Mayor and City Council
September 2, 2026

SCH # 2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development City of San Bernardino

1.0 INTRODUCTION
An Initial Study for the proposed Verdemont Heights Residential Development (herein referred to as the Proposed Project or Project) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines), and the City of San Bernardino policies for implementing CEQA.

The City of San Bernardino issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH# 2026030801) for the Proposed Project. The Notice of Intent indicated that the City, acting as the lead agency for the Project under CEQA, was notifying public agencies and interested parties of a 30-day public review period to commence on March 18, 2026, and close on April 16, 2026, and that the City plans to adopt an MND for the Project.

The Notice of Intent for the Proposed Project was sent to trustee and responsible agencies, members of the public, other interested parties, and the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse for the required 30-day public review period.

During the review period, public agencies and members of the public had the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Intent and provide comments on the MND. Public comments were received by the City of San Bernardino Community Housing and Development Department and have been responded to herein by the City in accordance with CEQA requirements. The City received one (1) letter and three (3) emails from the following agencies or organizations commenting on the Initial Study/MND:

1. Caltrans April 23,2026 email

2. SAFER April 15, 2026 letter

3. Southern California Gas Company Southeast Region March 17, 2026 email

4. Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation March 27, 2026 Email Section 2.0, Comments and Responses, of this MND, includes the comments received by the City of San Bernardino on the circulated Initial Study/MND. Copies of these comment letters, as well as the responses from the City, are included in Section 2.0. Pursuant to Article 6, Negative Declaration Process, of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is not required to respond to comments received on an MND. However, the City has chosen to respond to the comments received on the Initial Study/MND and provide those responses to the commenters.

It should be noted that responses to comments did not result in any editorial clarifications or corrections to the original Initial Study/MND text. Additionally, none of the comments resulted in changes to the data, analysis, conclusions, or mitigation present in this Initial Study/MND. The comments and information provided by these agencies and organizations do not constitute significant new information and therefore do not trigger a need to recirculate the Initial Study/MND for additional public review and comments.

CEQA was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to a proposed development. Section 4.0 contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

Packet Page. 192

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata

2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comment Letter No. 1
Letter 1
Packet Page. 193

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Packet Page. 194

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata

RESPONSES TO CALTRANS
EMAIL DATED April 23, 2026
The City of San Bernardino received correspondence from Caltrans Local Development Review dated April 23, 2026, indicating that the proposed project is not located within Caltrans right-ofway (ROW). Therefore, further review by Caltrans and the issuance of a Caltrans Encroachment Permit prior to construction are not required.

Caltrans noted that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) may be required if the project generates additional vehicle trips affecting the I-215/Palm Avenue interchange.

Caltrans further advised that any permanent improvements or temporary traffic control measures that encroach upon Caltrans right-of-way will require a Caltrans-issued Encroachment Permit prior to construction.

Response to Letter 1:

The letter does not provide any comments on the circulated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. No further response is required and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

Packet Page. 195

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Comment Letter No. 2
Packet Page. 196

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Packet Page. 197

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Packet Page. 198

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Packet Page. 199

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata

RESPONSES TO SAFER
LETTER DATED April 15, 2026
The City of San Bernardino received a letter from the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) dated April 15, 2026 requesting the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), asserting that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) does not adequately analyze or mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources. Additionally, SAFER asserts that the mitigation regarding impacts on burrowing owls is inadequate and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Response to Letter 2:

At the City's request, Lilburn Corporation prepared a response letter dated May 7, 2026, addressing the comments contained in the April 15, 2026 comment letter. The following responses are excerpted directly from the May 7, 2026 letter. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) demonstrated that the Project is consistent with CEQA, and with implementation of the required mitigation measures, all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. ELMT, the Qualified Project Biologist revisited the Project Site in April 2026 and provided a letter dated May 5, 2026, regarding the Burrowing Owl Suitability Assessment. ELMT concluded that based on the results of the assessment, the Project Site is considered to have low potential to support burrowing owl; therefore, focused surveys are not recommended. Out of an abundance of caution, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey is recommended to be conducted prior to development to ensure burrowing owl remain absent from the project site.

It is therefore recommended that as a Condition of Approval the City shall require pre-construction surveys be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Two surveys shall be conducted, the first 14-30 days prior to ground disturbing activities and the second within 24 hours immediately before ground disturbing activities. If no burrowing owls are observed onsite, no further review will be required.

If the site survey determines the presence of burrowing owl, mitigation in accordance with requirements set forth by CDFW shall be implemented as follows:

A. If burrowing owls are found on the project site, construction activities should be avoided during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31).

B. If an active burrow is found during the breeding season and construction activities cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will establish buffers around occupied burrowing owl nests in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game (May 7, 2012) to avoid any direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owl.

If impacts to active burrows cannot be avoided, coordination with CDFW will be required to determine whether a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) will be required pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081. As part of the ITP, a plan to minimize and fully mitigate project-related impacts, avoid the incidental take of burrowing owl, and minimize disturbance of the species’ habitat would need to be prepared for approval by CDFW prior to commencing project activities.

Packet Page. 200

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Comment Letter No. 3
Packet Page. 201

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Packet Page. 202

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Packet Page. 203

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata

RESPONSES TO SOUTNERN CALIFORNIA GAS SOUTHEAST REGION
EMAIL DATED March 17, 2026
The City of San Bernardino received an email from the Southern California Gas Company Southeast Region stating that the company has facilities in the area and recommended the Developer contact Dig Alert prior to any construction and recommends procedures for obtaining service as well as a Will Serve Letter.

Response to Letter 3:

The letter does not provide any comments on the circulated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and lists standard construction contractor requirements. No further response is required and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

Packet Page. 204

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata Comment Letter No. 4
Packet Page. 205

SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata

RESPONSES TO YUHAAVIATAM OF SAN MANUEL NATION
EMAIL DATED March 27, 2026
The City of San Bernardino received an email on March 27, 2026 from the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation stating concerns about the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation’s recommended mitigation measures that were included within the Initial Study, Section XVIII.

Response to Letter 4:

The City contacted both tribes via email on April 14, 2026, regarding review and approval of mitigation measure TCR-6 in an effort to reconcile potential conflicts between the mitigation measures recommended by each tribe. Both tribes were provided until April 24, 2026, to respond and were also notified on May 4, 2026, that the City would be moving forward with the additional mitigation measure TR-6.The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation responded on April 29, 2026, in support of the proposed measure, Kizh Nation responded after the deadline on May 5th with concerns that their measures will be modified. The City responded back to them on May 7, 2026 informing them that the City is adding a conflict resolution measure and not modifying the existing Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5. No further response is required and no changes to the IS/MND are required. To address potential conflicts regarding the tribal cultural resources, the City shall incorporate the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure TCR-6: Conflict Resolution
As more than one Native American tribe is involved with the project, in the event of a conflict between TCR-2 and TCR-4 where the tribes cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of TCRs, resources shall be curated at an AAM-accredited facility within San Bernardino County that can accession the resources into their permanent collections and provide for the proper care of these objects in accordance with the 1993 CA Curation Guidelines. The AAM-accredited facility shall be chosen by the City upon consultation with YSMN and the Kizh.  A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository shall be developed between the landowner and museum that legally and physically transfers the collections and associated records to the facility.

This agreement shall stipulate the payment of fees necessary for permanent curation of the collections and associated records and the obligation of the Project developer/applicant to pay for those fees.

Packet Page. 206
SCH #2026030801 – Verdemont Heights Residential Development Errata

3.0 ERRATA
No errata to the Initial Study are required as a result of the comments received as noted in Section 2.0.

Packet Page. 207
MMRP

SCH # 2025010828 – Foothill & Macy Route 66 Residential Development City of San Bernardino

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements and Procedures
CEQA was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to a proposed development. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code,
“…the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” CEQA Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that are to be included as conditions of approval for the Project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The developer will have the responsibility for implementing the mitigation measures, and the various City of San Bernardino departments and divisions will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures.

Packet Page. 208

MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Project: Verdemont Heights Residential Development Applicant: GFR Homes Lead Agency: City of San Bernardino Date: June 2026

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Section 3: Air Quality
Section 4: Biological Resources
BR-1: Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds -
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California
Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511,
and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or
destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order
to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird
clearance survey should be conducted prior to any
ground disturbance or vegetation removal
activities that may disrupt the birds during the
nesting season.

If construction occurs between February 1st and
August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey
for nesting birds should be conducted within three
(3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or
ground disturbing activities to ensure that no
nesting birds will be disturbed during
construction. The biologist conducting the
clearance survey should document a negative
survey with a brief letter report indicating that no
impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active
avian nest is discovered during the preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance
buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be
determined by the wildlife biologist and will
depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding
anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between
the nest and the construction activity, type and
duration of construction activity, ambient noise,
species habituation, and topographical barriers.

These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case
City of San
Bernardino, City
Planner or
designee
Preconstruction if
construction
during nesting
season
No more than
three (3) days
prior to
construction,
ground
disturbance or
vegetation
removal during
the nesting bird
season
(February
through August)
On-site
inspection,
submittal of
survey report.

Packet Page. 209

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of
construction to avoid an active nest will be
established in the field with flagging, fencing, or
other appropriate barriers; and construction
personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of
nest areas. A biological monitor should be present
to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and
to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting
behavior is not adversely affected by the
construction activity. Once the young have fledged
and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes
inactive under natural conditions, construction
activities within the buffer area can occur.

BR-2: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Clearance
Survey- To avoid direct impacts to burrowing owls,
a Designated Biologist shall conduct a preconstruction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls in accordance with “CDFW’s Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation”. Two surveys
shall be conducted, the first 14 days prior to
ground disturbing activities and the second within
24 hours immediately before ground disturbing
activities. If burrowing owls are documented onsite, the Applicant shall prepare and implement a plan for avoidance or passive exclusion, in
coordination with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If no burrowing owls are
observed onsite, no further review will be required.

City of San
Bernardino, City
Planner or
designee
Preconstruction if
construction
during nesting
season
14 days prior to
ground
disturbing
activities and
the second
within 24 hours
immediately
before ground
disturbing
On-site
inspection,
submittal of
survey report.

BR-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
project applicant shall obtain a Streambed
Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the
California Fish and Game Code from CDFW and a
Report of Waste Discharge from the RWQCB.

City of San
Bernardino, City
Planner or
designee
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
On-site inspection
Section 5: Cultural Resources
CUL-1: An archaeological monitor with at least 3
years of regional experience in archaeology shall
be present for the initial clearing of the property
and then periodically, as determined by the project
archaeologist. The Principal Investigator (PI) may
submit a detailed letter to the City of San
Archaeological
Monitor
During
construction
Throughout
construction
On-site inspection
Packet Page. 210

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Bernardino during earthwork to inform the City and
the Consulting Tribes, including Yuhaaviatam of
San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources
Management Department (YSMN), of a modification
to the monitoring program when field conditions
require a change in monitoring status. The
suspension of archaeological monitoring will be
determined in consultation with the Consulting
Tribes. After the initial grading, the Project
Archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead
Agency and YSMN, may reevaluate the
requirements of archaeological monitoring during
ground-disturbing activities based on the
conditions present at the project site.

CUL-2: Should unanticipated or
inadvertent surface and/or subsurface prehistoric
or historic archaeological resources, built
environment, and/or tribal cultural resources
appear to be encountered during construction or
maintenance activity associated with this project,
then all work must halt within a 60-foot radius of
the discovery until a qualified professional can
evaluate the discovery. The archaeologist shall
have the authority to modify the no-work radius as
appropriate, using professional judgment. If the
discovered resource is associated with the
prehistoric Native American occupation of this
area, the Consulting Tribes, including YSMN shall
be contacted to review and participate in the
evolution of the discovered resource.

If the resource is significant, the Principal
Investigator (PI) shall submit an Archaeological
Data Recovery Program (ADRP). An ADRP is a
standard plan that would report and disseminate
results, as well as interpretation of what has been
learned so that it is understandable and accessible
to the public. Professional standards for an ADRP
shall be followed (refer to Appendix C).

Appropriate arrangements for curation of
archaeological materials and records should be
Archaeological
Monitor
During
construction
Upon discovery
of prehistoric or
historic
archaeological
resources
On-site
inspection,
separate submittal
(Reports/Studies/
Plans)
Packet Page. 211

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
made to the Lead Agency (City) and YSMN to
review and approve. Impacts to significant
resources must be mitigated before ground
disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be
allowed to resume. If the resource is not
significant, the archaeologist shall submit a letter
to the City indicating that artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in the final monitoring
report. The letter shall also indicate that no further
work is required.

CUL-3: Should human remains and/or
cremations be encountered during any
earthmoving activities, all work shall stop
immediately in the area in which the find(s) are
present (no less than 100 ft radius area around
the remains and project personnel will be
excluded from the area and no photographs will
be permitted), and the County of San Bernardino
Coroner will be notified. The County of San
Bernardino and the Project Proponent shall also
be informed of the discovery. The Coroner will
determine if the bones are
historic/archaeological or a modern legal case.

The Coroner will immediately contact the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in the
event that remains are determined to be human
and of Native American origin, in accordance
with California Public Resources Code Section §
5097.98.

All discovered human remains shall be treated with
respect and dignity. If the remains are determined
to be human, the Coroner will determine their
origin: Native American; archaeological but nonNative American; or forensic. If determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will
contact/notify the Native American Heritage
Commission and the Most Likely Descendant
(MLD) will be identified. In consultation between
the MLD, Lead Agency, and property owner, the
disposition of the remains will be determined. Any
Contractor/
Archaeologist
Upon
discovery of
human
remains
Discussion with
the City
Discussion with
the City and
Review by Native
American
consultant
Packet Page. 212

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
costs incurred would be the responsibility of the
property owner. If the human remains are
archaeological (non-Native American), the
archaeological consultant will manage the
removal, analysis, and reporting. The remains will
be reinterred off-site and any costs incurred would
be the responsibility of the property owner. If the
remains are determined to be of forensic value, the
Coroner will arrange for the removal and analysis.

The City will assume responsibility of the remains
and the property owner will not be responsible for
any related costs.

Section 13: Noise
NOI-1: The use of vibratory rollers, or other similar
vibratory equipment, shall be prohibited within 26
feet and large bulldozers within 15 feet of
residential structures to the south of the Project
Site. Construction activity that must occur within
these distances would need to be performed with
smaller equipment types that do not exceed the
vibratory threshold identified herein. Construction
activity is also limited by the City of San
Bernardino’s Municipal Code which limits
construction activities to occur only between the
hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.

City of San
Bernardino, City
Planner or
designee
Prior to and
during
Construction
Prior to
Certificate of
Occupancy
Plan check, onsite inspection
Section 18: Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: General Procedures and Protocols to Be
Implemented During Construction Monitoring
During Grading
Monitor(s) Shall Be Present During
Grading/Excavation/Trenching
The archaeological monitor with at least 3 years of
regional experience in archaeology shall be
present for the initial clearing of the property and
then periodically, as determined by the project
archaeologist.

Qualified
Archaeologist hired
by Applicant
During
construction
Upon
archaeological
discovery
On-site inspection
Packet Page. 213

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
The Principal Investigator (PI) may submit a
detailed letter to the City of San Bernardino during
earthwork to inform the City and the Consulting
Tribes, including Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation Cultural Resources Management
Department (YSMN), of a modification to the
monitoring program when field conditions require
a change in monitoring status. The suspension of
archaeological monitoring will be determined in
consultation with the Consulting Tribes.

Discovery Notification Process
In the event of an archaeological discovery, either
historic or prehistoric, the archaeological monitor
shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all
soil- disturbing activities, including but not limited
to, digging, trenching, excavating, or grading
activities in the area of discovery and in the area
reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent
resources.

If the discovered resource is associated with the
precontact Native American occupation of this
area, all ground-disturbing activities shall be
suspended 60 feet around the resource(s), and an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical
demarcation/barrier constructed. The Consulting
Tribes, including YSMN, shall be contacted to
review and participate in the evolution of the
discovered resource.

The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless
monitor is the PI) of the discovery, and
subsequently the property owner, Lead Agency,
and the Consulting Tribes shall be notified of the
discovery.

Determination of Significance
The PI shall evaluate the significance of the
resource. If human remains are involved,
follow protocol in Section D, below.

The PI shall immediately notify the Lead Agency
and the Consulting Tribes to discuss significance
Packet Page. 214

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
determination and develop a research design that
shall include a plan to evaluate the resource for
significance under CEQA criteria. Representatives
from YSMN, the Archaeologist, and the Lead
Agency shall confer regarding the research design,
as well as any testing efforts needed to delineate
the resource boundary. Following the completion
of evaluation efforts, all parties shall confer
regarding the resource's archaeological
significance, its potential as a Tribal Cultural
Resource (TCR), and avoidance (or other
appropriate treatment) of the discovered resource.

This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present
that represents YSMN for the remainder of the
project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor onsite.

If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an
Archaeological Data Recovery Program (ADRP) to
the Lead Agency and YSMN to review and approve.

Impacts to significant resources must be mitigated
by the implementation of the ADRP before grounddisturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume.

If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to the City of San Bernardino and the
Consulting Tribes, indicating that artifacts will be
collected, curated, and documented in the final
monitoring report. The letter shall also indicate that
no further archaeological work is required.

Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in
that area until a determination can be made
regarding the provenance of the human remains,
and the following procedures as set forth in CEQA
Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC (Sec.
5097.98), and the State Health and Safety Code
(Sec. 7050.5) shall be undertaken:

Packet Page. 215

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Notification
The archaeological monitor shall notify the PI, if the
monitor is not qualified as a PI.

The PI shall notify the medical examiner after
consultation with the lead agency, either in person
or via telephone.

Isolate discovery site
Work shall be directed away from the location of
the discovery and any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlay adjacent human remains until
a determination can be made by the medical
examiner in consultation with the PI concerning the
provenance of the remains.

The medical examiner, in consultation with the PI,
will determine the need for a field examination to
determine the provenance.

If a field examination is not warranted, the medical
examiner will determine, with input from the PI, if
the remains are or are most likely to be of Native
American origin.

If human remains ARE determined to be Native
American
The medical examiner will notify the NAHC within
24 hours. By law, ONLY the medical examiner can
make this call.

The NAHC will immediately identify the person or
persons determined to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD) and provide contact
information.

The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or
sooner after the medical examiner has completed
coordination to begin the consultation process in
accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the
California Public Resources, and the State Health
and Safety Code.

The MLD will have 48 hours to make
recommendations to the property owner or
Packet Page. 216

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
representative for the treatment or disposition with
proper dignity of the human remains and
associated grave goods.

Disposition of Native American human remains will
be determined between the MLD and the PI, and, if:

The NAHC is unable to identify the MLD, OR the
MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48
hours after being notified by the NAHC; OR
The landowner or authorized representative rejects
the recommendation of the MLD and mediation in
accordance with PRC 5097.94 (k) by the NAHC fails
to provide measures acceptable to the landowner;
THEN
Upon the discovery of multiple Native American
human remains during a ground-disturbing land
development activity, the landowner may agree
that additional conferral with descendants is
necessary to consider culturally appropriate
treatment of multiple Native American human
remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of such a
discovery may be ascertained from review of the
site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards.

Where the parties are unable to agree upon the
appropriate treatment measures, the human
remains and grave goods buried with the Native
American human remains shall be reinterred with
appropriate dignity.

If human remains are NOT Native American
The PI shall contact the medical examiner and
notify them of the historic- era context of the burial.

The medical examiner will determine the
appropriate course of action with the PI and lead
agency staff (PRC 5097.98).

If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be
appropriately removed and conveyed to the lead
agency. The decision for internment of the human
Packet Page. 217

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
remains shall be made in consultation with the lead
agency, the applicant/landowner, and any known
descendant group.

A.

TCR-2: Post-Construction
Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring
Report
The PI shall submit to the City a draft monitoring
report (even if negative) prepared in accordance
with the agency guidelines, which describes the
results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of
the archaeological monitoring program (with
appropriate graphics).

For significant archaeological resources
encountered during monitoring, the ADRP shall be
included in the draft monitoring report.

Recording sites with the State of California DPR
shall be the responsibility of the PI, including
recording (on the appropriate forms-DPR 523 A/B)
any significant or potentially significant resources
encountered during the archaeological monitoring
program.

All draft records/reports containing the
significance and treatment findings and data
recovery results shall be prepared by the
archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency
and YSMN for their review and comment. After
approval from all parties, the final reports and
site/isolate records are to be submitted to the local
CHRIS Information Center, the Lead Agency, and
YSMN.

The PI shall submit a revised draft monitoring
report to the City and the Consulting Tribes for
approval, including any changes or clarifications
requested by the City and the Consulting Tribes.

Handling of Artifacts
Archaeological
Monitor
Post
construction
Throughout
construction
On-site inspection
Packet Page. 218

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all
cultural remains collected are cleaned and
cataloged.

Removal of any precontact cultural resource(s)
shall be conducted with the presence of a Tribal
monitor representing the YSMN, unless otherwise
decided by YSMN. All plans for analysis shall be
reviewed and approved by the Applicant and YSMN
prior to implementation, and all removed material
shall be temporarily curated on-site in a secure
location. No precontact cultural resource(s) shall
be removed from the project area without prior
approval from YSMN.

The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all
artifacts are analyzed to identify function and
chronology as they relate to the history of the area;
that faunal material is identified as to species; and
that specialty studies are completed, as
appropriate.

The cost for curation is the responsibility of the
property owner.

Curation of Artifacts
Any historical artifacts recovered from the project
shall be curated in an approved facility, such as the
Western Science Center.

It is the preference of YSMN that removed
precontact cultural material be reburied as close to
the original find location as possible. However,
should reburial within/near the original find
location during project implementation not be
feasible, then a reburial location for future reburial
shall be decided upon by YSMN, the landowner,
and the Lead Agency, and all finds shall be
reburied within this location. Additionally, in this
case, reburial shall not occur until all grounddisturbing activities associated with the project have been completed, all monitoring has ceased,
all cataloguing and basic recordation of cultural
resources have been completed, and a final
Packet Page. 219

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
monitoring report has been issued to Lead Agency,
CHRIS, and YSMN. All reburials are subject to a
reburial agreement that shall be developed
between the landowner and YSMN outlining the
determined reburial process/location, and shall
include measures and provisions to protect the
reburial area from any future impacts.

Should it occur that avoidance, preservation in
place, and on-site reburial are not an option for
treatment, the landowner shall relinquish all
ownership and rights to this material and confer
with YSMN to identify an American Association of
Museums (AAM)-accredited facility within the
County that can accession the materials into their
permanent collections and provide for the proper
care of these objects in accordance with the 1993
CA Curation Guidelines.  A curation agreement
with an appropriate qualified repository shall be
developed between the landowner and museum
that legally and physically transfers the collections
and associated records to the facility.  This
agreement shall stipulate the payment of fees
necessary for permanent curation of the
collections and associated records and the
obligation of the Project developer/applicant to pay
for those fees.

Final Monitoring Report(s)
The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring
report to the City, the Consulting Tribes, and any
interested parties.

TCR 3: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to
Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a
Native American Monitor from or approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.

The monitor shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any “ground-disturbing
Archaeological
Monitor
Prior to, and
during
construction
Throughout
construction
On-site inspection
Packet Page. 220

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
activity” for the subject project at all project
locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site
locations that are included in the project
description/definition and/or required in
connection with the project, such as public
improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity”
shall include, but is not limited to, demolition,
pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing,
tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling,
and trenching.

A copy of the executed monitoring agreement
shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the
earlier of: 1) the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity, or 2) the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing
activity.

The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs
that will provide descriptions of the relevant
ground-disturbing activities, the type of
construction activities performed, locations of
ground-disturbing activities, soil types, culturalrelated materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the
Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any
discovered TCRs, including but not limited to,
Native American cultural and historical artifacts,
remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively,
tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any
discovered Native American (ancestral) human
remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs
will be provided to the project applicant/lead
agency upon written request to the Tribe.

On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the
latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the
project applicant/lead agency that all grounddisturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or
in connection with the project are complete; or (2)
a determination and written notification by the Kizh
Packet Page. 221

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
to the project applicant/lead agency that no future,
planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site
possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

TCR 4: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural
Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial)
A. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all
construction activities in the immediate vicinity of
the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the
surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the
discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the
Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh
will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the
form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate,
in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose
the Tribe deems appropriate, including for
educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

Archaeological
Monitor
Upon
discovery of
Tribal Cultural
Resources
during
construction
Throughout
construction
On-site inspection
TCR 5: Unanticipated Discovery of Human
Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial
Objects
A. Native American human remains are
defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or
cremation, and in any state of decomposition or
skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called
associated grave goods in Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to
this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or
grave goods are discovered or recognized on the
project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as
well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall
be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods
shall be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

Archaeological
Monitor
Upon
discovery of
Tribal Cultural
Resources
during
construction
Throughout
construction
On-site inspection
Packet Page. 222

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the
preferred manner of treatment for discovered
human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial
goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further
disturbance.

TCR-6: Conflict Resolution
Mitigation Measure TCR-6: Conflict Resolution
As more than one Native American tribe is involved
with the project, in the event of a conflict between
TCR-2 and TCR-4 where the tribes cannot come to
an agreement as to the disposition of TCRs,
resources shall be curated at an AAM-accredited
facility within San Bernardino County that can
accession the resources into their permanent
collections and provide for the proper care of these
objects in accordance with the 1993 CA Curation
Guidelines. The AAM-accredited facility shall be
chosen by the City upon consultation with YSMN
and the Kizh.  A curation agreement with an
appropriate qualified repository shall be developed
between the landowner and museum that legally
and physically transfers the collections and
associated records to the facility.  This agreement
shall stipulate the payment of fees necessary for
permanent curation of the collections and
associated records and the obligation of the
Project developer/applicant to pay for those fees.

Archaeological
Monitor & Applicant
During
construction
Throughout
construction
On-site inspection
Packet Page. 223
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT; APPROVING SUBDIVISION 25-01
(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20707) ALLOWING THE
SUBDIVISION OF A PROJECT SITE COMPRISED OF SIX (6)

PARCELS CONTAINING A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY
107.7 ACRES INTO ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE (105)
SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 10,000 TO
24,891 SQUARE FEET; LOCATED ON THE TERMINUS OF
ANTIQUE STREET; NORTH OF VERDEMONT DRIVE
(APN: 0261-011-02, 03, AND 10; AND 0348-121-14, 27, AND 28) WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW (RL) ZONE.

WHEREAS, on January 3, 2025, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, an application for Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) was duly submitted by:

Property Owner: Verdemont Height 1, LLC
434 N. 2nd Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Project Applicant: JEC Enterprises Inc.
434 N. 2nd Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Parcel Address: Terminus of Antique Street; North of Verdemont Drive APN(s): 0261-011-02, 03, and 10; and 0348-121-14, 27, and 28 Lot Area: 107.7 acres
WHEREAS, Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) is a request to allow the subdivision (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) of six (6) parcels containing a total of approximately 107.7 acres into one hundred and five (105) single-family lots ranging in size from 10,000 to 24,891 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development & Housing Department has reviewed Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) for consistency with the City of San Bernardino General Plan and compliance with the City of San Bernardino Development Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) Section 21067, and State CEQA Guidelines (California Packet Page. 224
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
2 Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) Section 15367, the City of San Bernardino is the lead agency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development & Housing Department of the City of San Bernardino determined that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was the appropriate environmental review procedure under CEQA, since all potentially significant impacts of the Project can be mitigated to a level of less than significant; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Division of the Community Development & Housing Department accepted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared by Lilburn Corporation on behalf of and submitted by the applicant (Verdemont Height 1, LLC) for Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707); and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2026, pursuant to requirements of Section 15072 and Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Division of the Community Development & Housing Department published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and commenced the required twenty (20) day public review period on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707); and WHEREAS, during the required thirty (30) day public review period of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707), the Planning Division of the Community Development and Housing Department of the City of San Bernardino received comment letters on the Draft EIR from SoCalGas, Lozeau Druary LLP, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and Caltrans, a response was provided to each comment letter received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development & Housing Department received and accepted the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prepared by Lilburn Corporation on behalf of Verdemont Height 1, LLC. for Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707); and WHEREAS, on July 4, 2026 pursuant to the requirements of Section 19.52.020 (Hearing and Appeals – Application on Processing) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the City gave public notice by advertising in the San Bernardino Sun, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of San Bernardino, and by mailing notices to the owners and tenants of properties located within 1,000 feet of the subject property of the holding of a public hearing at which Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) would be considered; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026 pursuant to the requirements of Section 19.52.040 (Hearing and Appeals – Application on Processing) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707), and at which meeting the Planning Commission considered Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707); and Packet Page. 225
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
3 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission has the authority to take action on Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707).

NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino does hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:

SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

As the decision-making body for the project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) including Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and written and oral testimony, and exercising their independent judgment, finds that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as presented to the Planning Commission as to the effects of the proposed Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707), has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is hereby adopted.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR SUBDIVISION 25-01 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20707):

Section 19.66.150 (Subdivision Maps - Determination) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code requires that Subdivision applications meet certain findings prior to the approval by the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the following findings are provided in support of the approval of Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707):

Finding No. 1: The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan.

Finding of Fact: The proposed project site is located within an area surrounded by single family residential dwellings. Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) consists of dividing six (6) existing parcels into one hundred and five (105) parcels to allow for the future development of one hundred and five (105) single-family dwellings on an underutilized vacant site. The proposed project will be compatible with the properties to the north, south, east and west which are also zoned Residential Low (RL) and will be harmonious with the existing adjacent residential uses. Therefore, the proposed map will be consistent with the General Plan.

Finding No. 2: The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.

Finding of Fact: The proposal is consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies:

General Plan Land Use Goal 2.2 states: Promote
development that integrates with surrounding land uses.” General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2.1: Ensure
compatibility between land uses and quality design through Packet Page. 226
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
4 adherence to standards and regulations in the Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design Element.

General Plan Housing Element Goal 1: Facilitate the
development of safe, high-quality housing that is diverse in type, size, price, tenure, and location for all residents.

The project site is located in an area surrounded by single-family residential development. The proposed project improvements will consist of the creation of one hundred and five (105) residential lots for the future development of single-family dwellings. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will be consistent with the design and pattern of the surrounding residential development and will be harmonious with the existing adjacent residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project’s design and improvements would be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan.

Finding No. 3: The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

Finding of Fact: The subject site is in compliance with the applicable Development Code Standards and is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed. Therefore, there are no physical constraints on the site that would limit the subdivision of one hundred and five (105) residential lots for the future development of single-family residential dwellings.

Finding No. 4: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

Finding of Fact: The subject site is in compliance with the applicable Development Code Standards and is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed. Therefore, there are no physical constraints on the site that would limit the proposed subdivision.

Finding No. 5: The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially or avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Finding of Fact: In accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in connection with the proposed Project with the appropriate Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would ensure that Mitigation Measures are implemented to prevent potential environmental impacts. Additionally, the proposed project will be subject to Conditions of Approval as part of the development of the site.

Finding No. 6: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems.

Packet Page. 227
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
5 Finding of Fact: There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services for the future single family residential development. Subject to Conditions of Approval, the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public services or public health and safety.

Finding No. 7: The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Finding of Fact: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public or private easements. All documentation relating to easements and dedications will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recording the Final Map. Existing easements will be reserved in place or relocated, as necessary.

SECTION 4. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

The approval of Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) shall be subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

General

1. This approval authorizes the subdivision of a project site comprised of six (6) parcels containing a total of approximately 107.7 acres into one hundred and five (105) single-family lots ranging in size from 10,000 to 24,891 square feet. The project site is located on the Terminus of Antique Street; North of Verdemont Drive (APN: 0261-011-02, 03, and 10; and 0348-121-14, 27, and 28) within the Residential Low (RL) zone.

2. The project site shall be maintained in accordance with the plans stamped July 14, 2026 (EXHIBIT “A”) approved by the City, which includes a site plan, floor plan and elevations on file in the Planning Division; the conditions contained herein; and the City’s Municipal Code regulations.

3. Within two (2) years of the original approval date, the filing of the final map with the Mayor and City Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed without first processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the final map or tentative map documents as adequate for approval by Mayor and City Council prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk. The date the final map shall be deemed filed with the Mayor and City Council is the date on which the City Clerk receives the map.

EXPIRATION DATE: JULY 14, 2028

4. The review authority may grant a time extension, for good cause, not to exceed twelve (12) months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required submittal items, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all Development Code provisions in effect at the time of the requested extension.

Packet Page. 228
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
6 5. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, or commission of the City as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of the City from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities.

The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for any costs and attorneys’ fees, which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as “Attorney’s fees” for the purpose of this condition. As part of the consideration for issuing this approval, this condition shall remain in effect if any portion of this approval is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of applicant.

Planning Division

6. The property owner shall be responsible for regular maintenance of the project site. The site shall be maintained in a clean condition and free of litter and any other undesirable material(s).

Vandalism, graffiti, trash and other debris must be removed within 24 hours of being reported.

7. Minor Modification to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director through the Minor Modification Permit process. Any modification which exceeds ten percent (10%) of allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refilling of the original application.

8. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Prior to establishing signs, the applicant must submit an application for approval by the Planning Division. Banners, flags, pennant, and similar signs are prohibited unless a Temporary Sign Permit is obtained.

9. The applicant/owner shall always maintain the site in a weed and disease-free condition.

10. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City of San Bernardino Community Development and Housing Department, Public Works Department and Building & Safety Division, Police Department, Municipal Water Department and the City Clerk’s Office/Business Registration Division.

11. This approval shall comply with the requirements of other outside agencies (i.e., San Bernardino County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health Services, San Bernardino County Consolidated Fire District, and California Board of Equalization) as applicable.

12. All new construction shall require permits prior to commencement.

13. Construction-related activities may not occur between the hours of 8:00 pm and 7:00 am. No construction vehicles, equipment, or employees may be delivered to, or arrive at the Packet Page. 229
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
7 construction site before 7:00 am or leave the site after 8:00 pm. Construction activities may only occur Monday through Friday.

14. Compliance with Law. The owners, managers, renters, and every other person in charge of the premises or any event thereon must comply with all City, County, and State building, fire, zoning, and health regulations; all State and local noise and nuisance laws and ordinances; and all provisions of California law, the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and the San Bernardino City Charter.

15. Extraordinary Law Enforcement Services. The owner shall be responsible for reimbursement costs to the City of San Bernardino for “Extraordinary” police services on the premises.

Extraordinary police services are those defined under San Bernardino Municipal Code Section

8.82.010.

16. Graffiti. Any graffiti painted, drawn, marked, etched, or otherwise placed upon the premises or on any area under the control of the owner shall be removed or painted over within 48 hours.

17. Information to Police Department. Upon demand, the owner, lessee and manager, must make available to any police official the current names and addresses of persons who are in the management of the site. Additionally, the owner shall keep copies of all permits and licenses issued readily available for inspection at the premises upon demand by any police official.

18. Litter. The premises and any area adjacent to the premises over which the owner of the establishment has control shall be kept free of litter and debris. These areas shall be cleaned of any litter.

19. Prohibited Vegetation. Exterior vegetation shall not be planted, maintained, or allowed to grow on the premises that could be used as a hiding place for persons. Exterior vegetation shall be planted and maintained in a manner that minimizes its use as a hiding place.

20. The City shall require pre-construction surveys be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first 14- 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities and the second within 24 hours immediately before ground disturbing activities. If no burrowing owls are observed onsite, no further review will be required.

If the site survey determines the presence of burrowing owl, mitigation in accordance with requirements set forth by CDFW shall be implemented as follows:
▪ If burrowing owls are found on the project site, construction activities should be avoided during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31).
▪ If an active burrow is found during the breeding season and construction activities cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will establish buffers around occupied burrowing owl nests in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game (May 7, 2012) to avoid any direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owl.

Packet Page. 230
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
8 21. All conditions of the Public Works Department shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

22. Applicant/Property owner must sign and have notarized an affidavit acknowledging acceptance of the Conditions of Approval and return it to the Planning Division within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this approval.

Building and Safety

23. Upon planning approval, plans shall be submitted to the building department complying with the 2025 California Building Code for approval including any structural plans and energy calculations.

24. All general paths of circulation must be accessible as is required by CBC 11B-206.3.

25. Sight lighting must comply with CGBC 5.106.8. This includes protection against light pollution.

26. Signage must be applied for under a separate permit for signage.

Public Works

27. Site Studies/Reports
a) A local drainage study (Hydrology) will be required for the project. Any drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and rightof-way dedicated as necessary. b) An approved Preliminary Full-Categorical Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be included with planning entitlement package. The preliminary WQMP shall be conceptually approved prior to planning approval. The applicant is directed to the County of San Bernardino’s Flood Control web page for the template and Technical Guidance Document.
c) A Final Full-Categorical Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. The applicant is directed to the County of San Bernardino’s Flood Control web page for the template and Technical Guidance Document. The Land Development Division, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve the WQMP. A USB/Flash Drive or email/drop box transmittal of electronic file(s) of the approved WQMP and Hydrology Study shall be required prior to City prior to grading permit issuance. d) Detention basins shall be designed in accordance with “Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County.”
e) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. The applicant is directed to State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SMART Login system. The SWPPP shall be approved by the State and a USB/Flash Drive or email/drop box transmittal of electronic file(s) of the approved SWPPP shall be submitted to City prior to grading permit issuance.

Packet Page. 231
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
9 f) A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board for construction disturbing 1 acre or more of land (including the project area, construction yards, storage areas, etc.). A WDID number issued by the State of California is required prior to the issuance of grading permit.
g) A Geotechnical evaluation is required for the site. The evaluation must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any grading requirements recommended by the evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan. h) The Geotechnical evaluation shall include liquefaction, Seismic, and Slope Stability analysis.
i) This project is located in the high wind zone. All walls and fences shall be designed to meet current CBC requirements. All construction details shall be included on the appropriate plan. Structural calculations shall be provided for City review. j) This project is located in a high fire zone, therefore all fences shall be of non-combustible material.
k) All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations).

28. Mapping
a) A Tentative Parcel Map is required to be processed prior to any Final Map. b) A Final Tract Map based upon field survey will be required. c) The applicant‘s surveyor/engineer shall submit a Final Tract Map with supporting documents for review and approval to Land Development. The Tract map shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance.

29. Drainage and Flood Control
a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to requirements of the City Engineer, which may be based in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino County Department of Transportation and Flood Control. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood control. b) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
a) If site drainage is to be outletted into the public street, the drainage shall be conveyed through a parkway culvert constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 400.

Conveyance of site drainage over the Driveway approaches will not be permitted.

30. Grading and Landscaping
a) The grading and on-site improvement plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in strict Packet Page. 232
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
10 accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b) If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the import material or the site for the deposition of the export shall be noted on the grading plan. Permit numbers shall be noted if the source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino. c) If more than 50 cubic yards of earth is to be hauled on City Streets then a special hauling permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. Additional conditions, such as truck route approval, traffic controls, bonding, covering of loads, street cleaning, etc. may be required by the City Engineer.
d) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, the grading operations shall be supervised in accordance with Section 3317.2 of the California Building Code. e) The refuse enclosure(s) shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 508 with an accessible path of travel. The minimum size of the refuse enclosure selected per the sizing table in the Standard Drawing shall meet Integrated Solid Waste Management servicing requirements. Where a refuse enclosure is proposed to be constructed adjacent to spaces for parking passenger vehicles, a 3 foot wide by 6 inch high concrete planter shall be provided to separate the enclosure from the adjacent parking. The placement of the enclosure and design of the planter shall preclude the enclosure doors from opening into drive aisles or impacting against adjacent parked cars. f) All electrical transformers located outdoors on the site, shall be screened from view with a solid wall or landscaping and shall not be located in any setback/right-of-way area. If the transformer cannot be screened, it shall be located in an underground vault unless approved by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 19.30.110.
g) Wheel stops are not permitted by the Development Code, except at designated accessible parking spaces. Therefore, continuous 6” high curb shall be used around planter areas and areas where head in parking is adjacent to walkways. Curbing may be left out at structure access points.
h) Continuous concrete curbing at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide shall be provided at least 3 feet from any wall, fence, property line, walkway, or structure where parking and/or drive aisles are located adjacent thereto. Curbing may be left out at structure access points.

The space between the curb and wall, fence, property line, walkway or structure shall be landscaped, except as allowed by the Development Review Committee. i) The space between the curb and wall, fence, property line, walkway or structure shall be landscaped, except as allowed by the Development Review Committee. Overhang into the minimum 4’ wide setback area or into the ADA path of travel is not permitted. j) All accessible parking spaces shall be a minimum of 18 feet by 9 feet net. If parking overhangs the pathway, the minimum landscaping or walkway paved width shall be 6.5 feet to accommodate a 16.5’ deep parking stall and 2.5’ overhang. k) The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to accessible parking and accessibility, including retrofitting of existing building access points for accessibility, if applicable. l) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on the on-site improvement Plan. Structural and/or building work shall also form part of building Packet Page. 233
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
11 permits issued by the City Engineer. All masonry walls shall be constructed of decorative block with architectural features acceptable to the City Planner. m) The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting, including light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design with structural calculations, conduit location, material and size, and Photometric plot shall be provided which show that the proposed on-site lighting design will provide:
• 1 foot-candle of illumination uniformly distributed over the surface of the parking lot during hours of operation, and
• 0.25 foot-candles security lighting during all other hours. n) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Land Development Division prior to issuance of a grading permit.
o) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.100 of the Development Code shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development - Planning Division prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits.
p) The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb (also known as “parkway”) along adjoining streets shall be landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping shall be included in the project’s on-site landscape plan.
q) No construction on a site shall begin before a temporary/security fence is in place and approved by the City Engineer or his designee. Temporary/security fencing may not be removed until approved by the City Engineer or his designee. The owner or owner’s agent shall immediately remove the temporary/security fencing upon the approval of the City Engineer or his designee. Sites that contain multiple buildings shall maintain the temporary/security fencing around the portion of the site and buildings under construction as determined by the City Engineer or his designee. All temporary/security fencing for construction sites shall include screening, emergency identification and safety identification and shall be kept in neat and undamaged condition.

31. On-Site Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or institutional uses). b) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. c) Existing On-site Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer.
d) Each site shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the area can serve it.
e) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the finished floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest upstream manhole.

Packet Page. 234
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
12 f) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino, therefore any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s “Sewer Policy and Procedures” and City Standard Drawings. g) Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and inspected under a City On-Site Construction Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developer's Engineer and approved by the City Engineer will be required. This plan can be incorporated in the grading plan, where practical.
h) An encroachment permit from Public Works Department shall be required for utility cuts into existing streets or any work within City’s right-of-way. Pavement restoration or trench repair shall be in conformance with City Standard No. 310. Public facilities shall be restored or constructed back to Public Works Department satisfaction.

32. Offsite Street Improvement and Dedications
a) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-way (R.W.) per the General Plan (Chapter 6) and Municipal Code (19.20.030-18-A,19.30.290, 19.30.300) shall provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows:

Packet Page. 235
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
13 Street Name
Dedication shall be
Right of Way (feet)
From Centerline
Curb Widening shall be
Curb Line (feet)
From Centerline
Verdemont Drive
(0348-111-25 and 0348-
121-18, 20,21, 25, 14)
30’ Dedication
for a total ½ width of 30’
“Local - Continuous”
20’ Proposed
for a total ½ width of 20’
Per General Plan
Chestnut Ave.
(026-1011-03)
30’ Existing
No Dedication
for a total ½ width of 30’
“Local Collector”
None Existing
Required widening 26’
Per General Plan
Street “A” & Antique St.
(034-8121-14, 27,28)
(026-1011-02, 10)
Non-Existing
50’ Dedication
“Local - Collector”
Non-Existing
40’ widening required
Total ½ width of 20’
from
centerline
Street “B”
(034-8121-14, 27,28)
(026-1011 -02, 10)
Non-Existing
50’ Dedication
“Local Non-Continuous”
Non-Existing
36’ widening required
Total ½ width of 18’
from
centerline
Street “C”
(034-8121-14, 27,28)
(026-1011-02, 10)
Non-Existing
50’ Dedication
“Local – Non-Continuous”
Non-Existing
36’ widening required
Total ½ width of 18’
from
centerline
Street “D”
(026-1011-03)
Non-Existing
50’ Dedication
“Local Continuous”
Non-Existing
36’ widening required
Total ½ width of 18’
from
centerline
Street “E”
(026-1011-03)
Non-Existing
50’ Dedication
“Local Non-Continuous”
Non-Existing
36’ widening required
Total ½ width of 18’
from
centerline
(Future) = when the development meets the municipal code requirements, then it triggers these offsite Improvements.
b) Verdemont Dr./Perrin Dr.– TI = 5.5: * - **
i. The street shall be paved, minimum of 28 feet, to meet the requirements detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the Traffic Index, or The City’s has a minimum standard for new streets (4” AC over 8” Base) except truck usage (9”AC over 12” Base); However, if the Soils Report is obtained and indicates a thicker improvement, the thicker section shall be used.

Packet Page. 236
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
14 ii. For transitioning from new curb alignment to existing edge of pavement outside project limits the edge shall be a deepened or thickened. Use Caltrans Design Manual or A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for taper requirements. iii. When Striping, all striping shall be thermoplastic paint per section 84 of the Caltrans specifications.
iv. The corners shall be a min. 35’ Radius including a compliant ADA ramp with By-Pass and Truncated Domes. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. v. Construct Residential Driveway Approach per City Standard No. 203, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach. No Driveways closer than 100’ from BCR/ECR as directed by the City Engineer. On corner lots only one frontage may have a driveway. MC12.28.060, MC12-28-100, MC15.04.230, MC16.20.030, 19.24.060, MC19.30.200, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09-98; Ord. MC-460, 5-15-85; Ord. MC-320, 12-06-83; Ord. 3918, 2-25-80; Ord. 2519, 8-20- 63; Ord. 1963, 11-18-52, Ord. MC-1531, 6-03-20, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. vi. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200, type “B”. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
vii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb transition from existing to match new curb and gutter for approach or departure traffic safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer. viii. Construct 6’ wide Cross Gutter with Apron per City Standard No 201 City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
ix. (12.92.050) Construct Sidewalk per City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to curb or match exiting if wider than 6’), MC12.92.050, MC19.30.170, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09- 98; Ord. MC-691, 12-19-89, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. x. ADA Ramp shall be constructed at corner in accordance with the SPPWC (Standard Plans for Public Works Construction) or Caltrans Standard plans A88A. Federal Highway – DIB82-04, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. c) Chestnut Ave. TI = 5.5 : * - **
i. The street shall be paved, minimum of 26 feet, to meet the requirements detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the Traffic Index, or the City’s has a minimum standard for new streets (4” AC over 8” Base) except truck usage (9”AC over 12” Base); However, if the Soils Report is obtained and indicates a thicker improvement, the thicker section shall be used.
ii. For transitioning from new curb alignment to existing edge of pavement outside project limits the edge shall be a deepened or thickened. Use Caltrans Design Manual or A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for taper requirements. iii. When Striping, all striping shall be thermoplastic paint per section 84 of the Caltrans specifications.
iv. The existing Storm Drain/Channel shall have access, Improvements, be cleaned and repaired prior to certificate of occupancy.
v. No Parking will be allowed Verdemont Dr./Perrin Dr.–, install/replace signs per city standards.
vi. Install a city approved trash screen and filtration device in the catch basins, City of San Bernardino Phase I MS4 - Trash Provisions 13383 Order – 8-30-2017 by City Manager.

Packet Page. 237
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
15 vii. At least 26 feet of pavement shall be provided along streets adjacent to the subdivision, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
viii. Two independent means of access, 26’ wide paved and dedicated, shall be provided for the project. Additional width may be required for drainage control and traffic safety.
ix. (19.48.030 Survey Required) Survey Monuments and ties shall be placed, replaced, tied out and recorded at any corner or alignment changes that are adjacent to the project area in accordance with California Land Surveyors Association – Monument Preservation Guidelines, Copies of Recorded Monuments/Ties shall be delivered to Public Works/Engineering.
x. All conditions of the Public Works Department shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d) Street “A” & Antique St. = 4.5 : * - **
i. Street “A” shall be paved a minimum of 40’ and Antique street shall be paved, minimum of 28 feet, to meet the requirements detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the Traffic Index, or The City’s has a minimum standard for new streets (4” AC over 8” Base) except truck usage (9”AC over 12” Base); However, if the Soils Report is obtained and indicates a thicker improvement, the thicker section shall be used. The remainder of Antique Street shall be paved with 12 feet of temporary pavement, total of 40’ of pavement for Antique Street (28’ permanent and 12’ temporary).
ii. For transitioning from new curb alignment to existing edge of pavement outside project limits the edge shall be a deepened or thickened. Use Caltrans Design Manual or A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for taper requirements. iii. When Striping, all striping shall be thermoplastic paint per section 84 of the Caltrans specifications.
iv. The corners, only Verdemont, shall be a min. 35’ Radius including a compliant ADA ramp with By-Pass and Truncated Domes. City of San Bernardino – Street Improvement Policy.
v. Curb return radius shall be 25’ minimum on interior streets. vi. Construct Residential Driveway Approach per City Standard No. 203, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach. No Driveways closer than 100’ from BCR/ECR as directed by the City Engineer. On corner lots only one frontage may have a driveway. MC12.28.060, MC12-28-100, MC15.04.230, MC16.20.030, 19.24.060, MC19.30.200, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09-98; Ord. MC-460, 5-15-85; Ord. MC-320, 12-06-83; Ord. 3918, 2-25-80; Ord. 2519, 8-20- 63; Ord. 1963, 11-18-52, Ord. MC- 1531, 6-03-20, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. vii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200, type “B”. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
viii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb transition from existing to match new curb and gutter for approach or departure traffic safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer. ix. Construct 6’ wide Cross Gutter with Apron per City Standard No 201 City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.

Packet Page. 238
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
16 x. (12.92.050) Construct Sidewalk per City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to curb or match exiting if wider than 6’), MC12.92.050, MC19.30.170, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09- 98; Ord. MC-691, 12-19-89, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xi. ADA Ramp shall be constructed at corner in accordance with the SPPWC (Standard Plans for Public Works Construction) or Caltrans Standard plans A88A. Federal Highway – DIB82-04, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xii. (19.30.050) Install Solar LED Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standards. Also, when more than three (3) streetlights a separate street light plan sheet shall be submitted in the Offsite Improvement set in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street Lighting Design Policies. Install ID Plate on street light pole.

Supply one (1) additional head for each solar head installed, as directed by the City Traffic Engineer. The additional head can be given to the off-site inspector. xiii. Install a city approved trash screen and filtration device in the catch basins, City of San Bernardino Phase I MS4 - Trash Provisions 13383 Order – 8-30-2017 by City Manager.
xiv. Two independent means of access, 26’ wide paved and dedicated, shall be provided for the project. Additional width may be required for drainage control and traffic safety.
xv. (19.48.030 Survey Required) Survey Monuments and ties shall be placed, replaced, tied out and recorded at any corner or alignment changes that are adjacent to the project area in accordance with California Land Surveyors Association – Monument Preservation Guidelines, Copies of Recorded Monuments/Ties shall be delivered to Public Works/Engineering.
xvi. All conditions of the Public Works Department shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
e) Street “B” TI = 4.5 : * - **
i. The street shall be paved, minimum of 36 feet, to meet the requirements detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the Traffic Index, or The City’s has a minimum standard for new streets (4” AC over 8” Base) except truck usage (9”AC over 12” Base); However, if the Soils Report is obtained and indicates a thicker improvement, the thicker section shall be used.
ii. For transitioning from new curb alignment to existing edge of pavement outside project limits the edge shall be a deepened or thickened. Use Caltrans Design Manual or A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for taper requirements. iii. When Striping, all striping shall be thermoplastic paint per section 84 of the Caltrans specifications.
iv. The corners shall be a min. 25’ Radius including a compliant ADA ramp with ByPass and Truncated Domes. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. v. Construct Residential Driveway Approach per City Standard No. 203, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach. No Driveways closer than 100’ from BCR/ECR as directed by the City Engineer. On corner lots only one frontage may have a driveway. MC12.28.060, MC12-28-100, MC15.04.230, MC16.20.030, 19.24.060, MC19.30.200, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09-98; Ord. MC-460, 5-15-85; Ord. MC-320, 12-06-83; Ord. 3918, 2-25-80; Ord. 2519, 8-20- 63; Ord. 1963, 11-18-52, Ord. MC- 1531, 6-03-20, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.

Packet Page. 239
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
17 vi. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200, type “B”. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
vii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb transition from existing to match new curb and gutter for approach or departure traffic safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer. viii. Construct 6’ wide Cross Gutter with Apron per City Standard No 201 City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
ix. (12.92.050) Construct Sidewalk per City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to curb or match exiting if wider than 6’), MC12.92.050, MC19.30.170, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09- 98; Ord. MC-691, 12-19-89, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. x. ADA Ramps shall be constructed at corner in accordance with the SPPWC (Standard Plans for Public Works Construction) or Caltrans Standard plans A88A. Federal Highway – DIB82-04, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xi. (19.30.050) Install Solar LED Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standards. Also, when more than three (3) streetlights a separate street light plan sheet shall be submitted in the Offsite Improvement set in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street Lighting Design Policies. Install ID Plate on Street light pole.

Supply one (1) additional head for each solar head installed, As Directed by the City Traffic Engineer. The additional head can be given to the off-site inspector. xii. Install a city approved trash screen and filtration device in the catch basins, City of San Bernardino Phase I MS4 - Trash Provisions 13383 Order – 8-30-2017 by City Manager. xiii. Two independent means of access, 26’ wide paved and dedicated, shall be provided for the project. Additional width may be required for drainage control and traffic safety.
xiv. (19.48.030 Survey Required) Survey Monuments and ties shall be placed, replaced, tied out and recorded at any corner or alignment changes that are adjacent to the project area in accordance with California Land Surveyors Association – Monument Preservation Guidelines, Copies of Recorded Monuments/Ties shall be delivered to Public Works/Engineering.
xv. All conditions of the Public Works Department shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
f) Street “C” TI = 4.5 : * - **
i. The street shall be paved, minimum of 36 feet, to meet the requirements detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the Traffic Index, or the City’s has a minimum standard for new streets (4” AC over 8” Base) except truck usage (9”AC over 12” Base); However, if the Soils Report is obtained and indicates a thicker improvement, the thicker section shall be used.
ii. For transitioning from new curb alignment to existing edge of pavement outside project limits the edge shall be a deepened or thickened. Use Caltrans Design Manual or A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for taper requirements. iii. When Striping, all striping shall be thermoplastic paint per section 84 of the Caltrans specifications.
iv. The corner shall be a min. 25’ Radius including a compliant ADA ramp with By-Pass and Truncated Domes. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.

Packet Page. 240
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
18 v. v) Construct “Cul-De-Sac” Per City Standard No. 101, or by the approval of the City Engineer.
vi. Construct Residential Driveway Approach per City Standard No. 203, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach. No Driveways closer than 100’ from BCR/ECR as directed by the City Engineer. On corner lots only one frontage may have a driveway. MC12.28.060, MC12-28-100, MC15.04.230, MC16.20.030, 19.24.060, MC19.30.200, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09-98; Ord. MC-460, 5-15-85; Ord. MC-320, 12-06-83; Ord. 3918, 2-25-80; Ord. 2519, 8-20- 63; Ord. 1963, 11-18-52, Ord. MC- 1531, 6-03-20, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. vii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200, type “B”. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
viii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb transition from existing to match new curb and gutter for approach or departure traffic safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer. ix. Construct 6’ wide Cross Gutter with Apron per City Standard No 201 City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
x. (12.92.050) Construct Sidewalk per City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to curb or match exiting if wider than 6’), MC12.92.050, MC19.30.170, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09- 98; Ord. MC-691, 12-19-89, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xi. ADA Ramps shall be constructed at corner in accordance with the SPPWC (Standard Plans for Public Works Construction) or Caltrans Standard plans A88A. Federal Highway – DIB82-04, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xii. (19.30.050) Install Solar LED Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standards. Also, when more than three (3) streetlights a separate street light plan sheet shall be submitted in the Offsite Improvement set in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street Lighting Design Policies. Install ID Plate on Street light pole.

Supply one (1) additional head for each solar head installed, As Directed by the City Traffic Engineer. The additional head can be given to the off-site inspector. xiii. Install a city approved trash screen and filtration device in the catch basins, City of San Bernardino Phase I MS4 - Trash Provisions 13383 Order – 8-30-2017 by City Manager. xiv. Two independent means of access, 26’ wide paved and dedicated, shall be provided for the project. Additional width may be required for drainage control and traffic safety.
xv. (19.48.030 Survey Required) Survey Monuments and ties shall be placed, replaced, tied out and recorded at any corner or alignment changes that are adjacent to the project area in accordance with California Land Surveyors Association – Monument Preservation Guidelines, Copies of Recorded Monuments/Ties shall be delivered to Public Works/Engineering.
xvi. All conditions of the Public Works Department shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g) Street “D” TI = 4.5 : * - **
i. The street shall be paved, minimum of 36 feet, to meet the requirements detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the Traffic Index, or The City’s has a minimum standard for new streets (4” AC over 8” Base) except truck usage (9”AC over 12” Base); However, if the Soils Report is obtained and indicates a thicker improvement, the thicker section shall be used.

Packet Page. 241
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
19 ii. For transitioning from new curb alignment to existing edge of pavement outside project limits the edge shall be a deepened or thickened. Use Caltrans Design Manual or A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for taper requirements. iii. When Striping, all striping shall be thermoplastic paint per section 84 of the Caltrans specifications.
iv. The corners, only on Verdemont, shall be a min. 35’ Radius including a compliant ADA ramp with By-Pass and Truncated Domes. City of San Bernardino – Street Improvement Policy. v. Curb return radius shall be 25’ minimum on interior streets. vi. Construct Residential Driveway Approach per City Standard No. 203, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach. No Driveways closer than 100’ from BCR/ECR as directed by the City Engineer. On corner lots only one frontage may have a driveway. MC12.28.060, MC12-28-100, MC15.04.230, MC16.20.030, 19.24.060, MC19.30.200, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09-98; Ord. MC-460, 5-15-85; Ord. MC-320, 12-06-83; Ord. 3918, 2-25-80; Ord. 2519, 8-20- 63; Ord. 1963, 11-18-52, Ord. MC- 1531, 6-03-20, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. vii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200, type “B”. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
viii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb transition from existing to match new curb and gutter for approach or departure traffic safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer. ix. Construct 6’ wide Cross Gutter with Apron per City Standard No 201 City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
x. (12.92.050) Construct Sidewalk per City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to curb or match exiting if wider than 6’), MC12.92.050, MC19.30.170, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09- 98; Ord. MC-691, 12-19-89, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xi. ADA Ramps shall be constructed at corner in accordance with the SPPWC (Standard Plans for Public Works Construction) or Caltrans Standard plans A88A. Federal Highway – DIB82-04, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xii. (19.30.050) Install Solar LED Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standards. Also, when more than three (3) streetlights a separate street light plan sheet shall be submitted in the Offsite Improvement set in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street Lighting Design Policies. Install ID Plate on Street light pole.

Supply one (1) additional head for each solar head installed, As Directed by the City Traffic Engineer. The additional head can be given to the off-site inspector. xiii. Install a city approved trash screen and filtration device in the catch basins, City of San Bernardino Phase I MS4 - Trash Provisions 13383 Order – 8-30-2017 by City Manager. xiv. Two independent means of access, 26’ wide paved and dedicated, shall be provided for the project. Additional width may be required for drainage control and traffic safety.
xv. (19.48.030 Survey Required) Survey Monuments and ties shall be placed, replaced, tied out and recorded at any corner or alignment changes that are adjacent to the project area in accordance with California Land Surveyors Association – Monument Preservation Guidelines, Copies of Recorded Monuments/Ties shall be delivered to Public Works/Engineering.
xvi. All conditions of the Public Works Department shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Packet Page. 242
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
20 h) Street “E” TI = 4.5 : * - **
i. The street shall be paved, minimum of 36 feet, to meet the requirements detailed in a soils report based on the “R” value of the subgrade and the Traffic Index, or The City’s has a minimum standard for new streets (4” AC over 8” Base) except truck usage (9”AC over 12” Base); However, if the Soils Report is obtained and indicates a thicker improvement, the thicker section shall be used.
ii. For transitioning from new curb alignment to existing edge of pavement outside project limits the edge shall be a deepened or thickened. Use Caltrans Design Manual or A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for taper requirements. iii. When Striping, all striping shall be thermoplastic paint per section 84 of the Caltrans specifications.
iv. The corners, only on Verdemont, shall be a min. 35’ Radius including a compliant ADA ramp with By-Pass and Truncated Domes. City of San Bernardino – Street Improvement Policy.
v. Curb return radius shall be 25’ minimum on interior streets. vi. Construct “Cul-De-Sac” Per City Standard No. 101, or by the approval of the City Engineer.
vii. Construct Residential Driveway Approach per City Standard No. 203, including an accessible by-pass around the top of the drive approach. No Driveways closer than 100’ from BCR/ECR as directed by the City Engineer. On corner lots only one frontage may have a driveway. MC12.28.060, MC12-28-100, MC15.04.230, MC16.20.030, 19.24.060, MC19.30.200, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09-98; Ord. MC-460, 5-15-85; Ord. MC-320, 12-06-83; Ord. 3918, 2-25-80; Ord. 2519, 8-20- 63; Ord. 1963, 11-18-52, Ord. MC- 1531, 6-03-20, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. viii. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200, type “B”. City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
ix. (12.92.050) Construct 8" Curb transition from existing to match new curb and gutter for approach or departure traffic safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer. x. Construct 6’ wide Cross Gutter with Apron per City Standard No 201 City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy.
xi. (12.92.050) Construct Sidewalk per City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6’ wide adjacent to curb or match exiting if wider than 6’), MC12.92.050, MC19.30.170, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09- 98; Ord. MC-691, 12-19-89, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xii. ADA Ramps shall be constructed at corner in accordance with the SPPWC (Standard Plans for Public Works Construction) or Caltrans Standard plans A88A. Federal Highway – DIB82-04, City of San Bernardino - Street Improvement Policy. xiii. (19.30.050) Install Solar LED Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standards. Also, when more than three (3) streetlights a separate street light plan sheet shall be submitted in the Offsite Improvement set in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street Lighting Design Policies. Install ID Plate on Street light pole.

Supply one (1) additional head for each solar head installed, As Directed by the City Traffic Engineer. The additional head can be given to the off-site inspector. xiv. Install a city approved trash screen and filtration device in the catch basins, City of San Bernardino Phase I MS4 - Trash Provisions 13383 Order – 8-30-2017 by City Manager.

Packet Page. 243
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
21 xv. Two independent means of access, 26’ wide paved and dedicated, shall be provided for the project. Additional width may be required for drainage control and traffic safety.
xvi. (19.48.030 Survey Required) Survey Monuments and ties shall be placed, replaced, tied out and recorded at any corner or alignment changes that are adjacent to the project area in accordance with California Land Surveyors Association – Monument Preservation Guidelines, Copies of Recorded Monuments/Ties shall be delivered to Public Works/Engineering.
xvii. All conditions of the Public Works Department shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Phasing:
xviii. If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase shall be designed to provide maximum public safety, convenience for public services vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. To meet this requirement, the following shall be required prior to the finalization of any phase.
xix. Improvement plans for a total project or sufficient plans beyond the phase boundary to verify the feasibility of the design shall be complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
xx. A plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Engineering Division, Fire, and Planning Departments, indicating what improvements will be constructed with the given phase, subject to the following:
xxi. Dead-end streets shall provide a minimum 32-foot radius paved turn around. xxii. Half width streets shall provide a minimum 28-foot paved width. xxiii. Street improvements shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries, as necessary to provide secondary access.
xxiv. Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, channels, earth berms and block walls shall be constructed, as necessary, to protect the development and adjacent properties from off-site flows.
xxv. A properly designed water system shall be constructed, which can provide required fire flow, perhaps looping or extending beyond the phase boundaries. xxvi. Easements for any of the above and the installation of necessary utilities shall be complete; and,
xxvii. Phase boundaries shall correspond to the lot lines shown on the approved tentative map.
▪ These Conditions are set for an estimated construction within two years. If construction exceeds two years from DERC Approval these conditions shall be reviewed and updated as needed.
▪ If a Scoping Form is required, this form shall indicate the need of a Traffic Report, the results of the traffic report shall become conditions of this project i) Please submit street improvement plans. The Applicant shall cause to be formed, or shall be annexed into an existing, Community Facilities District(s) (CFD) (2019-1 Maintenance Packet Page. 244
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
22 CFD & Safety Services CFD) for landscaping, lighting, streets, drainage facilities, street sweeping, graffiti removal, or other infrastructure, and safety as required by the City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Applicant shall initiate the maintenance and benefit assessment district(s) formation, or annexation, by submitting a landowner petition and consent form (provided by the City) and deposited necessary fees concurrent with the application for street and grading plan review and approval; and said maintenance and benefit assessment district(s) shall be established concurrent with the approval of the final map in the case of the subdivision of land, or prior issuance of any certificate of occupancy where there is no subdivision of land, and as approved by the City Engineer. Reso 2018-264, Reso 2019-178.
j) City approved trash screens and filtration devices shall be installed in all catch basins or manhole connections. City of San Bernardino Phase I MS4 - Trash Provisions 13383 Order – 8-30- 2017 by City Manager. k) A temporary construction encroachment permit from Public Works Department shall be required for utility cuts into existing streets or any work within City’s right-of-way.

Pavement restoration or trench repair shall be in conformance with City Standard No. 310.

Public facilities shall be restored or constructed back to Public Works Department satisfaction. No Cuts in or on Streets that are on a Moratorium list. MC12.03.055, MC12.03.060, MC12.03.090, MC12.03.140.
l) The applicant must post a performance bond (Insurance, Deposit) prior to issuance of the off-site permit. The amount of the bond is to be determined by Public Works Department.

MC12.03.110, Ord. MC-1027, 9-09-98; Ord. MC-1004, 10-21-97. m) The above conditions shall comply with current codes, policies, and standards at time of construction.
n) Prior to Certificate of Occupancy or Completion of Project all As-builts and Centerline Ties shall be submitted to Public Works. MC12.03.130
o) Release of “Offsite Bond” requires an application and fees paid along with As-Builts signed by the Contractor and Inspector on a signed approved set of plans issued with permits, Centerline ties for all locations disturbed or created, and an electronic set of asbuilts plans.

33. Required Engineering Plans
A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of:
a) Street improvement plans (include engineering conditions, city standards, and cross sections in these plans).
▪ If Storm Drain plans are required then public storm drains shall be included on separate sheets with profiles in the street improvement plans. Private storm drains shall be shown separate sheets with profiles in the on-site improvement plans. ▪ If Traffic signal plans are required (as conditioned by traffic reports), these must be submitted on a separate plan sheets and included in the street improvement plans. ▪ If Signing and Striping Plans are needed, these plans shall be on separate plan sheets included in street improvement plans.

Packet Page. 245
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
23 ▪ If Lighting for offsite is required, these plans shall be on separate plan sheets included in street improvement plans.
▪ If Lighting for on-site plans are needed, they may be included with other on-site improvements or may be on a separate stand-alone plan.
▪ On-site Improvement Plans with grading and on-site landscaping and irrigation. ▪ Water Plans shall be submitted to San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. ▪ If CFD’s are required, then the CFD Plans shall include Landscaping, Irrigation, Basins, etc. items that are included in the CFD that are not listed in the above plans above, shall be on separate sheets included in the CFD improvement plan ▪ Other plans as required (piecemeal submittal of various types of plans for the same project will not be allowed).
▪ All Plans shall include all supporting calculations, studies, and reports in the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations).
b) Landscaping Plans are required and they shall include Landscaping, Irrigation, etc. c) All on-site and off-site improvement plans shall be electronically transmitted to the City for review as directed. The plans shall be formatted to print on 24” x 36” sheets, with City standard layout, borders, and signature block satisfactory to the City Engineer.

Engineering conditions of the project shall be inserted in the last pages of the plans. d) Electronic files of all improvement plans/drawings transmitted for plan review, and for final approval and signature, shall be in *.pdf format. The City may request files to be compatible with AutoCAD 2000 and include a *.DXF file.
e) After completion of plan checking, final digital drawings stamped and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, and by any other engineers providing certifications, shall be electronically transmitted to the City Engineer for approval and signature. Any drawings or plans required by the City Engineer for approval, however, shall be printed or plotted on mylar or paper media with a stamp and signature by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge.
f) Copies of the City’s design policies and procedures and standard drawings are available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of reproduction. They are also available at no charge at the Public Works Web Site at: "http://www.sbcity.org orhttp://www.ci.sanbernardino.ca.us/cityhall/publicworks/engineering_division/design_policy_and_procedur e_documents.asp"'

34. Traffic Requirements
Roadway Segment:

Verdemont Drive
a) Construct full off-site street development on both sides of Verdemont Drive (two-lane undivided Collector roadway), including 6-inch curb, ADA-compliant sidewalks, and associated landscaping/parkway improvements along the project boundary abutting Packet Page. 246
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
24 Verdemont Drive (from Antique Street to the east project boundary), in conjunction with the development.

Intersections:

Antique Street (NS) at Verdemont Drive (EW)
a) Construct the project driveway with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. b) Install southbound stop control at site egress.

Project Street “A” (NS) at Verdemont Drive (EW)
a) Construct the project driveway with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. b) Install southbound stop control at site egress.

Project Street “G” (NS) at Verdemont Drive (EW)
a) Construct the project driveway with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. b) Install southbound stop control at site egress
General Requirements:
a) Site-adjacent roadways shall be constructed or repaired as full off-site street development on both sides of Verdemont Drive, including curb, gutter, ADA-compliant sidewalks, and landscaping/parkway improvements in conjunction with development, or as otherwise required by the City of San Bernardino.
b) All on-site and off-site roadway design, signing/striping, and traffic control improvements relating to the proposed project shall be submitted to the City for review and constructed following applicable State/Federal engineering standards to the satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino.
c) The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans shall demonstrate that applicable sight distance requirements are met.
d) The project shall comply with the City of San Bernardino municipal parking requirements which will be reviewed as a part of the standard development review process. e) Final project plans shall demonstrate adequate emergency vehicle access and circulation to the satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino Public Works and Fire Departments. f) A construction worksite traffic control plan shall comply with applicable engineering standards outlined in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval before the issuance of a grading permit or start of construction. The plan shall identify any roadway, sidewalk, bike route, or bus stop closures and detours, as well as haul routes and hours of operation. All constructionrelated trips shall be restricted to off-peak hours to the extent possible.

In general, as applicable, all roadway design, traffic signing and striping, traffic signal, street lighting, sidewalks, and traffic control improvements relating to the proposed project should Packet Page. 247
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
25 be constructed in accordance with applicable engineering standards and to the satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino Traffic Engineering Division.

Development Impact Fee:

The proposed project shall contribute towards the City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee program (Municipal Code Chapter 3.27.050 and 060 ) and the regional transportation development mitigation fee program (County of San Bernardino Measure I). The Development Impact Fee provides a funding mechanism for arterial streets, traffic signals, interchange improvements, as well as emergency services. The purpose of such fees is to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the impact that new development has on the City’s public services and public facilities. The City intends for new development project applicants to pay their fair share of the costs of providing such public services and public facilities. Unless otherwise approved by the City, all development projects are required to pay the Development Impact Fee as a condition of development.

35. Required Engineering Permits/ Documents
a) Final Tract Map (MP).
b) WQMP / Hydrology (THR).
c) Grading / On-site improvements construction permit (LD). d) Off-site improvement construction permits. MC12.03.060, MC19.30.240, MC12.03.160 e) Landscaping permit (LS).
f) Traffic Control and ROW Permits (for Construction). MC12.03.090.

36. Financial Requirements/ Bonds/Applicable Fees
a) All plan-check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on the Public Works Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100% of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required at time of application for plan-check. The amount of the fee is subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan checking. b) "The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter and at:
http://www.sbcity.org"
c) The applicant must post a Grading Bond prior to issuance of a grading permit. The bond amount is to be determined by the Land Development Division. d) The applicant must post a Performance Bond prior to issuance of On-Site permits. The bond amount is to be determined by the Land Development Division. e) The applicant must post a Landscaping & Warranty Bond for the required On-Site & OffSite work prior to the issuance of Landscaping Permit. The bond amount is to be determined by the Land Development Division.

Packet Page. 248
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
26 f) Approved In-lieu of or fair share fees shall be paid to Public Works for any off-site improvements.

37. Public Works Occupancy Requirements for Tract Development a) The Streets within any phase of the subdivision shall be base paved (0.10 foot low) prior to delivery of construction materials to the site.
b) Prior to final inspection of the last three homes in the tract (or phase), the final lift of pavement shall be installed.
c) Prior to final inspection and release of the last three homes in the tract (or phase), the pavement on the streets adjacent to the tract shall be rehabilitated. The method and extent of rehabilitation shall be determined at time of final inspection by the City Engineer.

38. Integrated Solid Waste Management
a) During demolition and/or construction, services are to be provided through the City of San Bernardino’s franchised hauler Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. b) Obtain a Demolition Permit Application
c) The Site Plan dated 12/2/2024
The project site is located: Tract map 20707
Project Description: Construct 105 single family residential lots Burrtec Waste Comments:

The tentative tract map dated 12/5/24 identifies 105 residential lots with a minimum parcel size of 11,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet except some lots on curves or cul-de-sacs. All streets are public with a minimum paved width of 36 feet.

Based upon the information provided, Burrtec will provide standard residential collection services to all parcels for trash, mixed recyclables, and residential organics (green waste and food waste).

Any changes to the overall project design, enclosure specifications or location, or access may adversely impact Burrtec's ability to service the project. Any design modifications that could impact Burrtec's service will be subject to review and approval by Burrtec.

Burrtec's review of this project is limited to determining whether it meets Burrtec's minimum standards for waste and recycling collection services. Any comments or approvals by Burrtec are limited to these minimum standards as they relate to our equipment and personnel and do not pertain to the project's compliance with applicable federal, state and local land use and environmental laws, building codes or other applicable government regulations. Any approvals by Burrtec do not warrant or represent that Burrtec accepts any liability relative to the performance of waste and recycling collection services within this project.
d) Each single-family residential unit requires approximately 10 feet of clear space on the street along the curb adjacent to the driveway, for placement of the residential carts for trash, mixed recyclables, and residential organics on collection day, with a minimum 2- Packet Page. 249
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
27 foot setback and 23-foot vertical clearance of all obstructions such as walls, trees, streetlight poles, mailboxes, fences, and raised landscaping. e) Each single-family residential unit requires a minimum 4’x11’concrete pad located out of view of the public right-of-way for the storage of residential carts. If visible from the public right-of-way, the storage area shall be screened.
f) Burrtec Waste Truck Turning Radius – All corners and intersections on streets and driveways, shall have a turning radius adequate for a 35-foot long, three-axle collection truck. The minimum inside curb radius shall be at least 28 feet. The minimum outside curb radius shall be at least 42 feet. All streets and driveways shall comply with applicable City standards. Burrtec Waste’s truck turning template may be obtained from the Public Works Department in PDF and CAD.
g) Hammerhead Turnarounds shall meet or exceed San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Diagram A-1.12: Hammerhead Turnaround Detail dated July 1, 2021. San Bernardino County Hammerhead detail may be obtained from the Public Works Department.
h) If gated, access shall be provided by means of a key, code, or remote. i) Senate Bill 1383 Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Act may apply j) Upon completion, service is provided through the City of San Bernardino’s franchised hauler Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. 111 E. Mill Street, San Bernardino, CA 92408 (909) 804-4222.

San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
a) If there are any street improvements associated with the project then it is the developer/s and/or engineer/s responsibility to submit a copy of the street improvements plans to SBMWD’S engineering section for review.
b) Water main extension required per rule and regulation no. 20. c) Sewer main extension required per rule and regulation no. 20. No mains are fronting project.
d) Infrastructure with redundancy required to support new 2300' pressure zone (reservoirs, transmission mains, booster pumps, pressure reducing valves, wells). e) Maintain easement on west portion of project boundary.

San Bernardino County Fire Department

39. The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Fire Department herein “Fire Department”. Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection requirements. All new construction shall comply with the current California Fire Code requirements and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, and standards of the Fire Department.

40. The required fire fees shall be paid to the San Bernardino County Fire Department/Community Safety Division.

Packet Page. 250
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
28 41. Fire Condition Letters shall expire on the date determined by the Planning Division or Building and Safety.

42. Construction permits shall automatically expire and become invalid unless the work authorized such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. Suspension or abandonment shall mean that no inspection by the Department has occurred with 180 days of any previous inspection. After a construction permit becomes invalid and before such previously approved work recommences, a new permit shall be first obtained and the fee to recommence work shall be one-half the fee for the new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original construction documents for such work, and provided further that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year. A request to extend the permit may be made in writing PRIOR TO the expiration date justifying the reason that the permit should be extended.

43. Permission to occupy or use the building (Certification of Occupancy or Shell Release) will not be granted until the Fire Department inspects, approves and signs off on the Building and Safety job card for “fire final”.

44. The County General Plan designates this property as being within the Fire Safety Review Area.

All construction shall adhere to all applicable standards and requirements of the Fire Safety Review Area as adopted in the San Bernardino County Development Code.

45. Building Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.

46. Prior to combustibles being placed on the project site an approved all-weather fire apparatus access surface and operable fire hydrants with acceptable fire flow shall be installed. The topcoat of asphalt does not have to be installed until final inspection and occupancy.

47. Combustible vegetation shall be removed as follows: a. Where the average slope of the site is less than 15% - Combustible vegetation shall be removed a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet from all structures or to the property line, whichever is less. b. Where the average slope of the site is 15% or greater - Combustible vegetation shall be removed a minimum one hundred (100) feet from all structures or to the property line, whichever is less. County Ordinance #3586

48. A Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) plan designed specifically for the subject project is required and shall be designed by a consultant approved by the Fire Department. The FMZ plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval in compliance with County standards.

49. Where the natural grade between the access road and building is in excess of thirty percent (30%), an access road shall be provided within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of all buildings.

Where such access cannot be provided, a fire protection system shall be installed. Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.

50. The development shall have a minimum of two points of vehicular access. These are for fire/emergency equipment access and for evacuation routes. a. Single Story Road Access Width. All buildings shall have access provided by approved roads, alleys and private drives with a minimum twenty-six (26) foot unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height. b. Multi-Story Road Access Width. Fire apparatus access roadways serving buildings that are three (3) or more stories or thirty (30) feet or more in height shall be Packet Page. 251
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
29 a minimum of thirty (30) feet in unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height.

51. Parking of vehicles shall not be allowed to obstruct fire apparatus access at any time. The following criteria shall be used to determine parking allowed on fire access roadways:
a) Parking is not permitted on roadways that are less than thirty-two (32) feet in width. b) Roadways that are a minimum of thirty-two (32) feet in width but less than forty (40) feet in width may have parallel parking on one (1) side of the roadway in accordance with County or City Standards.
c) Roadways that are a minimum of forty (40) feet in width may be designated to have parallel parking on both sides of the roadway. For higher density development, public or private streets that are a minimum of thirty-six (36) feet in width may be allowed to have parking on both sides of the street with the approval of the Fire Code Official, taking into consideration additional access provisions and other factors. d) In addition, parking that is perpendicular or diagonal to the edge of the roadway shall not obstruct the required minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet for fire access.

52. Fire access roadways shall not exceed a maximum of twelve (12%) percent grade at any point.

Fire access roadways or driveways may be increased to fourteen (14%) percent grade for a distance not to exceed five hundred (500) feet. Fire access roadways providing access to no more than two (2) one or two-family dwellings may be increased to a maximum of sixteen (16%) percent grade not to exceed five hundred (500) feet. Grades across the width of a fire access roadways shall not exceed five (5%) percent. In order to accommodate proper angles of approach and departure, gradient shall not exceed five (5%) percent change along any ten (10) foot section.

53. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Road surface shall meet the approval of the Fire Chief prior to installation. All roads shall be designed to 85% compaction and/or paving and hold the weight of Fire Apparatus at a minimum of 80K pounds.

54. Roadways exceeding one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall be approved by the Fire Department. Roadways shall be extended to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of and shall give reasonable access to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building.

55. An approved turnaround shall be provided at the end of each roadway one hundred and fifty (150) feet or more in length. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet; all roadways shall not exceed a 12 % grade and have a minimum of forty-five (45) foot radius for all turns. In the Fire Safety Overlay District cul-de-sac length shall not exceed three hundred fifty (350) feet.

56. Prior to building permits being issued to any new structure, the primary access road shall be paved or an all weather surface and shall be installed as specified in the General Requirement conditions including width, vertical clearance and turnouts.

57. Prior to building permits being issued to any new structure, the secondary access road shall be paved or an all weather surface and shall be installed as specified in the General Requirement conditions including width, vertical clearance and turnouts.

Packet Page. 252
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
30 58. The applicant shall submit a fire lane plan with the building construction plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Fire lane curbs shall be painted red. "No Parking, Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on public/private roads in accordance with the approved plan.

59. This project is required to have an approved street sign (temporary or permanent). The street sign shall be installed on the nearest street corner to the project. Installation of the temporary sign shall be prior any combustible material being placed on the construction site. Prior to final inspection and occupancy of the first structure, the permanent street sign shall be installed.

60. Please provide a fire flow test report from your water purveyor that has been completed in the last six months demonstrating that the fire flow demand is satisfied.

61. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified by the Fire Department. In areas where snow removal occurs, or non-paved roads exist, the blue reflective hydrant marker shall be posted on an approved post along the side of the road, no more than three (3) feet from the hydrant and at least six (6) feet high above the adjacent road.

62. An automatic life safety fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA Pamphlet #13D and Fire Department standards is required. The applicant shall hire a licensed fire sprinkler contractor or be an approved owner/builder. The fire sprinkler contractor/installer shall submit plans with hydraulic calculations and manufacture's specification sheets to the Fire Department for approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. Minimum water supply shall be in accordance with current fire department standards. The applicant or contractor shall contact their local water purveyor to obtain specifications on installing a residential fire sprinkler system within the jurisdiction of the water purveyor. The applicant shall attach a letter from the water purveyor indicating the types of systems allowed in that jurisdiction.

63. The street address shall be installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum of four (4) inches in height and with a one half (½) inch stroke. The address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall be internally and electrically illuminated with a low voltage power source. Numbers shall contrast with their background and be legible from the street. Where the building is one hundred (100) feet or more from the roadway, the street address shall be displayed at the property entrances with numbers that are a minimum of four (4) inches in height and one half (½) inch stroke.

64. An approved spark arrestor is required. Every chimney that is used in conjunction with any fireplace or any heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel are used, shall have an approved spark arrestor visible from the ground that is maintained in conformance with the California Fire Code.

65. The applicant shall contact the San Bernardino County Fire Department/Hazardous Materials Division (909) 386-8401 for review and approval of building plans, where the planned use of such buildings will or may use hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste materials.

66. In addition to the Fire requirements stated herein, other onsite and off-site improvements may be required which cannot be determined at this time and would have to be reviewed after more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to this office.

67. Any changes to this proposal shall require new Fire Department condition letter.

Packet Page. 253
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
31 SECTION 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

The Planning Commission hereby takes the following action:

1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-018 - PC:
a. Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707), in accordance with Section 15074 of the California Code of Regulations, and direct the Planning Commission Secretary to prepare and file with the Clerk of the County of San Bernardino a Notice of Determination as provided under Public Resources Code, Section 21152(c) and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15094; and
b. Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707); and
c. Approving Subdivision 25-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707), based on the Findings of Facts.

SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY:

If any provision of this Resolution or the applicant 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 7. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission based its decision, is as follows: Telicia Lopez, Acting City Clerk, 201 North E Street (Building A), (909) 384-5002.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July 2026.

Lisa Sherrick, Chairperson
San Bernardino Planning Commission
ATTEST
Gabriel Elliott, Planning Commission Secretary
City of San Bernardino, California
Packet Page. 254
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
32 CERTIFICATION:

I, Gabriela Sosa, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, No. 2026-018 - PC, was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: I. Garcia, Quiel, Sherrick, Ngalande, Pratt, O. Garcia NOES: None
ABSENT: Dailey, Lopez, and Carlone
ABSTAIN: None
Gabriela Sosa, Recording Secretary
City of San Bernardino, California
Packet Page. 255
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
33 EXHIBIT “A”

APPROVED PLANS
Packet Page. 256
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-018 - PC
34 EXHIBIT “B”

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Packet Page. 257
Packet Page. 258
Packet Page. 259
Packet Page. 260
Packet Page. 261
Packet Page. 262
Via Email
June 24, 2026
Michael Rosales, Chair
Jerry Arellano, Committee Member
Ryan Castillo, Committee Member
Saul Guerrero, Committee Member
Victoria Rodriguez, Committee Member
James Lane, Committee Member
Jairo Barreras, Committee Member
Zared Ibarra, Committee Member
Zeena Abdulla, Secretary
Development and Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401
[email protected]
Chantel Choice, Senior Planner
Community Development &
Housing Department
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Verdemont Heights Residential Development (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20707)
Dear Members of the Development and Environmental Review Committee and Planner Choice, I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Verdemont Heights Residential Development Project, including all actions related or referring to the proposed development of a residential subdivision encompassing approximately 107.7 acres (“Project”).

SAFER remains concerned that the IS/MND does not adequately analyze or mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources. SAFER’s comments are supported by expert biologist, Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., whose comments and CV are attached hereto as “Exhibit A.”
As discussed below, there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant adverse environmental impacts, and an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is therefore required.

SAFER requests that the City of San Bernardino (“City”) prepare an EIR for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq.

Packet Page. 263
June 24, 2026
Comment on IS/MND for Verdemont Heights Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located north of Verdemont Drive, east of Antique Street, and west of Escena Street in Verdemont Heights in the City of San Bernardino. The Project site is approximately 107.7 acres and is currently vacant. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the Project site into 105 single-family residential lots and five lettered lots.

LEGAL STANDARD
An EIR is required rather than a mitigated negative declaration if there is a “fair argument” that a proposed project may have an adverse environmental impact. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319-320 (“CBE v. SCAQMD”). A mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.

Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.

The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.

Packet Page. 264
June 24, 2026
Comment on IS/MND for Verdemont Heights Project

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273–74.

The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).

DISCUSSION
I. The IS/MND’s Analysis of the Project’s Impacts on Biological Resources is Inadequate and Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

Dr. Smallwood reviewed the IS/MND the supporting Biological Resource Assessment (“BRA”) prepared by ELMT Consulting (“ELMT”) and found that ELMT inadequately characterized the existing environmental setting and the site’s ability to provide habitat for special status species. Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.) Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR, § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
“…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.” (Emphasis added.)
(See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124- 125.) Thus, an accurate description of the existing environmental conditions of a site is critical to determining whether a significant impact exists. Conversely, if the environmental conditions of a project site are not adequately characterized, any subsequent impact analysis relying on such a mischaracterization would also be inadequate, as is the case here.

After conducting a site survey on July 22, 2024 for an unspecified amount of time, ELMT concluded that “implementation of the [P]roject will have no significant impacts on additional federally or State listed species.” (IS/MND – Appendix C, p. 12.) However, Dr.

Smallwood found this claim to be unfounded. Dr. Smallwood’s associate, Noriko Smallwood conducted two daytime surveys of the Project Site on April 11 and April 14, 2026 for approximately 4.5 hours total. Noriko conducted subsequent nocturnal surveys on April 14 and 18, 2026, for approximately 4.5 hours total. (Exhibit A, p. 2.) In total, Noriko detected approximately 56 species of vertebrate wildlife. (Id., p. 16.) During her surveys Noriko also observed a Monarch butterfly and western spadefoot, both candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act and a special status species. (Id., p. 15.) Other special status species Noriko detected on the Project Site include the American barn owl, Costa’s hummingbird, Allen’s hummingbird, red-tailed hawk, wrentit, California thrasher, Bullock’s Packet Page. 265
June 24, 2026
Comment on IS/MND for Verdemont Heights Project

oriole, Yuma myotis, California myotis, big brown bat, canyon bat, silver-haired bat, and Mexican free-tailed bat. (Id.)
Based on Noriko’s surveys Dr. Smallwood concluded that the MND mischaracterized the Project’s environmental setting. (Id., p. 21.) First Dr. Smallwood explains that “ELMT’s characterization of the existing environmental setting appears biased.” (Id., p. 22.) This is evident in ELMT’s site photos which are “representative of the most disturbed portions of the [P]roject [S]ite.” (Id.) By comparison, Noriko’s photos “reveal that much of the [P]roject [S]ite is ecologically intact despite past soil disturbance.” (Id.) Second, comparing the ELMT’s survey results to Noriko’s, “reveals that the wildlife species community depicted by ELMT [] is nowhere close to accurate.” (Id., p. 23.) ELMT detected 12 species of vertebrate wildlife, while Noriko detected 56, and a Monarch. (Id.) Noriko’s detection of Monarch butterflies is important given she observed two “roosting together on a pine tree. Roosting sites along migration routes are vital to Monarch conservation, because they are important for stop-over resting periods that can last from as brief as a day to as long as several weeks. The [P]roject [S]ite must be vitally important to Monarchs.” (Id., p. 4.)
Furthermore, ELMT failed to conduct appropriate surveys for certain special status species such as the burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumblebee and various other types of wildlife with potential to occur on the site including amphibians. (Id., p. 27.) For example, ELMT speculates that amphibians are not expected to occur on the site due to the ephemeral nature of the drainage area on site, but fails to cite “evidence that amphibians require predictable stream water sources, that they even require streams, aka drainages.” (Id.) Indeed, Noriko detected the special status western spadefoot which “breed[s] principally in vernal pools, but also in temporary ponds, flood control basins, and other bodies of water.” (Id., p.

28.)
ELMT further speculates that “no local bat species are expected to occur onsite due to a lack of suitable roosting opportunities.” (MND – Appendix C, p. 6.) However, as Dr.

Smallwood explains:
“[B]ats are known to roost on a variety of substrates [], and not just the narrowly defined conditions that appear in consultant reports. It is highly likely, for example, that bats roost on the sycamores that occur on the [P]roject [S]ite. In two very brief surveys, Noriko detected six species of bats on the [P]roject [S]ite, again demonstrating the hazard of speculating why certain species should not occur on a site. In the case of bats. ELMT’s speculation is wrong six times over.”
(Id., p. 28.) Given ELMT’s inadequate survey effort and speculative conclusions, “[m]ore work is needed to accurately characterize the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. (Id., p. 35.)
Packet Page. 266
June 24, 2026
Comment on IS/MND for Verdemont Heights Project

Based on ELMT’s erroneous characterization of the Project Site’s environmental setting, the MND concludes that the Project would have a less than significant impact on special status species with the inclusion of preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and burrowing owls incorporated. (MND, p. 24.) However, this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because the characterization of the existing environmental conditions of the Project site on which the IS/MND relies for its impact analysis is inadequate. Furthermore, findings by Dr. Smallwood indicate otherwise, as his analysis concludes that even with the suggested mitigation measures proposed in the MND, the Project may still result in significant unmitigated impacts on special status species, as described below.

II. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project May Have Significant Unmitigated Impacts on Special Status Species.

Based on Noriko’s surveys, Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project may result in significant impacts on special status species. (Ex. A, pp. 35-47.) These impacts include habitat loss, increased wildlife mortality due to project-generated traffic, and increased avian mortality due to window collisions. (Id.) These impacts were not identified or considered by ELMT.
a. Habitat loss
Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project would result in the loss of habitat for at least the 59 vertebrate species of wildlife Noriko and ELMT collectively observed on the Project Site, including special status species such as the Monarch and western spadefoot. (Id., p. 36.) While the number of avian nests sites is unknown, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project Site supports up to 269 bird nests per year, meaning that the Project would result in the loss of 269 nest sites, including those for special status birds Noriko observed on the Project Site such as the American barn owl, Costa’s hummingbird, Allen’s hummingbird, red-tailed hawk, wrentit, California thrasher and Bullock’s oriole. (Id., p. 37.) Dr. Smallwood’s expert opinion, drawing from the actual conditions of the Project site, is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will result in significant unmitigated habitat loss. b. Traffic impacts on wildlife
Based on the vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) estimated for Project construction and operation, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project would result in “528 vertebrate wildlife fatalities during construction, and 1,018 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year in the area around the project that is traveled by project-generated traffic.” (Id., p. 46.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that “the project-generated traffic would cause significant impacts on wildlife.” (Id., p. 47.) c. Bird-window collisions
Dr. Smallwood notes that the Project’s inclusion of several residences would “introduce glass windows into an essential portion of avian habitat,” the aerosphere. “Many special status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the [P]roject [S]ite.” (Id., p. 40.) Based on the birds Noriko observed flying through the Project Site and Dr. Smallwood’s birdPacket Page. 267 June 24, 2026
Comment on IS/MND for Verdemont Heights Project

window collision research, he estimates that the Project would result in 187 bird collision fatalities per year. (Id., 42.)
The significant impacts identified by Dr. Smallwood here are supported by the site observations and expert experience and therefore constitute substantial evidence warranting the preparation of an EIR.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the City prepare an EIR to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts.

Sincerely,
Kylah Staley

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
Packet Page. 268

EXHIBIT A
Packet Page. 269
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Chantel Choice, Senior Planner
City of San Bernardino
Community Development and Housing Department, Planning Division 201 North “E” Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401 20 April 2026
RE: Verdemont Heights Residential Development
Dear Ms. Choice,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the proposed Verdemont Heights Residential Development. The project would add 105 single-family residential units on 107.7 acres northeast of Verdemont Dr and west of Palm Ave in San Bernardino, California (APN: 0348-121-14, -27, -28; and 0261-011-02, -03, -10). My comments that follow address my concerns that the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), supported by a biological Resources Assessment prepared by ELMT Consulting (ELMT 2024), mischaracterizes the existing environmental setting, and that its impacts analysis is flawed and its mitigation measures are inadequate.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for fortyone years. My CV is attached.

THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Question IV(a) asks specifically whether the project would adversely affect special-status species. However, this narrowly focused question is part of a larger policy goal of CEQA, which is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Packet Page. 270
2 Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not restricted to special-status species; it also applies to wildlife populations and plant and animal communities, as it must, because special-status species are inter-dependent members of ecological communities. The CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species provide for special-status species their forage, refugia and nest substrates, and some serve as ecological mutualists. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which special-status species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.

The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).

What follows is a summary of site visits to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short times available. The visits were also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most specialstatus species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity. Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.

SITE VISITS
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for

2.67 hours of diurnal survey starting at 06:25 on 11 April 2026, and for 1.82 hours of diurnal survey starting at 17:37 and for 2.5 hours of nocturnal survey starting at 19:26 on 14 April 2026. She visited the site again for 2 hours of nocturnal survey starting at 19:32 on 18 April 2026. During daylight, Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, Noriko affixed a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 25-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran SonoBat Live. SonoBat Live identifies bat species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected by the M500. She also scanned for nocturnal wildlife using a Pulsar Telos LRF XG50 5.5-14x 50 mm thermal-imaging monocular. Noriko Packet Page. 271
3 recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen just off site. Conditions were cloudy with 7 MPH south wind and temperatures 10.5–12.7° C on 11 April 2026, clear with 2 MPH south wind and temperatures 23–15° C on 14 April, and clear with temperatures 19.4–16.7° C on 18 April. The site was covered by annual grassland, sage scrub, groves of western sycamore and eucalyptus, and a retention pond at the southwest corner (Photos 1–3).

Photos 1, 2, and 3. Views of the project site, 11 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 272
4 Noriko saw American barn owl (Photo 4), red-tailed hawk and Bullock’s oriole (Photo 5), American kestrel and monarch (Photos 6 and 7), Anna’s hummingbird (Photo 8), Costa’s hummingbird and California quail (Photos 9 and 10), California thrasher and Say’s phoebe (Photos 11 and 12), cliff swallow and barn swallow (Photos 13 and 14), California scrub-jay and mourning dove (Photos 15 and 16), California towhee and spotted towhee (Photos 17 and 18), lesser goldfinch and northern house wren (Photos 19 and 20), lark sparrow and Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Photos 21 and 22), white-crowned sparrow and desert cottontail (Photos 23 and 24), Great Basin fence lizard and western side-blotched lizard (Photos 25 and 26), coyotes and Allen’s hummingbird (Photos 27 and 28), canyon bat and silver-haired bat (Photos 29 and 30), and California myotis and Yuma myotis (Photos 31 and 32). Noriko detected 57 species of wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 6 species of bats and 15 species with special status (Table 1). Two of the species Noriko detected – Western spadefoot and Monarch – are candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act.

There were two Monarchs roosting together on a pine tree. Roosting sites along migration routes are vital to Monarch conservation, because they are important for stop-over resting periods that can last from as brief as a day to as long as several weeks.

The project site must be vitally important to Monarchs.

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

Photo 4. Two American barn owls foraging on the project site, detected using a thermal imaging camera on 14 April 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 273
5 Photo 5. Bullock’s oriole harassing a red-tailed hawk on the project site, 11 April 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 6 and 7. American kestrel (left), and monarch roosting in a pine tree (right) on the project site, 14 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 274
6 Photo 8. Anna’s hummingbirds on the project site, 11 April 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 9 and 10. Costa’s hummingbird (left), and California quail (right) on the project site, 11 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 275
7 Photos 11 and 12. California thrasher (top), and Say’s phoebe eating a ladybug (bottom) on the project site, 11 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 276
8 Photos 13 and 14. Cliff swallow (left), and barn swallow (right) on the project site, 11 and 14 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 15 and 16. California scrub-jay (left), and mourning dove (right) on the project site, 11 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 277
9 Photos 17 and 18. California towhee (left), and spotted towhee (right) on the project site, 11 and 14 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 19 and 20. Lesser goldfinch (left), and northern house wren (right) on the project site, 11 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 278
10 Photos 21 and 22. Lark sparrow (left), and Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (right) on the project site, 11 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 23 and 24. White-crowned sparrow (left), and desert cottontail (right) on the project site, 11 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 279
11 Photos 25 and 26. Great Basin fence lizard (top), and western side-blotched lizard (bottom) on the project site, 11 and 14 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Packet Page. 280
12 Photo 27.

Coyote
viewed at
night using
a thermal
imaging
camera on
18 April
2026. Photo
by Noriko
Smallwood.

Photo 28.

Allen’s
hummingbird
on the project
site, 18 April
2026. Photo by
Noriko
Smallwood.

Packet Page. 281
13 Photos 29 and 30. Sonograms of canyon bat (top), and silver-haired bat (bottom) on the project site detected using SonoBat Live and a Pettersson M500, 14 April 2026.

Packet Page. 282
14 Photos 31 and 32. Sonograms of California myotis (top), and Yuma myotis (bottom) on the project site detected using SonoBat Live and a Pettersson M500, 18 April 2026.

Packet Page. 283
15 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 2.67 hours of diurnal survey on 11 April 2026, during 1.82 hours of diurnal survey and 2.5 hours of nocturnal survey on 14 April 2026, and during 2 hours of nocturnal survey on 18 April 2026.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC 2 roosted in pine tree
Baja California treefrog
Pseudacris h.
hypochondriaca Called from retention pond
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC Called from retention pond Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes
Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
California quail Callipepla californica Foraged
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Just off site
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Tracks
Lesser nighthawk Chordeiles acutipennis Foraged
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Harassed by Bullock’s oriole American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Foraged on site in evening Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Called just off site American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Foraged
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Territorial American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Foraged
Northern rough-winged
swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Foraged
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Foraged
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Hundreds foraged Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii Foraged
Northern house wren Troglodytes aedon
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Sang just off site Western bluebird Sialia mexicana
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Foraged
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Packet Page. 284
16 Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Copulated
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia
California towhee Melozone crissalis Foraged
Southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
WL
Foraged
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Foraged
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Harassed red-tailed hawk Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata
Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena Pair
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Burrows Coyote Canis latrans Tracks
Kangaroo rat Dipodomys sp. Burrows
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
In addition to monarch, Noriko detected 56 species of vertebrate wildlife, which was a relatively large number for the brevity of her survey effort. All the species in Table 1 would lose habitat due to the project and its replacement of natural ground covers with impervious surfaces. Assuming the habitat that would remain within the region is at carrying capacity for each species at issue, habitat loss translates directly to a numerical decline in the species. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) confirmed this habitat loss by measuring the impacts of similar development projects on species richness and the abundances of wildlife. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) directly compared the species and the numbers of animals observed prior to development to the those observed after development, while they did the same at control sites. The measured losses of these species resulting from development is indicative of habitat loss, because habitat is defined as that portion of the environment that is used for survival and reproduction by members of a species (Hall et al. 1997).

Packet Page. 285
17 However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her survey, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s accumulation of first detections of vertebrate wildlife species with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The model I fit to Noriko’s morning survey data predicts 51 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected by five hours of survey, or 13 more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). Noriko’s rate of species detections exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from many other morning surveys we have completed in the Inland Empire region, thus indicating the project site is relatively species-rich for the region. In fact, the model predicts that by five hours of survey, Noriko would have detected about twice the number of vertebrate wildlife species we detect on average in the region.

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s visualscan surveys at the
project site on 11
and 14 April 2026.

Note the confidence
interval (gray)
applies only to the
morning survey
(red line).

Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
YAM 0.98
YPM 0.98
r
2 95% CI 2019-2025 in region Packet Page. 286
18 the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. Surveys on only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.

As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2,
of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 16.25 species over my first 4.49 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (4.49 hours to match the 4.49 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 28.5% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 43 vertebrate wildlife species Noriko detected in her

4.49 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 28.5% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 43

0.285 ⁄ = 151
species of vertebrate wildlife in daylight surveys at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 151 predicted species, then continued daylight surveys would eventually detect 32 specialstatus species of vertebrate wildlife.

Packet Page. 287
19 Because my prediction of 151 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 32 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Proof of this in Noriko’s brief nocturnal survey in which she added 6 species of vertebrate wildlife to her tally, including 4 special-status species of bats. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her one survey to produce an inventory the project site’s wildlife community. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

Considering the number of species – and the number of special-status species – yet to be detected, there is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare and EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting, which is needed to predict potential project impacts and to formulate an effective mitigation strategy.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CEQA’s primary objectives should guide the design and conduct of CEQA review. Four of CEQA’s primary objectives are to (1) accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, (2) disclose potential project impacts to the public and decisionmakers, (3) foster public participation with decision-making over proposed projects, 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
Packet Page. 288
20 and (4) identify issues and feasible alternative mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts. The first objective is essential to the other three, because an accurate understanding of the existing environmental setting is needed to predict impacts, provide the public with the means to meaningfully participate with issues of importance, and effectively strategize mitigation and project alternatives (Figure 3). For biological resources, essential information includes the species composition of the plant and wildlife communities, key ecological interactions, identification of ecological keystone species, determining the presence of special-status species or their habitats, and identifying risk factors that could result in significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts should the project go forward.

The public and decision-makers need to know which species are susceptible to harm potentially caused by the project and its associated activities, and which are known to be vulnerable to harm once exposed to the environmental changes brought by the project.

For these reasons, field studies are needed to identify as many of the species that occur on the project site as reasonably feasible, and to otherwise examine the environmental conditions for their likelihood to support species that are not detected, otherwise known as “habitat assessment.” A review of species occurrence records – also known as “desktop review” – is needed to identify the other species that potentially occur on the site – a process that is also referred to as “habitat assessment.” Because habitat assessments that are based on either or both field study and desktop review are prone to uncertainty, emphasis needs to be directed to adequate field study to reduce the pool of species subjected to habitat assessment, thereby weighing the review more towards certainty. Appropriately weighted reviews are less susceptible to speculation over species occurrence likelihoods. For this reason, protocol-level detection surveys have been formulated for numerous special-status species of plants and wildlife, and otherwise best scientific practices are needed to provide a reasonable likelihood of detection of species that truly occur on the project site. The negative findings of a properly conducted detection survey are the only findings that can support a determination of species absence.

Even among reviews based on the best field studies, there is always uncertainty over some of the determinations of species occurrences. The uncertainties of habitat assessments need to be managed to achieve CEQA’s primary objectives. This means that the methodological details of both the field studies and desktop review need to be carefully and thoroughly reported, and it means that results need to be reported in context of their uncertainties. For example, the reporting of having detected 10 species in a reconnaissance survey is nearly meaningless without also reporting the numbers of species found in surveys of similar methods and effort levels, and the reporting of the failure to detect a given species is nearly entirely meaningless without also reporting the likelihood that species would be detected given the survey methods and effort level. The same is true of desktop review; that is, there should be some means of validating habitat assessments based on the thousands of habitat assessments that have already been conducted in support of CEQA reviews. If industry standards in environmental review are to be credible, then they must include the use of the comparative method.

Packet Page. 289
21 Figure 3. General flow of information from its gathering through characterizing the existing environment to predicting impacts and their significance.

In the case of the proposed project, the IS/MND fails to explain how or why the steps taken to characterize the ecological community relate to CEQA’s primary objectives.

Additionally, the ecological community is inaccurately characterized as composed of only those species detected in a reconnaissance survey or deemed likely to occur based on desktop review of occurrence records. Furthermore, the IS/MND reports nothing about the uncertainties of ELMT’s (2024) findings, which vastly diminishes the accuracy of the characterization of the existing environmental setting.

Moreover, the area of the project footprint is misreported in both the biological resources technical report (ELMT 2024) and the IS/MND. Both documents report the project area is 107.7 acres, but the project boundary in the IS/MND measures 49 acres, and the project area in ELMT (2024) measures 54.9 acres. Combining the map boundaries in both documents, I estimate the area is 60.6 acres, but this acreage is still 44% smaller than reported. The IS/MND’s characterization of the existing environmental setting is inaccurate even in its characterization of the project’s extent.

Although ELMT (2024) reports having used GIS to calculate the areas of vegetation communities that would be affected by the project, no such acreages are reported. This failure to disclose the acreages is a fundamental shortfall of the environmental review, because it bears directly on the characterization of the existing environmental setting.

ELMT reports a map of vegetation communities, but the polygon that represents Sycamore Woodland appears too small, and the map of Disturbed appears overly inclusive of Riversidean Sage Scrub. Moreover, there is no reporting of any effort to validate the map with field observations, and the map boundaries are presented as unrealistically hard and static.

Assess species occurrence likelihoods

1. Desktop review
a. Species geographic range overlap or database occurrence records b. Crosswalk habitat associations with mapped ground cover

2. Reconnaissance survey/Habitat assessment

3. Detection surveys for special-status species
Outcomes

5. Predict impacts

6. Formulate mitigation strategy

7. Determine significance of impacts
Characterize wildlife community

4. Lists of species detected and of those expected but
not yet detected, and any known trends
Note: Impact predictions and
significance determinations have
been of unknown accuracy in the
absence of experimental
measurement
Packet Page. 290
22 The IS/MND and ELMT (2024) include multiple additional errors that further impinge on the credibility of its conclusions. The IS/MND (p. 3) states, “The Project Site currently supports creosote bush scrub…,” but creosote bush scrub is a desert vegetation community that does not occur on the project site. ELMT (2024) analyzes the occurrence likelihoods of species – e.g., great egret, great blue heron, Dulzura kangaroo rat – that have no special status other than their coverage by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which has no jurisdiction over the project site.

ELMT’s characterization of the existing environmental setting appears biased. ELMT reports site photos that are representative of the most disturbed portions of the project site, including photos of dirt roads (2), debris along a dirt road (1), disturbed areas mostly cleared of vegetation (3), the rocked inflow of a retainer pond along with cyclone fence and industrial equipment (1), an obscure collection of shrubs and the lowe3r portion of a tree (1), and a sycamore tree (1). The photo of the sycamore is the only photo of the project site in a relatively undisturbed condition. In comparison, Noriko’s photos 1–3 reveal that much of the project site is ecologically intact despite past soil disturbance (also see Photo 33), and the species she detected bears out what is evident in her photos.

Photo 33. Northeastward view of the Sycamore Woodland along the east side of the project site, 14 April 2026. Note that a few Eucalyptus are also visible. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
On 22 July 2024, ELMT (2024) deployed two biologists to conduct a reconnaissance survey to obtain a species inventory and evaluate the habitat condition, verify plant communities mapped from aerial imagery, and locate potential linkages and corridors for wildlife movement. As noted above, ELMT fails to explain why or how these objectives were pursued; for example, there is no explanation of how potential linkages and corridors would have been located. Further, there is no reporting of when the survey started nor how long it lasted – two survey attributes that are essential for contextualizing survey findings.

Packet Page. 291
23 ELMT (2024) reports 12 species of vertebrate wildlife were detected. (I did not count the domestic dog and domestic horse that ELMT reports because these animals are not wildlife, and the lesser goldfinch is reported twice.) Two of these species are specialstatus species, including red-shouldered hawk and mountain lion, the latter of which is now listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (ELMT 2024 attributes no special status to mountain lion). In comparison, Noriko detected Monarch and 56 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 15 special-status species. ELMT detected 3 vertebrate wildlife species that Noriko did not, but Noriko detected 49 vertebrate wildlife species that ELMT did not, and ultimately Noriko’s survey effort brings the total number of vertebrate wildlife species detected on the site to 59, which is five times the number ELMT (2024) reports. A comparison between ELMT’s and Noriko’s surveys reveals that the wildlife species community depicted by ELMT (2024) is nowhere close to accurate, and it indicates that additional surveys would further increase the number of species known to the site.

ELMT (2024) documents little more than half the number of vertebrate wildlife species as the average among surveys reported by consulting biologists at California project sites, whereas Noriko detected 1.85 times the number we average in our surveys of the same sites (Figure 4). Applying Noriko’s 1.85-fold difference to the consultants’ average predicts ELMT should have detected 42 species of vertebrate wildlife, but ELMT detected only 29% of this expected number.

Figure 4. Frequency distribution of the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected by consulting biologists (left graph) and by me and Noriko (right graph) among project sites surveyed in support of environmental reviews in California. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertebrate wildlife species detected
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140 Consultants
Number of project sites
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 20
40 60
80 100
Smallwoods
Number of project sites
= 22.8
= 30.3
ELMT (12)
Noriko (56)
Vertebrate wildlife species detected
Packet Page. 292
24 ELMT (2024) documented half the number of special-status species of wildlife as the average among surveys reported by consulting biologists among California project sites, whereas Noriko detected 2.5 times the number we average in our surveys of the same sites (Figure 5). Applying Noriko’s 2.5-fold difference to the consultants’ average predicts that ELMT should have detected 10 special-status species of wildlife, but ELMT detected only 20% of this expected number. Comparative analysis reveals that the project site supports an unusually high wildlife species richness, that ELMT came up short of its expected number of species detections, and the true number of species remains to be known.

Figure 5. Frequency distribution of the number of special-status species of wildlife detected by consulting biologists (left graph) and by me and Noriko (right graph) among project sites surveyed in support of environmental reviews.

Two comparative contexts are needed to fully disclose the meanings of survey findings in the IS/MND. The first is to contextualize the survey findings relative to the survey effort, because otherwise it is misleading to insinuate that the species detected were definitive of the wildlife community. As Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate, additional surveys contribute to an increasingly more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, but eventually to a point at which the species inventory would be obtained. Quicker progress toward an accurate characterization of the wildlife community can be achieved by adding nocturnal surveys as well as specialized surveys for detecting bats, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. However the surveys are done, it is imperative to compare survey findings to the findings from other surveys and their associated survey attributes to provide interpretive context such as to quantify the uncertainty of the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 20
40 60
80 100
Special-status species of
vertebrate wildlife detected
Consultants
Number of project sites
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Special-status species of
vertebrate wildlife detected
Smallwoods
Number of project sites
= 4
= 6
ELMT (2)
Noriko (15)
Packet Page. 293
25 findings, or alternatively to understand whether the findings fall within the expected range of findings given the survey methods and level of effort. If no such comparison is possible, then the lack of comparability should be discussed as a survey limitation.

Another example of how one can contextualize survey findings can be found in Figure 6, which compares Noriko’s findings to our findings from hundreds of other surveys we have accumulated from other proposed project sites, developed sites, and at relatively intact “references sites,” but it does so relative to our survey efforts. Figure 6 reveals that Noriko’s survey tally at the project site exceeds the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval I estimated from hundreds of other morning surveys at project sites, and it even falls within the 95% CI estimated for ecologically intact reference sites. This approach is more informative than the other comparative contexts because it factors in survey effort.

Because ELMT (2024) fails to report key survey attributes, I cannot compare its reconnaissance survey findings to past consultant findings relative to their survey efforts.

Figure 6. Noriko Smallwood’s survey findings at the Project site relative to our survey findings at other project sites (red), at developed sites (black), and at more pristine sites that we survey as reference sites (green). Noriko’s findings exceed the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval based on the results of hundreds of surveys 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Early morning surveys for vertebrate wildlife
Reference sites
Proposed project sites
Developed sites
Mean (95% CI) cumulative species detected
Noriko’s morning tally of 38 vertebrate
wildlife species
Packet Page. 294
26 at project sites, and they approach the lower bound of the 95% CI from many surveys at reference sites.

The second comparative context is to assess the probabilities of detection considering the survey effort of each special-status species, whether detected or not. ELMT (2024) reports having failed to detect most special-status species of wildlife that could conceivably occur on the project site, but failures to detect special-status species can mean that the survey was inadequate. Each species presents survey personnel with a unique range of detection probabilities based on the species’ natural history, its behavior patterns, survey effort, the study area’s distance from known activity areas of the species, and the levels of skill of survey personnel. Many animals maintain home ranges that are larger than most project sites, and they periodically shift their foraging activities to various parts of their home range, hence occurring on a particular site only periodically. To detect these species, survey personnel must be at the site on the same date and time as the one or more members of the species. The probability of detection of any given species during any given survey is less than 100%, and for many species that truly occur on a given site, it is closer to 0%. The IS/MND fails to discuss this.

For example, white-tailed kite was detected by neither ELMT nor Noriko, but among our hundreds of surveys at project sites, Noriko and I have found white-tailed kites in environments similar to the project site. Based on hundreds of surveys within the geographic range of white-tailed kite, Noriko’s 4.49 hours of daylight survey combined with the knowledge that white-tailed kite has been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the project site afforded Noriko a 2% likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite (Figure 7). Noriko would need to conduct many more surveys to accumulate a reasonable likelihood of detecting white-tailed kite, but the patterns of our findings in our many other surveys depicted in Figure 7 reveal that it is unlikely that the whitetailed kite is absent from the project site. There is a fundamental difference between detection likelihood and occurrence likelihood, but this difference is not mentioned or discussed in IS/MND.

This second comparative context is very important because it is the basis for the formulation of detection survey protocols. Experienced biologists are aware of survey limitations due to ranges of variation in the activity periods, levels of crypticity, and periodic movement patterns of wildlife species, and due to variation in the skill and commitment of survey personnel. This comparative context acknowledges that the occurrence likelihood of a species on a particular site is rarely if ever zero, so long as the site is within the species’ geographic range and it provides habitat. This comparative context reveals that a determination of zero likelihood of occurrence is typically indicative of insufficient survey effort. A common goal of detection survey protocols is to support absence determinations with a survey effort that should have resulted in a detection had the species been present at the time of the surveys, but it does not prove that the species is always absent from the site. This comparative context and its implications should not be neglected in CEQA review, but it is neglected in the case of the IS/MND prepared for this project.

Packet Page. 295
27 Figure 7. Probability
of detection of whitetailed kite as a
function of survey
effort and proximity
of occurrence records
to a project site, based
on hundreds of
reconnaissance
surveys we completed
2019–2024.

ELMT (2024) failed to conduct a detection survey for burrowing owls (see CDFW 2012), Crotch’s bumble bee (see CDFW 2023), rare plants (see CDFW 2018), or for any other special-status species that could occur on the project site. Without these surveys, ELMT’s absence determinations could not be supported.

Appropriate surveys were not implemented for various other types of wildlife, hence leaving conclusions in ELMT (2024) unfounded. For example, ELMT (2024:6) reports “No amphibian species were observed during the field investigation,” but ELMT neglects to caveat this finding by explaining that the survey was likely conducted at the wrong time of day for detecting amphibians, especially in late July. Noriko surveyed at night, so she detected two species of amphibian, including western spadefoot – a special-status species. Similarly, ELMT conducted no coverboard surveys for reptiles, no live-trapping for small mammals, and no acoustic survey for bats.

Having failed to complete appropriate surveys for particular taxa, ELMT (2024) resorts to speculation over why these taxa are expected to not occur on the project site. For example, ELMT (2024:6) speculates, “Due to the ephemeral nature of Drainage 1 on site, no suitable foraging and cover habitat is available for local amphibian species.” ELMT cites no evidence that amphibians require predictable stream water sources, or Log10 Survey hours
-0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

1.0 0 Probability of detection

1.5 and 40 miles
Within 1.5 miles
On site or adjacent
Nearest eBird records
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus
California Fully Protected

0.4 1 4 10 Hours 158
P = 0.02 Packet Page. 296
28 that they even require streams, aka drainages. Baja California treefrogs, which Noriko found on the project site, favor temporary pools for egg-laying. Western spadefoots, which Noriko found on the project site, breed principally in vernal pools, but also in temporary ponds, flood control basins, and other bodies of water. Speculation is a poor basis for determining the absence of any species.

In another example, ELMT (2024:6) speculates, “No local bat species are expected to occur onsite due to a lack of suitable roosting opportunities.” However, bats are known to roost on a variety of substrates (Kunz and Lumsden 2003), and not just the narrowly defined conditions that appear in consultant reports. It is highly likely, for example, that bats roost on the sycamores that occur on the project site. In two very brief surveys, Noriko detected six species of bats on the project site, again demonstrating the hazard of speculating why certain species should not occur on a site. In the case of bats, ELMT’s speculation is wrong six times over.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
ELMT (2024) relies on occurrence records in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to establish its pool of special-status species for assessing occurrence likelihoods, otherwise referred to as habitat assessments. ELMT (2024) queried the CNDDB for occurrence records of special-status species within two USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles inclusive of the project site. It is noteworthy, however, that the scope of ELMT’s query was only 22% of that typical of other consulting firms, which themselves are inadequate. (The typical scope of 9 Quads for CNDDB occurrence record queries is also too small, in my opinion.) Further, ELMT (2024) fails to mention eBird and iNaturalist, so I assume ELMT made no use of these more publicly accessible data bases of occurrence records.

Special-status species represented by occurrence records in the two Quads queried by ELMT were moved forward in the habitat assessment, but species lacking records were screened out of further analysis. This approach, however, was inconsistent with the design and intent of the CNDDB, which is a volunteer, positive-sightings database, and as such it is useful for confirming presence but not for confirming absence of species. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” ELMT (2024) and hence the IS/MND misuse the CNDDB.

The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than Packet Page. 297
29 were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.

And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, but without the support of the detection surveys that have been formulated for this purpose.

In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 141 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Not all these species should be expected to occur at the project site, but each of them should be given a closer look to determine occurrence likelihoods and whether additional surveys are needed, or implementation of detection surveys, or whether it would be reasonable to assume presence. Of these 141 species, 18 were recorded on or just off the project site (on the fringe), and another 20 (14%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 39 (28%) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 54 (38%) between 4 and 30 miles (In region). More than half (55%) of the special-status species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least 18 special-status species of wildlife, and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. Evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for these species.

ELMT (2024) considers the occurrence likelihoods of only 45 (32%) of the special-status species listed in Table 2, which means that ELMT screened out of the analysis 96 (68%) species in the first step of the desktop review. Of the 45 special-status species ELMT considers, 32 were “Presumed absent,” which effectively means “absent” from the project site. However, of these 32 species determined to be absent, Noriko detected western spadefoot, and nine of the others have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site, and another 11 of them have been documented within 4 miles of the project site. Of the nine special-status species ELMT determines have only a low likelihood of occurrence, Noriko detected Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and one has been documented within 1.5 miles from the site, and three have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site. ELMT’s process for determining occurrence likelihoods is flawed and inaccurate.

Packet Page. 298
30 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of wildlife at or near the project site, according to ELMT (2024), eBird and iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site surveys, where Very close indicates within

1.5 miles, Nearby indicates between 1.5 and 4 miles, In region indicates between 4 and 30 miles, and In range mmeans the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visits.

Common name Species name Status1 ELMT Records, Surveys
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT In region San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE In range Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE In region Delhi sands flower-loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus
abdominalis
FE In region
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Nearby/On site
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Low Nearby
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC Absent In region/On site Southern mountain yellowlegged frogRana muscosa FE, CE, WL Absent In region Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC In region Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Low Nearby Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Low In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Absent In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Low Very close California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Low In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Absent In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Absent In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Nearby
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Packet Page. 299
31 Common name Species name Status
1 ELMT
Records, Surveys
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC High Very close/On site Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close/On site Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL In region
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Red knot Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC In region
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC Nearby
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Absent Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Absent Nearby Packet Page. 300
32 Common name Species name Status1 ELMT Records, Surveys Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP,
WL
Absent Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Absent Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Absent Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close/On site Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Absent Very close Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close/On site
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2, BOP Absent Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP Absent In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close/Fringe American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close/On site Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Absent Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Absent Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Moderate Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Absent Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Absent Nearby
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Absent In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Absent Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Absent Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Absent Nearby Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
Packet Page. 301
33 Common name Species name Status1 ELMT Records, Surveys California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Moderate Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Absent Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close/On site
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Absent Nearby California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close/On site Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Nearby
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Absent Very close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Low Nearby
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL Low Very close/On site Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Absent Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close/On site Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Nearby Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Northern yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva SSC2 Absent Very close Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM Nearby/On site
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region/On site Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In region Packet Page. 302
34 Common name Species name Status1 ELMT Records, Surveys Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M In region/On site Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region/Possible on site
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In range/On site Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H Absent In region Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In range
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L Nearby/On site Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M Absent In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In range San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC High In region Northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Low In region
Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC Low In range San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus FE, CE, SSC Absent In region Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FT, CT In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC Absent Very close
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti intermedia SSC Absent In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Absent In region
Mountain lion Puma concolor CT In region
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE of FC = federal threatened or endangered or candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern2021.pdf); CT or CE or CCE = California threatened or endangered or candidate for listing; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

Packet Page. 303
35 Mischaracterization of the Wildlife Community
ELMT (2024) reports on a field survey and a desktop review having been completed, but the field survey was much too cursory, and its results are interpreted without context to survey results from elsewhere, and its desktop review is flawed and incomplete. Despite these gross deficiencies, ELMT (2024:12) concludes, “Based on the literature review and field survey, and existing site conditions discussed in this report, implementation of the project will have no significant impacts on additional federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated Critical Habitat, or regional wildlife corridors/linkage due to relevant long-term impacts being consolidated to already disturbed or developed land and the presence of ample open space surrounding the site. No further surveys are recommended.” To the contrary, additional surveys are needed, and so is a comparative analysis of the survey results and a more thorough, careful desktop review.

ELMT’s conclusions are only speculative, which are inappropriate for precious or rare resources such as special-status species (National Research Council 1986). The true wildlife community remains to be described with sufficient accuracy. Without a more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, the basis is inadequate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies. The combined findings of Noriko’s and ELMT’s surveys have documented the presence of 17 specialstatus species on the project site, inclusive of one species listed as threatened under the California ESA and two species that are candidates for listing under the federal ESA.

This many species in one place, and found despite a relatively cursory survey effort, is atypical of project sites in California. More work is needed to accurately characterize the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting.

Considering the deficiencies in the survey effort directed to the project site, the deficiencies in reporting of survey methods and the reporting of results, and the inadequacy of the desktop review to analyze the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species, there is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community on the project site as a suitable baseline from which to predict project impacts and to formulate an appropriate mitigation strategy.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The impacts analysis in CEQA review involves prediction. Impact predictions are necessary in environmental review because measuring a project’s impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and the timing of this type of measurement would come too late for formulating a mitigation strategy or deciding on a project alternative. As noted earlier, the accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 3). Prediction accuracy also relies on experience, of which development projects subjected to CEQA review have been made amply available (Figure 8). CEQA prohibits the use of speculation to predict that potential project impacts would be less than significant (see CEQA Guidelines section 15145.

Packet Page. 304
36 SPECULATION), so it is experience that must be used. The type of experience proven most effective, and therefore most amenable to achieving CEQA’s primary objectives, is scientific inference, as generally depicted in Figure 8. Scientific inference can be drawn from scientific studies or from the many other projects that have undergone CEQA review. The comparative method enables the use of scientific inference to predict impacts and to predict the efficacies of mitigation strategies, the latter of which should be also amply available in the record.

Figure 8. A framework for arriving at predicted project impacts based on experience with other project sites. Ideally, there is a pool of similar projects in similar circumstances where predicted impacts were compared to realized impacts, and into which the proposed project can also contribute to experience.

In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are analyzed adequately by ELMT (2024) or the IS/MND, and some of which are not analyzed at all.

REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 59 species of vertebrate wildlife which Noriko and ELMT observed on the project site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. The surveys that have been conducted on the project site were unsuitable for detecting all bird nests or estimating total nest density. The alternative method for estimating avian productive capacity is to infer it from estimates of total nest density Inference
Project site
Preconstruction
study
Predict
project impacts
Preconstruction
studies
Post-construction
studies
Pool of experience
Post-construction
study
Test predictions Packet Page. 305
37 elsewhere. Noriko and I completed studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments (Table 3).

Table 3. My estimates of the acreages of ground cover types identified by ELMT (2024), and total numbers of bird nest sites based on studies of total nest density completed by me an Noriko in 2023 and 2024.

Cover Type Acres Nests/acre Source Total nests
Chaparral 7.1 3.26 A 23.1
Riversidean Sage Scrub 19.7 1.63 B 32.1
Sycamore Woodland 1.8 19.89 C 35.8
Disturbed 32 5.56 D 177.9
Total 60.6 268.9
A Noriko estimated 1.63 bird nests/acres on 1.23 acres of sage scrub in Murrieta.

B I assumed twice the nest density that Noriko estimated in sage scrub.

C Noriko estimated 12.7 bird nests/acre on 0.63 acres of riparian woodland in San Jacinto National Wildlife Refuge, and 18.18 bird nests/acres on 7 acres of riparian woodland in Murrieta, and I estimated 28.79 nests/acre on 1.32 acres of riparian woodland in Rancho Cordova, for a mean of 19.89 nests/acre.

D Noriko Estimated 5.56 bird nests/acre on 3.6 acres of ruderal grassland in Murrieta.

Based on estimates of total nest density at various study sites, I estimate the project site supports 269 bird nests per year (Table 3). Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 374 nest attempts per year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 1,114 fledglings/year at the project site.

The loss of 269 nest sites and 374 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the IS/MND. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost.

The project would prevent the production of 1,114 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 1,249 birds per year lost to California.

The loss of 1,249 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 1,249 birds would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.

This same type of analysis is needed to predict losses in productive capacities of lizards, snakes, frogs, toads, salamanders, bats, small mammals, and large mammals.

Packet Page. 306
38 RISK TO WILDLIFE FROM INCREASED WILDFIRE FREQUENCY
The IS/MND fails to analyze the potential impacts on wildlife due to the increased wildfire hazard of building more homes on the lower aspect of a chaparral-covered slope. The average annual extent of wildfires increased 3.25-fold between the years 1995-1998 and 2015-2018 (Figure 9a). This increase in the extent of wildfires correlated with California’s increase in population size (Figure 9b), which between 1998 and 2018 increased 22%, or >7 million people. That the annual extent of wildfires mirrors population growth in California indicates that the increasing interface between human activities and wildlands also increases the annual area burned. Indeed, CalFire attributes 95% of wildfires to human causes.

Figure 9. Annual hectares of wild areas burned by wildfires in California (a) over 76 years (data source: https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events/), and (b) by population size (Data source: http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-population/). I estimated annual population size intervening decades prior to 2010 by regressing census data by decade, 1940 through 2010 (r2 = 0.996, P < 0.0001).

Wildlife have had to respond to wildfires for as long as wildlife have existed on Earth.

However, Figure 9 shows that modern human presence in California increases the areas that are burned each year. Positively correlated with the extent of areas burned is the frequency of wildfire. The increased frequency of wildfire can alter the species assemblage of the wildlife community, favoring certain species over others (Fredriksson et al. 2025).Whereas wildlife are generally adapted to having to respond to wildfires, an increased frequency of wildfires can degrade wildlife habitat, resulting in the declines of many species (Smith 2000). An analysis of this potential impact on wildlife is missing from the IS/MND, but it needs to be included in the environmental review. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare and EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impact of increased fire frequency on wildlife caused by residential encroachment.
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
Hectares burned
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
California population (millions)
a b
Packet Page. 307
39 INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, this concern has not motivated any serious analysis of whether or how the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The IS/MND begins by uniquely defining habitat linkages and corridors, and it abandons consideration of birds and bats when it specifies that adequate cover is essential to corridor function. The analysis in the IS/MND is clearly focused solely on non-volant species of wildlife. Nevertheless, after the analysis concedes that the project site is located within a Major Open Space as mapped by San Bernardino County, and that this Major Open Space is recognized as important to wildlife movement in the region, it claims the project has been designed to avoid impacts on wildlife movement by not encroaching into Myers Canyon. However, encroachment into Myers Canyon has little if anything to do with the fact that the project would eliminate the terrestrial portion of Cajon Pass as a Major Open Space for wildlife movement. The avoidance of Myers Canyon fails to avoid impacts to wildlife movement through Cajon Pass.

WILDLIFE DEPREDATION BY HOUSE CATS
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project area by residents of the proposed residential units. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017).

Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human in the USA, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The IS/MND predicts 380 new residents in 105 single-family homes. The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 167 new cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 20,374 vertebrate wildlife per year.

House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, “Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” (The original link is no longer active, but the quote came from the program described at:
https://whc.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/programs-projects/ca-conservation/sea-otter).

Impacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the IS/MND. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.

Packet Page. 308
40 BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The project would introduce glass windows into an essential portion of avian habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere.

The aerosphere is habitat, to which an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and Noriko’s site visit indicate there are 101 specialstatus species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 1). All the birds represented in Table 1 can quickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows.

Noriko confirmed 48 vertebrate wildlife species on the project site, some of them flying across the site.

Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but they are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and by not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found in searches, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdPacket Page. 309 41 window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only two of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.

Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.

Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during Packet Page. 310
42 migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.

Project Impact Prediction
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

With the estimated average bird collision mortality above, all I need are estimates of window extents in the project. The IS/MND does not predict the extents of windows in the project, nor does it provide any renderings of the homes in the project. However, it predicts 1,600 sf per 105 single-family homes, which would total 168,000 sf. I can apply this square footage to the average m2 of glass windows relative to the sf of floor space that I have maintained in a database of other single-family residential development projects for which I have been able to measure window extents in renderings of the homes. Assuming 0.015193 m2 of glass window extent per sf, then I predict 2,552 m2 of windows among the single-family homes. This extent of windows multiplied against the above-reported average bird collision deaths per m2 of glass per year predicts 187 (95% CI: 111–262) bird collision fatalities per year.

The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts that were not addressed in IS/MND. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed Packet Page. 311
43 mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the project’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds.

There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project for its potential impacts on birds caused by collisions with windows.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts on wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 34―37), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).

Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.

An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

Packet Page. 312
44 Photos 34 and 35. A
desert cottontail runs
across the road in
Murietta, California (top),
and a great-tailed grackle
crosses a road in the
Imperial Valley (bottom).

Photos 36 and 37.

Raccoon killed on Road 31
just east of Highway 505
in Solano County (left;
photo taken on 10
November 2018), and
California kingsnake
killed by a vehicle on a
rural road in El Dorado
County in 2024.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al.

Packet Page. 313
45 (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife The IS/MND predicts the project would generate 3,037,146 construction VMT, and 5,850,624 annual VMT after construction. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road in Contra Costa County daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted construction VMT would predict 1,292 wildlife fatalities, and this rate divided into annual VMT would predict 2,489 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to projectgenerated traffic.

However, some might argue that this prediction relies too much on a study along a road through less-disturbed rangeland that likely supports more non-volant wildlife that is more vulnerable to collision mortality. I would argue that the project-generated traffic would pass through similar rural environments with ample wildlife available to be crushed under automobile tires. Nevertheless, to better represent those reaches of road that are more urban than rural, or that would become more urban with the development of the project, I recently completed my own study of wildlife mortality caused by automobiles along roads that were urban and interfaced between urban and agricultural land uses.

I completed one year of daily pedestrian surveys along 2.7 km (1.713 miles) of local, collector and minor arterial roads in north Davis, California, where I tallied 314 fatalities of 40 species of vertebrate wildlife. Most of the fatalities were small-bodied animals such as Sierran treefrogs, western toads, western fence lizards, 10”- to 16”-long juvenile Pacific gophersnakes, valley gartersnakes and California kingsnakes, as well as bushtits, yellow-rumped warblers, deer mice and California ground squirrels. Most of the animals I found would never have been detected from a moving vehicle, which is why people often underestimate how many wild animals are killed by vehicle traffic.

The animals I found in my study did not include all the animals killed by vehicles on the roads I searched. Many had been removed by scavengers before I could find and count them. (American crows patrol the roads every morning, and so does a large flock of wild Packet Page. 314
46 turkeys.) Some of the animals are knocked off the road in places where I could never find them, and some were undoubtedly caught and carried away in the grills of vehicles or in tire treads. Most of the Sierran treefrogs disappeared from where I found them within several hours, so daily searches missed many of the fatalities. To adjust for these undetected fatalities, I fit a logit regression model to my fatality finds, all of which transitioned to carcass detection trials after I initially found them. Starting with the first day after each detection, I monitored the carcass trials for 30 days, and I assigned each a body mass estimate based on typical body mass reported in the literature. Predictor variables were days since detection and log10 body mass. The relationship between carcass detection probability and the predictor variables is depicted in Figure 10. My fatality finds adjusted by the model results in an estimate of 2,126 vertebrate wildlife fatalities over 1.713 miles of roads in one year, or 1,241 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/mile/year. This rate is 40.9% of the rate measured at Vasco Road, or an estimated 5,748 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying this urban fatality rate to the VMT that is predicted for the project would predict 528 vertebrate wildlife fatalities during construction, and 1,018 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year in the area around the project that is traveled by project-generated traffic.

Figure 10.

Wildlife
carcass
detection
probability
is a
function of
the number
of days
since
discovery
and log10
body mass.

A reasonable range of predicted mortality is therefore 528 to 1,292 vertebrate wildlife fatalities during construction, and 1,018 to 2,489 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/year due to project-generated traffic.

Packet Page. 315
47 Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause significant impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.

Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that these impacts would be unmitigated.

FLAWED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects, or to multiple types of impacts that are cumulatively considerable.

Unfortunately, the IS/MND fails to seriously analyze the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on biological resources. According to the IS/MND, “Although cumulative impacts are always possible, by incorporating all mitigation measures outlined herein, as part of approving the Proposed Project, would reduce the Project’s contribution to any such cumulative impacts to levels that are not cumulatively considerable.” This notion that mitigation of project-specific impacts would avoid cumulative impacts is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of a cumulative impact, which is “created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts” (CEQA Guidelines §15065 (a)(3)).

Even though a project’s direct or indirect effects might be mitigated to a less than significant impact at the project level, it can still incrementally contribute to the effects of other projects for a significant cumulative impact.

The IS/MND adds a second speculative reason for concluding that the project would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts: “Additionally, mitigation measures have been adopted by the City of San Bernardino for buildout of the General Plan, Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation identified in this document, the Project would result in individually limited, but not cumulatively considerable, impacts. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.” However, the CEQA Guidelines (§15064(h)(3)) states, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The IS/MND fails to explain how the General Plan would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts. CEQA requires a cumulative impacts analysis.

The IS/MND’s conclusion that the City’s General Plan and the project’s required mitigation measures for direct and indirect impacts would avoid significant cumulative impacts lacks support in evidence, and it is readily refutable. Noriko Smallwood and I performed an experiment to measure the efficacy of applicable laws and regulations, permitting requirements, and required mitigation measures at avoiding or minimizing Packet Page. 316
48 project impacts including cumulative impacts. We revisited the project sites we had surveyed as experts to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration to control these sources of variation to cleanly measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife.

We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wildlife. Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. We found that “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures and existing policies, regulations, and habitat plans.

Experimental evidence demonstrates the need to analyze a project’s potentially significant contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife despite existing laws, policies and General Plans. The environmental review for this project needs to include an appropriate cumulative impacts analysis.

FLAWED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The mitigation strategy needs to be based on a sound understanding of the existing wildlife community. It needs to be known which species occur or are likely to occur on the project site as well as the nature of their occurrences. It needs to be known which species are resident and which are migratory. For special-status species, detection surveys should have been completed to either detect the species or to obtain evidence of its absence. Surveys should have been completed to understand how wildlife use the site in their movement patterns. And what was found of wildlife species needs to be carefully interpreted by comparing the findings to the findings from other survey efforts at other sites. Failures to detect species should be interpreted relative to the probabilities of their detections given the survey effort. The mitigation strategy needs to follow the steps under Assess species occurrence likelihoods and Characterize wildlife community, followed by Step 7: Predict impacts (Figure 3). However, the IS/MND’s mitigation strategy does not follow from these steps. This pointed out, my comments follow in regular font the summary of each required mitigation measure in italics.

Mitigation Measure BR-1: Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds …a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. … should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. ... construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer [around the nest]. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the Packet Page. 317
49 wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. ... Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

If the project goes forward, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be implemented. However, it needs to be understood that Mitigation Measure BR-1 would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat, nor the collision mortality with automobiles and windows, nor the predation mortality of free-ranging house cats. Even assuming all the nests could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, there would be no further production of birds from the project site, except for synanthropic species able to nest on homes or in ornamental trees. Moreover, it is a long-standing principle of ecology that animal populations are usually at carrying capacity. (An exception would be the repopulating of an area devastated by a natural disaster.) Ultimately, the same number of birds that are allowed to finish breeding via Mitigation Measure BR-1 would be the number of birds that would subsequently perish through competition for what remains of habitat in the region, and the productive capacity of the region would diminish accordingly. Mitigation Measure BR-1 is a feelgood measure that fails to avoid the project-caused impact of the region’s diminished productive capacity of birds. The project’s impact on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude. The conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis in comparison to the project’s potential impacts on breeding birds.

The IS/MND does not report whether Mitigation Measure BR-1 has proven effective at any other project site, ever. It provides no evidence that the measure has proven effective at any project where it has been implemented. The known efficacy of this measure needs to be disclosed.

Furthermore, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and buffer timing for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

Lastly, the mitigation language includes the requirement that the preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a wildlife biologist, and this requirement carries over to determinations of the buffer areas and buffer timing to avoid take caused by construction activities. Undefined, however, is what qualifies the wildlife biologist in these contexts. As mentioned earlier in this letter, Noriko Smallwood and I have been conducting surveys over the past several years to estimate total nest density, which is relevant to a preconstruction, take-avoidance survey because our surveys were likewise directed to all bird species that could be concurrently nesting on a site. Searching for the nests of one species is difficult, but searching for nests of all bird species at once is vastly more difficult. For this reason, there are very few published estimates of total nest density, and there are very few wildlife biologists who have experience with surveys for Packet Page. 318
50 the nest attempts of all bird species on a given site. A technical way to qualify a wildlife biologist for the tasks outlined in this measure would be to obtain an agency Memorandum of Understanding in which the biologist is named and said to be qualified for conducting the preconstruction survey and for determining the take-avoidance buffer area and timing. However, a more compelling means of qualifying the biologist would be to require that the biologist has achieved demonstrable experience with nest surveys and avian nesting behavior. Without a stronger definition of what is a qualified wildlife biologist in the contexts of these tasks, Mitigation Measure BR-1 lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

Mitigation Measure BR-2: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Clearance Survey … a Designated Biologist shall conduct a preconstruction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls in accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first 14 days prior to ground disturbing activities and the second within 24 hours immediately before ground disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are documented on-site, the Applicant shall prepare and implement a plan for avoidance or passive exclusion, in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If no burrowing owls are observed onsite, no further review will be required.

Due to a rapid decline throughout California (Miller 2024), the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in 2024 to designate the burrowing owl as a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. It is therefore imperative to first consult with the CDFW about whether and how to obtain an incidental take permit (ITP), and otherwise to adhere to the CDFW (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines. The IS/MND does not indicate that there has been any consultation with CDFW, and it misrepresents CDFW’s (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines by skipping the breeding-season detection surveys before performing preconstruction take-avoidance surveys.

For the burrowing owl, there are three types of surveys recommended and described in the CDFW’s (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines: (1) Habitat assessment, (2) Detection surveys, and (3) Preconstruction survey. The habitat assessment is intended to evaluate the likelihood that the site supports burrowing owls, and to decide whether detection surveys should be performed. The detection survey, otherwise described as either or both breeding-season or non-breeding-season survey, is intended to detect whether the site truly supports burrowing owls, and if so, where and how many. The preconstruction survey, otherwise known as a take-avoidance survey, is intended to determine whether burrowing owls immigrated to the site since completion of the detection survey, or whether they returned to the site since passive or active relocations were performed as mitigation. The three types of survey carry distinct but inter-related purposes, and CDFW (2012) intends them to be completed in chronological order as numbered above.

The first two types of survey support impacts analysis, whereas the third type of survey is a mitigation measure. Burrowing owls can be determined absent at the time of the survey based on evidence derived from the habitat assessment or detection survey, but Packet Page. 319
51 only if the surveys achieved the minimum standards of CDFW (2012). Whereas an absence determination naturally follows from the negative findings of properly performed detection surveys, the following three questions must be answered negatively to determine absence based on the habitat assessment:

A) Are there occurrence records nearby the project site? B) Is the site’s vegetation cover and height typical of where burrowing owls are found? C) Are there fossorial mammals present which typically construct burrows useable by burrowing owls, or are there surrogate cavities that can serve as nest sites? If the answers to these questions are compellingly negative, then detection surveys are not necessary, but they could be implemented to make certain that burrowing owls are absent on the project site. If the answers to these questions are affirmative or not compellingly negative, then it should be assumed that burrowing owl habitat exists on the site until detection surveys prove otherwise.

To question A, the nearest burrowing owl occurrence records are 3.3 and 5.7 miles from the project site. The occurrence records justify an affirmative answer to question A, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.

To question B, the vegetation cover is typical of conditions where burrowing owls often occur. The answer to question B is affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.

To question C, ground squirrels are known to occur on the project site. Ground squirrels construct burrows used by burrowing owls, and these two species mutually alarm-call for predators and survive better together (K. S. Smallwood, unpublished data). ELMT (2024) claims that no suitable burrows were available to support burrowing owls on site because all the ground squirrel burrows were smaller than 4 inches in diameter. In support of this claim, ELMT cites CDFW (2012). However, CDFW (2012) recommended a tunnel diameter of >11 cm (4.3 inches) in the context of installing artificial burrows, and this recommendation was a misread of the source that CDFW cited, which was Johnson et al. (2010), who recommended a 10 cm (3.93 inch) tunnel diameter in artificial burrows (the recommendation was for exactly 10 cm rather than >11 cm). And in my experience, having measured the entrances of many ground squirrel burrows, it is the rare ground squirrel burrow that has a diameter <10 cm or <11 cm. Moreover, the ground squirrel burrows on the project site typify ground squirrel burrows throughout the species range, and the tunnel diameters of these burrows are plenty wide enough for burrowing owls (Photo 38). ELMT’s standard is wrong, and its reporting of ground squirrel burrow diameters on the project site is unrealistic and not credible. The answer to question C is affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.

The answers to all three questions are affirmative. Therefore, breeding-season detection surveys are needed, and these surveys are not to be confused with preconstruction takeavoidance surveys. Breeding-season detection surveys are needed to accurately Packet Page. 320
52 characterize the existing environmental setting and to publicly disclose potential impacts on the burrowing owl.

Regardless of the survey outcome, the project would permanently eliminate potential burrowing owl habitat from the project site, and in doing so it would reduce the region’s carrying capacity for supporting burrowing owls.

Photo 38. An example California ground squirrel burrow on the project site, photographed on 18 April 2026 by Noriko Smallwood. Width is about 4 inches, and height is about 4.5 inches. I have recorded hundreds of burrowing owls in burrows of about this same size.

Packet Page. 321
53 Mitigation Measure BR-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code from CDFW and a Report of Waste Discharge from the RWQCB.

The requirements that would come with the Agreement, and their conservation benefits to the streambed and its ecological relationships with plants and wildlife, would not be disclosed to the public in a timely manner. Without timely disclosure, this measure fails to meet the spirit and intent of CEQA as expressed in its primary objectives for disclosure and public participation.

NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Compensatory Habitat Protection: The project would destroy the productive capacity of the project site for birds and other wildlife. The loss of this capacity would need to be offset by compensatory mitigation as near to the site as possible. I recommend a 5:1 mitigation ratio to achieve a no net loss standard, as a 1:1 ratio would simply ensure a 50% loss of habitat between the project site and mitigation site.

The loss of burrowing owl foraging opportunities would need to be mitigated. The applicant needs to consult with the CDFW to learn what mitigation ratio would be acceptable for loss of burrowing owl habitat on the project site, and whether and where habitat is available to be protected nearby.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by collisions with automobiles due to project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Bird-Window Collision Mortality: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific Packet Page. 322
54 monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). For example, Feather Friendly® circular adhesive markers applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by 95% in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95% in another (de Groot et al. 2021).

Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47% and Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39% (Swaddle et al. 2023).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation is needed, and it ought to also include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured during construction and by collisions with automobiles traveling to and from the project site, as well as by collisions with the windows of homes and encounters with the free-ranging house cats brought to the project site.

Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022).

Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native Packet Page. 323
55 plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.

Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Blancher, P. 2013. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE00557-080203 Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Packet Page. 324
56 Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.

Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Dauphiné, N. and R. J. Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.

W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

ELMT. 2024. Biological Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract Map No. 20707 located in San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. Report to GFR Homes, Upland, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Packet Page. 325
57 Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A.

C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022.

Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142.

Fredriksson, E., J. P. G. M. Cromsigt, and T. R. Hofmeester. 2025. Wildfire influences species assemblage and habitat utilisation of boreal wildlife after more than a decade in northern Sweden. Wildlife Biology 2025: e01296. doi: 10.1002/wlb3.01296 Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.

Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Johnson, D. H., D. C. Gillis, M. A. Gregg, J. L.Rebholz, J. L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff. 2010. Users guide to installation of artificial burrows for burrowing owls.

Unpublished report. Tree Top Inc., Selah, Washington, USA.

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.

Packet Page. 326
58 Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.

Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.

Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.

Kunz, T. H., and L. F. Lumsden. 2003. Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. Pages 3–89 in T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, Eds., Bat ecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 2380. DOI:

10.1038/ncomms2380
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.

Packet Page. 327
59 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.

Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problemsolving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.

Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.

Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.

Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.

Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.

Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.

Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023.

Field‑testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird‑window collisions.

Urban Ecosystems (2023) 26:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304- w
Packet Page. 328
60 Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent birdwindow collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.

Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.

Smallwood, N. L. and E. M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p.

Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.

Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Packet Page. 329
61 Taylor, R. A. J., and L. R. Taylor. 1979. A behavioral model for the evolution of spatial dynamics. Pp. 1-28 in R. M. Anderson, B. D. Turner, and L. R. Taylor (editors).

Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.

Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

Packet Page. 330
Packet Page. 331
Packet Page. 332
Packet Page. 333
Packet Page. 334
Packet Page. 335

Brent R. McManigal
Director
[email protected]
550 E Hospitality Ln, Suite 350
San Bernardino, California 92408
PH (909) 723-1807 | FX (909) 890-9877
fennemorelaw.com
August 19, 2026
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92401
[email protected]
Chantel Choice, Senior Planner
Community Development & Housing Department
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92401
[email protected]
Re: Verdemont Heights Residential Development (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) - Response to SAFER Appeal and Request to Uphold Planning Commission Approval Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

This firm represents the Project Applicant for the Verdemont Heights Residential Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 20707 (the "Project"). We submit this letter in support of the Project, in opposition to the appeal filed by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER"), and in support of the Planning Commission's July 14, 2026 approval of the Project.

The appeal should be denied. SAFER has not submitted any new information or any response to my July 13, 2026 letter that responded to their initial opposition letter. SAFER has simply reattached the same June 24, 2026 Lozeau Drury/Smallwood materials that were before the Planning Commission when the Project was approved.

For the Council's convenience, my July 13, 2026 response letter is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. That letter addresses SAFER's biological resource claims in detail. This appeal letter focuses on the dispositive point for the Council that SAFER has not provided any substantial evidence that supports its assertion that an EIR should have been prepared.

Packet Page. 336
City of San Bernardino Mayor and City Council
August 19, 2026

I. SAFER's Appeal offers No Substantial Evidence to support their claim that an EIR should have been prepared.

SAFER's appeal application states that the City should have prepared an EIR because the IS/MND allegedly did not address biological impacts they claim are significant. Pursuant to their Appeal application form, the requested action is preparation of an EIR and the "additional information" is their June 24, 2026 letter that the Planning Commission received and rejected.

SAFER’s appeal does not identify any error in the Planning Commission's action, provides no new biological resource information about the Project footprint, no response to my July 13, 2026 response letter and no reason why the City cannot rely on the IS/MND and MMRP that staff prepared.

A repeated objection is not substantial evidence. Reattaching the same comment letter does not change the administrative record, and it does not transform unsupported assumptions into a fair argument for an EIR. The appeal instead appears designed to prolong the approval process and leverage CEQA objections toward labor-related objectives, rather than to identify any projectspecific environmental impact.

II. The IS/MND and MMRP Are Supported by Project-Specific Evidence.

The record supporting approval remains project-specific and substantial. The IS/MND through the ELMT Biological Resources Assessment evaluate the Project site, vegetation and land cover, jurisdictional drainage features, special-status species potential, nesting birds, burrowing owl, and wildlife movement.

The MMRP then imposes enforceable biological mitigation. Mitigation Measure BR-1 requires preconstruction nesting bird surveys and avoidance buffers if active nests are found. Mitigation Measure BR-2 requires burrowing owl presence/absence surveys and coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") if burrowing owls are documented.

Mitigation Measure BR-3 requires a CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement and Regional Water Quality Control Board authorization before grading for impacts to Drainage 1.

SAFER does not show that these measures are infeasible, unenforceable, or ineffective. Nor does SAFER identify any actual occupied biological resource in the Project disturbance area that the IS/MND failed to address. The City is not required to prepare an EIR simply because SAFER disagrees with the City's legally compliant CEQA document.

Packet Page. 337
City of San Bernardino Mayor and City Council
August 19, 2026

III. SAFER's Biological Claims Are Not Substantial Evidence Under CEQA.

CEQA requires substantial evidence, not just disagreement. Public Resources Code section 21080(e)(1) defines substantial evidence to include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Public resources Code section 21080(e)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15384 exclude argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, and evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous. SAFER's appeal fails that standard.

The Smallwood Report rests on a limited perimeter-based reconnaissance by Dr. Smallwood's associate, not an actual project-footprint survey. The report admits that species were recorded even when they flew over the site or were seen just off site. The photographs attached to the Smallwood Report do not provide reliable GPS locations, survey transects, or documentation tying the observations to the Project's disturbance area. They show blue sky and trees with no attempt to connect back to the Project site.

The Report also relies on off-site assumptions. It extrapolates from the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Northern California), nest-density estimates from locations such as Murrieta, San Jacinto, and Rancho Cordova, roadkill studies from Vasco Road and north Davis, and generalized bird-window collision literature. None of those studies was conducted on the Project site, on the Project’s street network, or under the same San Bernardino foothill conditions. More importantly, those materials do not demonstrate a significant impact from this residential subdivision.

The species-specific claims have the same defect. A claimed monarch butterfly observation does not establish that the site is "vitally important" monarch habitat. Acoustic bat detections do not establish an occupied roost in the development footprint. Generalized roadkill and windowcollision calculations do not establish significant Project-specific impacts. SAFER identifies no occupied resource in the disturbance area and no unmitigated impact that the IS/MND failed to address.

These issues are addressed in more detail in Exhibit A. The core CEQA point is straightforward:

SAFER has not connected its alleged observations, photographs, and generalized literature to a substantial adverse environmental effect caused by this Project. CEQA does not require an EIR on that showing.

IV. The Council Should Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission's Approval.

The Planning Commission approved the Project after SAFER's objections were submitted and after the Commission had the IS/MND, MMRP, and my July 13 response letter before it. SAFER now asks the Council to reverse that approval without adding any new material into the record for the City Council to consider.

Packet Page. 338
City of San Bernardino Mayor and City Council
August 19, 2026

The Council can confidently deny the appeal. The appeal does not present substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may cause a significant unmitigated environmental impact. It repeats objections already answered in the record and considered by the Planning Commission.

For these reasons, the Project Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council deny SAFER's appeal, find that an EIR is not required, uphold the Planning Commission's July 14, 2026 approval, and allow the Project to proceed under the IS/MND and MMRP.

Very truly yours,

FENNEMORE LLP
Brent R. McManigal
BMCM
Enclosure – Exhibit A - July 13, 2026 Fennemore LLP Response Letter cc: Client
Packet Page. 339

EXHIBIT A
Packet Page. 340
65361968.1
Brent R. McManigal
Director
[email protected]
550 E Hospitality Ln, Suite 350
San Bernardino, California 92408
PH (909) 723-1807 | FX (909) 890-9877
fennemorelaw.com
July 13, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92401
[email protected]
Chantel Choice, Senior Planner
Community Development & Housing Department
City of San Bernardino
201 North E Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92401
[email protected]
Re: Verdemont Heights Residential Development (Tentative Tract Map No. 20707) - Response to June 24, 2026 SAFER/Lozeau Drury Comment Letter Regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission:

This firm represents the Project Applicant for the Verdemont Heights Residential Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 20707 (the "Project"). We submit this letter in response to the June 24, 2026, comment letter submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") (the "SAFER Letter"), including the attached report prepared by Dr. Shawn Smallwood (the "Smallwood Report").

At the outset, the Planning Commission should understand what the SAFER Letter does and does not do. The IS/MND was circulated from March 18, 2026 through April 16, 2026, and SAFER submitted its letter on June 24, 2026, more than two months after the close of the public review period. The SAFER Letter does not present new information, identify a new environmental impact, or disclose any biological issue that was not already thoroughly reviewed in the IS/MND and supporting biological record. It does not provide a project-specific survey of the development footprint, identify an occupied special-status species resource that would be substantially affected, Packet Page. 341
July 13, 2026