Find’s
Immediate Vicinity
and Conduct
Paleontological
Resource
Evaluation
Salvage, identify,
and curate fossils
Prepare Final
Paleontological
Monitoring and
Compliance Report
Qualified Project
Paleontologist
Qualified
Paleontological
Monitor
Qualified Project
Paleontologist
Qualified Project
Paleontologist
Qualified Project
Paleontologist

8.c
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS
the City of San Bernardino and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If ground disturbing activities bring potentially sensitive geologic deposits to the surface in areas considered to have an undetermined paleontological sensitivity, these areas shall be inspected and further assessed. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the following conditions:
e) Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, the Project paleontologist or paleontological monitor should recover them.

Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case, the paleontologist would have the authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

1. Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, the City would ensure that significant fossils would be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curationready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the San Diego County Natural History Museum), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined
significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Project paleontologist. Field collection and preparation of fossil specimens shall be performed by the Project paleontologist with further preparation as needed by an accredited museum repository institution at the time of curation. f) Final Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activities (and curation of fossils, if necessary) the Project Paleontologist shall prepare a Final Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Report outlining the results of the Paleontological Monitoring and Compliance Program.

The report shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino and shall include discussion of the location, duration, and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated.

8.c
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & WASTES
MM HAZ-1: Environmental Site Assessment. Prior to ground disturbing activities, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted on the 13 properties identified as recognized environmental concerns (REC) in the Hazardous Materials Assessment (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., January 9, 2019) and provided to the City of San Bernardino. The Phase I ESA’s shall include a recommendation on whether or not a Phase II ESA is required for the property. If a Phase I ESA recommends a Phase II ESA, a Phase II ESA shall be prepared for the property. The Phase II ESA shall include soil and groundwater sampling and shall be provided to the City of San Bernardino. The sampling shall be conducted by a qualified Phase II/Site Characterization specialist. Upon completion of site characterization activities, the Site Characterization specialist shall recommend remedial activities, if necessary, in consultation with the San Bernardino Environmental Health Division (EHD). This recommendation from the Phase II ESA shall be implemented to the satisfaction of EHD.

Prior to Ground
Disturbing Activities
Conduct a Phase I
ESA on 13
Identified REC
Properties
If a Phase II ESA is
Recommended,
Prepare A Phase II
ESA that Includes
Soil and
Groundwater
Sampling
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and
Qualified Phase I
Specialist
Community and
Economic
Development Director
and Phase II/ Site
Characterization
Specialist
NOISE
MM NOI-1: Prior to any ground-disturbing or other noise-generating activities, the Construction Manager shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of San Bernardino Community and Economic Development Director that:
• All construction vehicles and equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in good operating condition and be equipped with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust muffles, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. • Where stationary equipment, such as generators, cranes, and air compressors, is within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor including offices, the equipment shall be equipped with appropriate noise reduction measures (e.g., silencers, shrouds, or other devices) to limit noise.
• Equipment maintenance, vehicle parking, and material staging areas shall be as far away from sensitive receptors (including offices) adjacent to the construction site, as feasible.
• Electrically powered equipment instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment shall be used to the extent possible. • All internal combustion engine idling both on the site and at nearby queuing areas shall be limited to no more than five minutes for any Prior to Any GroundDisturbing or Other
Noise-Generating
Activities
Provide Evidence
of Compliance With
the Specified
Requirements
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and
Construction
Manager

8.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS
given vehicle or machine. Signs shall be posted at the construction site and along queueing lanes to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling.
• The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells shall be for safety warning purposes only. Use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters.

MM NOI-2: A minimum of 30 days prior to any ground-disturbing or other noise generating activities, the Contractor shall notify all businesses within 100 feet of the Project site of the planned start date, duration, nature of the construction activity, and the proposed noise abatement measures. The notification shall include a contact telephone number for questions and the submittal of any complaints of excess, unanticipated noise or vibration.

A Minimum of 30
Days Prior to Any
Ground-Disturbing or
Other Noise
Generating Activities
Notify All
Businesses Within
100 Feet of the
Project Site the
Noted Project
Details
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and
Contractor
MM NOI-3: Prior to any ground-disturbing or other noise generating activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the construction site, clearly visible to the public, that contains the Contractor or their designee’s contact name and telephone number to respond in the event of a vibration or noise complaint. If the Contractor or their designee receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City of San Bernardino Community and Economic Development Director.

Prior to Any GroundDisturbing or Other
Noise Generating
Activities
Post Sign with
Specified Data at
Construction Site
Entrance
If a Complaint is
Received,
Implement the
Specified
Measures
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and
Contractor
MM NOI-4: BNSF (or its designee) shall construct sound walls along the west side of the proposed Ono Lead Extension in areas where a Severe Impact has been identified (see Table 4.11-11). The sound wall shall be approximately 8.0 feet high and shall be sufficient to block the line-of-sight from sensitive receptors to the noise source and designed such that any gaps in material are no greater than 10 percent of the barrier’s total area.

Specifically, sound walls shall be provided along the following locations:
• Segment 7: A sound wall approximately 200 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way (approximately Stations 256 to 258) adjacent to where the proposed residential property full take would occur. Specifically, Property Nos. 29-33 located north and south of Evans Place would result in full private property takes to accommodate the proposed sound wall.

During Construction Construct An 8.0
Foot High Sound
Wall Where a
Severe Impact Has
Been Identified
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and BNSF
(or their Designee)

8.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS
• Segment 8: A sound wall approximately 500 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way (approximately Stations 265 to 270) adjacent to where the proposed property full take would occur.
• Segment 9: A sound wall approximately 670 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way (approximately Stations 288.5 to 295) adjacent to where the proposed property full take would occur.
• Segment 10: A sound wall approximately 430 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way (approximately Stations 307 to 311.5) adjacent to where the proposed property full take would occur.
• Segment 11: A sound wall approximately 330 linear feet long shall be provided along the proposed BNSF right-of-way (approximately Stations 313 to 317) adjacent to where the proposed private property full take would occur.

The proposed sound walls shall be a minimum of 8.0 feet high and of sufficient height to block the line-of-sight from nearby sensitive receptors to the railway. The proposed sound walls shall be designed such that any gaps in material are no greater than 10 percent of the wall’s total area.

TRANSPORTATION
MM TRA-1: Oversized Vehicles. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, BNSF (or its designee) shall comply with Caltrans, the City of San Bernardino, and other relevant jurisdictions concerning limitations on vehicle sizes and weights. In addition, BNSF (or its designee) shall secure the necessary transportation permits for roadway use.

Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
Demonstrate
Compliance with
Caltrans, City of
San Bernardino,
and Other Relevant
Jurisdictions
Concerning
Oversized Vehicles
Secure Necessary
Transportation
Permits
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and BNSF
(or their Designee)
MM TRA-2: Traffic Management Plan (TMP). At least 60 days prior to start of site mobilization, BNSF (or its designee) shall submit the TMP to the City of San Bernardino and each affected jurisdiction for review and approval. The TMP, which shall be implemented during all construction phases, shall include traffic and parking management techniques to At Least 60 Days
Prior to Start of Site
Mobilization
Prepare a TMP Community and
Economic
Development
Director and BNSF
(or their Designee)

8.c
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

MONITORING/

REPORTING

METHODS

RESPONSIBLE

FOR APPROVAL/

MONITORING

VERIFICATION

DATE INITIALS
reduce construction-related traffic disruptions and congestion around the Project area. The TMP shall at a minimum address the following factors:
• Traffic Flow Route and Timing: Local and alternate routes and emergency access. Haul routes based on construction staging areas and City-designated routes. Timing heavy construction equipment and building material deliveries.
• Site and Surrounding Property Access: Vehicle access and circulation.
• On-site Parking: Construction worker parking lot assignment. • Traffic Control: Street and intersection controls (e.g., flag persons, temporary travel lane closure, etc.).

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM TCR-1: Monitoring and Treatment Plan and Native American Monitor/Consultant: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) Cultural Resources Department and City of San Bernardino shall be contacted (see also CUL-1 and CUL-2) if any pre-contact cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input concerning significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

During Ground
Disturbing Activities
If Any Pre-Contact
Cultural Resources
are Discovered,
Coordinate With
SMBMI and City
If Pre-Contact
Cultural Resources
Are Deemed
Significant, Create
a Cultural
Resources
Monitoring and
Treatment Plan
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and SMBMI
Monitor/Consultant
Community and
Economic
Development
Director and
Qualified
Archeologist
MM TCR-2: Provide Records and Consultation: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents generated as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI.

The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the Project.

Throughout The
Project’s Life
Provide All
Archaeological/
Cultural
Documents and
Consult
Community and
Economic
Development
Director, BNSF (or
their Designee), and
Qualified
Archeologist

8.c
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (8890 : Resolution

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH # 2021030193

BNSF ONO LEAD TRACK EXTENSION PROJECT

LEAD AGENCY

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MR. OLIVER MUJICA – PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
201NORTH E STREET, 3

RD FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92401
909.384.5057

APPLICANT

CONSULTANT
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3880 LEMON STREET, SUITE 420
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
CONTACT: MS. RITA GARCIA
714.786.6116
October 2021

8.d
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment 4 - Final Environmental Impact Report (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3))

8.d
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment 4 - Final Environmental Impact Report (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Ono Lead Track Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
October 29, 2021
Page i
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1.0-1

1.1 Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report ..............................................1.0-1

1.2 Final Environmental Impact Report...................................................................1.0-1

2.0 COMMENT LETTER AND RESPONSES .............................................................................2.0-1

2.1 List of Public Agencies, Persons, and Organizations Commenting on DEIR...............2.0-1

2.2 Comment Letters and Responses......................................................................2.0-1

3.0 ERRATA TO THE DEIR...................................................................................................3.0-1

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ..................................................4.0-1

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................4.0-1

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program...................................................4.0-2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: List of Commenting Public Agencies and Persons and Organizations..............................2.0-1 Table 4-1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ………………………………………………………………. 4.0-3

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 6-1g: Reduced Footprint Alternative Segment 7 – 15th Street to 16th Street Modifications..2.0-21

8.d
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment 4 - Final Environmental Impact Report (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Ono Lead Track Extension Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
October 29, 2021
Page ii
This page intentionally left blank.

8.d
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment 4 - Final Environmental Impact Report (8890 : Resolution Approving Street Vacation of a Portion of I Street (Ward 3)) Ono Lead Track Extension Project Section 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Introduction
October 29, 2021