2 9
5 4
DISCUSSION
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: October 15, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Gabriel Elliott, Director of Community Development & Housing Department: Community Development & Housing
Subject: Oxbow Debris Removal – 6920 Palm Avenue (Ward 5) Recommendation
It is recommended that the Mayor of City Council of the City of San Bernardino take the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-378 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
2. Review the three alternatives provided 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 to the community among the three alternatives, and adopt Resolution No. 2025-379 memorializing that decision; and
3. Direct the City Manager or his designee to prepare public outreach for the residents of Ward 5, regarding the removal of the Oxbow Debris.
City Manager Comments
In evaluating the Environmental Study completed on May 22, 2025, there are three options before the City Council. As the Council is aware the movement of the debris occurred in September 2020. There is not any ideal solution to removing or crushing the debris. The study evaluated the three best alternatives in limiting environmental and noise impacts to the neighborhood.
If either alternative 1 or alternative 2 occurred, the study recommends that it occur during the Summer when school is on recess. If Alternative 3 is desired it may also 2 9
5 4
be best to occur when school is on recess, although I would recommend that the developer and City engage the community on it preference for time of year.
Based on air quality emissions and other environmental considerations, Alternative 3 appears to be the best approach. If Alternative 3 is preferred by the City Council, I recommend a Lokotrack Urban LT96 be utilized to minimize dust emissions and noise. I also would recommend that the developer and City work with the community on timing of the operation. This would result in an 85% dust reduction and 60% noise reduction due to its process.
If alternatively, alternative 1 or 2 were chosen, I would recommend that occur during off times for the school and utilize single end dump trucks.
Executive Summary
The Oxbow debris, located at 6920 Palm Avenue, has been a source of community concern and complaints since the debris was deposited on the project site in 2020. Through a Temporary Use Permit and Haul Permit issued in 2020, the debris has been part of the Palm Avenue landscape for the last five years. The analysis provided in the Oxbow Debris Removal Project Environmental Study prepared by CSG in May 2025, provides the City of San Bernardino with solid options to remove the debris based on a thorough analysis. The preferred alternative would require the crushing of the debris on site, City Council Resolution No. 2020-265, prohibiting the crushing of debris within 1,000 feet of residentially zoned property would need to be repealed if this option is selected. Repeal of Resolution No. 2020-265 would allow for on-site crushing of the debris for use on the project site. Based on the thorough study, this is the best alternative.
The CSG report was prepared at a cost of about $73,000, with additional cost of about $12,800 to test the debris and surrounding soil. The cost of the report and soil testing will be borne by the city, and additional costs will be incurred by the City if it solicits the services of a paid consultant for a community outreach effort. It is anticipated costs for community outreach would be approximately $40,000.
Background
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.
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.
2 9
5 4
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.
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 TUP allowing the crushing or grinding of unfinished materials, such as concrete, within 1,000 feet of residentially zoned properties.
The transported stockpile was left uncovered at the Palm Avenue site and according to residents of the area, began to generate dust. Not covering the pile was a violation of the conditions of issuing the TUP. Residents of the area raised concerns to the City and the City requested covering of the pile. The property has changed ownership over the years, and today, the pile coverings have been eroded by wind and weather conditions. While residents are still concerned about the debris, the new owner has met with staff and began clearing the site around the debris of overgrown weed and illegal dumping.
On January 15, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Revocation of the Temporary Use Permit and Notice to Abate. On January 16, 2021, the then property owner directed the City to engage with the former Oxbow owner to remove the stockpile and if the then current owner had to abate, the City would be responsible for the cost of abatement. No actions from the City followed.
On October 4, 2023, the City Council directed staff to bring back a Resolution repealing Resolution No. 2020-265 and issue a written notice to the Planning Commission to render within 40 days, a report on crushing restriction of unfinished materials within 1,000 feet of the residentially zoned property. That request and directive is now coming to the City Council for action.
In June 2024, Aberdeen Developers, the then owner of the development, proposed a solution to remove the material from the project site by requesting a waiver of the impact fees associated with the development to offset the cost of removal. The developer also agreed to be responsible for the additional import and transport of 30,000 cubic yards of additional filling material to site for grading purposes. Staff considered that request at the time, but did not present to the City Council due to complications with the request; including, a request to waive regional impact fees.
During that period, staff was made aware that Aberdeen Developers listed the property for sale and discussions ceased. As of September 2025, Aberdeen Developers no longer owns the Oxbow development.
2 9
5 4
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 included a thorough 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.
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.
Additionally, the hauling operation could be completed through the use of either bobtail dump trucks or single-end dump trucks. Bobtail dump trucks are smaller and would require a greater number of truck trips, while single-end dump trucks are long and could be more difficult to maneuver around the Project site. Alternatives 1 and 2 include sub- alternatives that consider the use of either bobtail or single-end dump trucks. For Alternatives 1 and 2, the report anticipated that the concrete would be hauled to the Rialto Recycle Yard, owned and operated by ARCOSA Crushed Concrete, located at 250 East Santa Ana Avenue, Rialto. Alternative 3 involves crushing the material onsite and retaining it onsite, to be used as fill for future residential development. Alternative 3 does not include a hauling operation.
The Project site is currently undeveloped, and grading and site preparation would be required for all three alternatives in order to provide site access and allow for equipment to be located onsite.
Also, the city is proposing a community outreach program to address the results of the study. One option considered is the hiring of a public relations consulting firm to conduct the outreach. There are costs associated with this option. Alternatively, staff can conduct the community outreach in conjunction with the community leaders and residents of the Ward 5.
Discussion
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 involves crushing the concrete debris onsite, then hauling the processed concrete offsite to a recycling center. This alternative would require the 2 9
5 4
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 Alternative 1.1 includes the use of bobtail dump trucks for the hauling operation. In order to complete the removal process during one summer school 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. This option would result in approximately 15,200 truck trips.
Alternative 1.2 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) resulting in approximately 5,670 truck trips.
Alternative 2 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.
Alternative 2.1 Alternative 2.1 involves removing the entire concrete debris pile over one summer recess period.
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. Resulting in approximately 18,720 trips.
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. Resulting in approximately 7,000 trips.
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. With this option, completion would be by end of 2027.
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 2 9
5 4
approximately 71 working days to complete. Resulting in approximately 18,744 trips.
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. Resulting in approximately 7,056 trips.
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.
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:
-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:
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.
Ensure Secure Coverage: Properly secure the coverings to prevent them from blowing away or becoming damaged, especially during windy conditions.
Adjust Covering: Adjust the covering as necessary to accommodate any changes in the debris pile or weather conditions
Air Quality
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 South Coast Air Quality Management District (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 2 9
5 4
than using bobtail dump trucks.
If the operation was completed over two summer recess periods, using single-end dump trucks would result in less emissions of NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, though ROG and CO emissions would be higher compared to the use of bobtail dump trucks. For all alternatives under Alternative 2, using single-end dump trucks over the course of two summer recess periods (Alternative 2.2.2) would result in less pollutant emissions.
Alternative 2.2.2 would also result in less overall pollutant emissions than Alternative
1.2, crushing onsite and using single-end dump trucks.
Though all alternatives for both crushing onsite and hauling the unprocessed material to an offsite facility would result in pollutant emissions well below regional thresholds, the use of single-end dump trucks would result in less emissions. Additionally, using single-end dump trucks to haul the unprocessed concrete debris offsite to be crushed (Alternative 2) would result in lesser pollutant emissions.
However, Alternative 3 would not include off-site truck hauling, and emissions would be less than Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3 would therefore be considered the environmentally superior alternative.
Based on Table 13 of the report, Localized Significance of Emissions, none of the alternatives would exceed the SCAQMD localized screening threshold; therefore, none of the alternatives would affect human health or worsen local air quality at the nearest sensitive receptors. As is the case with pollutant emissions, using single-end dump trucks for Alternative 1 (crushing onsite) would result in less emissions at a locally significant level than using bobtail dump trucks. For Alternative 2, using single-end dump trucks over either one or two summers would result in less emissions. Overall, using single-end dump trucks over a period of two summer breaks would result in reduced emissions. Because Alternative 3 would not include a hauling operation, it would result in the least emissions and would be considered the superior alternative.
None of the alternatives would result in the generation of a carbon monoxide hotspot, nor would they conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMPs.
It is concluded that Alternative 3, crushing onsite and containing onsite, would result in the least air quality emissions.
Health Risk
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 2 9
5 4
compromise the immune system, and overall health) would result in an increased susceptibility to developing cancer.
Using single-end dump trucks for Alternative 1 would result in slightly lower cancer risk levels than using bobtail dump trucks. For Alternative 2.1, hauling to crush offsite during one summer recess period, using single-end dump trucks would result in lower cancer risk levels. For Alternative 2.2, which would utilize two summer recess periods, using single-end dump trucks would also result in lower cancer risk levels. In regard to Alternative 2 overall, completing the removal process during one summer would result in less cancer risk levels, because it would involve a shorter exposure duration.
Between using single-end dump trucks for Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, Alternative 1 would result in lower cancer risk levels. However, Alternative 3 would not include off- site truck hauling, and would generate less DPM exhaust, when compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3 would therefore result in the least cancer risk levels and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative.
Based on the calculations in the Health Risk Assessment and the results in Table 17, Chronic Hazard Assessment, none of the alternatives would generate a TAC exposure- related chronic hazard index in exceedance of the SCAQMD’s thresholds. All of the alternatives would result in a negligible chronic hazard index at nearby sensitive receptors compared to existing conditions. As noted in the Health Risk Assessment, a hazard index less than or equal to 1 indicates that non-carcinogenic health effects are not likely to occur over a lifetime of exposure.
Using single-end dump trucks for Alternative 1 would result in a slightly lower chronic hazard index than using bobtail dump trucks. For Alternative 2.1, hauling to crush offsite during one summer recess period, using single-end dump trucks would result in lower cancer risk levels. For Alternative 2.2, which would utilize two summer recess periods, using single-end dump trucks would also result in a lower chronic hazard index. In regard to Alternative 2 overall, completing the removal process during one summer recess period would result in lower chronic hazard indices, because it would involve a shorter exposure duration. Between using single-end dump trucks for Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, Alternative 1 would generally result in lower chronic hazard indices, by a small margin. Because Alternative 3 would not include a hauling operation and the associated DMP exhaust, Alternative 3 would result in the lowest chronic hazard indices.
It is concluded that Alternative 3, crushing onsite and containing onsite, would result in the lowest cancer risk levels and chronic hazard indices, due to no truck hauling operations.
Noise
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 2 9
5 4
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.
As shown in Table 22, Typical Operation Equipment Vibration Levels, none of the equipment types required for either alternative would generate groundborne vibration in exceedance of the Caltrans thresholds for human annoyance or older residential uses. Therefore, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would not result in significant impacts related to vibration.
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
The removal of the Oxbow debris pile aligns with Mayor and City Council Goal No. 3 – Improved Quality of Life – in that the removal of the debris will improve the quality of life for the residents of Palm Avenue and areas surrounding the project site and improve air quality. The debris had been a constant source of complaints regarding air quality in the area.
Fiscal Impact
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, take the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-378 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
2. Review the three alternatives in the Oxbow Debris Removal Project
FINANCIAL
DATA
Current Fiscal Year: Next Fiscal Year: Total Cost: Ongoing Cost:
COST $ 78,000 +
$13,500
$ $ 91,500+
cost for
community
outreach
$
GENERAL
FUND
SHARE
$ 91,500 +
cost for
community
outreach
$ $ $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
General Fund
Budget Adjustment:
No
For Fiscal Year: 24/25
2 9
5 4
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- 379 memorializing that decision; and
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.
Attachments
Attachment 1 City Council Resolution No. 2020-265
Attachment 2 City Council Resolution No. 2025-378 Rescinding City Council Resolution No. 2020-265
Attachment 3 City Council Resolution 2025-379 Adopting Alternative 3 Attachment 4 Oxbow Debris Removal Project Environmental Report.
Attachment 5 2020 Clearance Report for Concrete
Attachment 6 2025 Clearance Report for Concrete PowerPoint Presentation
Ward:
Fifth Ward
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:
On October 21, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-265 regarding San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.70.0202(2) under which the TUP was approved.
CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager