Title: OXBOW DEBRIS REMOVAL
PROJECT
Presented by: Gabriel Elliott, Director of
Community Development and Housing
TENTATIVE TRACT 16794
Background
v In 2009, the Oxbow development was approved by the City of San Bernardino under Tentative Tract Map 16794 which subdivided an existing 18.45-acre parcel into 44-single family lots with minimum lot size of 10,882 square feet, at 6920 Palm Avenue.
v On July 2020, the then project owner submitted a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) to allow stockpile of materials for future grading of the site. The materials comprised of approximately 60,000 tons of concrete in 3,000 truckloads, which originated from the demolition of a fire damaged Amazon warehouse building located at 2255 W. Lugonia Avenue in Redlands, which burned down in June 2020.
Background
v On August 4, 2020, the Public Works Department issued a Haul Permit (Permit # H20-002) to Oxbow and their associate Greenleaf Engineering to transport the 60,000-ton stockpile to the project site at 6920 Palm Avenue. In 2020, based on concerns about the safety of the stockpile, the debris was tested and found to be clean. A 2025 test of the stockpile and surrounding soil has since been conducted and will be included with the staff report. v On July 2020, the then project owner submitted a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) to allow stockpile of materials for future grading of the site. The materials comprised of approximately 60,000 tons of concrete in 3,000 truckloads, which originated from the demolition of a fire damaged Amazon warehouse building located at 2255 W. Lugonia Avenue in Redlands, which burned down in June 2020.
Background
v City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-265 on October 21, 2020, regarding San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC) Section 19.70.020(2) under which the TUP was allowed. The Resolution permits the issuance of a TUP for on-and off- site contractors’ construction yard in conjunction with an approved development project. The Resolution also declared that City Staff should not issue any Temporary Use Permits allowing the crushing or grinding of unfinished materials, such as concrete, within 1,000 feet of residentially zoned properties. v On July 2020, the then project owner submitted a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) to allow stockpile of materials for future grading of the site. The materials comprised of approximately 60,000 tons of concrete in 3,000 truckloads, which originated from the demolition of a fire damaged Amazon warehouse building located at 2255 W. Lugonia Avenue in Redlands, which burned down in June 2020.
Background
v The City entered into a contract with CSG Consultants in March 2025, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the options available to the city for the removal of the Oxbow debris. The report considered all the options discussed over the years that had not been environmentally vetted for their impact. In May of 2025, CSG, in collaboration with Kimley-Horn, completed the report (Attachment 4) and proposed three alternatives for the removal of the debris. The report included an executive summary which summarized the analyses conducted by the firm and provided recommendations based on air quality, health risk, noise, and truck routing impacts for the three alternatives analyzed. The City will engage with the new project owner to present the conclusions of the CSG report and discuss the details of the crushing activities on site.
Background
v The environmental study considered three main alternatives: Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in the material being hauled offsite as either processed or unprocessed concrete, which would require truck hauling trips to occur along Palm Avenue. Due to the proximity of Palm Avenue Elementary School, the report recommended that the hauling operation for Alternatives 1 and 2 occur during the school’s summer recess period (approximately early June to early August), to limit safety concerns associated with truck travel along Palm Avenue.
Alternative 1
Ø Alternative 1 involves crushing the concrete debris onsite, then hauling the processed concrete offsite to a recycling center. This alternative would require the use of a crusher, breaker, front-end loader, street sweeper, loaders, and hauling trucks. The breaker would be used to break the concrete debris into smaller chunks for placement in the crusher, the front-end loader would load the material into the crusher, and the loaders would move the processed concrete from the pile created by the crusher, into the hauling trucks. It is anticipated that the processed concrete would be approximately 33,600 cubic yards of material.
Alternative 1.1
Ø Alternative 1.1 includes the use of bobtail dump trucks for the hauling operation. In order to complete the removal process during one summer recess period using bobtail dump trucks, Alternative 1.1 would require 400 truck trips per day along Palm Avenue (200 loaded, 200 empty) and would take approximately 38 working days to complete.
Alternative 1.2 includes the use of single-end dump trucks, which would take approximately 35 working days to complete and would require 162 hauling trips per day on Palm Avenue (81 loaded, 81 empty) Alternative 1.2
Ø Alternative 1.2 includes the use of single-end dump trucks, which would take approximately 35 working days to complete and would require 162 hauling trips per day on Palm Avenue (81 loaded, 81 empty) Alternative 2
Ø Alternative 2 involves hauling the unprocessed concrete debris offsite to be processed at the Rialto Recycle Yard. This alternative would require the use of a street sweeper, loaders, hauling trucks, and possibly a small bobcat breaker to break the debris into smaller pieces to fit in the hauling trucks. The unprocessed concrete is anticipated to contain approximately 42,000 cubic yards of material. Therefore, it would take longer to remove from the Project site than the processed concrete, which would contain approximately 33,600 cubic yards of material.
Alternatives 2.1; 2.1.1;2.1.2
Ø Alternative 2.1 Alternative 2.1 involves removing the entire concrete debris pile over one summer recess period.
Ø Alternative 2.1.1 Alternative 2.1.1 includes the use of bobtail dump trucks, which would require 520 hauling truck trips per day along Palm Avenue (260 loaded, 260 empty) and would take approximately 36 working days to complete.
Ø Alternative 2.1.2 includes the use of single-end dump trucks, which would require 200 hauling truck trips per day (100 loaded, 100 empty) and would take approximately 35 working days to complete.
Alternatives 2.2; 2.2.1;2.2.2
Ø Alternative 2.2 involves removing the concrete debris pile over two summer recess periods, to decrease the number of required truck trips along Palm Avenue during each summer. Between the two summer recess periods, the remaining concrete debris pile would have to be covered in order to limit the potential for fugitive dust and debris in the surrounding area.
Ø Alternative 2.2.1 involves the use of bobtail dump trucks, which would require 264 hauling trips per day on Palm Avenue (132 loaded, 132 empty) and would take approximately 71 working days to complete.
Ø Alternative 2.2.2 includes the use of single-end dump trucks, which would require 98 hauling truck trips per day (49 loaded, 49 empty) and would take approximately 72 working days to complete.
Alternative 3
Ø Alternative 3 considered by the consultant, is a variation of Alternative 1, with the crushing operation occurring onsite, and no hauling operation. Under Alternative 3, the crushed material would remain onsite for future use as onsite infill for residential development on the property. Alternative 3 would require the use of a breaker, front-end loader, and crusher. The breaker would be used to break the concrete pieces into smaller pieces for processing. The loader would move the debris into the crusher, which would create piles of processed concrete material around the project site. Alternative 3 would require a Containment Plan to ensure that the processed concrete is contained between the time it is processed and when it is used for filling, in order to limit dust emissions. It is anticipated that it would take approximately three to four months to crush the entire concrete debris pile, assuming no equipment breakdowns or delays occur. It is important to note that this alternative will require the use of specialized crushing equipment compatible with residential settings.
Alternative 3
Ø If Alternative 3 is selected as the preferred alternative, a Containment Plan to mitigate and assure that crushed material does not result in dust emission nuisance to area residents will be required. The Containment Plan shall be prepared by the Project Applicant for development of the Project site and is subject to approval by the City of San Bernardino, prior to starting site preparation for the crushing operation. The Containment Plan may include, but not be limited to, the following requirements:
Ø The debris should be covered with a durable heavy-duty plastic sheeting or geotextile fabric and the following actions should be taken to ensure that the debris cover remains effective:
Ø Regular inspections: Regularly inspect the covering for damage or wear and tear and make repairs as needed, particularly after periods of heavy rain or high winds.
Ø Ensure Secure Coverage: Properly secure the coverings to prevent them from blowing away or becoming damaged, especially during windy conditions.
Ø Adjust Covering: Adjust the covering as necessary to accommodate any changes in the debris pile or weather conditions.
Analysis
Ø Air Quality
Ø Based on the air quality modeling analyzed in Section 3.1 and Tables 7 and 11 of the report, none of the proposed alternatives would exceed a SCAQMD threshold regarding emissions of criteria pollutants. Using single-end dump trucks for the crushing operation (Alternative 1) would result in lesser emissions of every criteria pollutant compared to the use of bobtail dump trucks. For Alternative 2, if the removal operation was completed during one summer recess period, using single-end dump trucks would result in less overall pollutant emissions than using bobtail dump trucks.
Analysis
Ø Health Risk
Ø Based on the calculations in the Health Risk Assessment and the results in Table 16, Carcinogenic Risk Assessment, none of the alternatives would generate TAC exposure-related cancer risk in exceedance of the SCAQMD’s thresholds. All of the alternatives would result in a negligible increase in cancer risk levels at nearby sensitive receptors compared to existing conditions. As noted in the Health Risk Assessment, the cancer risk levels analyzed do not imply that an exposed individual would contract cancer; rather, the cancer risk is a probability of developing cancer if other factors (i.e., heredity, exposure to environmental or workplace risks that compromise the immune system, and overall health) would result in an increased susceptibility to developing cancer.
Analysis
Ø Noise
Ø Alternatives 1 and 3 would inherently result in higher noise levels from operation activities due to the use of a crusher and associated equipment onsite, compared to Alternative 2. Based on the noise measurements and calculations included in Section 3.3 and the results in Table 21, Maximum Operation Noise Levels, Alternatives 1 and 3 would not generate noise levels in exceedance of the Federal Transit Administration’s thresholds for residential noise levels. It is concluded that Alternative 2 would result in lower noise levels overall, however, Alternatives 1 and 3 would not result in significant impacts related to noise.
Fiscal Impact
Conclusion
Ø It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, take the following actions:
Ø 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-XX of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, rescinding Resolution No. 2020-265, which prohibits the crushing of concrete on site within 1,000 feet of residentially zoned property; and Ø 2. Review the three alternatives in the Oxbow Debris Removal Project Environmental Study dated May 22, 2025, select Alternative 3 which is concluded to result in least levels of impact among the three alternatives, and adopt Resolution No. 2025-xx memorializing that decision; and
Ø 3. Direct the City Manager or his designee to prepare a public outreach program for the residents of Ward 5, regarding the removal of the Ox Bow Debris.
Questions