HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-187
/! r,fl -1
'1v
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RECORDS & INFOR1\IATION MANAGEMENT (RIM) PROGRAM
DATE:
November 25, 1997
TO:
Appropriate Agenda Backup Packet Item Number
FROM:
Melanie Miller, Deputy City Clerk
RE:
hem No.1, Mayor and Common Council Meeting of June 12 - 13, 1995
***PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE LARGE BOUND DOCUMENTS FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM
HAVE BEEN BOXED AND STORED IN BOX #650.***
1. APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE SANTA FE INTERMODAL FACll..ITY EXPANSION PROJECT.
DEMOLITION NO. 93-{)1 - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 94-24.
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCll.. OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION/MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE SANTA
FE INTERMODAL FACll..ITY EXPANSION PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 94-24 & DEMOLITION NO. 93-{)1).
Mayor to open the hearing . . .
MOTION:
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be denied; that said resolution that certifies the Environmental Impact
Report be adopted; that the Findings and Statements of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program be adopted; and that Demolition No. 93-01 and Development Permit II No. 94-24,
be approved. Adopted Res 95-187
As of this date Box #650 is being stored in City Hall; however, the box will eventually be stored in our storage facilities at the City Yards.
The contents of Box #650 are as follows:
1. Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Final EIR, Response to Comments, Chapter 9, Final Environmental Impact Report, City of
San Bernardino, Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project, SCH #94111051, Contains: Response to Draft EIR Comments.
ERRATA, Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program, April 1995;
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project, SCH #94111051. Volume I. February 1995;
3. Draft Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices, Volume 2, Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project. SCH
#94111051, February 1995:
4. Draft Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices, Volume 3, Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project, SCH
#94111051, February 1995.
Should you need assistance locating these documents please do not hesitate to contact me.
A.d~"f."-; ;1f;?M
Melanie Miller
Deputy City Clerk
mam
cc:
Sandra Medina. Administrative Operations Supervisor;
~olution No. 95-187;
Agenda Backup for June 12-13, 1995 Item #1
a. With Staff Report
b. With Separated Boxed Documents
Appropriate Inventory Document
Boxed Agenda Item Notice Memo Form File
38
:1
!
~
!
/U',>i :'5 -/;Y'~'/7
l
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RECORDS & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (RIM) PROGRAM
DATE:
December 1, 1997
TO:
Appropriate Agenda Backup Packet Item Number
FROM:
Melanie Miller, Deputy City Clerk
RE:
Item No.1, Mayor and Common Council Meeting of June 12 - 13, 1995 - Memo #2
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE LARGE BOUND DOCUMENTS FOR
THIS AGENDA ITEM HAVE BEEN BOXED AND STORED IN BOX #650.
1. APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE SANTA FE INTERMODAL
FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT -DEMOLITION NO. 93-01 - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II
NO. 94-24.
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION; ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION/MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE SANTA FE
INTERMODAL FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 94-24
& DEMOLITION NO. 93-01).
Mayor to open the hearing . . .
.
.
.
MOTION: That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be denied; that said resolution that
certifies the Environmental Impact Report be adopted; that the Findings and
Statements of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
Program be adopted; and that Demolition No. 93-01 and Development Permit II No.
94-24, be approved. Adopted Res 95-187
As of this date Box #650 is being stored in City Hall; however, the box will eventually be stored in our
storage facilities at the City Yards. The contents of Box #650 are as follows:
1. Memorandum from Al Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services, RE: Santa Fe
Intermodal Facility Expansion Project, dated June 8, 1995.
2. Bound Report - The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Intermodal Facility, "A"
Yard Shop Buildings, San Bernardino, California, Re-Use Analysis, April 1995, Prepared for:
Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, Prepared by: Realvest in association with John Ash
Group.
38
,
3.
Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project, Prepared for the San Bernardino City Council, by
Santa Fe. (2 copies)
4. Book - Final Appendix IV-D, Controlling Locomotive Emissions in California, September 1994,
South Coast Air Quality Management District.
5. From the Approved Minutes "James Wirth, 1980 N. Sierra Way, San Bernardino, CA, voiced
opposition to the proposed demolition of historical structures located on the Santa Fe property. Mr.
Wirth submitted for the record audio and video tapes, and other documents supporting his
position on this matter."
Should you need assistance locating these documents please do not hesitate to contact me.
-:/' . / /'
/ ~,--' CZ>.r';Z '-/
. " -
"---""- /' '
>~'J;?---.>'_/,
Melanie Miller
Deputy City Clerk
mam
cc: Sandra Medina, Administrative Operations Supervisor;
L Resolution No, 95-187;
Agenda Backup for June 12-13, 1995 Item #1
a. With Staff Report
b. With Separated Boxed Documents
Appropriate Inventory Document
Boxed Agenda Item Notice Memo Form File
39
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 95-187
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION; ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE SANTA FE
INTERMODAL FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO.
94-24/DEMOLITION NO. 93-01).
SECTION I.
Recitals
(a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the
General Plan for the City of San Bernardino by Resolution
No. 89-159 on June 2, 1989; and
(b) WHEREAS, on November 17,1994, the Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) determined that the proposal to demolish 53
maintenance shop buildings on about 50 acres located in the eastern
portion of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company's (ATSF)
"A" Yard, generally located between 5th Street and the ATSF and
Metrolink mainlines and "L" Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue in the IH,
Industrial Heavy General Plan land use designation in order to
facilitate the expansion of the existing intermodal facility could
have a significant effect on the environment and thus warranted the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
(c) WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on
December 14, 1994 to solicit public comment on the preparation of
the Draft EIR, and
(d) WHEREAS, the intent of the City to prepare a Draft
EIR was made known to the public, responsible agencies and other
interested persons for their concerns and comments from December 1,
1994 to January 4, 1995 as required by CEQA; and
(e) WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared to address the
1
-
"
, .
1 RESOLUTION... CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT;
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION;
2 ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING
THE SANTA FE INTERMODAL FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT (ET ALl.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common council of the City of San
Bernardino at an adiourned requ1ar
meeting thereof, held on the
12th
June
, 1995, by the fOllowing
day of
vote, to wit:
Council Members
AYES NAYS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
NEGRETE
CURLIN
HERNANDEZ
OBERHELMAN
DEVLIN
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
~~
city Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
/yl-(
June
day of
, 1995.
~~&
I t'??71, ~~
Tom Minor,'Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form
and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
9
'( -/
LETTER NO. 1
EXHIBIT 1
May 17, 1995
xayor Tom Minor , Common Co~neil
San Bernardino City Hall
300 North "D" Straat
jan Bernardino, CA 92418
al' ~paal of 'laAA!~; coaai..ioD 4toi.1o~ r&ndert4 O~
)1&1 a, un, ~u4& it... 11
Dear Mayor Minor , council xemberll
Havinq paid tha required taa, I hareby raapacttully requeat an
appeal of thl.Planninq commie.ion dtci,ion rendtrad on MIY 2,
1995, AtJenda itam 11, Santa ra !nt.~odal facility Expanlloh
Project: Developmant permit No. 94-24 and oamolition No.i3-0l.
r--
. The purpo.. of t."aia app_l h to allow tha Mayor and COUlon
council to revit.... and taka approprilU action inclucUnq '(bUt not
limit.d to) thl anhancemtnt of Santa ra Induatries propoltd
1-1 intarm04al Project. a...d upon into~tion ourrently available
to ma it i. my beli.t tha above mentioned projeot and relatad
Projactetudiaa/rlport., IS p~8partd, fail to be in compliance
with appropriatt Stlte, local, or rederal requlat1on./
requirament.. Non-compliance could yield many .erioua advar..
conaaquenoea--amonq tham the 10.. ot numaroU' add1tiona1
employment opportunitie. 1n the City. At Ita~e 1. the health,
safety and well-cain; of the citizans of Ban Bernar~1no.
My prin~ipal concerns, tormini the thru.t or my appeal, are a.
follow.:
1-2
1-3
1-4
A contrad1ction ot .actlon 4.6.5 tI~ Vol I. The project would
definitely have a "cumulative impaot" Das8d on information
contained in tha City of San Bernardino, Genaral Plan, MC-'~O,
and the opinion. ot qualified txperts. Tha city of San
Bernardino ha. already lOlt a highly siqnlficant n~r ot it.
important hiatorio .tructural.
Tha Projact ha. not qiven appropriate con.ideration to the fact
that the 18 historic building. on tha Santa r. .ite have the
potential to ba plaoad on the National Regiater of Hi.toric
plaea. indepandently ot each other. Xach build1nq/atructura
naeds to ~ q1van full conaiOeratlon of its cultural,
architectural, historical aiqnifioanoa. It all hiaterie
atructur.. oannot be aaveO aa many aa peaaiCl. ahould be
re.arvad. (S.. EIR Vol II, APP$ndix 11 Adaptive ~eu.e (b)).
~. EIR doe. net meat CEQA requirements for Oeterzininq and
oonaiderinq an ~nvironmentally a~p.rior alternative. The ~aot
that Santa r. would incur coat. (very minimal r.lo~iv. to tha
.atimatad 62 million dollar COlt or tha Project) by qua11t1~
1-4
cont.
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-9
prote.aional. (i..., an historic .truotural enqin.er) tor detar-
.1nin9 the taaaibility (economic and teohnioal) ot
relocatinq/rauainq tha hiatoric .truoture.--do.. not juatity
their r.il~r. to p~.UI this alternative.
currant intormation contradict' ErR vol I section '.3 Alternat~
Location. Tha faa.ibility ot bainq able to luccaa.tully utili..
an altarnative ait. tor tractor-trailer parXinq, needs to 0.
oonlidered. Thie alt.rnative 1. .lr.ady .ffeotively be1nq
employed by Santa F8 at axiltin; interDodal operations.
IIR Vol I section 5.4 Alternative Industrial u... make. the
a..umption "Tha condition ot ths .xiatin; buildinqa and their
d..iin would ~~8 them unlikaly candidat.. tor reha~ilitation and
reu.e tor induetrial or offiee/prot...ional u...." Ther. are no
tactl or profeseional analyli. to lupport this oonclueion.
If it i. determined ramoval--ot .n hi.toric building mUat occur,
I requeat that the hiatorio builoinq be aOhaduled for ramoval
after all other non-historic buil~inq. on the pro~ect .ite have
been d.=oli.h8~. This would af!or~ the mA~imum amount of time'
opportunity to parties int.r.lts~ in r.locatinq the buildin; and
pr..arvin9 it tor ad~ptiv. reus..
1-8
contradictions appear to 8xist b.twe.n .tatements contained in
the economic study, ECAP Report, "benefit." .ection and toe EIR.
The leAP Report wa. pre~ared for Santa ye ~y Mr. John HU81nq And
aubaittad to the Planninq Co~ission. The Commi..ion aon.id.rld
the ICAP Ra~ort in puforminq the ctQA "balancin9 te.t. II Letter
la) state. 127 job. will be creat.d that are directly related to
nt8rm~al activities. lI~ttar (9) .tat.. "127 intermO<1al
facllity jobs created. tI All llnalyai., i. e. trdfio, n01le, don.
in the Project EIR are ~aa.d on the assumption that 60 direct
jo~. will be created by the projact. (i... ... ErR Vol I section
4.~. a.a.)
EIR Vol I s.ction 5.5 RA~uced sir. ~rqjec~ atates, "allow Santa
Ye to meet ita objective ot operatinq th8 expan4a~ interaodal
facility for 2' ho~rl par day and ineraaain; the oapacity of the
exi.tin9 interDodal yar4 by ali9htly mora than 100 parc.nt
(7,500 load. to over 15,000 load.."
Virtually every analy.i. dona--throu;hout the project EIR--i.
ba.a4 upon the tollowin;:
1. The capacity ot santa re'. IX1atinq int.rmodal facility in
San Bernardino ie 7,500 avaraqe n~.r of lifts par month.
2. Project expcn.ion onto 50+ acr.. will provide an additional
capacity of B,160 avera;s number or litt. per month.
3. !Kistin9 plus ~rojeet in ysar 2004. 15,660 avera98 number ot
lifta per month.
_ _ ..""", .."
1-9
cont.
1-10
Par oorra.pond.noa received bY the city troD Santa Fe and knovinq
thar. war' 7,500 avara;e nu~er ot litt. per mon~h in 1~'3 it can
~ concluded that Santa r.'. existin, interm04a1 operaticn in Ban
Bernardino prov1d~ ~0,7Z5 averag. numPar ot lift. (load.) per
aonth in 1994, . 43% iner...e ovar 1993 lavel', The letter
atat.. "Thi. dramatio qro~, which 1. baln; drivan by southern
CA'I explodinq traneoontin.ntal int.rmodai bu.i~e.s..,," I
baliava o.pac1~Y hae turth.r incr....d in 1995. santa Fa"
.xi.tin, operation ie alr.adY ne.ring the capacity predicted ror
their antire (exi.tin; pl~' Project) intermodal oparation. in the
y.e: a004.
The aoouracy or virtuallY all analy.ia dona for the project II~
i. further plaoed in qu.stion wnen ona conaidar. the propo..4
increa.' ot land'to santa re'e exist in; intermodal aite. p,r
city ataff raport the .~i.tinq int.rmc4al .ita ia ooapriaad of i~
acra.. Expansion would add 50+ .craa ther.~Y Do~e than t~iplin9
the .iEe. ~et with more than tripla the existinq .mQunt of land,
~ .tatamanta mad. b~ th..projoct app11o.nt that demand tor
intaraoda1 ..rv1ca. i' exploding, tha avaraqa number of lifts per
month p~adiote4 in tha EIR in the y.ar 2004 is juat ovar do~la
th. avera,. n~ar of 11tt. per month s.nta FO wa. provi4in~ bac~
in 1U3.
In .hort I believa major inaccuraci../deticienoi.s/oonfliota
axist. Ixi.tin; are discrapanci.s in fiqur.a/data and projaot
capacity reqa~din9 Santa le'. exi.tin; intermod.l oparation and
planned intaraode1 projaot axpan.ion. For various raa.onS
includin, to in.ure that santa ,. hoe the ability to aohieve its
~ximum Intarmodal oporation capacity of 1,,660-~as atatad 1n the
project !IR--I hereby add to my requast. the followin;: Aa part
of the project mltiqation monitorinq proc... a conditional ~se
permit (CUP) be 1..ued allowin; Santa Fe to achiava up to the
15,660 (avara;a numPar of lift. ~er =onth) Daxi~um capaoity
.tated 1n th. Project II~.
Due to the m&;nituda ot the Santa 1e ~ro;.ct, it. 1!9nificance
"1'4 potential illp.ct on the cCllUIuni ty, I u~ that t.~i. appeal De
Ichaduled tor a Public Haarin; and that it be heard, if
practigal, at the next raqularly anticipat.~ D.etin; of the Mayor
an~ COmDon council, the lat ~onday of tha month, JUna 5, 1'95.
a..pagtfullY aubcitt.d,
!~ }y: ')y~
1-11
Ja." W. \(1~th
!910 North 5ierra way
san ~.rnardino, CA g240S
PK. (90P) ..'~UIO
) :~ ~
"
EXHIBIT 2
Response to comments submitted by James W. Wirth in his appeal letter of May 17, 1995:
1-1 The comment is noted.
1-2 Cumulative impacts are related to past, present and future projects that may produce
related impacts to similar resources. Based on discussions with the City of San
Bernardino Staff, no present or identified future projects exist which propose
activities that could affect historical resources. As far as is known, a few structures
with nonsignificant historical values have been removed with the permission of the
City in the past. However, these structures were not related to the eligible historic
district identified in the EIR and the loss of these other structures was !lQ1
determined by the City Council to be significant, individually or cumulatively. During
the comment period on the Draft EIR no other projects were identified that would
adversely impact other historic structures related to the eligible historic district.
Further, no comments were received on the Draft EIR during the public comment
period or during the review process as a whole which identified any structures with
historic value (that have been removed in the past) which would have contributed to
this eligible district or contributed to a cumulatively significant loss of historic
resources. This comment appears to be an attempt to reargue the loss of previously
demolished structures that the City did not deem to be significant historical
resources. The weight of evidence supports the conclusion in the Draft EIR that the
project impact creates an individually significant cultural resource impact, but not a
significant cumulative impact to cultural resources within the City.
1-3 The comment agrees with the findings in the EIR and relies upon data contained in
the EIR and used by the City Planning Commission. Each building has been given
full independent consideration and consideration as part of the eligible historic
district. Additional discussions with the author of the historic property survey (Mr.
Richard Starzak) determined that the loss of any of the key historic structures would
be considered significant impact to historical resources. This impact is discussed in
the EIR. Your comment regarding saving as many structures as possible does not
alter the fact that significant impacts would remain if anyone of these key structures
is demolished. In other words, the EIR clearly indicated that a significant
unavoidable impact to historical resources occurs regardless of whether one or two
structures are preserved. The degree of significance may be reduced somewhat by
saving some structures, but the overall finding of significance is not eliminated. This
information was made available to the Planning Commission and they were fully
informed about this information when the decision to approve demolition was made.
This is why the Commission adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
1-4 The issue of an environmentally superior alternative is addressed in the EIR and the
"Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations." The modified
demolition alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative when
feasibility is not considered (page 5-7). In fact, the determination of feasibility of an
1
alternative can be based on "site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations...."
(Section 15126 (d)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines). CEQA (Section 21083.2(3))
establishes a limit for cultural resource mitigation, which for this project is estimated
to be approximately $310,000. In the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the
estimate for relocating and restoring a single 10,000 square foot structure is estimated
to be $1.5 million. Based on available data, including the cost estimate data
contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the loss of land at the
project site for relocating facilities, the Modified Demolition Project alternative was
determined to be an infeasible alternative that would not meet Santa Fe's project
objectives. In it's findings, the Commission adopted a finding that the cost and
failure to meet project objectives justified this conclusion in accordance with criteria
established in State and City CEQA Guidelines.
1-5 The existing intermodal site does not have room to expand operations to
accommodate 15,660 lifts per month, as it is already being fully utilized. The
ineffectiveness of the existing intermodal facility, as noted in yourcomment, is the
reason that Santa Fe established the project objective of expanding this facility, to
the adjacent 50.:t. acre site to achieve contiguous interrnodal operations along a
longer frontage of trackage within Santa Fe's "A" Yard. The key to Santa Fe's
project objectives is the expansion of its existing interrnodal facility at a site that has
direct rail access and would facilitate reuse of the industrially blighted and
contaminated property adjacent to the existing interrnodal facility (consistent with the
reuse and remediation goals for this property). The comment does nothing but assert
that alternative locations must be available, but no other sites encompass these site
specific siting requirements (i.e. contiguity to interrnodal loading ramps, so
unnecessary truck movement between offsite parking facilities and the interrnodal
loading ramps can be avoided). Also, the comment does not offer any such sites to
substantiate the assertion that alternative locations are available. There is clearly no
other location where Santa Fe can feasibly accomplish the project objectives as
outlined in the EIR and the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
1-6 The comment is noted. According to Santa Fe based on the opinions of technical
experts, the existing structures are not seismically sound and do not meet modern
design expectations and requirements for structures that will support industrial or
office/professional uses. These structures were designed to meet very specific
railroad support activities, as outlined in Technical Appendix #7, Volume 2 of the
EIR and the conclusion in the EIR reflects these observations and factual findings
contained in the EIR.
1-7 The request is noted. More than adequate time has been available for individuals
to confer with Santa Fe regarding relocation and reuse of the existing structures.
The project received considerable publicity beginning in mid-1994 and public
notification and meetings were initiated for the project during December 1994. Santa
2
Fe responded to your request at the Planning Commission hearing by noting that it
would incur substantial additional expense to selectively demolish and remove the
non-historic structures which are intermixed throughout the site with the historic
structures. In approving the demolition permits, the Planning Commission concurred
that it would be inappropriate to alter the proposed demolition sequence of removing
structures beginning on the east and moving west. In addition, Mitigation Measure
4.6.3.3 requires Santa Fe to use a qualified historical architect or architectural
historian, to provide an inventory of unique or characteristic artifacts and/or
architectural features of the eligible historic district structures and make those
materials available to local, regional, or state museums or historical societies for
interpretive purposes. This process will insure that interested organizations have the
opportunity to relocate unique or characteristic artifacts and/or architectural features
of the eligible historic district structures.
I -8 The interpretation of the ECAP data contained in this comment is incorrect. The
onsite employment for the project is estimated to be 60 workers, that will be
employed by Eagle Systems, the intermodal facility operator under contract to Santa
Fe. The remaining direct increase in employment (67 persons) will be with trucking
companies that will serve the facility. (Section G 1.a of the Statement of Overriding
Considerations states that 127 jobs will be created that are directly related to
intermodal activities, includin~ facility operators. Santa Fe employees and truckini
~ [emphasis added])lmpacts for all truck trips are analyzed in the air quality,
traffic, and noise sections as required by CEQA The analysis in the EIR for
employee impacts is correct and the additional personnel employed by trucking
companies has been fully accounted for in the impact analysis contained in the EIR.
1-9 It should also be noted that the evaluation in the EIR is not and should not be based
on the physical size/acreage of the site contained in the expansion area, but, instead,
is focused on the number of additional lifts that are requested in the development
permit application submitted to the City. The development permit approved by the
Planning Commission allows the average monthly number of lift operations at the
expanded intermodal facility to be increased from 7,500 to 15,660 lifts. Any change
in this average monthly number of lifts would have to be approved by the City.
Therefore, the EIR appropriately analyzed the number of lifts and operations that
would be permitted by the development permit.
This three paragraph comment suggests that the capacity assumptions which are the
basis of the EIR are inaccurate because, in your opinion, Santa Fe is moving too
quickly from its number of lifts per month in 1993 to its projected average number
of lifts per month in 2004. In fact, the project (including the project mitigation) has
been designed to accommodate the impacts of the project average number of lifts in
2004 (15,660 lifts) and the pattern and/or rate of increases in lifts per month, from
the 7,500 average lifts per month in 1993 to the projected 15,660 lifts per month in
2004, has no effect whatsoever on the analysis, except the timing of traffic mitigation.
3
{fe;,.
The timing for traffic mitigation is under the control of the City which can implement
the mitigation earlier if traffic growth justifies earlier implementation. In addition,
your understanding of Santa Fe's existing intermodal operation is inaccurate. At the
present time, Santa Fe is utilizing a combination of temporary parking space at the
site of its existing intermodal operations IDlll temporary parking space at satellite
locations (a satellite location is a location which is not contiguous to the intermodal
loading ramps). Although the use of temporary parking facilities is allowing Santa
Fe's intermodal activity to grow, Santa Fe's present operation is inefficient, because
it requires additional truck movements on City streets to move trailers and chassis
to the intermodal loading ramps for loading and unloading. When the project has
been completed, parking operations at the temporary parking facilities will cease and
will be transferred to the 50+ acres which constitute the project area. In addition,
the transfer of temporary parking facilities to the 50 + acres, which constitute the
project, will reduce existing traffic impacts on City streets by confining to the
intermodal site, all truck movements between the parking facilities and the
intermodal loading ramps. Finally, please note that the 50+ acres, which constitutes
the project area, will not be entirely devoted to parking, but will also be improved
with track.
1-10 As the responses above demonstrate, the impact forecasts in the EIR are not
inaccurate, deficient or conflicting. There are no discrepancies identified in the
above comments that remain after a careful evaluation of the information provided
in the complete administrative record for the proposed project. The approved
development permit is supported by the EIR which has evaluated the project average monthly lifts of 15,660 in 2004. No additional actions are required to establish a
limit on operations of the expanded intermodal facility or to enable Santa Fe to
achieve this capacity.
1-11 The comment is noted.
4
BCAP
econ<llllic end politlcll IlI\Illysla
3142 C.ctus Ci~cle
Highland, CA 9Z346-1739
(909)4ZS-895Z
FAX (909)4ZS-895Z
BCONOMIC IMPACT OF
SANTA FE RAILROAD'S FACILITIBS
ON
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
1996
By
John B. Busing, Ph.D.
April 24, 1995
ECAP
econc:a;c IW"Id poUticIl analysis
3142 Cactus Circle
Highlard, CA 92346-1739
(909)425-8952
FAX (909)425-8952
;'1;~;i;I~;I~...'.'.::~~~:~~.'.'~T'~'.~;~00;~.\',...........
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Executive SUmoary
Inte_l Operations
InvestMnt In 51 Inte_l Capabil Ity
Economic I~ct . I ntennoda I
Long Teno Economic l~ct - I ntermoda I
Economic I~ct - All Santa Fe Operations
SUlIlIIIry
2
2
3
7
8
11
'..'."'.i'.......(..'~~~oi""'=~~~~j'..~~,~~;~,:i;~~0j~.~)i.....,.
Table 1 Santa Fe Intenmodal liftings, San Bernardino 2a
Graph 1 Santa Fe IntenmodaL Liftings, Sin Bernardino 2a
Table 2 Santi Fe lntenmodal Investment, San Bernardino 3a
Graph 2 Santa Fe Intennodal Investment, San Bernardino 3a
Table 3 Budget Assumptions - Eagle Systems 4
Table 4 Budget Assumptions - Trucking Companies 4
Table 5 Budget Assumptions - Senti Fe Railroad 5
Table 6 Multipliers By Activity, Inland Empire 5
Table 7 San Bernardino Intenmodal Budget, All Operations Sa
Table 8 Total Job & Economic Impact, ATSF lntenmodal Operations 5b
Table 9 IntenmodBl Construction, TotaL Economic Impact, 1994-6 6a
Tabl. 10 Manufacturing' Distribution Employment, Inland Empire 7
Graph 3 Industrial Vacancy Rate, Inland Empire, "90-4 7a
TobIe 11 Budget Assumptions - Auto Facility 9
TobIe 12 Budget Assumptions - Quality Distribution Center (Pellets) 10
Table 13 Budget Assumptions - ATSF Central Operations 10
Table 14 ATSF San Bernardino Other Operations . Budget lOa
Table 15 Total Job l Economic Impact - Other ATSF Operotions lOb
TobIe 16 Total Job l Economic Impact - All ATSF Operations l1a
i
KoncII;C and p:Jl it;cll analysis
3142 COctus Circle
H;ghlond. CA 92346-1739
(909)425-8952
FAX (909)425,8952
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
SANTA FE RAILROAD FACILITIES
ON SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
1996
by
John E. Busing, Ph.D.
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR.Y
If The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company (Santa Fe) is
able to complete its San Bernardino expansion plans, the firm will
be permanently responsible for $196.0 million in local business
activity and household income, and will directly and indirectly
support 2,958 area jobs by 1996. In addition, during the 1995-1996
construction period, Santa Fe's $62.2 million for the project will
increase economic activity by an average of $91.6 million per year,
and support an average of 746 workers.
More importantly, Santa Fe's intermodal expansion, combined with
the air cargo capability being developed at Norton Air Force Base,
will allow San Bernardino to offer manufacturing and warehousing
firms access to the latest in goods distribution technology. The
importance of this advantage cannot be overestimated.
Today's corporations use computers to maintain extremely tight
inventories. Their suppliers must therefore fill orders at ex-
traordinary speeds. San Bernardino will be one of the few places -
in the Western United States offering firms the chance to both ship
light boxes by air, and large containers by train, without worrying
about ground congestion or trucking costs. This is the kind of
advantage the city needs as it seeks to repair the damage from the
Norton Air _~rce Base closure.
In order to fully understand the impact which recent and proposed
expansions of The Atchison, Topeka &: Santa Fe Railroad Company
(Santa Fe) operations are having on the economy of San Bernardino
and the Inland Empire, five items must be reviewed:
1. The change occurring in the way in which U.S. firms
maintain inventory and the speed with which they now
require distributors and manufacturers to supply them
with goods.
1
0'~~ .
2. Santa Fe's consequent investment in its San Bernardino
intermodal facilities.
3. The $61.1 million, 1,174 job permanent economic impact
which Santa Fe's intermodal operation will have on the
San Bernardino region's economy by 1996. The average
of 746 jobs and $91.6 million in extra household income
and new business that will be created locally during
the 1995-1996 construction period.
4. The importance of Santa Fe's intermodal facility in
making San Bernardino a manufacturing and goods dis-
tribution center now that "just-in-time" inventory
control requires firms to rapidly fill orders.
5. The $196.0 million, 2,958 job permanent economic impact
which Santa Fe's combined operations will have on the
San Bernardino region's economy by 1996, when its
intermodal expansion is combined with its plastic
pellet, automobile distribution and central opera-
tions.
1. Intermoda1 Ooerations
In the 1980s, companies began using computers to tightly control
their inventory levels and costs. As a result, where $1.68 in
inventory once backed every $1.00 in sales in 1982, by 1994 the
ratio was 1.46:1, a 13.1% decline.
Known as "just-in-time" inventory control, this process requires
that manufacturers and distributors produce and deliver products
with great speed. Goods movers have been forced to adapt.
1. For liahter items, firms like Federal Express and UPS
combined air cargo operations with rapid intra-regional
truck delivery services to respond.
2. For heavier goods, many trucking companies began
abandoning long distance hauling to become intra-
regional container/trailer handlers working in tandem
with lower cost, long distance rail carriers.
By 1990, the latter relationship began creating an increasing demand
for intermodal rail yards. These facilities have three needs: large
amounts of idle track where flat cars can rest until needed for
containers/trailers; large amounts of adjacent tarmac, where empty
containers/trailers can be parked until needed for loading; and
cranes to move containers/trailers on and off rail cars.
2. Investment In SB Intermodal Ca"abilitv
To expand its Southern California intermodal capability, in 1989
Santa Fe began significant investment in its San Bernardino yard.
2
fie]
Table 1. -Santa Fe Intennodal Ufts
San Bernardino, California
Year Amount
1986 7,755
1987 10,859
1988 23,387
1989 35,314
1990 44,587
1991 55,433
1992 70,384
1993 92,978
1994 132 939
Graph 1.-Santa Fe Intermodal Lifts
132.1139
1. Prior to 1989, the facility had a small intermodal
capacity. Thus, Table & Graph 1 show that in 1986,
7,755 containers/trailers were lifted; in 1987 it was
10,859; in 1988 it reached 23,387.
2. In 1989, Table & Graph 2 show that Santa Fe spent
$526,804 expanding its San Bernardino capability. By
1992, there were 70,384 lifts, a 201% increase in
4-years.
3. In 1993, Santa Fe spent another $412,754 on a small
expansion. Demand jumped to 92,976 lifts, up 32% in
one year.
4. In 1994, Santa Fe spent $10,756,380 to lay the maximum
amount of track possible for flat cars and to pave the
vacant land it owned along 4th Street to hold more
trucks. Two loading cranes were installed. Demand
went to 132,939 lifts, up 43%.
5. In 1995 & 1996, Santa Fe wants to complete its San
Bernardino intermodal expansion. It will add more
track and lifting capacity, plus make room for the
truck fleet needed to handle the growing amount of
cargo arriving at the facility.
With most of the facility's unimproved land already
converted to intermodal operations, this requires
removing the shells of the companies defunct and empty
repair shops. $62.2 million dollars worth of con-
struction & environmental remediation will be spent
on this project.
3. Economic ImDact - Intermodal
To calculate the 1996 economic impact of Santa Fe's intermodal
operation on the San Bernardino region, the following assumptions
were made:
1. Table 3 presents the employment levels, pay scales,
hours, total budget and budget growth figures antic-
ipated by Eagle Systems, the firm which runs the Santa
Fe intermodal cargo transfer facility in San
Bernardino. The 1994 data are actual.
To calculate the non-labor budget, the cost of labor
is subtracted from the $3,921,732 total budget in 1994.
The total budget is increased 10% in 1995 and 1996,
and the same subtraction is made.
3
Table 2. -Santa Fe Intermodallnvestment
San Bernardino,Califomia
Year Amount
1986 0
1987 68,751
1988 383
1989 526,804
1990 84,183
1991 26,089
1992 45,053
1993 412,754
1994 10,756,380
1995e 46,650,000
1996e 15550000
Note: 1995 ... 75% of $62,2 million: 1996 ,.. 25%.
. .
; !
Graph 2.-Santa Fe Intermodallnvestment
),=,=
),=,=
),=,=
).=,=
),=,=
o
J
Month I Y
occ",,"tlon Rate Hours 1994 1995 1996
Dept. Heed S3,600/Mo. Salary 4 4 8
Supel"V; sor 2,40D/Mo. Salary 5 8 lD
R"",, Driver-FT lllHr. 173 18 18 36
R..., Driver-PT 8/Hr. 120 8 16 24
IIanllger 3,600/Mo. S<llary 1 1 1
Shop Worker 10/Hr. 173 16 16 27
Checker-FT 8/Hr. 173 5 5 5
Checker-PT 6/Hr. 173 12 18 18
TOTAL 69 86 129
Salar;ed Worker Annual Ra;se 3.5%
Hourly Worker Annual Raise SD.50/Hr.
Totol Budget inclu:ling labor - 1994 S3,921,732
Annual Budget Growth lOX
Table 4 presents assumptions used to estimate
budgets of the trucking companies using the
Bernardino intermodal facility.
2.
Operation
Lifts
lift GrowthlYr.
aperat i ng Days
Two-Way loads
one-Way loads
Drivers per Truck
Salary
Arnual h;se
Operat;ng Costs
1994
132,939
6.91
365
90X
lOX
1.4
145,000
3.5%
20X
the
San
Explanation
Containers/tra;lers lifted per year.
U ft D...nd Growth Rote
Operate year around.
Trucks came & leave with. load.
Trucks go one way w;th . load.
N\.M:)er of ddvers to rU'\ a truck. 365 days/year.
Average driver's salary.
Cost of Living increase to drivers.
Operating costs assumed at 20% of labor cost.
In 1994, the 132,939 lifts are divided by 365 to find
lifts per year_ 90% are assumed carried by trucks
coming & leaving with loads, 10% on one-way trucks.
This yields an average of 200 trucks per day. For 365
day a year coverage, each truck needs 1.4 drivers, for
a total of 280.
Lift demand in 1995 and 1996 is assumed to grow at the
6.9% per year, the compound annual rate required to
reach Santa Fe's 2005 expected level of 15,600 lifts
per month. This is a crucial and very conservative
assumption. A case could be made that the creation
4
of the new facility w111 g1ve muen xaB~er grow~~ .~
the 1995 . 1996 period with Blower growth occurring
later.
3. Santa Fe estimated operating budget for the intermodal
yard, other than those contracted to Eagle Systems
covered in Table 3, are shown in Table 5.
Monthly
occupet; on Rite Hours 1994 1995 1996
switch Engine Crew S40,000 Salary 9 12 15
S~rvisor $60,000 Salary I I I
Other Costs SO SO SO
salaried Worker AnnuaL Raise 3.5%
4. The estimate budget for construction and environmental
remediation during the expansion of Santa Fe's San
Bernardino were shown in Table 2 at $10,756,380 in
1994; $46,650,000 in 1995; and $15,550,000 in 1996.
Activity
Multiplier Explanation
Rail & Related
E""loyment on
Workers
Elch worker ~loyed in support of . rai 1 operation
s~rts himself and another 1.5229 workers
2.5229 elsewhere in the economy.
each '1.00 spent on rei 1 operations increases
locaL economic activity by S1.00 plus an
1.8794 additional SO.8794 in other Inland Eq)ire HMJIS.
Rail & Related
Spending on
Economic Activity
Rail & Related
Spending on
Household Income
Each '1.00 spent on nil oper..tions increases
0.6657 Inland E""ire household inc_ by SO.6657.
Construction
Spending on
,",orkers
Each $1,000,000 spent on nilroad construction in
the Intend Ellpire s~rts 24.0 workers on the
24.0 project and elsewhere in the Inland E""ire.
Each S1.00 spent on railroad constn.tetion in-
creases local activity in Inlend Empire finms by
2.097 S2.097.
Construct; on
Spending on
Economic Activity
Rail & Related
Spending on
Household lnc_
Eech S1.00 spent on ni lroed construction Inlend
0.8495 E""ire household inc_ by SO.6657.
5. To calculate the impact which Santa Fe's intermodal
operation has on employment, economic activity and
household income of the San Bernardino region's
economy, the multipliers shown in Table 6 (above) are
5
0,.:--
I
IItl"'NO"'NO"'~- '"
__",..p...p...Np... al)cn
C\laI)CI)ON\O"aI) Cl)C\I
. . . . . . ri .
~a~~~~~"'ieg~.~
:t ~-~
t2
CD
"'fll...-N 0"''''''' N
"'S...Itl-"''''''''''''
... t\ICQQ)Q)NCI)CQaI)
~!~t~1~~;!:
-
~..o",...-...Itl..",
Q) _(')N N _N
t! -
~
FJ i.. 1ll:2 III (;j
... Q)....NM
-
Itl
-
fe"CI)CZ)rD-CQU')
., ---
t!
~
..'"
-..
w
Cl" ... .....
C .... ~ ~ '" NON" g N '" '" III
::>' II CQ ~ ~ :; ;::: :e N m , ; i
~ i ~~~~~~!~~~~.~
< Ii 1I~ ~Ni
C.. Ii is
o .Ii .-
:IE ~fllN""'ON""''''
"'S-op...v-m"Q)
a: "C I........ .... ... ... ~ ...... ...... "'. ;;
~l'll tIl ~l11Hl-~c;j~-
z E E -
- - CD
O'jU ..
z a: I~
-CDen
C I.L CD
a:l'll,,"
< - iG
zCW
a: 10
Wen
a:l
Z
<
en
I
.
,...
W
...J
a:l
<
I-
_OOCl)OOOONON
~og"''''O'''''''''''1Il
~CZ) O....N_O..CCCl)
::.~t~~~sig~t:ig
CC....-... M ........
_... ......C\i'
S ~
t2
" '"
8lfllsgglIl~glS:g1tl
... C\,JCCCl)aI)Np...CQ..
~~~~::"~~~~
-
~"'IIl""_"'IIlN'"
., .... ...._CD
t!
~
..
'Iii
c 0
0'0 ~ c::
~ I t c:: ~
:) ~ .!..!. ........... =..J
u-...GJI) ~~Q..l! !<
Oui..o~.L.O" :;
E cC8,3tmm OF-
!.~!.Q,Q,1Il Q,'!'!B~ iii I
ell" ~ ~!,g.!.! 111= ~
cena:a:,..en(.) (.)..10 en
'"
CD
gj;1j>lfil
mC')~N
!:f
-
c;; C;; ~ g:
CDCQ-CO
!ic5lc
::t.~. 0 ;:Ii
U') It) (') ..
__ lIll
..... ;.
III
~
i
..
~
Itllll-
III Ill'"
.. lIll.!::';
lZ:;l~
"''''...
cr)(t)"N
.. -
~~
III
...
Itl
!
~
000
OON
__0
~~~
","'Ill
C\i'N"N
- -
~~
o
o
o
!
lll~gJO'"
" C\I 0 g
N"""": ,.:
!CQ~ ~
~
"'..,
"'...
..N
N'"
~'"
Itl-'"
- -
'"
..
..
N
CO)
~ gggo
&C ",' CI) - Q)
. <D N cO
~.. ! '" ~
~'
o
o
'"
cri
:g
...
Itl '" ..,
... .. ..,
- '" ..
1i g ..,
0'" '"
",'", '"
- ~
~ ...
.
l8
'"
:8
"
_ 0 N
'" '" ..,
N.. '"
0" Q) CD
!il ~ N
cD l/) ca
-
~
..
N
...
en
gg ...J
"'- <
"C ..: N
~~'" b
.= I-
~iii~-~ ~I~
a: ...J
CD <
I.L C
~ IGoggOOOONN
...'E8..0..q g:Em~~
';IGlillS~ oa::o'~1Il
;!:en.. ~ ~~:,~~
~ z; ~
... -...
00
00
00
~g
o III
.. ..,
III
E
:gi~~~~
c'"
-
..lO:
N tl
CO) ~
... ...
_l-
N
'"
~
fil
N
~
"'_0
..
..
'Iii
o
~
c
'Gt = ..J
~_ l!~
~e 9' c3 ~
e~e;.~~ I
:!:! ::>.~~Bs ~
:.:::l:::l~cen~oen
.. ..
iii
o
(.)
g ..
,., "'..11
.. ! <
~.(; g g
c ~ M M I
'~gB~~
wen~oen
8l
..,
m
..,
..
-
..
o
~
c
,.,
III
f
O..l
<
I-
~
~ ~
B.!
111-
..l0
~
TABLE 8. - TOTAL JOB & ECONQtJi.IG IMPACT
.' .....-.....". .,.-.....,-.',.....'.
. '--'-"",",' .....
Santa Fe Intermodal Qpercitions
Economic Household Total Dollar
Workers Activity Income Impact
. 1994 .i..i.... . .....
....
Labor 359 $14,467,980
Other Costs Q 5.017,872
Direct Impact 359 $19,485,852 $19,485,852
Multipliers-Rail 2.5229 1.8794 0.6657
Second Tier Jobs 547
TOTAL IMPACT . 907 $36,621,709 $12,971 ,731 L$49,593,441
.. .. 1995 .... ...... ...... .... ..i> .' '.' ........ ....... ..ii ... '.. ....> > .
Labor 399 $16,290,241
Other Costs 5,339.190
Direct Impact 399 $21,629,432 $21,629,432
Multipliers-Rail 2,5229 1,8794 0.6657
Second Tier Jobs 607
.
TOTAL IMPACT 1,006 $40,650,354 $14,398,713 . $55,049,067
Annual Growth 11.0% 11.0%
. 1996 ..... . ....
Labor 466 $19,062,145
Other Costs 4.930.989
Direct Impact 466 $23,993,133 $23,993,133
Multipliers-Rail 2,5229 1 ,8794 0,6657
Second Tier Jobs 709
TOTAL IMPACT ,174 $45,092,695 $15,972,229 $61,064,924
.... .
Annual Growth 16.7% 10.9%
Two- Year Growth . 29.5% ;-........ 23.1 %
used. They come trom t:ne u.:;). .LJepClLl,..ll1t::U.... V.J". D~V.uV4LL.&.'-
Analysis RIM II Input-Output model for the Inland
Empire.
Multipliers are needed as every dollar reaching San
Bernardino through Santa Fe and its allied industries
in turn supports workers in the local secondary tier
of retailers, consumer service firms, education and
local government.
Tables 7 & 8 use these assumptions to calculate the permanent
economic impact which Santa Fe's expansion of its San Bernardino
intermodal facilities will have on the region's economy by 1996.
1. Eagle Systems employment and budget will rise from 69
workers and $3,921,732 to 129 workers and $4,745,269
(Table 7).
2. Trucking employment related to the facility will rise
from 280 workers and $15,144,120 to 321 workers and
$18,540,829 (Table 7).
3. Santa Fe employment and budget will rise from 10 workers
and $420,000 to 16 workers and $707,009 (Table 7).
4. Total intermodal related employment and budget will
rise from 339 workers and $19,485,852 to 466 workers
and $23,993,133 (Table 7).
5. Including the impacts on firms in the secondary tier
of the region's economy, the intermodal facilities
entire impact will rise from 907 workers (547 seconclazy)
and $49,593,441 to 1,174 workers (709 seconclazy) and
$61,064,924 (Table 8).
NOTE: The facility will thus add 267 permanent jobs into
the economy, an increase in employment impact of 29.5\
from 1994-1996. The total impact on local fir.ms and
households will permanently rise by $11,471,750 or
23.1\.
Table 9 uses the assumptions above to calculate the temporary
economic impact which Santa Fe's construction expenditures at its
San Bernardino intermodal facilities will have on the region's
economy.
1. In 1995 & 1996, construction expenditures will directly
and indirectly create employment for an average of 746
workers (1,120 in 1995; 373 in 1996) .
2. In 1995 & 1996, construction expenditures will directly
and indirectly generate total spending with local firms
and households averaging $91,636,150 ($137,454,225 in
1995; $45,818,075 in 1996).
6
.. TABLE 9. -INTERMODAL CONSTRUCTION, 1994-96
. '.' Total Inland Emoire Economic Imoact
Economic Household Total Dollar
Workers Activity Income Impact
.. .... 1994 .. .. ... .
Spending $10,756,380 $10,756,380 $10,756,380
Multipliers 1 24.0 2.097 0.8495
Total Impact 258 $22,556,129 $9,137,545 $31,693,674
. 1995 ..> ... ....
Spending $46,650,000 $46,650,000 $46,650,000
Multipliers 1 24,0 2.097 0.8495
Total Impact 1,120 $97,825,050 $39,629,175 $137,454,225
1996 . . ............ ........ .
. .
Spending $15,550,000 $15,550,000 $15,550,000
Multipliers 1 24,0 2.097 0,8495
Total Impact 373 $32,608,350 $13,209,725 $45,818,075
1995-1996 AVERAGE
Total Impact 746 $91,636,150
Note: 1. Worker multiplier is per $1 million in spending.
4. Lena Term Economic lmoact - Intermedal
From 1990-1994, San Bernardino's economic base shrank when Norton
Air Force Base closed. The job loss reduced the incomes of civilians
and firms dealing directly with the base, as well as workers and
firms in the region'S secondary economic tier.
The area's economic health area will not be restored until private
sector employers expand sufficiently to replace the income and jobs
lost at Norton Air Force Base. Specifically, the area needs employers
who are bringing money to the region from outside of the area.
Here, Santa Fe's expanding intermodal depot presents San Bernardino
with an opportunity to take advantage of two maj or Southern California
trends.
1. From Jan-94 to Feb-95, 153 manufacturing and goods
distribution firms have migrated to the Inland Empire,
largely from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. As Graph
3 shows, this is the continuation of a trend that has
lowered the region's industrial space vacancy rate
from 24% in 1990 to 9.4% in Mar-95.
To date, most of this activity has been in the 1-15
corridor between Rancho CUcamonga and Corona. In that
area, the industrial vacancy rate has fallen to 8%.
In the entire Inland Empire, the vacancy rate for
spaces over 200,000 feet is nearly zero.
2. Meanwhile, Table 10 shows that from Nov-90 to Nov-94,
jobs associated with goods distribution have risen
from 20,200 to 25,300, a gain of 5,100 job or 25.2%.
Non-defense manufacturing went from 60,200 to 68,000
jobs, a gain of 7,800 or 13.0%. .
.,.i~~:~~~~~~i:~~::~~:~f~i~~~~.?}
Goods Non"Defense
leer Distribution M.nufecturing
1990 20,200 60,200
1991 20,600 57,900
1992 22,800 63,600
1993 23,500 65,500
1994 25 ,300 68,000
1990-1994 5,100 7,800
lCl:henge 25.21 13.OX
These trends have four primary causes.
7
fic,t!
The timing for traffic mitigation is under the control of the City which can implement
the mitigation earlier if traffic growth justifies earlier implementation. In addition,
your understanding of Santa Fe's existing interrnodal operation is inaccurate. At the
present time, Santa Fe is utilizing a combination of temporary parking space at the
site of its existing interrnodal operations lilll1 temporary parking space at satellite
locations (a satellite location is a location which is not contiguous to the interrnodal
loading ramps). Although the use of temporary parking facilities is allowing Santa
Fe's interrnodal activity to grow, Santa Fe's present operation is inefficient, because
it requires additional truck movements on City streets to move trailers and chassis
to the interrnodalloading ramps for loading and unloading. When the project has
been completed, parking operations at the temporary parking facilities will cease and
will be transferred to the 50 + acres which constitute the project area. In addition,
the transfer of temporary parking facilities to the 50+ acres, which constitute the
project, will reduce existing traffic impacts on City streets by confining to the
intermodal site, all truck movements between the parking facilities and the
intermodal loading ramps. Finally, please note that the 50+ acres, which constitutes
the project area, will not be entirely devoted to parking, but will also be improved
with track.
1-10 As the responses above demonstrate, the impact forecasts in the EIR are not
inaccurate, deficient or conflicting. There are no discrepancies identified in the
above comments that remain after a careful evaluation of the inforrnation provided
in the complete administrative record for the proposed project. The approved
development permit is supported by the EIR which has evaluated the project average
monthly lifts of 15,660 in 2004. No additional actions are required to establish a
limit on operations of the expanded interrnodal facility or to enable Santa Fe to
achieve this capacity.
1-11 The comment is noted.
4
j
w
~
>
(,)
z
<
(,)
~
...J
<
-
a:
I-
r.n
::J
Cl
Z
-
I
.
C')
r
~
/ ~
,~ a
~ ~
.
~ ,
~
.
.: ~
.... ~
~
.
.
.
'"
,
~
~
~
-
.-
.c
.-
.c:
><
W
~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~
000 0 0 tJ
~ R N ~ ~ g d
1. The Inland Empire has very competitive wage rates,
owing the desire of many commuters to work closer to
home.
2. The region has large tracts of land and its industrial
space costs are relatively low.
3. Ontario International Airport gives firms easy access
to UPS. In the just-in-time inventory era, this
provides them with the means to either ship or receive
light weight cargo very rapidly.
4. Santa Fe's San Bernardino intermodal facility has begun
providing local firms with access to the means to
rapidly ship or receive heavier cargo.
When the expansion of Santa Fe's intermodal capability is combined
with Norton Air Force Base's potential as an air cargo and man-
ufacturing center, San Bernardino will have the infrastructure to
compete with any California area for both manufacturing firms and
goods distributors.
Santa Fe's intermodal facility is thus capable of directly replacing
some of the primary jobs lost because of the Norton closure. However,
over time and perhaps more importantly, the depot will help create
the conditions that will allow the community to draw sufficient
manufacturing and goods distribution firms to make the Norton closure
a memory.
5. Economic lmoact - All Santa Pe Ooerations
Santa Fe's impact on the economic base of San Bernardino comes from
all of its local operations. To calculate the railroad's total
impact, it is thus necessary to determine the impact its non-
intermoda1 functions. This means looking at two other expanding
operations.
1. In 1993, Santa Fe relocated its La Mirada automobile
collection and distribution operation to San Bernar-
dino. At this facility, Santa Fe delivers General
Motor's cars from the eastern United States for
distribution throughout Southern California. It also
receives rental cars collected from the region, and
moves them to the east.
For this operation, Santa Fe retains responsibility
for the interstate movement of the vehicles. Loading,
off-loading and local vehicle distribution is done by
Pacific Motor Trucking, Interrail and ITS corporations.
8
.,,'.._._..'.---,,-,..,......-,...'..-.._..-._.;.,- , > ......... ~ac~+!~yii.. ..
..-.....;.:. .~~.;!...;L:L.....:Bu!1get AsBUlllpti()Il~ - ,Auto
.,.-....'..".;.,.
Monthly
Occupltlon Rate Hours 1994 1995 1996
Plciflc Motor Trucking S45,OOO Slllry 300 300 300
Interrai l 6/Hr. 173 30 30 30
ITS 6/Hr. 173 30 30 30
security 8/Hr. 173 12 12 12
Santa Fe S"",rvl .or 60,000 Slllry I I I
Santa Fe Cr..... 40,000 Slllry 3 3 3
Non. Labor Operli I ng Expenses S1 ,400,000 S1 ,650,000 12,000,000
Automobl Ie Loading Chlnges 24.6X lOX
PMT Other Costs "' X of Labor Cost 20X
Saladed work.er Amuil Increases 3.5X
Hourl y Work.er Amuil Increases $0.50
In 1995, an average of 20,000 new and 9,000 used
vehicles should pass through San Bernardino a month.
The number will fluctuate from there depending on
Southern California automobile sales. Table 11 (prior
page) shows the budget assumptions for the Auto
Facility, assuming no change in personnel levels.
2. In 1994, Santa Fe also built a major west coast plastic
pellet receiving and distribution center in San Ber-
nardino. Plastic pellets are the raw material for
manufactured plastic products from sophisticated
medical instruments, to toys, plastic pipe and computer
casings. In a sense, they are the steel of the 1990s.
As they are made of petroleum, air quality consider-
ations dictate that they be produced outside of Cal-
ifornia.
At this Quality Distribution Center, Santa Fe handles
the interstate movement of the plastic pellets in
hopper cars. Off -loading and distribution is performed
by A&R Trucking. In 1994, 800 hopper cars were handled
at the site. In 1995, this is expected to rise to
1,100 hopper cars. Table 12 (next page) shows the
budget assumptions for the Quality Distribution Center.
9
................<~iity. ;::;:~:t;:nu~:n~::{;iat"i:;c..pelJ.:~~) ................. ....
Monthly
OC""",tlon Rite Houri 1994 1995 1996
A&R Truckll'lll $45,000 Slllry 80 100 110
Santi Fe Crews $40,000 slllry 3 3 3
AlII Other Costs "' % of Labor Cost 20%
Sllaried Worker Annual Increases 3 5%
HOUrly Worker Amull Increases SO 50
In addition to the operations above, Santa Fe also retains a central
operation in San Bernardino through which train crews move throughout
its system, track is maintained, security is planned, and other
administrative services are conducted. Table 13 (below) presents
the budget for these functions.
Tables 14 & 15 (next 2-pages) uses these assumptions to calculate
the permanent economic impact which Santa Fe's expansion of its
other San Bernardino operations will have on the region's economy
by 1996.
1. The automotive facility is assumed to remain at its
current level of 376 workers, with spending rising
from $18,726,656 to $20,642,794 (Table 14).
2. Quality Distribution plastic pellet center employment
will rise from 83 workers and a $4,464,000 budget to
113 workers and a $6,517,333 budget (Table 14).
..,'...._..-....'.'_._,.-,-..,.,'.....:...-,-,'.....'.......;....,-..-:--..;.,..-'-..--,.-.;...'.....-.:-.......-..-:............-;-.,....'..-'.-.;.;...-.................'..... ~.E~lllii.l~e.II.~i8
~~~~~~iS'#49'~;~E!~~~~#E!t
. .. ". .................................ti~9#i.... ....-......,......,.-,-.............................- ......;.... .,.-.-.-....................-..,.....
,...-....,'...,-.,.......... ...... ..-....,.:...:.:.,.:.y.,.,.:.:.;.:.:,:<.,.,.:.:.:,:.,.-,-,.'
........... ...... ...--......._.-:.,...,.:.,-;-,.,.,.,.:.:.:.,. ...,.........,-<-;.,..... .........-....... .
Month I Y
OC""",t ; on Rete Hours 1 994 1 995 1 996
Sent. F . C r_ S50 , 000 Avg Sa I ary 1 35 1 38 1 44
Cormuter Ra i l
Conat ruct ; on 50 , 000 AVlI Sa l ary 1 8 , 8 1 8
Cent ra I Cpo 45 , 000 AVlI Sa I ary 56 56 56
1 994 T ot. l Budget S25 , 000 , 00
AmuII I Budget 1 ncrelSes 3 5%
Other Costs equo I Tote I Budget l eo. l.bor Costs . no
So I ar ; eel ~orker AmuII I 1 nc reases 3 5%
3. The Santa Fe general overhead operation will move from
employment of 209 and a budget of $25,000,000 to 218
workers and a $25,875,000 budget (Table 14).
4. Total employment and budget in these three operations
will thus rise from 668 workers and $48,190,656 to 707
workers and $53,035,126 (Table 14).
10
'" 1il '"
8......... ~
"'.... a
ltl....
ltl...
~gi
o
o
o
ltl
Iii
l'3
....
0"'....0-
NO"'-Cll
ca.......,.lD
N~CllllS",
.....(00),...0)
,...CDU)C')""
,..: "'...:..
.... --
....
... cz~::~!:l
~ &t) &t)..... N CIS
~ . ~~ ~~ ~
fQ :g :g-~
....
i"'OO"''''....''''''g
"'''''''0.......'''0
ltlCllCllNNltl...'"
. . . . . . . <IT 0
::!i~~~:;~~:llg
~~ lliNN
..- -
...... ....
~
III
ClllllltlNN"''''Cll
Cll..O"'''''''.......
.-;:(\ILt)."U)NCI:)
> ..' .. '. ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..... ..
L.. ......... .. ~ ~ 0 0 N - '" '"
.. Cb C') C')..... .....
.. 'l! '"
~
....
. .
,
__ltl
","'0
IlllllN
.. gg~
.
"',..... ... '" '" '"
.. ...,. ..... lot) .....
_ _ N
ltlCll
&.~
... !.
E;
....
E;
....
0"''''
- -
- -
Ie
'"
. ...
.
III .. ~ ~ ~ ~
III ..'
... . t;; ~ a:; ll!
~ I,;:." CD.."'" ,...... CD
Cll ~ ~
..;>:
~
.- III 0
..-...... 0
~;~
u.. ... ...
C
o
1e;;8"'8
C') ~..... -
.c
'C
~
III
:gOgggg
III ~d"~g;
~.- g -........
....-. .
:!! gp~ ~
....0
.
.' 18!'31il}il88lHl8
r.nCl)co,........N.....lDO
. . . - <IT . . -
::!~(!;(!;::"'~g;;~
~ CD..'" oct C\I ............,..... CI)
_('I) lJ)N-
Ill- -
...... ....
~
.. III
~ l.ictlLt)....,cooo
!...... _e:t;;~~:;g~
..... Cl -ririro:<IT':
o~~ ~!---"'...
0= ~ f..
C'-:: I;:s;lOON-"''''
__co U Cbf'SMM..... .....
-ca:as'l! '"
l;CDll- ~
cll- 0 '"'
'-as'"
CD~ ::l
a:lt:<
c III
as(/)
(/) , ..
I
.
~
....
01
...
o
III
....
:g
o NON
o cn"C')
o 0.. co.. ""'"
III !;,l ;; ....
Iii '" III '"
~ ~ ag a
I-
o
I-
..~
NZ-
- 0 Cll
N '"
-
!c
a:
8w :8 8 :g
00."'_0.'"
00"'''' 0
8 ;;; :0 Cll
,::. a: - ai' -
l'Jw!l3-!2
....J:.... ...
5
...
~-~-~~g
..........CD_C')
....MOQ)Q)
......0> CD (0.....
,..: NO an
.... --
....
III
t:
o
-,;::
as.
..
CD
0.
o
00 III
(I);e~rn
C"':':cc
.2:g III ...
~.
CO) l!. '" '" '" N
o G C")..... 11)"'-
..... '0..... N
o
as
0'-08080
g G808o8
! ;g81il~~
... " ..... Cll III -. '"
;. ~ N5!~
..... ....
...
.. 88 g
....... !i g ~
. ~
~.i~:!!:811!
. _ l'i'i
......
............... z: c
..... _ 0
.....0..
" a: ........ I 2
. 00 ..... ~
!,= !elS 0
(.) s.. >(.)~=(,) 51 ·
.... Cl! ..J'! = l! C..J
.5'~ 8< 'Sl.!! =<,
11 c lii 5 '.. c ~ 0 ~l! 5'
2 W Q F ........ W ! F
1-'6"0 I '6 ~,!..o I
a:i.8.c!!3 iEc.8.c!!3
~Ul.s(5Ul Ul~~.s(5Ul
-
'"
'"
..OOOCCOO(OOO
to"''''CllOOlllOO
OCDtONOOCDOO
c5~gg~g~~~~
_M ..,.C\I-
Ill- -
-.... ....
~
...
"'1Il0"'''''''00
",..OllllllOOO
....IIO;O..,...CCOO
Cl'Ji<IT<lTlISc:io
@,.,._...........CD..
..
g8
:, i~-
......
III ...... 0'" '"
~ co co
W
..J .
a:l
<
I-
18
III
~ ~
~s;l~~~-"'le
'l!M '"
~
.
! :slID 1~
g~ III 1-<
=::1 '~cJ ~~
~.: !.ID 'lO'lO
~S ~.a OO~
UCl Ul~ ~~~
02:: ~~W !.~ 12
J;!l! 5..'6"00 I
]!Ullllii.8==!!3.
ll..5t:UlUlUl.sOOUl
.
..
1.15
Cl
.. ~ ~
.8.! l-
S (5 12
?
TABLE 15.-TOTALJOB & ECONOMIC IMPACT
.. Other Santa Fe Ooerations
Economic Household Total Dollar
Workers Activity Income Impact
.... 1994 ..>>.
.. ......
Labor 668 $28,516,656
Other Costs Q 19.674.000
Direct Impact 668 $48,190,656 $48,190,656
Multipliers - Rail 2.5229 1 .8794 0,6657
Second Tier Jobs 1,017
TOTAL IMPACT ......... ....... 1,685 $90,569,519 $32,080,520 $122,650,039
-,- .... ..... .. > .1995. .. .....)>
.......... . .... '.
Labor 691 $30,643,092
Other Costs 20.594.640
Direct Impact 691 $51,237,732 $51,237,732'
Multipliers-Rail 2.5229 1.8794 0.6657
Second Tier Jobs 1,052
TOTAL IMPACT /1.743 $96,296,194 $34,108,958 $130.405.152
........'...,..-...:::..
Annual. Growth 3.4" <6.3"
. ..... > --;..... ........... 1996........ .. . ..........> . ...
.....> ........
Labor 707 $32,558,006
Other Costs 20,477.120
Direct Impact 707 $53,035,126 $53,035,126
Multipliers-Rail 2.5229 1,8794 0,6657
Second Tier Jobs 1,077
TOTAL IMPACT 1,784 $99,674,217 $35,305,484 $134,979,700
Annual Growth 2.3" . 3.5"
Two- Year Growth .... . 5.8" <. 10.1 "
5. Including the impacts on firms in the secondary tier
of the region's economy, the intermodal facilities
entire impact will rise from 1,685 workers (1,017
secondary) and $122,650,039 to 1,784 workers (1,077
secon~) and $134,979,700 (Table 15).
NOTE: Other Santa pe operations will thus add 99 permanent
jobs into the econOlllY, an increase in employment
impact of 5.8% from 1994-1996. The total impact on
local firms and households will permanently rise by
$12,329,661 or 10.1%. The impact is relatively small
as the main growth of these operations occurred in
1993 and 1994.
Finally, in Table 16, the full economic impact of all of Santa Fe's
San Bernardino operations on the surrounding economy are combined
for the years 1994-1996.
1. From 1994 to 1996, total employment and budget
combined operations will rise from 2,592 workers
secondary) and $172,243,479 to 2,958 workers
secondary) and $196,044,624.
Thus, the total employment impact of Santa Fe will
grow by 366 jobs of 14.1t between 1994 and 1996. The
total impact on business revenues and household income
will grow by $23,801,511.
in the
(1,565
(1,786
2.
SUMMARY
Santa Fe's proposed expansion of its San Bernardino intermodal
facility, when combined with its recent automobile and plastic
pellet distribution facility will cause the firm to be permanently
responsible for $196.0 million in local business activity and
household income, and will directly and indirectly be supporting _
2,958 jobs by 1996. In addition, $62.2 million in construction
expenditures, during the 1995 and 1996 period, will temporarily
increase area economic activity by an average of $91.6 million per
year, and support an average of 746 workers.
Beyond the increases in regional employment and earnings for San
Bernardino, the advantage of having Santa Fe expand its intermodal
operations is the lure which the site will provide for manufacturers
and distributors. In an era of "just-in-time" inventory controls,
Santa Fe's intermodal depot together with the San Bernardino In-
ternational Airport will make a powerful combination to companies
concerned about rapidly responding to their customers.
11
TABLE 16.- TOTAL JOB & ECONOMIC IMPACT
All Santa Fe Operations
Economic Household Total Dollar
Worlcers Activity Income Impact
1994 ..
Labor 1 ,0'Zl $42,984,636
Other Costs Q 24,691.872
Direct Impact 1 ,0'Zl $67,676,508 $67,676,508
Multipliers-Rail 2,5229 1,8794 0.6657
Second Tier Jobs 1.565
TOTAL IMPACT 2,592 $127,191,228 $45,052,251 $172,243,479
. .. . 1995 >i>> ... >>i .... .........i..... ..
.
Labor 1,090 $46,933,333
Other Costs 25.933.830
Direct Impact 1,090 $72,867,164 $72,867,164
Multipliers-Rail 2,5229 1,8794 0.6657
Second Tier Jobs 1,660
TOTALIMPACT 2,749 $136,946,548 $48,507,671 $185.454,218
Annual Growth 6.1% . ... 7.7"1.
. ........... .> .... . .....,996 .. ..... · ........ >>>.i ..... i
Labor 1,173 $51,620,151
Other Costs 25.408.109
Direct Impact 1,173 $77,028,260 $77,028,260
Multipliers -Rail 2.5229 1,8794 0.6657
Second Tier Jobs 1,786
TOTAL IMPACT 2,958 $144,766,912 $51,277,713 $196,044,624
Annual Growth 7.6'% 5.7%
Two-Year Growth 14.1% 13.8"1.
EXHIBIT 5
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Ref.#: A366-000
Dictated: May 2, 1995
Transcribed: May 24, 1995
Commissioner Traver: Will call the Planning Commission of May 2 to order. Carol
Thrasher would you lead us in the salute to the flag please, Please stand,
All: Pledge to the flag.
Commissioner Traver: Would those who intend to give statements and testimony to the
Planning Commission please rise to be administered the oath, Anyone who feels they
might give testimony before the Commission please rise.
Ms. Ross: Please raise your right hand, Do you solemnly affinn that the testimony you are
about to give before this body will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth if
so please say I do.
All: I do
Ms. Ross: Thank you
Commissioner Traver: Thank you, Mr, Director have you a report?
Mr. Boughey: Yes, Mr. Chainnan, Good evening Planning Commission, I would just like
to mention a few things. First I would like to introduce Mrs, Willie Brue, new
appointment to the Planning Commission, appointed by Counselman Hernandez just
yesterday I believe, yes at the council meeting, Commissioner Melendez moved out of
town therefore he resigned his position and seat on the commission, So we welcome you
and will be in contact with you to coordinate with you staff and give you some reading
material, But, welcome to the Planning Commission. Thank you for serving, I should also
note that Donald Kipp has submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission, I
don't know why I haven't reviewed the letter yet but he has submitted it. At the meeting
yesterday Mayor and Common Council adopted a resolution determining that
comprehensive airport land use planning could occur in the vicinity of Norton Airforce
Base and that the city should be primarily responsible for it, Just for some background
infonnation, back up till 1993 the State of California required all counties to have airport
land use commission. Each county was to appoint one to oversee all the land use planning
on airports in 1993 because no one was really doing it in this anywhere in this state they
abolished that requirement and all the cities and the county of San Bernardino passed
resolution saying that we didn't want it anymore. So, let's abolish it on paper which we
did. The legislator and his wisdom came back and restated the requirement to have airport
land use Planning Commission in the county, They did provide the legislation this time an
1
1-':
alternative where as if a community has an alternative approach of planning for land use in
the vicinity of the airport and all the jurisdictions of county concur that you don't have to
create a county wide Commission another bureaucracy but you can basically go through
and adopt your journal plans and your development regulations to comply with the airport
and use planning guidelines, That would suffice, Counsel along with the other Counsels of
I believe all of the Municipalities in the county plus the County Council, County Board of
Supervisors passed resolution, we passed our version of it, in that we agreed to do the
proper airport land use planning in the vicinity of airport and amend our development code
and journal plans, So, you will be seeing that in the next year or so. That is what happened
at Counsel yesterday, We sent you a notice for an introductory CEQA workshop Carol
Thrasher, John Traver and Tom Hamilton have confirmed they would like to attend,
Please let Lynn know if anyone else is interested in attending the workshop CEQA 101.
So, I believe you all have received the information on that. This is Thursday May 11, at
the County Museum, Reminders City Hall's Open House will be held on Friday May 12,
1995 from 4-8 p,m, in the Court Street Square, Department of Planning and Building
Services will be represented, Hope you can attend, That is all I have tonight sir.
Commissioner Traver: Thank you Mr, Director. Now is the time for public comments for
items that are not on the agenda, Not on the agenda, The agenda has been posted, you
know what is coming up, If there is anyone in the public, in the audience who wishes to
speak on an issue that is not on the agenda, Yes sir. Were you sworn in sir? Please state
your name and your address and as always let me remind you'individual testimony on
agenda items or non agenda items will strictly be limited to five minutes per person,
Thank you my name is John Ragsdale, 3756 Osbon Rd., San Bernardino, Ca 92404, I
would like to take part of my five minutes to offer best wishes to Mayor Tom Miner a fast
recovery, I don't know what will happen when the wrecking ball strikes the wall for the
final time down there, There probably won't be anybody that will tremble,
Commissioner Traver: What are you speaking to Mr, Ragsdale? What issue?
Mr, Ragsdale: I am speaking to the Heritage of the Santa Fe Railroad.
Commissioner Traver: That is on the agenda, That will come up and you will have a time
to do that.
Mr, Ragsdale: I didn't know whether that was separate,
Commissioner Traver: No, no these are for items not on the posted agenda,
Mr, Ragsdale: So the heritage would be there,
Commissioner Traver: That is coming up,
Mr, Ragsdale: I didn't know whether that was....
2
Commissioner Traver: No, you will have a chance, Those who wish to speak we have a
form that you can fill out that would help us, Valerie raise your hand please, I think you
have the forms, if you haven't please fill one out and we will know who, where, and
Thank you Mr, Ragsdale. Is there anyone else that would wish to speak of an item not on
the agenda. We will close Public Comment on items not on the agenda, Planning
Commission any Commissioners that wish to speak to an item not on the agenda, Mr.
Affaitati,
Mr, Affaitati: I had requested quite awhile back in regards to the Baseline and south to 7th
Street regarding used car, Wondering if anything has gotten back it has been several
months? From Baseline South on "E" Street to Seventh, '
Mr, Hays: Mr. Chairman if! may answer Mr, Affaitati's question on that,
Commissioner Traver: Assistant Planning Director
Mr, Hays: As I indicated at your last Commission meeting, I am working on that with
EDA and I anticipate having a report back, hopefully it will be at your next Commission
meeting. So, I assure you I am working on that issue.
Mr, Affaitati: Good, so next week I will be able to have something from you or EDA in
regards to that, one way or the other.
Mr, Hays: Yes sir
Mr, Affaitati: Thanks, One other item that I would like to direct staff to is a particular
address on Arrowhead Avenue 1349 N, Arrowhead, I need either staff or the Code
Enforcement agency, whoever inspect that address, I want to know what you find, It
started with one tow truck and we have a tow truck, we have some vehicles parked all
over the yard, A tent out front and Arrowhead is a main street.
We will check into it. Don't ever hesitate any Commissioner anyone in the public, if you
see a problem in the community call right into Code Enforcement,
Mr. Affaitati: One a week I am going to bring you, OK
Commissioner Traver: Thank you Mr, Affaitati, any other Commissioners, We will close
comments on non agenda items, Now we come to the Consent Agenda items that are
considered to be non controversial, Tonight the only item on the Consent Agenda is
Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 1995, Mr, Empeno,
Mr, Empeno: Mr, Chairman I don't believe you can take action on that since five
Commissioners were present at that meeting and one of those five Commissioners aren't
3
here tonight so I suggest delaying that and it will brought back to the agenda next
meeting,
Commissioner Traver: Thank you, My next question was going to ask you if they were
here, Thank you, Nothing on the Consent Agenda. We will move to the Agenda, If there
are things here tonight Commissioners normally that we don't meet with but we are going
to cover them and we will start out with the Staff report, Deborah,
Deborah Woldruff: Item (I) is the Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project:
Development Permit No, 94-24 & Demolition No, 93-,01. The project is to approve a
development permit to expand the 25 acre intermodal facility which exists on the West
side ofMt. Vernon over onto the adjacent 50 acre side which is the Eastern portion of the
Santa Fe A yard on the East side ofMt. Vernon Ave, The expansion will involve the
installation of SO acres of pavement for semi-trailer storage and construction ofa 10,000
sq. ft, truck Maintenance Facility, new tracks for trailer transfer and concrete maintenance
path for servicing gantry cranes and side loaders, The application also includes also as I
mentioned the demolition permit application, The request is to approve of the demolition
of the 53 buildings which constitute the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe railway
maintenance shop area, The removal of the buildings will facilitate the expansion of the
ATSF Intermodal facility expansion. The ATSF A yard both the west and the east sides
are located generally on the south side of 4th street west of Mt. Vernon and about 70 ft
south of 5th street on the east side ofMt, Vernon and it extends southward to the
mainlines for the Metrolink and the Santa Fe and it extends from just west of the 215 frwy
all the way over to Mt. Vernon for the project area and the existing facility as I said the
west side of the Mt. Vernon overpass, The project elements are a demolition permit for
the 53 buildings and it is phased into demolition, construction, remediation and then the
project operations, I pretty much have already covered the demolition, I should mention
that of the 53 buildings that exist, one of those is the Santa Fe Smoke Stack building, 29
of the buildings are SO years or older and of those 18 have been found to be of historical
significance and the remaining 24 are non historic, The construction portion of the project
following demolition would involve the construction of the 10,000 square foot
maintenance building, construction oflong strip railroad tracks, paving of the SO acres for
intermodal container storage and the concrete maintenance path for the gantry cranes and
the side loaders, The project also accommodates remediation of existing soil and
groundwater contamination that is left on the site as a result of the maintenance operations
for the railroad, The Regional Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction over this
aspect of the project and in 1988 they issued a clean-up and abatement order #88-80, The
EIR for this project does identify the conceptual remediation plan that was prepared for
the clean-up and identifies how clean-up mayor may not impact the project, The operation
of the site would involve a transfer facility for local freight traffic which is shipped long
distance by rail, At full operation it would involve about a 150 round trips per day that is
projected somewhere about ten years into the future. The majority of the site on the east
side ofMt, Vernon would be used for semi-trailer intermodal container storage, There is a
10 foot set back along the north property line and the site plan includes a SO foot distance
between the front property line to the first parking row for the storage area, This was
4
included in the site plan purposely to provide some buffer between the project and the
properties to the north, Primary access for the site is through the 4th street entrance about
a 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile west ofMt. Vernon Avenue and would not involve 5th Ave, or
5th St. at all. The operations would be 24 hours for the site, An environmental document
was prepared for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act, The project
EIR was scoped through an initial study, The initial study evaluated all of the required
topics in the CEQ A check list and it identified that air quality, noise, water resources,
transportation circulation, and cultural resources needed to be further examined in the
project EIR, The draft EIR was prepared and went out for public review from February
21, 1995 through April 7, 1995 and the draft EIR was available during the period for
public review at the Feltime Library and on the 3rd floor at the Planning Counter it is still
actually available if anyone would like to look the document over, We have with us to help
with the presentation of the project some staff person's as well as some of the project
proponents, At this time I would like to introduce Paul Kielhold with Lilburn Corporation.
Paul Kielhold is staff's environmental consultant who aided staff in reviewing the project
EIR and what he is going to help summarize is the significant project impacts of the EIR
identified that can not be mitigated.
Paul Kielhold: Good evening, The conclusions of the draft EIR is that the project as
proposed has significant environmental effects that can not be mitigated below a
significance through the application of conditions of approval or existing rules and
regulations, Those effects are the short-term and long-term nitrous oxide emissions due to
the demolition phase of the project as well as the operation of the site, There will also be a
long-term noise impact that can not be mitigated. This is due in combination to the
projects incremental increase in accumulative traffic as well as the growth of traffic in the
city. The noise standard that the city has can not be met with the regional growth and the
project as proposed, The last significant unmitigated environmental effect is the loss of the
eligible historic structures of the site, The final EIR has changes from those that were in
the draft as primarily due to new mitigation measures that were identified by public works,
The new measures are in the errata, they should be in your staff report, Quite simply Santa
Fe is required a greater share of the traffic improvements at an earlier point in time than
was contemplated when the draft EIR was circulated, By requiring that then the
conclusion in the draft EIR that the cumulative effect that the traffic was unmitigatable is
changed in the final, it is mitigatable and that means you have new mitigation measures in
your report as well, Shall I talk in response to comments now or
Ms. Woldruff: Yes if you would like to go on to that. Thank you,
Paul Kielhold: The final EIR is volume IV, the first three volumes were the draft, we
received eleven letters of comment on the draft EIR they are included in the final as are
the errata and the response to those comments were contained here, Real briefly, the
majority of the comments were informational, they did not require changes to the EIR,
The comment from Skagg was informational, Public works of course led to the change in
the mitigation measure, CaI Trans required a minor clarification, Then there were five
letters of the eleven were regarding saving the smokestack, Not specifically on the
5
environmental document but on the project. So, they are in here for the record for your
use, Most of the other agency comments were just informational, they are items that Santa
Fe would need to comply with to meet the rules and regulations of those agencies, The
mitigation monitoring program is required to implement the conditions of approval in the
project we have mitigation measures identified in the EIR that are incorporated as
conditions of approval for the project in addition to other city standard conditions. Those
measures are required by law to be monitored to make sure that they are implemented and
to make sure they are affective. If they don't workout the way they were intended, they
can be modified, That plan is part of the final EIR that you have. It includes both the
mitigation measures that were identified in the initial study or those items not addressed in
the EIR as well as those that were subsequently identified in the draft EIR, That is my
presentation,
Ms, Woldruff: Thank you Paul.
Commissioner Traver: You wish to ask a question at this time?
Mr, Gonzalez: Yes, Mr, Chairman
Commissioner Traver: Mr, Gonzalez
Mr, Gonzalez: In the event, can we have the Engineer back up in front please. Your first
point that the mitigation of the toxins, as far as asbestos, formaldehyde and carbon, What
are the monoparticles that are going to be released into the environment.
Mr, Hays: Mr. Chairman if! may interrupt? What I suggest since this is a rather complex
project this evening, there are many parts of it that we allow all presenters to make there
presentations and both the staff and the",."", to make presentation, Open the Public
Hearing and then I suggest Commissioners ask their individual questions at that point and
time. Otherwise I am afraid that we are going to start getting into a dialogue without
hearing the full presentation of what the project entails this evening,
Commissioner Traver: I agree with you Mr, Hays, Mr. Gonzalez I looked over this. Again
this is some things that we haven't, a process that we have not gone through before, Let's
hear the whole project.
Mr, Gonzalez: Well Mr, Chairman this, my question it is a valid question, Through the
chair to the staff,
Commissioner Traver: I am sure it will be a valid question, let's hear the whole thing and
then come back with it.
Mr, Gonzalez: all right, Thank you,
Commissioner Traver: If Commissioner's can handle that, let's hear the whole thing and
move from there, Thank you Mr, Hays.
6
Mr, Affaitati: Once you have a problem with it, in regards to the chair may be
understanding a particular individual and having him clarify his explanation,
Commissioner Traver: The chair will allow that to come back Mr, Affaitati no problem,
Ms, Woldrutf: The project EIR was prepared by Tom Dodson of Tom Dodson &
Associated, Mr, Dodson is going to explain the statement of Overriding Considerations
that as prepared for the project EIR,
Mr, Dodson: Mr, Chairman and ladies and gentleman of the Commission, You have a
document that you don't normally see in front of you this evening that is called a
Candidate facts finding Statement of Overriding Considerations for this project, It is a
requirement of California environmental quality act that if a decision making body is going
to approve a project that has significant impacts identified that you are required to balance
the significant adverse impacts that are identified with the project benefits that occur to a
community from approving the project, In this instance we prepared a rather lengthy set of
facts findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration to make sure that all those
issues were laid out in front of you and in detail and simply stated what this document
does is takes you through five sections. It says here is the project description in summary,
it then says here are the impacts that were identified in the initial study that were identified
to be mitigated below significant level or non significant in their own right. It then goes
through those impacts that are significant and what mitigation measures have been
identified to make them either non significant such as the case with accumulative traffic
impact or those residual or remaining significant impacts are identified, It then evaluates
the alternatives that were contained in the environmental impact report and says; can these
alternatives reduce the impacts that were identified to a non significant level. Finally, it
says in this document; here are the project benefits that you have to weight against the
project itself in making your decision on the project and then finally there is this language
that is crafted that says; here is why the Planning Commission can make a decision to
approve this project based upon weighing and balancing the benefits versus the significant
impacts, We have offered this to you folks as a Candidate facts and findings it goes
through and summarizes the whole environmental document in one setting and provides
for the Commissioners the opportunities to see all the facts and findings in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations in one place. I will be more than happy to go into more
detail or answer any other questions you have. I think that gives you an overview of what
the document contains,
Commissioner Traver: Thank you. Let's try to get all the presentations done, We will
make our notes and come back and cover some questions. Unless somebody really up
here..... Thank you Mr, Dodson, Deborah,
Ms, W oldrutf: Yes, at this time staff has completed its presentation, If you would like to
open the Public Hearing at this point and hear the applicants presentation.
7
~, -..,
<
Commissioner Traver: Mr. Gonzalez, Would you allow me to open the Public and then
you can have at your question. We will open it to Public Hearing and we may hear from
the applicant please,
Bob Brendza: Good evening, Mr, Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, My
name is Bob Brendza I manage the Industrial Development Department for the Santa Fe
Railway for the State of California, My address is 740 E, Carnegie Dr., San Bernardino, I
was raised and grew up in San Bernardino and have worked for Santa Fe for over 14
years, Approximately three years ago we were all uncertain about the future of Santa Fe in
this area, It was a discouraging time for San Bernardino and it was a discouraging time for
Santa Fe. Many saw it as the end of an era, Tonight we are writing the final paragraph of a
new chapter for the future. The project before you reestablishes Santa Fe as an integral
part of San Bernardino's economy, It is the final piece in an 80 million dollar investment in
San Bernardino and Santa Fe's future. In 1993 we dedicated the General Motor's
automotive distribution facility and it cost us about 25 million dollars and the facility
supports about 400 jobs. In 1994 we opened a quality distribution center for distribution
of plastic pellets at a cost of about 5 million dollars and supporting about 80 jobs and we
are currently modernizing our existing intermodal facility and the related trackage, With
this expansion to the 50 acre parcel. Santa Fe's San Bernardino Intermodal Facility will
emerge as a key west coast hub for freight distribution. The project has involved
significant planning, study and coordination, With me tonight are some of the many people
that have been involved in this project, This expansion project establishes San Bernardino
as a strategic intermodal hub for the Santa Fe railway, It can be viewed as the comer stone
of potential future development for the west side, It takes non productive blighted
industrial land and makes it useful and productive again, It provides a 130 good paying,
permanent jobs and it will draw industry and business back to San Bernardino, We took
some time to put together a binder describing our project and the benefits that I am sure
you all have, We are prepared to answer any questions that you may have tonight. We at
Santa Fe are proud to have this opportunity to participate in the Renaissance of the San
Bernardino's economy, Preparation of this project has taken nearly two years of hard
work by many. We appreciate the professionalism of staff and we are grateful for the
support of the people of San Bernardino. It is not very often you get the opportunity to
represent a project that will help revitalize your hometown, It is a special pleasure for me
to stand before you tonight on behalf of Santa Fe Railway and ask for approval of this
renovation project, A project we can all take pride in for decades to come. Thank you, I
would like to ask we have a number of technical people in the audience, I would like to
ask for the opportunity to address the Commission if they have any questions after the
Public Comment period is over if! may,
Commissioner Traver: Certainly, Mr. Gonzalez, Chair recognizes your question,
Mr, Gonzalez: OK let's skip back to the EIR, my question is to your staff is about toxins,
lets talk about the three categories formaldehyde, asbestos and carbon, My question is sir
is do not particles that are going to be released in the environment...........,.... , (was not
near microphone)
8
~ -- ~
Mr, Kielhold: Let me clarify the statement I made regarding the significant effects were for
short-term generation and long-term generation of No x in emission from the engines
running, it is not a toxic compound in a sense like formaldehyde, There is no formaldehyde
anticipated to be generated by this project. Asbestos has been removed from the buildings
in an ongoing basis and in fact may even be concluded at this time, Two more buildings
left to remediate the asbestos on, Because of the small of amount of asbestos remaining to
be removed and the existing regulations for those removals the licensed contractors
disposing in permitted facilities it was not thought that there would be significant effects
from asbestos removal at alL That was not addressed in the EIR, it is part of the cities
conditions of approval that the removal be conducted according to existing health
regulations, therefore we don't expect any adverse health affects due to the asbestos
removal, Formaldehyde addressed", well really the third one was really air quality impact.
The south coast air management district has a half dozen or so criteria pollutants for which
there are thresholds of significance. This project when implemented both in the demolition
phase and in the operational phase will exceed the south coast air quality management
districts thresholds for NOx generation and therefore our conclusion in the EIR is that is a
significant air quality effect, Anything else,
Mr, Gonzalez: Mr, Chairman if! please, So, therefore the only toxic that is necessary for
long-term monitoring is the carbon, So, you knocked off two, you knocked off
formaldehyde and you knocked off asbestos,
Mr. Kielhold: No, no we are not talking about monitoring either, The projections we have
indicate the project will exceed the thresholds of significance and therefore you have to
make the findings of the projects benefits outweigh a significant environmental effects and
those were two of the effects that were found to be unmitigatable, A project of this scale
with this much traffic is likely to exceed that threshold for not. It did not exceed
thresholds for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, the other criteria pollutants only the
nitrous oxide,
Mr. Gonzalez: So, therefore what is going to be monitored, You said, you discussed that
one of the impacts would be long-term monitoring,
Mr. Kielhold: There are existing soil contamination at the site and that solid contamination
is being remediated under an order of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board and part of the projects benefit if you will, is to remove the structure so the soil can
be excavated and extraction wells be placed underneath particularly the shop buildings,
That order is independent of the project before the city, It is under an order Santa Fe is
under order by from the Regional Board to cleanup that soil contamination, Now those
emissions from the soil contamination are captured by the system of wells that will be
installed when the buildings are removed, Is that the other source of emissions you were
talking about.
Mr, Gonzalez: So, my understanding so there is a requirement for water quality, Correct.
That is going to be the long-term monitoring,
9
qc:
Mr, Kielhold: Yes, that will be monitored,
Mr, Gonzalez: How about the plume into the water table.
Mr, Kielhold: That is part of the cleanup order of Santa Ana,
Mr, Gonzalez: So, plume is in what direction then that exist.
Mr. Kielhold: Towards the south and south west primarily,
Mr, Gonzalez: So, can you give me some boundaries on that please as far as street
location, The plume of....
Mr Dodson: Mr. Chairman may I assist Paul? Just so you will know Paul reviewed my
work and I did the writing and perhaps I can clarify two issues, But, let's deal with the
specific question you just raised Commissioner Gonzalez, If you will refer to figure 4.4-1
which is on page 4-49 of the EIR, You will see a graphic which shows the extent of the
plume contamination, The answer to your question is that the concentration that would be
considered above the levels that have to be cleaned up are all within the property
boundary, They just barely touch the third street extension. So, you are will within the
property boundary with any of the plume contamination that is of concern and that is
shown on this graphic. I would also like to quickly, 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-3 is the plumes,
Primarily they are on Santa Fe property. The project if approved and implemented would
remove the existing structures, Put an asphalt cap over the site and the cap would then
trap the vapors in the soil, allow them to be captured by the wells, Primarily it is all the
Santa Fe property,
Commissioner Traver: I think you have answered the three questions the Mr. Gonzalez
asked,
Mr, Dodson: I just wanted to clarify an issue because I think Commissioner Gonzalez has
eluded to toxic emissions and what I want to do is make a distinction if! may to the
Commission, There are criteria pollutants which are not considered toxic which are
admitted by most combustion engines whether they be railroad engines or car engines,
Those emissions are related to or generally called nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and
hydro carbons in various forms and now generally called reactive organic gases (ROG) is
the acronym for it. Those are not considered toxic emissions and I want to make very
clear to the Commissioners that as far as we can tell the only concern we had with this
whole project was the potential for lead to exceed standards at the boundary of the
property and we were able to identify measures to control and ensure that the lead
standard didn't exceed any threshold known that is considered to be a health hazard at all.
So, there is none, but specifically to come back and answer your question sir, Nitrogen
oxide which is the pollutant of concern or ROG is not considered a toxic emission in and
of itself unless it gets inordinately high which is not associated with this project,
10
~ -::-.
Commissioner Traver: Mr. Gonzalez
Mr, Gonzalez: Thank you Mr Dodson I feel very comfortable as long as the plume does
not exceed the property boundaries and exceed into the community boundaries and the
way that you explained it that it will be long-term monitored, I am comfortable with it.
Mr, Dodson: The project accommodates the conceptual remediation plan as approved by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Commissioner Traver: Questions by, would you like to hear a Public Comment before we
do anything, Is there anybody else Deborah that you think we need to hear from for
informational purposes so that everybody is on board and knows what is going on?
Ms. Woldruff: I think if the applicant has anyone else that they would like to speak, But,
apparently not so.
Commissioner Traver: They said they would respond to any questions as needed, I have
one request to speak for the approval, Mr, Ragsdale,
Mr, Ragsdale: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes for the approval
Commissioner Traver: John Ragsdale 3756 Osbon Rd
Mr. Ragsdale: Thank you, Because the Santa Fe has contributed so much to the cities
heritage and I would like to focus my remarks on that heritage in the hopes that some way
the Santa Fe and the Commission and the Counsel might be able to create a heritage
center for San Bernardino, Ifwe can afford a baseball park that will serve a six months out
of the year, I think we could afford a heritage center that would express appreciation to
the Santa Fe with best wishes for its present and the future, I think it would serve San
Bernardino well, In this heritage center I wonder how many of the audience know who..,
well let's word it differently, how many in this audience know how the city ofPerris got
its name, Perris Lake.
Commissioner Traver: The engineer that laid out the railroad,
Mr, Ragsdale: Fred Perry and that is why you are chairman,
Commissioner Traver: No, I helped them celebrate this weekend,
Mr, Ragsdale: I just hope the boys and girls of the future of San Bernardino will realize
that Fred Perry do you know his occupation? Main occupation,
Commissioner Traver: Tell us Mr, Ragsdale please,
11
Mr, Ragsdale: Santa Fe Engineer, He helped layout the tracks across the home summit. I
understand he helped layout the first grid locks for the streets of San Bernardino, But, it
goes beyond that, I was going to mention that when the wrecking ball hits the shop of
those walls that there is going to be anybody out there in the dust watching, Obviously it
would be too dangerous. But, those people who really care about it won't be there either,
most of them because they are now under the ground, But, I think it would be nice for the
boys and girls and the citizens of San Bernardino to know the history of the shops and the
history of that facility during the war and the service that it gave our community, How
many people were employed there full-time during the war? What was the payroll there
during the war? I think we should remember those things, that is tradition and that is
heritage and a heritage center. That is my focus. Don't you know those names would
really ring out there with the Ching's an the Chow's and the Sullivan's and O'Sullivan's
and the Henise's and the Parison's it there wasn't any concern about race or creed or
religion, Santa Fe brought us all together if! could change that emblem up there in
anyway. That engine that is going through down there I would like to put Santa Fe on it
or the Super Chief A few more things in our heritage, How many people know what a
Herold is or a drum head? It should be in the center. How many know the herold of the
Super Chief or the EI Capitan? Speaking of names Charles Walker's books should be in
the center, he is still around, I even think Cacey Jones should make it, I realize he is not
Santa Fe but he is part of railroading and he kind of crosses all the boundaries, he was part
of Illinois central I believe and that is fate down in Mississippi someday, somewhere down
in there, But the heritage of the Santa Fe is so wonderful and so terrific and somebody will
say that is all in the past let's forget it, It doesn't mean anything anymore, I don't believe
that because we would not be here tonight if not for the past. Would we? In a little while
this whole meeting will be a part of the past. What I am saying will be part of the past,
Someone has worded this way and I am going to come to a close because thank you for
my five minutes, someone said the past isn't gone it isn't even past yet and I like to think
of it that way, it is a continuous thing and we are adding to it tonight. So my plea is to
consider the possibility that Santa Fe, the Commission, the City Counsel as we plan for the
future and best wishes for the Santa Fe and San Bernardino City for the future that we
won't forget the past
1
Commissioner Traver: Mr. Ragsdale will you close please your time is up sir.
Mr, Ragsdale: Will think in terms of a heritage center for San Bernardino, Thank you sir,
Commissioner Traver: And they can also put in there the definition of a main train, Pastor
Ray Rosales. Would you state your name and address please,
Pastor Rosales: Father Ray Rosales of Our Lady of Guadalupe, 1430 W. 5th Street, San
Bernardino, I have been there for seven years already, Born and raised on Colton named
after a railroad conductor expert, Simply that my community, my perish has been impacted
by the moving of Santa Fe, I know get letters from Topica Kansas from former
parishioners who wish they could come home, the only consolation is the perish over there
that they belong to is named Our Lady Guadalupe, That is a consolation, We share a long
12
history the church and Santa Fe, Santa Fe a hundred years, the Guadalupe church has been
there for seventy years and the hall that was built there used during world war I at the
time, Was built by, I don't know if they donated the lumber but we sure had some lumbar
from Santa Fe, Simply that I think it would be wonderful, it would impact our community
again in a very positive way, the jobs, the cleaning of the blight that is still there and if you
could fix the whistle of Santa Fe I think my schedule would be very very much", I will be
able to eat exactly at 12 like I used to, Anyway, I think it is a very wonderful, hopeful
addition that we can share with the Santa Fe railroad another one hundred years in this
city. So, as far as I speak for our perish, Please consider that and it would be a very
positive move for the whole community. Good night.
Commissioner Traver: Thank you. Mr. Wirth, Give your name and address please,
Mr, Wirth: My name is James Wirth I am a native and life time resident of San Bernerdino
1980 N, Sierra Way, San Bernardino. The railroad and Santa Fe Industries have always
been an integral and important part of the city San Bernardino and its history. The
proposal tonight would destroy an entire historic district, Quoting from page three ofthe
city staff report 18 buildings have been identified as historic significant and eligible for
registration as Federal, State or Local historic structures, The portion of the site that the
18 buildings occupy is eligible for designation as a historic district. These findings were
made by professional paid historians specifically selected to evaluate this project. The
findings confirm statements made contained in the city of San Bernardino's general plan
regarding the significance of those buildings, To recognize the significance of the buildings
as it has been pointed out we just have to look at the city's seal to see how much
importance the railroad has been in San Bernardino. Quoting page 14 of the staff report
paragraph 2, The conflict between proposed demolition and the goals of historic and
archeological resources element ofthe general plan can not be fully resolved, The choices,
given you do understand you do have options available to you, The choices available to
decision makers are all trade off's in one way or another. If the project is implemented as
proposed significant historic resources will be lost. End of quote, The staff report notes
the expansion site contains 53 structures. Quoting page 4, All of the structures will be
removed as part of the development of the site, The question of paramount importance to
this commission tonight is how will they be removed? Alternatives do exist to demolition
to accomplish removal of the buildings from the site. Again quoting page 4, The applicant
indicates that demolition will be phased and will precede from the east side of the site to
the west side. The demolition process will probably take about eight months to complete,
End of Quote. This is the first public meeting that citizens have been invited to participate
in, I am a member of the California Preservation Foundation, it is a state wide organization
of Architects, Engineers, Attorney's, Urban Planners, Historian's and Preservationists,
The Preservation Foundation is comprised of some of the top men and women in their
fields in the country. As it would happen our 20th annual state wide conference is being
held in Riverside, June 1st through the 4th less than a month away, I believe all parties
involved in this project would like to find an equitable solution, resolution to mitigate as
much as they possibly can of the adverse impacts, I beg of you then to consider my two
part request. 1) on June I st through the 4th allow some of the very top Architects,
13
,<
Engineer's and Structural Engineer's in California on to the Santa Fe site permitting them
to determine the feasibility of relocating the most important historic structures, 2) If you
do approve demolition, make us a condition of demolition that the 18 historic of the 53
structures to be demolished be the last buildings destroyed, This would afford
communities from throughout California an opportunity to make reuse of these important
National register qualified structures. The potential exists, if you recall the London Bridge
was able to be relocated from London, England to Lake Havasu, Arizona and it has been a
tremendous success, Historically significant buildings have a terrific potential to function
as tourist attractions and thus generate employment, revenues and additional tax dollars in
addition to the importance of the heritage in general, Which we heard earlier from the
previous speaker, Should relocation sites exist particular in the city of San Bernardino as
we all know there are many vacant lots even within our downtown area. At stake is the
destruction of tremendous, irreplaceable resources, I beg of you then to consider my
simple two part request. Allow the experts when they are here June 1 st through the 4th to
make a determination on the Santa Fe site of the feasibility of relocating those buildings
and make a mitigation measure if you do adopt demolition that the 18 historic of the 53
buildings that will be demolished will be the last ones, So, that there is ample opportunity
if there is any community including San Bernardino that would like to relocate those
buildings that they have a chance to do so. I thank you,
Commissioner Traver: Thank you Mr. Wirth.
Mr, Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman
Commissioner Traver: Yes, Mr, Gonzalez
Mr, Gonzalez: Please, the 18 buildings that we are talking about, do you have any
description, do you have any photo's, do you have.", I would like to know what 18
buildings you are talking about,
Mr. Wirth: The 18 buildings that I am referring to are within the staff report and also are
sighted specifically in the Environmental Impact Report they include the Round House,
the Whistle, the Smoke Stack and I can't give you the list of all of them but I am sure staff
has them and can refer you to the exact buildings.
Commissioner Traver: Mr. Gonzalez they are all identified.
Mr. Gonzalez: Well I would like to see them
Commissioner Traver: Now, now sir.
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes, please in any event if you could save one building which would it be,
Mr, Wirth: From what my perception has been, from what I was told by structural
engineer, I spoke with earlier this afternoon, That the round house is conceivable in
14
relocating it as it being a wooden structure it being the easiest one to remove and one that
the community itself has given allot of consideration of the preservation of There were
three specifically noted in the Sun newspaper that citizens asked Santa Fe and the city to
give the most consideration to that was the Smoke Stack whistle, the Station and the
Round house particularly it is a unique building very interesting and would be very
educational for our youth and very worth while as a cultural and historic attraction in our
community if it could be relocated and as I say redevelopment agency owns a many
parcels of land in the city of San Bernardino, many of them not utilized at all, Many of
them vacant lots filled with weeds, there is a good potential for relocation of some of
those buildings ofreal importance to our city and to our history and to everyone here and
give us a chance to work with that. The experts that I am referring to from the California
Preservation Foundation are just that, some of the top people in the country and they
would be willing I am sure, I will make the motion before our meeting to come to this
particular site with the permission of Santa Fe and they will give a very impartial and a
very comprehensive feasibility of relocating those buildings, give a chance to save our
cities history that Santa Fe has been such a big part of
Commissioner Traver: O,K. any
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman just one final question. To you sir, do you know of any
Round House in the country that has been relocated somewhere, railroad property,
Mr. Wirth: I do not know of a round house that has been relocated, The structural
engineer that I spoke with this afternoon is quite familiar with entities in California that
have been relocated, including train stations and so forth, relocated transportation
buildings, So, that would be the party and I could give you his name, in fact he has done
work for the city of San Bernardino in the past to meet with,
Mr, Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman I am done,
Commissioner Traver: Thank you Mr, Gonzalez, Thank you Mr, Wirth, Commissioners
let's try and hear as many people as we can, please make note of those items that you wish
to bring up obviously Mr, Wirth brought one up that was worth looking into, James
Smith, Please give your name and address and if you wish who you represent.
James Smith: Thank you very much, Chairman Traver and fellow Commissioners, Santa
Fe railroad and guests tonight. My name is James Smith, I am a native Californian, I
certainly currently reside at 620 Pioneer, Lake Arrowhead and I am representing an
organization that started its existence in San Bernardino in 1887, namely the Native Sons
of the Golden West. We are over 400 members strong the largest Parlor in Southern
California in fact I see quite a few of our members here present this evening, I would like
to just read a simple paragraph as far as the mission of the Native Sons of the Golden
West. The preservation and marking of historical sites and land marks as well as support
of preservation efforts throughout the state to keep alive the rich history of California,
That is why we are founded, Our membership is open to men and women but they need to
IS
be born in the state of California and I see I heard from a few candidates tonight, I was
very glad to hear that. I want to speak as a representative of the organization in favor of
this demolition with one exception, This one exception is that we do preserve the Smoke
Stack, I have lived here for 51 years and I have seen many buildings throughout the years,
it probably started with the Atwood Adobe, the California Hotel and many other historic
buildings no longer here anymore and the Santa Fe my dad worked for the Santa Fe and
many of us here I am sure through the years have worked for the Santa Fe, This was a
"railroad town" and I am excited to hear that we are going to continue to be a railroad
town but I think we need to preserve some ofthe history that was here before, I think the
simplest historic building that can be preserved is the Smoke Stack. I implore the Planning
Commission tonight to strongly consider preserving that as an exception to the demolition
of the other 52 buildings to preserve the Smoke Stack for us native Californians and for all
of the new people that have come into San Bernardino so that they may understand when
they see that railroad up there that that is part of our history and I think we need to realize
that ladies and gentlemen that if we don't have a focus to our history what is our history. I
heard tonight from the Father and other speakers that it is extremely important to realize
that we are going to have another hundred years of the Santa Fe but let's keep part of that
past too, if only a Smoke Stack to remind our citizens and the future generations that
Santa Fe has not been here this hundred years but a hundred years before, Again, I
respectfully ask you to take that as an exception to the item tonight to exempt the Smoke
Stack with the demolition effort and I will be glad to answer any questions the
Commissioners may have. Thank you.
Commissioner Traver: Thank you Mr, Smith, Ted Henson. Ted the address that you work
at is sufficient.
Ted Henson: I am a member of the San Bernardino Police Department. I am here to
represent the Police Department with regards to the concerns of blighted areas in the city
of San Bernardino particularly the area that we are talking about this evening. Research
has shown over the years, exhausted research throughout the nation that blighted area
tends to attract crime and the elements of crime and we know what crime gets a foot hold
into a particular area or place it is hard to get rid off it. Some time progress necessitates a
replacement of the old or what we have become accustomed to or comfortable with, New
venture that is being spoken about tonight with regards to the Intermodal system will
replace a lot of that blight, some of these unattended and unkempt lots and provide
teaming activity which does not attract blight, people working, people go to and fro,
bringing back vitality to an area, I have been here for seventeen and a half years, I wasn't
born in San Bernardino but my wife was born here, right here San Bernardino Community
Hospital, her mother still lives here and her dad at one time worked at Santa Fe railroad, I
can see where that area can really use a shot in the arm with the type offacility that is
being proposed there and make it a proud place as opposed to when someone mentions
San Bernardino not saying they are from that particular part of town, they can say they are
from San Bernardino and speak about San Bernardino and be proud of it.
16
Commissioner Traver: Thank you Sergeant. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
before the commission in regard to this matter. Those on the plus side, Anybody that
wishes to speak against the matter, The aside was don't beg, If the chair hears nothing we
will close the Public Hearing, Commissioners,
Mr, Affaitati: Make a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Traver: There is a motion to close the Public Hearing and it has been
seconded, Those in favor.
All: I
Commissioner Traver: Those opposed, Unanimous. Mr, Affaitati,
Mr, Affaitati: As we spoke earlier and I think some of the people in the audience had
stated allot I think more articulate than I might be stating here, But, a heritage building is
exactly what my intent what we are trying to accomplish here. I think we have an
applicant that is more than willing to do something to that affect. Part of the findings here
has to have some extensive studies done of those historical buildings, They have to be
photographed, categorized, looked inside and out and the history has to be chronologically
detailed about those buildings. All we need is a place to put it. The rail station which is
going to be at one point or another improved, expanded that whole corridor seems to me
to be an ideal place to have this heritage building or heritage hall to place the whistle, to
place some of the artifacts, To do exactly what the community is requesting which is
preserve the history, preserve the community feeling and also educate the younger citizens
of this community of what we had and what we will have, But, there are other concerns
also, which is the Smoke Stack and we have good feelings and we have bad feelings,
There are certain conditions about the Smoke Stack that we have to I think look at it in a
level playing field, We would all like to preserve it, there is language in this packet that
says if the Smoke Stack is structurally sound then we will address is at that time, So, at
this point I think the whistle and the history is to me what we have to address, As a citizen
of San Bernardino I related to that whistle as the good father says you did hear it at lunch,
you did hear it at five 0' clock and I believe someone in this organization has restored this
whistle but needs a place to put it and I think they have the steam for it and I think they
have the operation of the whistle, I think at this point that can be addressed, So, that is
one of the issues I would like to address. The other is some of the mitigation factors in
regard to screen the high industry use which this is from one of our major entrances to our
city, That is the 3 rd street exit off of our freeway and bringing into our I believe it is 2nd
street that our new station is going to be constructed, That corridor to me is a very
important corridor because what it does it basically sets the tone for the rest of the city
once somebody exits that freeway and if there is a way that we can ask the applicant to
look at that situation with staff either here or at a later date I would like to address that
particular aspect, The other we talked about through the truck traffic and there is a
concern that I have but I think that that has been addressed, I don't want to have to have
San Bernardino or a certain section of San Bernardino have the full impact of that
17
particular traffic and I understand that is going to be mitigated as to some off Pepper,
Rancho Avenue, I just want to make sure that happens, I didn't see it specifically through
the environmental impact report, I saw the inner section addressed but I didn't see the
specific language that says that and we went through this before and part of the other
items that we had with the development prior, So, I think at this point if we can here from
the applicant in regard to some of those issues and see how receptive they are to those
issues I would like to here Mr, Brendza do you want to respond to those or wait until they
all come up, all questions,
I would like to here that specific part so they don't get all convoluted into some....,
Mr, Brendza: No commissioner certainly Santa Fe has always been sensitive to the history
in this city, There is a condition we have worked from day one of this project for the
Smoke Stack with Councilman Hernandez and Agretti in a cooperative effort seeing the
importance that, that Smoke Stack held. There is a condition again in the staff report that
has us maintaining that Smoke Stack we are fully willing to do that we understand that
sensitivity, With respect to the archival as you well know we are doing photographs and
numerous building elevations and everything else design type criteria that is already there
and is going to be there as a result of this project, Weare certainly willing to provide that
to whomever it may be the Depot as you know is not ours any longer it was part of the
line sale but if that is the idea and certainly it is a good one, We are certainly willing to
turn over anything we have got photographs, any of the archival data that we have got for
that type of a heritage museum if you will, With landscaping we understand the sensitivity
of the 3rd street entrance to the city, We are fully willing to work with that and in fact we
have a sketch that we have kind of put pen to paper to talk about some potential
landscaping along that 3rd street entrance to the facilities you are looking down form the
freeway and Mark will pull that out and we will kind of show you what we are talking
about there and then as you do know while he is getting that with respect to traffic as part
of the General Motors Facility and the Quality Distribution Facility we have made
numerous contributions to the city for street improvements there is a signal involved with
this project and so I think we are being sensitive to the traffic because we realize there is
some generated by that. Sure and as you can see, Mark maybe you can point it out, this is
the 3rd street offramp area the curve that is coming around the 1-215 there and then the
off-ramp is shown in brown, So, we are looking at some kind of a treatment so that when
you are looking down from the freeway you have it blocked from that railroad view and
certainly willing to work with staff if this is not appropriate or whatever , We are sensitive
to it and we are willing to work with staff and Commission toward that end,
Maybe that is the question I need to tell, do we need to work the language today? As what
we talked about in regards to that.
We could have a condition of approval if the commission would desire that. Yes,
I would like to do that now, that way it is resolved and they know which direction they
have to go to, In regards to the pictures and historical aspects, I think my thinking isn't
18
"'<-'e"
just donating the pictures, I would like for you to be involved in that and maybe Jim with
the Native Sons can be instrumental on part of the room or an area in the train station to
have that particular to have that a part of the facility. I think you know what I am trying to
say,
Mr. Brendza: Absolutely and you know
And that only benefits you as well as us,
Mr. Brendza: We can, I can make a personal commitment to work with staff in doing
whatever we need to do to make sure that that takes place,
Commissioner Traver: Mr. Affaitati are you O.K.? Are you finished?
Mr. Affaitati: Yes, I think at this point we can have the other members...
Commissioner Traver: Mr, Brendza if! might please, Mr, Wirth made two proposals one
about having the site inspected June 1 st through 4th and his second was setting the 18
most significant aside till last. My question is what affect will this have on the project, if
this were to happen,
Mr, Brendza: Actually as I think Mr. Wirth even indicated our development of the project
is East to West in to that holding anyone building in this facility would have a significant
effect to delay the project. As you can see in the binder that we gave you an intermodal
facility is a long straight strip tracks you can't have buildings in the middle of them and it
just doesn't make any sense for us to do that so I guess in answer to that question it would
have a significant impact to delay the project and not allow us to provide the intermodel
services that are demanded of the Santa Fe railway,
Commissioner Traver: Any idea where the 18 are interspersed in the entire area of the
yard.
Mr. Brendza: Yes they are, Something else I would like to point out as well and Mr, Wirth
mentioned the Smoke Stack which we have talked about having it conditioned and he
mentioned the whistle which by the way is the property of the city, we donated that some
time ago to the city, The Roundhouse and we have some photographs is a concrete
structure. A big part of it is concrete, The Depot of course is not part of this project.
Something else with the Roundhouse that many people may not know, It actually is not a
Roundhouse it is about a quarter house and in the 50's they boarded allot of the
locomotive stalls because it outgrew its usefulness, even the larger steam locomotives
wouldn't fit in it. There is still a full Santa Fe 3/4 Roundhouse down in a location we call
Redondo Junction down in Los Angeles that is used by Amtrak that is fully functional it
has the turntable out in front so as far as what a Roundhouse looks like from an
architectural historical view point, there is an active ex-Santa Fe Roundhouse 60 miles
from here which I think is significant.
19
(j,
Commissioner Traver: Just to speak for some of the people out in the audience, yeah but
that is down there and they are looking for here, Sensitivity Mr. Brendza but yes I do
understand what you are saying.
Mr. Affaitati: Excuse me Mr. Chairman
Commissioner Traver: Yes Mr. Affaitati
Mr, Affaitati: Are these buildings all concrete buildings? Basically, brick buildings, plaster
exterior type.
Mr, Brendza: No they are a mixture of brick.....
Mr, Affaitati: No easily movable buildings...
Mr, Brendza: No
Mr, Affaitati: They are not a wood train station type facility that you could pull apart and
relocate to another area like a wood frame type structure, correct.
Mr. Brendza: Correct, they are not.
Commissioner Traver: Mr. Brendza if someone came to you in the next two weeks and it
were possible to move a building in four weeks totally hypothetical things. Would you let
them do that, could you let them do that I guess is the proper question?
Mr, Brendza: I guess the key is that that is totally hypothetical and it would be difficult for
us, we need to start immediately in the final phase of this design, It would be very difficult
for us to look toward that.
Commissioner Traver: I didn't mean to hold anything up, but if somebody did, Say that we
are moving ahead and somebody said I want to move some of those buildings out of your
way that you are going to tear down, Would it be possible?
Mr, Brendza: If it could be done with our development schedule, we would certainly look
at it,
Commissioner Traver: I am agreeable to that. Commissioners, Mr, Gonzalez,
Mr. Gonzalez: The Smoke Stack as you stated will it be relocated or will it remain where
it is now?
Mr, Brendza: It will stay exactly where it is now,
20
Mr, Gonzalez: The next question is for staff. Since the Smoke Staffis at the foot of the
Viaduct on the North side ....................is there any concept ...........................
Ms. Woldruff: At the DRC meeting, where the project was cleared to the Planning
Commission the representative on the DRC from the Public Works Department indicated
to the applicant that additional dedication would be needed along the Mt, Vernon corridor
adjacent to the project. I think it was an additional 15 feet and I can let Mr. Hardgrave the
city engineer verify that if he would like to, Basically it is real close to where the Smoke
Stack is but my understanding is that Public Works is aware of the Smoke Stack and the
need to preserve it and it is something that was felt could be worked out.
Mr, Hardgrave: Mr, Chairman I am Roger Hardgrave of Public Works and what Deborah
says is true, we discussed the Santa Fe and they agreed to dedicate enough right-of-way to
a 500 foot easement through there I think there may be some small conflict with the
Smoke Stack, we have looked at ref acing that bridge for some time and there is possibility
of getting some Federal Funds to finance 80% of it, it would be a difficult project and we
would either have to tear the bridge down and close the street for six months or build a
bridge just offset and keep the existing bridge in place, We expect we will have to do that
someday and Santa Fe has been willing to dedicate addition right-of-way to accommodate
as much as they can at this time,
Mr. Hardgrave: Speaking hypothetically I think in five years it would be getting pretty
close, Its structures were built in the 20's and we have had clumps of concrete falling off
from Santa Fe employees over the years so it has been a matter of concern. It is only 4
lanes wide and it is inadequate from a geometric standpoint. So, it is nearing the end of its
useful life.
Commissioner Traver: Mr, Atfaitati.
Mr, Atfaitati: One more question Roger, the signalization of 4th street, We are looking at
the plan as to down the road when we reach maximum capacity to signalize the
intersection and we have a $40,000 cost for that. Did you derive at that figure,
Mr, Hardgrave: Yes, we did Mr. Atfaitati, The regimen of Santa Fe proposed to donate
15% of the cost of the signal, We felt that was a little light, we met with them, negotiated
and they agreed to contribute 35% up to a maximum of $40,000 and there is a couple of
triggers in the condition when it determines a certain level of service or we determine it is
needed then we will say O,K. now is the time install the signal,
Mr, Atfaitati: Has any engineering been done on it all, at this time, As far as the
signalization or any, or do you have to start everything from scratch on that signal,
21
"',~ 15-"1
Mr. Hardgrave: As far as the specific design for the plans of the signal nothing has been
done, There has been a very extensive ....."" compared by the engineer of Santa Fe
exploring this intersection plus four others to determine the impact.
Mr. Affaitati: When is your first, I guess for lack of a better word, when is your first
steady analysis of it? After the fully implement the operation or when do we have our first
findings that this intersection is O.K this month, but next year we are going to have to do
something,
Mr, Hardgrave: We are required by conditions of the congestion management plan to
monitor our streets every year. So, during the annual monitoring we notice level of service
is dropping or if we receive complaints from the public or notice congestion or a traffic
problem then we would determine a signal is now needed and start the process to have it
installed.
Mr Affaitati: I think what I am getting at is I would like to have some priority put on this
intersection. We are talking about some major impact and as you know costs are pretty
relative today as far as the affordability of it. So, I would like to use that $40,000 while it
is still $40,000 and not $37,000 next year
Mr. Brendza please refresh me I think I remember when do we hit peak usage? When it is
all completed I know it speaks to the number oftraffic routines per day and so on. Was it
ten years?
Mr, Brendza: Yeah, I will ask Tom to verify that, but it was ten years was it nor Tom that
we got peak operation at the facility.
Mr Chairman and Members of the Commission. Actually the impact forecast used 1996 as
the facility being in full operation and we used a ten year period after that as being the
period for build out forecast,
2001 Roger
2005 I think is where it was
Commissioner Traver: Just there is going to be some significant traffic impact you know
right after it goes into effect and we need to monitor it right along as Mr, Affaitati says,
Dollars become worth less and less to all of us and we need to monitor it and keep the
citizens happy with the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, Mr, Brendza,
Mr. Brendza: I agree, Actually the facility is in operation right now, We are operating at
that facility, the key to it from my perspective is that intersection will be used by Santa Fe
and the more efficient we can make that intersection the better it is going to be for us too,
So, I feel we have a vested interest in making sure that that intersection is operating at a
decent level of services as well.
22
Commissioner Traver: I think you do too, Commissioners.
Mr. Affaitati: My next question is to staff.
Commissioner Traver: Thank you Mr. Brendza, Mr, Affaitati to staff,
Mr, Affaitati: Yeah, my next question now becomes and that is exactly my next point. The
facility is going to generate hopefully a major economic impact. It has already and
hopefully for your sake and ours that it generates more. Which leads me to a couple
different scenarios, 1) what have we done as a city to make sure there is area around that
yard for the expansion of warehousing, light industrial use or all the other type offacilities
that can grow out of their product. In other words all of the other businesses that tend to
either service the railroad or get a service from the railroad, What have we done around
that are and what have we done to be able to accommodate that additional growth around
that area.
Ms W oldruff: The summary sheet on your staff report does show the land use designation
surrounding the property immediately adjacent and a bit in all directions are Industrial
heavy at the site itself, Commercial heavy to the north, along with the Sa Las Pasidas
specific plan along Mt. Vernon to the north west adjacent to the site and IH industrial
heavy is south, east and west and there is I think quite a bit oflarge warehousing buildings
just below the Santa Fe station and in the vicinity. I think there is quite a bit of vacant land
as well,
Mr. Affaitati: I think you have my just, I want to make sure then when we look at that
whole area we look at that area as a major development. I want to look at that area as one
large development that we don't have to worry about one street not being wide enough, I
want to have a development strategy because from what I read and from what I see we are
going to see an explosion in that area of industrial, It could be heavy, it could be light but
there is going to be major development. So, I want to look at every project with the whole
in mind.
If I may Mr, Chairman, of course that is the reason for periodically updating the general
plan to accommodate these types of uses as they expand and grow to make sure you have
the appropriate supporting type ofland use surroundings.
Mr, Affaitati: I don't want to get into a situation where we are in a two year stagnant
situation where nothing can happen, Because that plan wasn't enacted, I don't want to
miss that boat again,
I believe that will be an impetuous for us to keep an eye on this area to ensure future
development occurs in the proper manner and supports what is there,
23
r,':- ". -,
Mr, Affaitati: Then we have a situation in regards to the building we talked about on east
ofMt, Vernon the maintenance, the houser building,
Ms, Woldruff: The 10,000 square foot maintenance shop building right.
Mr, Affaitati: We had some information.....
Ms, Woldruff: The applicant has some I believe has some elevations that probably should
be displayed and we do have a hand microphone over on this side available for anyone
who would like speak on that.
Mr. Brendza: We do have some elevations of the 10,000 square foot maintenance building
specifically were the concerns over the height, well I guess I'll ask for the questions you
may have had Commissioner.
Mr, Affaitati: Well I had a problem in the regards that it was only 35 feet from a main
corridor and we have a pre-engineered metal building, The one you did for the railcar was
a significantly much more appealing design, From what I understand is this particular
building lower than the street elevation? Is that what we have?
Mr. Brendza: The peak of the roof will be approximately ten feet above the existing street
elevation ofMt. Vernon Viaduct,
Mr, Affaitati: Is that just the Zinc Ionized roof It is not like the blue particular building
you have on the auto yard correct. That building from what it looks like it is just a
galvaloon type roof
Mr, Brendza: That is its design right now.
Mr, Affaitati: Is there a problem with changing that?
Mr. Brendza: I, we can be receptive to that but......,
Mr, Affaitati: It is not a big deal but it gives you a better perspective of the building
because we are going to be looking at it,
Mr. Brendza: We could look at that.
Commissioner Traver: Mr, Strimpel has a question staff
Mr, Strimpei: Yes I was curious on the relationship on the city and the acquiring the
whistle, Would you like to explain that to us? What is the ....,on that right now?
Ms, W oldruff: My understanding is that the city received the whistle, I think it was a gift, I
am not certain, Several years ago and we do have it stored at a city yard, I believe it was
24
brought out at the Route 66 rondevou and blown several times and I think they attached
some sort of generator to it but I believe the whistle is in the cities possession, Mr.
Boughey might be able to confirm that if he would,
Mr, Boughey: Yes, I believe it is, We will check and let you knOw. We believe the city has
control over the whistle and we will check on it an send you a note.
Commissioner Traver: He has a further question.
Mr, Strimpel: I would like to add to that how receptive are we if we are going to save the
Smoke Stack to relocating that whistle to the same spot? I am not sure who would want
to answer that. Santa Fe
Mr, Brendza: If it pleases the chair I could try to address that. The whistle was originally
on the Power House it was not on the Smoke Stack and to put it on the Smoke Stack
would be a new development. So, it is not putting back on a building that would not be
there any longer.
Mr, Strimpel: The reason I ask that what more appropriate place to be if that is the
building that is left, If the Depot is out of your control right now, If something else turns
out then, it has to go somewhere,
Mr, Brendza: Of course the Depot is in the Southern California of Governments control so
there is some ability there. So, it seems like if we are going to have this heritage room that
would be a very logical place to have it would be at that Depot.
Mr. Boughey: Let me add it still does function and it does blow occasionally and it used
for special events, So, it is used in the community,
I think that is what we are trying to get at that if we have a place to put it functional, it
functions today, It can be functional at that heritage hall or heritage room whereever that
happens to be in that train station, I think that is what we should all try to do,
Commissioner Traver: I think it would be like the Valley College Bell, movable,
There you go,
Commissioner Traver: Those of you who remember the Valley College Bell,
rommissioner is there anything further? Mr, Gonzalez,
Mr, Gonzalez: This is to staff, it is kind of a futuristic question about us taking our several
items here. First of all we have the theme design for the Mt. Vernon Avenue business
corridor. We have an RDA area that encompasses the train yard and also 3rd street around
the curve, We discussed the industrial head of use, My understanding and it is probably for
the railroad folks is there was an existing tunnel that went from the Depot half way and
25
heading north a workman's tunnel underneath that exited somewhere in the maintenance
yard. Ifwe ever hook the Metrolink, the Ball Stadium, Redlands and the west side
corridor along Mt, Vernon would the design theme ofPlasao La Plasitas then if this tunnel
is still there and the tunnel hasn't been buried then maybe this question is not,.... with my
discussion here with you, but can we take a look at that tunnel as a entry into the design
theme of the Mt. Vernon Avenue corridor or has it ever been looked into or discussed or
researched or maybe the railroad people have to answer to bury the tunnel. I don't know if
it is even there anymore.
Commissioner Traver: Is it of significance to the project do you know?
Ms. Woldruff: The tunnel does exist, that was confirmed for us several months ago and I
am not sure as to the safety of the structure however. Perhaps the Santa Fe would like to
address this,
Commissioner Traver: Mr Brendza,
Mr, Brendza: The tunnel was part of the other rail yard reconfiguration that we are doing
our plans are to fill it in although it has not been done as of yet. Commissioner Gonzalez
one of the issues of where it goes now is just east of the Depot there off of3rd street and
where it will end up, or where it comes up is basically in the middle of the rail yard, it
doesn't go to the other side ofMt. Vernon it ended just north of the northern most track
by the big super intendants building there, So, for safety concerns, for security concerns
and structural concerns and we are going to take care of the and it really serves no
functional use other than being able to get people from a parking lot to the middle of a rail
yard, Which, those are the reasons we are not keeping it.
Mr. Gonzalez: So therefore you would like to fill it in,
Mr, Brendza: Right, right.
Mr Gonzalez: Thank you Mr, Chairman,
Commissioner Traver: Commissioners, motion to close comments, Second on closing the
Commissioners comments, Moved and seconded, I would like to make one last, no I
won't. There is a motion before the Commission to close our comments. Those in favor,
All: I
Commissioner Traver: Those opposed, Unanimous,
Mr, Atfaitati: I would like to make a motion to approve but I want to make sure staffhas
whatever verbige needed as to those conditions that the commissions discussed earlier.
26
r. ..:: _ r ~ -
Commissioner Traver: Mr, Affaitati when you make your recommendation would you
please take it right out of the recommendations so we get it.
Mr. Affaitati: I am getting it right out of here, recommended motions,
Commissioner Traver: Yeah, would you read it into the.....
Mr, Affaitati: Yeah, I sure will but I want to make sure that staff has
Commissioner Traver: No, make it a part of that when you are finished reading that.
Ms, Woldruff: Commissioner, Mr. Affaitati we have prepared language for the added
condition.
Mr, Affaitati: OK I will add that language to the motion and you can read that language
at that point. The motion is that this hearing on the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt Resolution (attachment 2) which:
a. Certifies the Environmental Impact Report, including the DEIR (with the
Technical Appendices) and FEIR (with the MMRP) (Exhibits A and B,
respectively);
b. Adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C); and,
c, Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit B);
2, Approve Demolition No. 93-01, based on the Findings in the Resolution (Attachment
2), and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment 3) and Standard Requirements
(Attachment 4); and,
3, Approve Development Permit II No, 94-24, based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment
2) and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 3) and Standard Requirements
(Attachment 4), and also including the agreed upon language by Commission and Stafffor
the other conditions set forth at this meeting this evening and staff will read it into the
record:
Ms, Woldruff: The added condition would read:
"The applicant shall provide landscaping along the east-through-south perimeter
of the project site to adequately screen the project from the freeway (1-215) and
the 3rd street off-ramp subject to the review of staff,"
and if! may I would like to modify item #2 Approve Demolition item No, 93-01 if they
condition of approval to save the Smoke Stack is agreed to by the Commission then that
number would deminish to 52,
Mr, Affaitati: There was also regarding the heritage room or the.......
27
~.
Commissioner Traver: That is right the participation from the railroad into contributing
not just the artifacts but there are some, there are a certain amount that I think we can
discuss with the applicant in the participation of that room,
Mr, Affaitati: This would possibly be between several different entities, The metrolink, the
County Museum,
Commissioner Traver: The Museum, The Native Sons of the Golden West, Local Service
clubs. I don't want to dilute this thing with five hundred entities, I would like to have the
railroad, they know what they have and it is to the benefit of their organization to spear
head this particular project, but I think you are going to get some good support out ofthe
native Sons to be able to facilitate that with the railroad building itself Sandbag or
whoever might have control of that facility,
Mr. Affaitati: Deborah are you doing some language on that?
Do you want to address that Mark?
Mr. Ostoich: My name is Mark Ostoich I am the placard holder, we would like to
understand what the nature of our obligations would be under the condition that
Commissioner Affaitati is suggesting, I think Santa Fe is in a position to make the artifacts
available, Santa Fe will be actively involved in the archiving of the buildings that are
coming down, Santa Fe can make all good faith efforts to work with any agencies that
have control of the Depot to bring it about. We can't for example force Sandbag to do it,
we don't have the legal ability to do that. So, if you are asking us to make our best effort
and to exercise our abilities we will certainly do that.
Mr. Affaitati: I think in good faith that is what I am asking you to do, But, not just
specifically submit pictures and I need those pictures contributed in exhibit form, You
know what I am trying to say.
Mr. Ostoich: They will be put together in an archival record that will be prepared in
accordance with guidelines that apply to historic preservation projects, They will be done
according to very, very strict national and state guidelines that are established, They will
be very, very nice,
Mr, Affaitati: Is there a seed money package that I can ask from you,
Mr, Ostoich: Well we are bearing the entire cost of preparing the archival record and we
are prepared to do that.
Mr, Affaitati: I just thought our good faith and just say $50,000 does that sound good
round numbers,
Mr, Ostoich: I am sure it is going to cost more than that sir,
28
./ ~1
Mr, Affaitati: Well, just to get it started,
Mr, Ostoich: I guess once again I would like to understand what are you asking us to do?
Mr. Affaitati: Basically to provide those materials needed to establish the historical history
of that entity, that railroad and its importance to this city,
Mr Ostoich: We have agreed to do that.
Mr, Affaitati: That is fine,
Commissioner Traver: We are going to have some language for you in a moment Mr,
Ostoich, Mr, Gonzalez could you wait just a moment until we clear this up,
Mr, Gonzalez: Yes sir
Commissioner Traver: Please, Deborah you have language,
Ms, Woldruff: The condition would read "The applicant shall participate.....,
Commissioner Traver: Excuse me, Deborah, Mr, Ostoich, Mr, Brendza I would like you
to hear this, just so we don't.. ..Please Thank you,
Ms, W oldruff: "The applicant shall participate in a good faith effort with appropriate
organizations in the creation of a Railroad Heritage Room and shall contribute a copy of
the historic documentation the historically significant buildings to that effort,"
Mr. Ostoich: That is acceptable,
Mr, Brendza: We embrace that, we really support that fact.
Commissioner Traver: Thank you and the other items that were addendum that she
previously read are you amendable to those?
Mr. Ostoich: Yes sir we are,
Commissioner Traver: Thank you sir,
Mr, Gonzalez: Point of ,.... on the Smoke Stack, probably a legal question as far as fee
title, Is it the Smoke Stack as far as the real estate and the Stack of real property is it
going to stay in the ownership of the railroad or is it going to be dedicated to the city and
also would maintenance of the actual Smoke Stack is it the responsibility has it already
been mitigated as far as conditions,
Commissioner Traver: Is it not spelled out Deborah,
29
Ms, Woldrufl': Condition No, 8 addresses the Smoke Stack in as far as actions that need to
be taken to evaluate the structural integrity of the structure, It does not address
ownership, the staff's intent was that the Smoke Stack would remain in the ownership of
the Santa Fe.
Commissioner Traver: Yes
Mr, Gonzalez: That answers my question, I just wanted to know who was going to own it.
Commissioner Traver: I think we had a motion, do we have a second.
Second
Commissioner Traver: Mr. Gonzalez, moved by Mr, Affaitati, Those in favor signify by I,
All: I
Commissioner Traver: Unanimous, May I make a comment, please to commend the
ATNSF that gave to this town, that took away from this town and now is giving back and
that is muchly appreciated. Mr. Empeno is that paragraph appropriate tonight?
Mr. Empeno: Yes, Mr, Chairman in reference to the development permit that you just
adopted.
Commissioner Traver: Decisions of the Planning Commission are final concerning
conditional use permits, development permits, tentative track maps, and variances unless
appealed to the Mayor in Counsel. Appeals to the Mayor in Counsel must be made in
writing stating the grounds of the appeal and must be submitted to the city clerk along
with an appropriate fee within fifteen days of the decision, Anything further before the
Commission,
Move to adjourn
Commissioner Traver: I heard the second move, Those in favor.
All: I
Commission is adjourned, Thank you very much,
30
ATIACHMENT "C"
ADOPTED
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM
IMPLEMENTING THE SANTA FE INTERMODAL FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of San Bernardino, in approving Demolition Permit (DEM) #93-01 and Development
Permit (DP) II #94-24 (which will allow the applicant, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company (Santa Fe), to remove 53 existing structures from 50+ acres of its San
Bernardino "A" Railyard (53 are proposed for demolition, DEM #93-01) and expand its
intermodal facilities to handle 15,660 lifts (trailers) per month rather than the current 7,500 lifts
per month (DP II #94-24)) makes the findings described below and adopts the statement of
overriding considerations presented at the end of the findings. Hereafter, the following
documents (Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Technical Appendices, Response to
Comments and Appendices) will be referred to collectively as "the EIR".
B. PROJECT SUMMARY
B.l PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is a portion of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company's (Santa
Fe) existing San Bernardino" A" Yard (" A" Yard). The site is located immediately south of
Fifth Street between Mount Vernon Avenue and the 1-215 Freeway in the City of San
Bernardino, This area is part of the Old Rancho San Bernardino, a Mexican land grant, and was
not sectionalized by U,S, government survey, The center of the project site is located at a
Latitude of 34"06'20" North and Longitude of about 117018'30" West.
B.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
In October, 1994, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (Santa Fe} submitted
an application to the City of San Bernardino to demolish 53 structures located at the Company's
"A" Yard which is part of Santa Fe's rail facilities located in the City. The project will allow
Santa Fe to modernize its facilities and enhance its operational capability in the railroad industry.
If Santa Fe is granted approval of Demolition Permit (DEM) 93-01 and Development Permit
(DP) II 94-24, it will proceed to demolish the 53 structures, and to install the intermodal
facilities required to upgrade the "A" Yard to a modern, efficient intermodal rail facility.
B.2.1 Demolition Activities
The project site contains a total of 55 structures which were used by Santa Fe to perform
railroad related maintenance work (the shops), to provide support for utilitarian and storage
purposes; and for administration purposes such as management and supervisory functions.
Many, however, have not been used for many years and are in a state of disrepair and
dangerous. The City requires that a Demolition Permit application be submitted for buildings
or structures that are 50 years old or older and a separate application be submitted for buildings
or structures less than 50 years old. For this reason Santa Fe has applied for a permit to
demolish 29 structures constructed between 1915 and 1944 and made separate application to
demolish 24 structures constructed between 1945 and 1984. These two applications have been
assigned application number DEM 93-01 by the City's Planning and Building Services
Department,
The buildings to be demolished range in height from one to four stories and contain an estimated
total of 602,456 square feet (frl) , These buildings are constructed of a variety of materials
(metal, concrete, brick, stucco, block and wood frame). Normal working hours during the
demolition period will be from 6:30 a,m. to about 2:30 or 3:00 p.m.
The contract with the demolition company provides it with salvage rights to the materials. The
majority of the materials from the demolished structures and facilities (brick, metal, wood, rails
etc,) will be hauled from the site for reuse at other locations, or recycled, Most of the concrete
will be crushed onsite and used as base material for site construction activities. Metal buildings
onsite will be dismantled and hauled from the site to other locations or recycled.
B.2.2 Construction Activities
As areas are graded, concrete salvaged from the demolition activities will be crushed and used
as base material for installing asphalt paving over site. Following grading and installation of the
concrete base material, site asphalt paving activities will progress in an easterly direction until
virtually the entire +50 acre parcel is paved,
In addition to site grading and paving, the proposed construction activIties also include
installation of new onsite utility lines, drainage and lighting systems, and a new perimeter fence.
A single maintenance structure, about 10,000 square feet in size, will also be installed to serve
the intermodal equipment on the project site, When completed, the site will be used as a semi-
truck trailer and intermodal container storage and loading area to facilitate expansion of Santa
Fe's existing intermodal operations,
Following demolition and before final grading and paving, Santa Fe will implement
environmental remediation activities which have been defined as part of a "Conceptual
Remediation Plan," Past operations at the "A" Yard have caused varying degrees of
contamination, primarily from petroleum and solvent materials, Under a clean-up and abatement
order (Order No. 88-80) from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
Santa Fe has independently developed the "Conceptual Remediation Plan" which is under the
jurisdiction of the RWQCB and not under the jurisdiction of the City, nor does it require a
permit or other authorization from the City,
2
B.2.3 Intermodal Facilitv Ooerations
The City Development Code (Title 19, City of San Bernardino Municipal Code) indicates that
the proposed intermodal facility expansion can be implemented in the current IH District, subject
to approval of a development permit. Because this project is the expansion of an existing
operation (the intermodal facility) that exceeds 25 % of its present size, the City has determined
that a Development Permit Type II is the appropriate permit for development of the Intermodal
Expansion Project.
The intermodal yard will be a transfer facility for local freight traffic which is shipped long
distance by rail. Semi-truck trailers and containers are transferred to and from intermodal
railcars by large rubber-tired gantry cranes or by a sideloader which resembles a large forklift.
The cranes and sideloaders will be operational approximately 45 percent of time, with the
operation functioning 24 hours per day. The completed facility will include:
. Long strip railroad tracks for transferring semi-trailers and containers to and from
intermodal railcars.
. About fifty acres of paved parking for storage and staging of semi-trailers and containers,
containing approximately 1,000 storage spaces,
. A concrete maintenance pad for fueling and servicing gantry cranes and sideloaders.
. A 10,000 ft2 truck maintenance garage to service the hostler trucks which shuttle trailers
and containers from tracks ide bays to paved storage areas.
. All normal utilities as required for the operational facility.
The project site will ultimately allow capacity to be increased by approximately 136 units per
day, which is 4,080 units per month, At full operation, the increased capacity would result in
approximately 150 additional truck round trips per day (300 trip ends or 300 one-way trips).
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The entire administrative record, (including the Draft EIR, Technical Appendices and
attachments, public comments and City Staff reports, and these facts, findings and statement of
overriding considerations) serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The
detailed environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Santa Fe Intermodal
Facility Expansion Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the EIR and in the responses to
comments which are part of the EIR, Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in
Chapter 5 of the EIR. Additionally, Santa Fe engaged Realvest and John Ash Group, as the
independent evaluators of the reuse potential of the buildings sought to be demolished. The
Realvest/John Ash Group report was also made available and reviewed as part of the City's
environmental determination, Evaluation of growth inducement and irreversible commitment
3
of resources is provided in Chapter 6 of the EIR, The folloWIng tIndIngs contaIn a summary
of the facts used in making determinations for each environmental issue addressed in the EIR
and Initial Study.
The City received the project applications from Santa Fe on October 14, 1994. To assist with
processing the CEQA environmental documentation, the City retained Lilburn Corporation to
support the independent review of the project. The applicant prepared technical evaluations of
major environmental issues for use by the City in performing its independent review of the
project. Lilburn Corporation prepared the Initial Study using existing environmental studies and
technical studies provided to the City for independent review by Santa Fe representatives, The
following list summarizes the project CEQA review milestones,
1. The Initial Study was completed by the City on November 17, 1994.
2. The Notice of Preparation for the project was issued on December 2, 1994 following
review by the City Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 17, 1994.
3, A public scoping meeting was held for the project by the City on December 14, 1994.
4, The Draft EIR was released for public review on February 21, 1995.
5, The public comment period began on February 21, 1995 and extended to April 6, 1995.
6, The City ERC reviewed the Final EIR for public release on April 13, 1995.
7, The Final EIR was released to Responsible and Trustee Agencies that commented on the
Draft EIR on April 20, 1995.
8, The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the project, including certification of
the Final EIR and adoption of Statements of Overriding Consideration, on May 2, 1995.
9. An appeal of the Commission's decision to the Mayor and Common Council was filed
by a private individual on May 17, 1995,
10. The Mayor and Common Council reviewed and denied the appeal, reaffirming the
Planning Commission's decision, on June 12, 1995, including certification of the Final
EIR and adoption of Statement of Overriding Consideratons.
D. FINDINGS
Presented below are the environmental findings made by the City of San Bernardino Mayor and
Common Council after its review of the documents referenced above and consideration of
written and oral comments on the Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project (Project)
submitted to the Mayor and Common Council at a public hearing, including all other information
provided during the decision-making process. These findings provide a summary of the
information contained in the EIR, related technical documents, and the public hearing record that
have been referenced by the Mayor and Common Council in making its decision to approve
Demolition Permit (DEM) #93-01 and Development Permit (DP) 11 #94-24, the permits required
to implement the Project.
The EIR prepared for the project evaluated five (5) major environmental issue categories for
potential significant adverse impacts, These major environmental issue categories are: air
quality, noise, water quality, transportation/circulation, and cultural resources. When cumulative
4
impacts were included, the EIR reached a total of 18 findings on environmental issues. Short-
and long-term impacts and project specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated for each phase
of the proposed project. Some of the issue categories contained several sub issues which are
summarized below. Of these 5 major environmental categories, the Mayor and Common
Council concurs with the findings in the EIR that the issues and sub issues discussed below can
be mitigated below a significant impact threshold, or for those issues which cannot be mitigated
below a level of significance, that overriding considerations exist which make those impacts
acceptable.
In addition to the 5 major environmental issue categories addressed in the EIR, eight (8) other
major environmental issue categories (earth resources, biological resources, land use, man-made
hazards, housing, public services, utilities, and aesthetics) were found to be non-significant in
the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. The Mayor and Common Council concurs
with the findings on these environmental issue categories as outlined in the Initial Study
(Appendix A of the EIR),
Those environmental issue categories identified in the Initial Study as having no potential for
significant adverse impact, with or without mitigation, are described below in Section D,1. The
descriptions in Section D,I include substantiation from the Initial Study, Each of the potentially
significant, but mitigable, effects of the proposed project identified in the EIR are described
below (Section D,2.), including substantiation from the EIR, associated documents and/or the
hearing record, Unavoidable (unmitigable) significant adverse impacts of the project are
described in Section E of this document. An analysis and comparison of the alternatives to the
project are described in Section F of this document. Project benefits are described in Section
G. The balancing of benefits and impacts and the statement of overriding considerations are
described and evaluated in Section H of this document.
All mitigation measures identified in the EIR and Initial Study are addressed in the Mitigation
Monitoring-Reporting Program which is included as part of the EIR, The monitoring program
will ensure that the measures identified in the EIR will be implemented in accordance with
discussion in the EIR and as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081. 6. These
measures are within the jurisdiction of the City to implement, but some measures may require
other agencies to participate in the monitoring program.
5
'.
D.l. Non-Silmificant Imoacts Identified in the Initial Study
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having no potential to cause
significant impact and were not carried forward into the EIR for detailed evaluation, In the
following presentation each resource issue is identified; it is followed by a description of the
potential significant adverse environmental effect (Potential Significant Impact); a discussion of
the finding in the administrative record, which is predominantly the Initial Study, Notice of
Preparation and responses, and technical appendices; any mitigation measures that will be
implemented to achieve a non-significant impact are identified; and finally, a discussion of the
facts supporting the finding are summarized,
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council hereby finds that all mlllgation
measures identified in the Initial Study that will be implemented to mitigate the impacts of this
project have been incorporated into, or required of, the project to avoid or substantially lessen
the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or
more significant effects unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings:
a, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact repon;
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such
changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or
c, Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the environmental impact repon,
The San Bernardino City Mayor and Common Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public
Resources Section 21081, that the following issues are non-significant because they have no
potential to cause a significant impact or because mitigation measure~ will be implemented as
outlined below, The Mayor and Common Council further finds that no additional mitigation
measures or project changes are required to reduce the potential impacts discussed below to a
level of nonsignificance. These issues and the measure~ adopted to mitigate them to a level of
insignificance are as follows:
], Eanh Resources: Grading and Slope Modification
Potential Significant Impact:
Grading activity on steep slopes (15 % or greater) could cause
significant potential for slope failure or erosion during or following
completion of grading,
Finding:
The grading and slope modification issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section
8, I of the EIR, The analysis of grading and slope modification issues presented in the Initial
6
, .
Study concluded that no potential for significant impacts will occur if the project is developed as
proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The grading and slope modification discussion in the substantiation section of the Initial Study (Page 20, items l.a
and I.b) indicates that project slopes from west to southeast at less than I % grade and proposed grading will leave
the site with the same general slope at completion of grading, No cumulative grading impacts were identified on
the Santa Fe property to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these
facts, the City concludes that potential grading and slope modification impacts from implementing the proposed
project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project,
2. Geologic Hazards: Seismic Hazards/Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
Potential Significant Impact:
Seismic hazards could endanger propeny or human lives at the project
site.
Finding:
The seismic hazard issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8, I of the EIR,
The analysis of seismic hazard issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for
significant impacts from seismic shaking or ground rupture will occur if the project is developed
as proposed, No mitigation is required because existing building code requirements provide
adequate protection,
Facts in Support of Finding
The seismic hazard/Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the
Initial Study (Page 20, item I.c) indicates that project site is within the Special Studies zone for the San Jacinto and
Glen Helen Faults. However, the project is not sensitive to seismic impacts because it consists of open yard storage
of trailers and containerized cargo. The single maintenance structure must be designed to meet seismic design
standards for structures as outlined in the building code which is protective of human health, No cumulative seismic
impacts were identified on the Santa Fe propeny to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse
impacts, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential seismic hazard impacts from implementing the
proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
3, Modification of any Unique Geologic or Physical Features
Potential Significant Impact:
Modification or loss of unique geologic or physical features would
reduce the diversity of these features in the region.
Finding:
The unique geologic and physical features issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8,
Section 8,1 of the EIR, The analysis of unique geologic and physical features issues presented
in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impacts to such resources will occur
if the project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required because no such resources exist
on this totally disturbed site,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The unique geologic and physical features discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study
(Page 20, item I.d) indicates that project site has been utilized as an industrial site since 1883 and no unique
geologic or natural physical features exist at the site based on field obselVation, No cumulative impacts to such
features were identified to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts, Based on these
7
<
facts, the City concludes that potential impacts to unique geologic or physical features from implementing the
proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
4. Geologic Hazards: High WindlWater Erosion Potential
Potential Significant hnpact:
If the site experiences high wind andlor water erosion potential,
significant damage to the site could occur.
Finding:
The wind and water erosion potential issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section
8.1 of the EIR, The analysis of erosion issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no
potential for significant erosion impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No
mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potential wind and water erosion discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page
20, item l.e and the EIR, 4-2 to 4-4 and 4-46 to 4-47) indicates that project site is not located within an area
identified as having high potential for any type of erosion, Funher, the site is essentially flat with an approximate
one percent slope to the southwest, No cumulative erosion impacts occur in the project area to which the proposed
project could contrihute additional adverse impacts, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential erosion
impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to
the project.
5. Modification of a Channel, Creek or River
Potential Significant hnpact:
The proposed project could cause significant alternation to a channel,
creek, or river.
Finding:
The channel, creek and river issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of
the EIR, The analysis of these channel, creek and river issues presented in the Initial Study
concluded that no potential for significant impacts to such resources will occur if the project is
developed as proposed, No mitigation is required because no such resources occur on this totally
disturbed site,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The channel, creek and river discussion in the eovironmental evaluation section of the lnitial Study (Page 20, item
1.1) indicates that project site has been used as an industrial site since 1883 and no channels, creeks or rivers occur
at the site based on field observation, No cumulative impacts to such features were identified to which the proposed
project could contribute additional adverse impacts, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential impacts
to channels, creeks or rivers from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation
or other changes to the project,
6, Geologic Hazards: Landslides, Mudslides, or Subsidence
Potential Significant hnpact:
The proposed project may expose structures or persons to impacts
associated with landslides, mudslides or subsidence at the project site,
Finding:
The landslide, mudslide and subsidence hazard issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter
8, Section 8,1. of the EIR, The analysis of these hazard issues presented in the Initial Study
concluded that no potential for significant impacts from landslides, mudslides or subsidence will
8
occur if the project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required because existing building
code requirements provide adequate protection,
Facts in Support of the FInding
The landslide, mudslide and subsidence discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page
20, item I.g) indicates that project site has no potential for landsliding or mudsliding due to the flat topography,
The site is located within a potential subsidence zone, However, the project is not sensitive to subsidence impacts
because it consists of primarily open yard storage of trailers and containerized cargo, The single maintenance
structure will be designed to meet design standards for structures to prevent damage from subsidence as outlined
in the City's building code which is protective of human health, No cumulative landslide, mudslide or subsidence
impacts were identified on the Santa Fe property to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse
impacts, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential landslide, mudslide and subsidence hazard impacts
from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the
project.
7, Geologic Hazards: Liquefaction
Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project may expose structures or persons to impacts
associated with liquefaction at the project site,
FInding:
The liquefaction hazard issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the
EIR, The analysis of these hazard issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential
for significant impacts from liquefaction will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No
mitigation is required because existing building code requirements provide adequate protection,
Facts in Support of the FInding
The liquefaction discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (page 20, item l,h) indicates
that project site is considered to have moderately high to moderate liquefaction susceptibility. However, the project
is not sensitive to liquefaction impacts because it primarily consists of open yard storage of trailers and containerized
cargo or is otherwise unoccupied, The single maintenance structure will be designed to meet design standards for
structures to prevent damage from liquefaction as outlined in the City's building code which is protective of human
health, No cumulative liquefaction impacts were identified on the Santa Fe property to which the proposed project
could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential liquefaction
hazard impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other
changes to the project,
8, Air Quality: Odors
Potential Significant Impact:
The project could generate objectionable odors that could adversely
impact adjacent sensitive receptors,
FInding:
The air quality odor issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR,
The analysis of the odor issue presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for
significant impacts from odors will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation
is required because of the short-term nature of any odor generation activities,
9
Facts in Support of Finding
The odor discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 21, item 2,b) indicates that
project may generate odors temporarilyduring the short-term paving activities. Such odors may be objectionable
to adjacent residents, but the impact is temporary and is therefore oot considered significant. Based on these facts,
the City concludes that potential odor impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without
any mitigation or other changes to the project.
9. Air Quality: Wind Erosion Hazard
Potential Significant Impact:
If the site experiences high wind erosion potential, significant damage
to the site could occur,
Finding:
The wind erosion hazard issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1 of the
EIR, The analysis of wind erosion issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential
for significant wind erosion impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed, No
mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential wind hazard discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 21, item 2,c)
indicates that the project site is nOl located within a high wind hazard area as identified by the General Plan,
Further, the site is totally improved as an industrial use and will be paved as a part of the project. No cumulative
wind hazard impacts occur in the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse
impacts, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential wind erosion hazards from implementing the
proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
10. Water Resources: Increase in Impervious Suiface
Potential Significant Impact:
An increase in impervious surface can reduce future percolation and
increase runoff and downstream erosion potential to a significant level.
Finding:
The impervious surface issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the
EIR. The analysis of impervious surface/increased runoff issues presented in the Initial Study
concluded that no potential for significant runoff or erosion impacts will occur if the project is
developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion of potential increases in runoff and erosion is provided in the environmental evaluation section of
the Initial Study (page 21, item 3,a), The analysis indicates that the project site is completely covered by structures
and track beds that have a runoff coefficient of 0,74 (Glenn Lukos Associates, July I, 1994) and after development
the coefficient will increase to 0,90, This increase translated into a need for a modified drainage system whicb the
applicant has included in the project and obtained concurrence from the City Public Works Department regarding
adequacy, No cumulative increase in runoff is forecast because the surrounding area is totally developed, Thus,
the project will not contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential
increased impervious surface and runoff/erosion hazards from implementing the proposed project will be
nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project and the discharge will meet all applicable
regulatins regarding water quality,
10
11, Water Resources: Altering Flood Flows
Potential Significant Impact:
Alteration of the flow of flood waters could cause significant damage
downstr= from the project site.
Finding:
The flood flow alteration issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the
EIR, The analysis of alterations to flood flow issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that
no potential for significant alteration or increase in surface runoff will occur if the project is
developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion of potential alteration in flood runoff and potential flood hazards is provided in the environmental
evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 21, item 3,b), The analysis indicates that no flood flow crosses the
propeny and no alteration in flood flows will occur due to implementation of the proposed project. Thus, the
project cannot contribute additional adverse flood hazard impacts, Based on these facts, the City concludes that
potential alterations of flood flows and flood hazards from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant
without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
12, Water Resources: Groundwater Effects
Potential Significant Impact:
Groundwater resources could be over drafted or could be contaminated
by the proposed project.
Finding:
The groundwater quality and quantity issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section
8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of alterations in groundwater quality and quantity presented in the
Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impact to groundwater resources will occur
if the project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of potential groundwater resource impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the
Initial Study (Page 22, item 3,d), The analysis indicates that the project will not alter the quantityof groundwater
available for use and will, in fact, contribute to removal of potential groundwater contamination through facilitating
the approved remediation plan for existing contamination on site, Thus, the project will not contribute additional
adverse groundwater impacts, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential groundwater effects from
implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project,
13, Water Resources: Flood Hazards
Potential Significant Impact:
The project could be exposed to flood hazards that could damage
structures and/or human life,
Finding:
The flood hazard issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR,
The analysis of flood hazard issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for
significant hazards will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion of potential flood hazard impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Page 22, item 3,e), The analysis indicates that the projeci site lies outside of any known flood hazard areas
11
identified in the General Plan or in FEMA flood hazard maps, Thus, the project will not contribute additional
exposure of facilities or humans to cumulative flood hazard impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that
potential flood hazards from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or
other changes to the project.
14. Biological Resources: Biological Resources Management Overlay
Potential Significant Impact:
The Overlay identifies areas with significant biological resources and
development within this area could adversely effect significant
biological resources,
Finding:
The biological resource overlay issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1,
of the EIR. The analysis of biological resource issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that
no potential for significant resource impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed,
No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the biological resource management overlay is provided in the environmental evaluation section
of the Initial Study (Page 22, item 4,a). The analysis indicates that the project site lies outside of any known
overlay areas identified in the General Plan and that the site has been totally altered as a result of past industrial
activities, Thus, the project cannot contribute additional loss of cumulative biological resources within the City,
Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential biological resource effects from implementing the proposed
project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
15, Biological Resources: Loss of Mature Trees
Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project could cause or contribute to loss of significant
biological resources,
Finding:
The tree issues are discussed in theInitial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis
of biological resource issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for
significant tree impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is
required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the tree impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 22,
item 4,b), The analysis indicates that the project site does not contain any mature trees because the site has been
totally altered as a result of past industrial activities. Thus, the project cannot contribute additional loss of
cumulative tree resources within the City, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential tree resource
effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to
the project,
16. Land Use: Conflict with the General Plan
Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project may conflict with the City General Plan resulting
in a land use conflict.
12
Finding:
The General Plan conflict issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the
EIR. The analysis of General Plan conflict issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no
potential for significant conflicts with the General -. m will occur if the project is developed as
proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the potential General Plan land use conflict issues is provided in the environmental evaluation
section of the Initial Study (Page 23, item 6,a), The analysis indicates that the project site is located in a heavy
industrial Plan and Zone designation and the proposed use is consisrent with the General Plan. The site has been
totally altered as a result of past industrial activities and the continuation of rail uses is consisrent with the IH
designation, Thus, the project cannot contribure additional conflicts with the General Plan or adjacent land uses,
Based on these facts, the City concludes that porential for conflicts between the proposed use and the General Plan
from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the
project,
17, Land Use: Development within an Airpon Overlay District
Potential Significant Impact:
Development within an aitport overlay district could cause a potential
for hazards to facilities and humans,
Finding:
The porential airport conflict issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8, I, of
the EIR. The analysis of airport conflict issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no
porentiaI for significant conflicts with the any airport or airport overlay district will occur if the
project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the potential airport land use conflict issues is provided in the environmental evaluation section
of the Initial Study (Page 23, irem 6,b), The analysis indicares that the project site is not located in an airport
overlay district and the nearest airport is approximately four miles from the project sire, The site has been totally
altered as a result of past industrial activities and the continuation of rail uses at this location is consistent with the
IH designation, Thus, the project cannot contribute additional conflicts with any airport or airport overlay district,
Based on these facts, the City concludes that porential for conflicts hetween the proposed use and airport resources
from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the
project,
18. Land Use: Development within the Foothill Fire Zone
Potential Significant Impact:
Development within the Foothill Fire Zone could cause a porential for
hazards to facilities and humans,
Finding:
The porential exposure to foothill fire hazard issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8,
Section 8, I. of the EIR, The analysis of foothill fire hazard issues presented in the Initial Study
concluded that no potential for significant exposure to foothill fire hazards will occur if the project
is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required.
13
r
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion of the potential foothill fire hazard issues is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the
Initial Study (Page 23, item 6,c). The analysis indicates that the project site is not located in or near the Foothill
Fire Zone and the nearest zone is approximately four miles from the project site, The site has been totally altered
as a result of past industrial activities, No combustible vegetative material exists on-site, therefore, no wildland fire
hazard exists at the project site, Thus, the project cannot contribute to additional wildland fire hazards, Based on
these facts, the City concludes that potential for wildland fire hazard impacts at the project site cannot occur from
implementing the proposed project and this potential impact will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other
changes to the project,
19. Man-Made Hazards: Handling and Management of Hazardous Materials
Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project may use, store and/or dispose of hazardous materials
which could harm natural resources or humans,
Finding:
The potential impacts from handling and managing hazardous materials on site are discussed in
the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the hazardous material
management issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant man-
made hazards will occur if the project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the potential impacts from using and managing hazardous materials at the site is provided in the
environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 23 and 24, item 7,a). The analysis indicates that the
proposed uses could result in damage from use of hazardous materials, The analysis further indicates that existing
stringent regulations and programs are in place (under the jurisdiction of County, Regional and State Agencies) or
will be required that strictly control use, storage, and management of hazardous materials at the project site, The
site has been contanJ.inated as a result of past industrial activities and a remediation program is now in progress
(under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB) that the proposed project will support and assist through paving and
removing structures, A letter describing the hazardous material management requirements at the project site was
added to the Initial Study in response to comments received during the NOP comment period, Thus. the project
is not forecast to contribute to cumulative hazardous material management issues facing the City, As noted. the
proposed project will benefit the clean-up of contanJ.inated material at the project site, Based on these facts, the City
concludes that potential hazardous material impacts at the project site will not occur from implementing the proposed
project and this potential impact will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
20, Hazardous Materials: Potential for Accidental Releases
Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project may cause accidental release of hazardous
materials which could harm natural resources or humans,
Finding:
The potential impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials on site are discussed in the
Initial Study. Chapter 8. Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the hazardous material
management issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant man-
made hazards will occur if the project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the potential impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials at the site is provided in the
eovironmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 24. item 7,b), The analysis indicates that proposed uses
14
" ....... ..J _.,
. "
could result in accidental release from use of hazardous materials, The analysis funher indicates that existing
stringent regulations and programs are in place or will be required that strictly control the response to accidental
release of hazardous materials at the project site, A letter outlining the hazardous material management responses
at the project site was added to the Initial Study in response to comments received during the NOP comment period,
Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to cumulative hazardous material management issues facing the City,
A$ noted, the proposed project will benefit the clean-up of contaminated material at the project site, Based on these
facts, the City concludes that potential hazardous material impacts related to accidental spills at the project site may
occur from implementing the proposed project but this potential impact will be nonsignificant without any mitigation
or other changes to the project.
21. Hazardous Materials: Expose people to Health/Safety Hazards
Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project may cause accidental release of hazardous
materials which could create health or safety hazards for humans,
Finding:
The potential direct health impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials on site are
discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR. The analysis of the health and
safety issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant health and
safety impacts associated with use of hazardous materials on site will occur if the project is
developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the potential health and safety impacts from use of hazardous materials and accidental release of
hazardous materials at the site is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 24, item
7,c), The analysis indicates that the proposed uses could result in safety or health impacts from use of hazardous
materials, The analysis further indicates that existing stringent regulations and programs are in place or will be
reqnired that strictly control the response to any health or safety hazards or accidental release of hazardous materials
at the project site. A letter outlining the hazardous material management programs to protect health and safety at
the project site was added to the Initial Study in response to comments received during the NOP comment period,
Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to cumulative hazardous material management issues or health and
safety issues facing the City, A$ noted, the proposed project will benefit the clean-up of contaminated material at
the project site and remove a potential health and safety issue over the long-teno, Based on these facts, the City
concludes that potential hazardous material impacts related to use and managagement of hazardous materials at the
project site may occur from implementing the proposed project but this potential impact will be nonsignificant
without any mitigation or other changes to the project, Indirect effects from demolition of buildings and handling
of contaminated soil is an issue that is discussed in the EIR and the findings for this issue are presented in a
subsequent section,
22. Housing: Remove Housing
Potential Significant Impact:
The project could cause loss of housing and reduce the housing stock
available to the community,
Finding:
The potential for removal and loss of housing resources is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter
8, Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the housing resource issues presented in the Initial
Study concluded that no potential for significant housing impacts will occur if the project is
developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
15
. ~ .~-r
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the bousing impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page
24, item 8,a), The analysis indicates that the project site does not contain any housing because the site bas been
totally altered as a result of past industrial activities, No bousing will be removed or impacted, Thus, the project
cannot contribute additional loss of cumulative housing resources within the City, Based on these facts, the City
concludes that potential bousing resource effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant
without any mitigation or other changes to the project,
23. Housing: Create Significant Additional Demand for Housing
Potential Significant Impact:
The project could cause a significant demand for additional housing in
the community,
Finding:
The potential for increase in demand for bousing resources is discussed in the Initial Study,
Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR, The analysis of the bousing resource issues presented in the
Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant increase in housing demand will occur if
the project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the housing impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page
24, item 8, b). The analysis indicates that the project will create 60 new jobs which with higb vacancy rates and
unemployment in the area will not cause a significant demand for new bomes. Thus, the project cannot contribute
to excessive cumulative housing demand within the City, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential
bousing resource effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or
other changes to the project,
24. Transponation/Circulation: Increase in Parking Demand
Potential Significant Impact:
The project could cause a significant demand for additional parking
resources to the detriment of existing parking requirements.
Finding:
The potential for increase in demand for parking resources is discussed in the Initial Study,
Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the parking resource issues presented in the
Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant increase in parking demand will occur if
the project is developed as proposed, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the parking impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page
25, item 9,a-b), The analysis indicates that the project will create a very large on-site parking area for the
intermodal operations. including area for the 60 new employees whicb the project will generate, Thus, the project
cannot contribute to excessive cumulative parking demand within the City, Based on these facts, the City concludes
that potential parking resource effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any
mitigation or other cbanges to the project.
25. Transponation/Circulation: Affect the Public Transponation System
Potential Significant Impact:
The project could calise a significant demand for public transportation
resources to the detriment of existing system capacity,
16
,
Finding:
The potential for increase in demand for the public transporation system is discussed in the Initial
Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR. The analysis of the the project in relation to public
transporation issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant
increase in transit resources demand will occur if the project is developed as proposed, No
mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the transporation resource impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Page 25, item 9.a-h), The analysis indicates that the project will create 60 jobs for the area over a three
shift, 24 hour period. Adequate transit resources serve the surrounding road system to meet transit demand even
assuming that all employees used this system, Thus, the project cannot contribute to excessive cumulative transit
demand within the City. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential transit resource effects from
implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
26, Transponation/Circulation: Alter Present Patterns of Circulation
Potential Significant Impact:
The project could alter the present pattern of circulation to the
detriment of existing circulation system capacity,
Finding:
The potential for altering patterns of circulation is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8,
Section 8, I. of the EIR. The analysis of the the project in relation to the existing pattern of
circulation issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant alteration
of the existing circulation pattern will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation
is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the transporation resource impacts is provided in the substantiation section of the Initial Study
(Page 25, item 9,a-h), Traffic pattern issues are also discussed in the EIR, Chapter 4. and the findings in the Final
EIR suppon that conclusion that the existing patter of circulation will continue to be utilized, The analysis indicates
that Santa Fe uses an existing pattern of circulation for its trucks that utilize the existing intermodaI facility and the
expanded facility will use the same surrounding road system to meet its transpon requirements, Thus, the project
cannot contribute to cumulative alterations in the local circulation system around the Santa Fe . A. Yard. Based
on these facts, the City concludes that potential circulation system effects from implementing the proposed project
will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
27. Transponation/Circulation: Rail and Air System Effects
Potential Significant Impact:
The project could alter present rail and air traffic systems to the
detriment of existing systems,
Finding:
The potential for altering air and rail systems is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section
8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the the project in relation to the existing air and rail systems is
presented in the Initial Study and it concluded that no potential for significant alteration of the
existing systems will occur if the project is developed as proposed, The cargo rail system will
be enhance by the proposed project, No mitigation is required,
17
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the transporation resource impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Page 25, item 9,a-h), The analysis indicates that Santa Fe will enhance its rail operations and
competitiveness by installing the proposed intennodal facility expansion, The facility is located more than four miles
from the nearest airpon and no potential to affect the existing airpon operations is forecast to occur, Thus, the
project cannot contribute to cumulative adverse alterations in the rail or air traffic systems in the project area,
Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential rail and air traffic system effects from implementing the
proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project,
28. Transponation/Circulation: Increased Safety Hazards
Potential Significant Impact:
The project may cause a significant impact by increasing safety hazards
to pedestrians and bicycle traffic
Finding:
The potential for the project to increase traffic safety hazards is discussed in the Initial Study,
Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the the project in relation to traffic safety
hazards is presented in the Initial Study and it concluded that no potential for creation significant
safety hazards to pedestrian or civilians will occur if the project is developed as proposed, No
mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the transporation resource impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Page 25, item 9,a-h). The analysis indicates that all construction impacts will be limited to the project site
and that the local circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project in any manner that
could impact pedestrian and bicycle traffic, Thus. the project cannot contribute to cumulative adverse safety impacts
in the project area, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential for adverse impacts to traffic safety from
implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project,
29, Transponation/Circulation: Disjointed Pattern of Roadway Improvements
Potential Significant Impact:
The project may cause a significant impact to traffic flow by causing
a disjointed pattern of roadway improvements.
Finding:
The potential for adversely impacting traffic flow due to disjointed modifications in the local
circulation system is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,[, of the EfR, The
analysis of the the project in relation to the existing pattern of circulation and future proposed
circulation issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for disjointed patterns
of circulation system improvements will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No
mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the transporation resource impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Page 25, item 9,a-b), The analysis indicates that Santa Fe will continue to rely upon the existing pattern of
circulation for its intennodal operations and it will only make offsite improvements that are required by the City
and consistent with the existing General Plan Circulation Element, Thus, the project cannot contribute to cumulative
disjointed alterations in the local circulation system around the Santa Fe "A" Yard. Based on these facts, the City
concludes that potential circulation system effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant
without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
18
30. Public Services: Fire, Police, School, Parks and Medical Aid
Potential Significant Impact:
The project may cause an iDcrease iD demand for public services which
could exceed the capacity of the various systems iD place,
Finding:
The potential for adversely impactiDg five of the six public service systems is discussed iD the
Initial Study, Chapter 8, SectioD 8, I, of the EIR. The analysis of the the project iD relatioD to
the existiDg service systems and future project demand issues cODcluded that DO potential for a
significant iDcrease iD public service demand will be generated if the project is developed as
proposed, No mitigatioD is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussioD of the public service system impacts is provided in the eDvironmeDtal evaluatioD sectioD of the Initial
Study (Page 26, items IO,a-e), The analysis indicates that Santa Fe will eliminate existiDg Duisance structures and
replace them with an opeD parking area that will have a high quality security system, Demand for fire and police
service is forecast to decline, and the school system will Dot iDCur any measurable direct or iDdirect impact. The
project will DOt affect the parks system and DO demand for medical aid is forecast to occur through implemeDtatioD
of the proposed project. The anticipated demands OD services were determiDed to be withiD the existiDg or planned
service capabilities of these five service systems, Thus, the project is nOl forecast to contribute to direct or
cumulative demand for significant public service system resources, Based on these facts, the City cODcludes that
poteDtial fire, police, school, parks and medical aid service system effects from implementiDg the proposed project
will be Donsignificant without any mitigatioD or other changes to the project,
31. Public Services: Solid Waste
Potential Significant Impact:
The project may cause an increase in demand for solid waste services
which could exceed the capacity of the solid waste system iD place,
Finding:
The poteDtial for adversely impactiDg the solid waste system is discussed in the Initial Study,
Chapter 8. Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the the project in relation to the existiDg solid
waste system and future project demand for capacity in this system concluded that a potential for
a significant adverse impact will be geDerated if the project is developed as proposed, MitigatioD
is required to reduce this potential impact below a significant level. Mitigation measure identified
in the Initial Study will change the project by limiting the waste generated that must be sent to
landfills, The following mitigation measures are required:
], All wood to be senl to recycling facilities for gringing and reuse shall be clean and
reasonnbly free of dirt. rocks. and other contamirumts,
2, All remaining asbestos shall be removed by a qULllified firm, and disposed of at an
appropriate Clms I or II landfill,
3, All brick material not suitable for re-use shall be crushed and used as basefor site paving
or other on~site uses.
4, Removal of bricks and other re-usable building materials shall be conducted in such a
m1JJ1ner as to minimize potential damage to those materials and TIU1Ximize the potentialfor
reuse.
19
/' "/.. ~.,
5. Any wastes tluIE are potentially can/aminated with oil. grease, or other such substance
shall be cleaned prior 10 disposal or recycling, or shall be disposed of in an appropriate
faciUty ,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the solid waste system impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Page 26, itema 10,1) and a technical evaluation of solid waste by Grassetti, 1994, The analysis indicates
that Santa Fe will produce approximately 50.000 yards of solid waste which could be considered a significant
adverse impact to the existing waste disposal system. but that recycling and re-use on the project site as required
by proposed mitigation will reduce this volume to a level not considered significant. With these project changes,
the anticipated demands on the solid waste system were determined to be within the existing or planned seIVice
capabilities of this system, Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative demand for
significant solid waste system capacity, Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate solid waste capacity
is available to meet the projected requirements of the project and cumulative demand over the near-tenn future or
it can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for
this issue, This change in the project is the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the
City as part of its review and approval authority when the demolition is in progress,
32, Utilities: Adequacy of Capacity and Service Pattern
Potential Significant Impact:
The project may cause an increase in demand for utility seIVices which
could exceed the capacity of the utility system in place,
Finding:
The potential for adversely impacting utility systems and the existing seIVice pattern is discussed
in the Initial Study, Chapter 8. Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the project in relation
to the existing utility systems and future project demand issues concluded that no potential for a
significant increase in utility demand will be generated if the project is developed as proposed,
No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the utility system impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study
(Page 27, items II,a-b), The analysis indicates that Santa Fe will eliminate much of the existing utility demand by
demolishing the existing structures and replacing them with an open parking area for transfer facilities, Demand
for utility capacity is forecast to decline overall with the project area, No unusual increase in utility demand or
disjointed utility patterns will be created because the existing utilities are adequate to seIVe the site, The anticipated
demands on seIVices were determined to be within the existing or planned seIVice capabilities of the utility seIVice
providers. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative demand for significant utility
system resources, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential utility system and utility distribution
pattern effects from implementing the proposed project will be nousignificant without any mitigation or other
changes to the project.
33, Aesthetics: Obstruct Any View
Potential Significant Impact:
The project may have a potential to obstruct a significant or imponant
scenic view in the project vicinity,
Finding:
The potential for adversely impacting significant scenic vistas is discussed in the Initial Study,
Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the project in relation to known scenic vistas
20
r:
concluded that no potential for alteration or impact to any scenic vistas will be caused if the
project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the aesthetic values and obstruction of scenic vistas is provided in the environmental evaluation
section of the Initial Study (Page 27, item 12,a). The analysis indicates that the Santa Fe site is essentially flat and
that the proposed demolition and grading of the site has no potential to obstruct any scenic view. The site is
essentiaJIy flat and surrounded by existing urban development that is devoid of any significant or imponant scenic
views, Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative obstruction of any scenic views because
they do not occur at the site, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential scenic view effects from
implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
34, Aesthetics: Create Offensive Views
Potential Significant Impact:
The project may have a potential to create offensive views to those
living in the project vicinity.
Finding:
The potential for creating adverse scenic views by implementing the project is discussed in the
Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8,1, of the EIR, The analysis of the the project visual qualities
concluded that the demolition of structures and paving the site will not create views substantially
different than exist at this railyard at present, No significant visual change is forecast to occur
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the aesthetic values and creation of scenically offensive views is provided in the environmental
evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 27, item 12,b), The analysis indicates that the Santa Fe site is presently
used as a railyard. that it is essentially flat, and that the proposed demolition and grading of the site will not
significantly alter its visual qualities, The site is essentially flat and surrounded by existing urban development that
is devoid of any significant or imponant scenic resources, Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct
or cumulative creation of any offensive scenic views because significant visual resources do not occur at the project
site or in the project vicinity and because the project will not significantly alter the industrial visual setting at the
project site, Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential scenic view effects from implementing the
proposed project will be nonsignificant, not offensive, without any mitigation or other changes to the project,
This completes the discussion of those impacts that are either non-significant without mitigation
or can be reduced to an insignificant level with implementation of recommended mitigation
measures in the Initial Study.
D.2. Non-Silmificant IrnDacts Identified in the EIR After Mitil!ation
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having potential to cause significant
impact and were carried forward into the EIR for detailed evaluation. These issues then were
found to be non-significant based on detailed technical data supporting a conclusion that no
significant impact could occur or that mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be
implemented which would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. In the following
presentation each resource issue is identified; it is followed by a description of the potential
significant adverse environmental effect (Potential Significant Impact); a discussion of the
21
findings in the entire administrative record, which is predominantly the EIR, technical
appendices or responses to comments, is provided and any mitigation measures that will be
implemented to achieve a non-significant impact are identified; and finally, a discussion of the
facts supporting the finding are summarized. The mitigation measures are presented below with
the same numbers as identified in the EIR. All findings, mitigation measures and facts are
abstracted from the EIR, including the responses to comments provided as a separately bound
volume.
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council hereby finds that all mitigation
measures that will be implemented to mitigate the impacts of this project have been incorporated
into, or required of, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially
significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Public Resources Code Section
21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects
unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified
in the completed environmental impact report;
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can
and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or
c. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public
Resources Section 21081, that the following issues are non-significant based on implementation
of the mitigation measures outlined below and that no additional mitigation measures or project
changes are required to reduce these impacts below a significant level. These issues and the
measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows:
1. Air Resources: Construction Emissions
Potential Significant Impact:
Construction emissions from demolition, grading and paving activities
could exceed regional thresholds and contribute to continued significant
air quality degradation,
Finding:
The construction air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the ErR and Appendix
1 of Volume 2, Technical Appendices. The air resources evaluation indicated that project
construction emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), sulfur
oxides (SO,) and paniculate matter (PM,,) were found to be below the thresholds of significance
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) without specific
mitigation, Nitrogen oxide emissions have been analyzed separately under Section E below, The
only impact with potential significance is nuisance fugitive dust that may be generated when
22
construction activities occur on high wind days, The potential construction emission impacts are
not considered significant for the above pollutants after implementing the following mitigation
measures. Six mitigation measures have been identified in the ErR that change the project so that
emissions fall below significance thresholds, These measures are:
4,2.3,1 Prior to issUllnce of a grading permit, the project proponents shall demonstrate to the City
Engineer the tutions that will be taken to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires
that there be no dust impacts offsite suffiden1 to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule
403, which restricts visible emissions from construction, Specific measures will include
moistening soil prior to grading, daily watering of exposed surftues or treating with soil
conditioner to stabilize the soil; washing truck tires and covering loads of dirt transported
offsite; cessation of grading during periods of high winds over 25 miles per hour, and
paving, coating or seeding graded areas at the earliest possible time after soil
disturbance.
4.2,3,2 All construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition so as to
reduce operationnl emissions,
4,2,3,5 Trucks and construction equipment shall limit idling, Trucks and equipment that may be
left to idle for more than ten minutes shall be shut down,
4,2,3,6 To the maxillUlm extent feasible, construction activities that ojJect traffic flow will be
restricted to off-peak haurs (i,e" between 7:00 p,m, and 6:00 a,m. and between 9:00
a,m, and 3:00 p,m,),
4,2,3,7 Construction empwyees shall be provided with transit and ride share i1iformation.
4,2,3,8 Prohibit demolition, grading, and paving activities during times of smog alerts,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and suppon documents indicates that the project will emit less CO, ROC, SO,
and PMIO than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin,
Table's 4,2-3 through 4,2-5 in the Final EIR list the forecast emissions and none of the above emissions approaches
the SCAQMD significance thresholds, The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact of these air
emissions are forecast to be nonsignificant, but mitigation is provided to control total emissions and potential for
nuisance from fugitive dust. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential construction emission impacts
from CO, ROC, SO., and PMIO can be maintained at a non-significant level or can be reduced below a significant
level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue, The recommended changes
in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its
review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring,
2, Air Resources: Operation Emissions
Potential Significant Impact:
Operation emissions from operating equipment and delivering trailers
and containers to the Intennodal Facility could exceed regional
thresholds and contribute to continued significant air qnality
degradation,
Finding:
The operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the ErR and Appendix
I of Volume 2, Technical Appendices, The air resources evaluation indicated that project
23
operating emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), sulfur oxides
(SOJ and particulate matter (PMIO) were found to be below the thresbolds of significance
establisbed by the SCAQMD without specific mitigation, The potential operating emission impacts
are not considered significant for the above pollutants after implementing the following mitigation
measures, Two mitigation measures have been identified in the ErR that cbange project to ensure
that the above pollutant emissions fall below significance thresbolds, These measures are:
4.2.3.9
All off-road operating equipment and locomotives shall be maintaine4 in peak
operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions,
4,2.3,10
Operational equipment shall limit idling, Trucks and equipment that may be left
to idle for more than ten minutes shall be shut doWll.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and suppon documeots indicates that the project will emit less CO, ROC, SO,
and PMIO than the thresbolds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin,
Table 4,2-6 in the Final ErR lists the forecast emissions and none of the above emissions approacbes the SCAQMD
significance thresholds, The ElR concludes that the project and cumulative impact on these air resources are
forecast to be nonsignificant, but mitigation is provided to control total emissions. Based on these data, the City
concludes that the potential operational emission impacts from CO, ROC, SO" and PMIO can be maintained at a
non-significant level or can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation
measures proposed for this issue, The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and
these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority and during mitigation
monitoring,
3. Air Resources: Carbon Monoxide "Hot Spots"
Potential Significant Impact:
Operation emissions from operating equipment and traffic related to
delivering trailers and containers to the Intermodal Facility could
exceed the CO ambient air quality standard and contribute to locally
significant air quality degradation.
Finding:
The carbon monoxide "bot spot" issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the ElR and
Appendix 2 of Volume 2, Technical Appendices, The modeled concentrations of CO indicate that
a "bot spot" will not be created by the proposed project or cumulative growth in the affected area,
The potential "bot spot" emission impacts are not considered significant and no mitigation
measures are required to be implemented,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and suppon documents indicates that the project will cause or contribute to
CO concentrations that are well below the ambient air quality standard used to protect bealth. Table 4,2-7 in the
Final ErR lists the forecast emissions and none of the modeled ambient concentrations approacb the significance
thresholds, The ElR concludes that the project and cumulative impact on CO "bot spots' are forecast to be
nonsignificant and no mitigation is required, Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential operational
emission impacts to CO ambient air quality can be maintained at a non-significant level without implementing
mitigation measures,
24
f', . _,.
4, Air Resources: Public Health Risk
Emissions of toxic materials from demolition of structures could exceed
risk thresholds and contribute to significant local air quality
degradation,
Potential Significant Impact:
Finding:
The air pollutant bealth risk issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix
I of Volume 2, Technical Appendices. The health risk evaluation focused on emissions of
asbestos and lead to determine if they could cause a locally significant health risk, The
concentrations in the ambient air were found to be controllable below the thresholds of significance
established by the SCAQMD with specific mitigation, The potential asbestos and lead emission
impacts are not considered significant for the above pollutants after implementing the following
mitigation measures. Two mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change the
project to ensure that the above pollutant emissions fall below significance thresholds, These
measures are:
4,2,3,3 The two areas COnlOlmng lead shall not be wuJer active disturbance (grading or
excavation) at the same time,
4,2,3.4 SanJa Fe shall provide the City with writ/en verification that structures are free from
asbestos prior to demolition and shall implement required measures in Rule 1403 when
removing asbestos from structures,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will can result in emissions
which could cause a health risk in the surrounding area, Data presented on pages 4-24 through 4-26 in the Final
EIR lists the forecast emissions for lead, the ambient concentrations of lead, and the controls required to prevent
asbestos release during removal, The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact of these air emissions
could be significant, but mitigation is provided to control total emissions and ambient concentrations to
nonsignificant levels, Based on these data. the City concludes that the potential health risk impacts from lead and
asbestos can be maintained at a non-significant level or can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with
implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue, The recommended changes in the project are the
responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval
authority and during mitigation monitoring,
5, Air Resources: Cumulative Operation Emissions
Cumulative long-term emissions from operating equipment and
delivering trailers and containers to the lntermodal Facility could
exceed regional thresholds and contribute to continued significant air
quality degradation,
Potential Significant Impact:
Finding:
The long-term operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and
Appendix I of Volume 2, Technical Appendices, The air resources evaluation indicated that
project operating emissions combined with other emissions within the South Coast Air Basin will
not contribute to significant air quality degradation because the SCAQMD Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) will control emissions by the year 2010 to be in compliance with
ambient air quality standards, The potential long-term operating emission impacts are not
considered cumulatively significant because of the implementation of the AQMP by the District,
25
No additional mitigation measures are required of the project 10 achieve this level of nonsignificant
impact,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and suppon documents indicates that the project will and other projects will
be subject to the gradnal reduction in air emissions subject 10 AQMP controls and that the AQMP measures bave
been identified as adequate to achieve air quality that does not exceed ambient air quality standards in the South
Coast Air Basin. The discussion on page 4-28 in the Final EIR describes this situation and concludes that the
project and cumulative impact on the Basin air resources over the long-tenn are forecast to be nonsignificant. Based
on these data, the City concludes that the potential operational emission impacts from the project can be reduced
below a significant level in accordance with implementing the AQMP, The changes in regional emissions are the
responsibility of the District, Air Resource Board, and City and these measures will be implemented by the these
agencies as pan of their review and approval authority over emissions sources and activities,
6. Noise: Construction Activity
Potential Significant Impact:
Construction activities from demolition, grading and paving activities
could cause noise levels to exceed City significance thresholds at
adjacent residences,
Finding:
The construction noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix 3 of
Volume 2. Technical Appendices, The noise evaluation indicated that project construction
activities could exceed the City's noise thresholds for noise sensitive uses, such as the adjacent
residential area to the nonh of the project site, The potential construction noise impacts are not
considered significant for any of the three construction activities after implementing the following
mitigation measures, Four mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change project
so that noise levels fall below significance thresholds, These measures are:
4.3.4,J Maintain effective mufflers on all engines,
4,3.4,2 Do not idle engines needlessly; equipment shall not idle more than ten minutes.
4,3.4.3 Do not operate demolition equipment before 7 am, within 200 feet of residences,
4,3.4.4 During construction activities. Santa Fe shall notify adjacent residents via certified l1Ulil
of a phone number where noise compLmnts can befiled, Santa Fe shall install ponoble
noise barriers between such residences and construction activities within 200 feet of the
nonh property bowuiary until the construction activity is completed,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and suppon documents indicates that the project will cause noise levels at
adjacent residences to exceed 60 dB which is a sufficient change in the noise environment to he a significant impact,
Table 4,3-7 in the Final EIR lists the forecast noise levels and the paving and grading activities are forecast to
exceed EIR significance thresholds, The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact to the noise
environment will be significant without mitigation, With mitigation the construction activity noise levels can be
reduced below 60 db L", which is considered a nonsignificant impact. Based on these data, the City concludes that
the potential construction noise impacts can be maintained at a non-significant level or can be reduced below a
significant level in accordance by implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended
26
changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part
of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monilOring,
7, Noise: lntemwdal Yard Operations
Potential Significant hnpact:
Intermodal operations from expanded facility activities could cause
noise levels 10 exceed City significance thresholds at adjacent
residences,
Finding:
The intermodal yard noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix 3
of Volume 2, Technical Appendices, The noise evaluation indicated that intermodal yard
operation activities are not forecast 10 exceed the City's noise thresholds for noise sensitive uses,
such as the adjacent residential area 10 the north of the project site, The intermodal yard
operations are not considered significant because they do not cause the City's time-averaged
threshold (65 dB L..,) 10 be exceeded at the residences, No mitigation is required,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will cause noise levels at
adjacent residences 10 exceed 54 10 64 dB L", at the residences, This is not a sufficient change in the noise
environment to be a significant impact, Pages 4-43 and 4-44 in the Final EIR lists the forecast noise levels and the
intermodal yard operations are nOt forecast 10 exceed the City's noise compatibility standard, Based on these data,
the City concludes that the potential intermodal yard noise impacts can he maintained below the compatibility
threshold at the nearest residences,
8, Water Quality: Demolition ami Paving Activity
Potential Significant hnpact:
Construction activities from demolition, grading and paving activities
could cause significant degradation of water quality in surface runoff
and ground water.
Finding:
The construction water quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix
4 of Volume 2, Technical Appendices, The construction activity water quality evaluation indicated
that project construction activities could cause significant degradation of surface runoff and
possibly cause degradation of ground water, The potential construction water quality impacts are
not considered significant for any of the three construction activities after implementing the
following mitigation measures, Two mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that
change project so that potential water quality degradation is prevented from becoming a significant
impact. These measures are:
4.4.3,1
Because mobile equipment will utilize the site after the inrermodal facility is in
operation. Santa Fe shrIll ensure all surface and subsurface remediation system
facilities within the project area are protected from such equipment use and. if
damoged by intermodal activities. the remediation facilities shrIll be repaired and
maintained in good operating condition until the remediation effon is completed
in conformance with regulatory requirements,
4.4,3,2
Santa Fe shrIll implement the best manngement practice measures listed in the
Storm Water Pollution Prevenn'on Plan (dared July 28. 1994) attached as
Appendix 2 to Volume 1 of this ElR,
27
r, ~.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and suppon documents indicates that the project has a potential to cause
significant degradation of surface runoff from construction activities, Appendix 4, Volume 2, in the Final EIR
describes these potential water pollution activities and provides a detailed list of management requirements to control
the release of water pollutants that could cause significant degradation of water quality, either surface runoff or
ground water, The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact to water quality will be significant without
these measures. With mitigation the construction activity water quality can be reduced so little or no water pollution
is generated from the project site which is considered a nonsignificant impact. Based on these data, the City
concludes that the potential construction water quality impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance
hy implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue, The recommended changes in the project are the
responsibility of the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board and these measures will be implemented
by the City and Regional Water Quality Control Board as pan of their review and approval authority and during
mitigation monitoring,
9. Water Quality: Operation Activities
Potential Significant Impact:
Intermodal yard activities could cause significant degradation of water
quality in surface runoff and ground water.
Finding:
The operational water quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix
4 of Volume 2, Technical Appendices and in Chapter 8, Section 8,1 of Volume I. The
operational activity water quality evaluation indicated that project could cause significant
degradation of surface runoff and possibly cause degradation of ground water. The potential
operational water quality impacts are not considered significant for operating activities after
implementing the following mitigation measure, One mitigation measure has been identified in
the EIR that changes the project so that potential water quality degradation is prevented from
becoming a significant impact. This measure is:
4.4,3.3 Santa Fe shall develop and implement an Industrial Facility Storm Water Pollurion
Prevention Plan, At a minimum it shall include: a) weekly sweeping af all paved areas
of the Intermodal Expansion Project site to prevent accumulation of non point sources af
pollution; and b) a spill prevention control program that will ensure immediate response
to any significant spills of hazardous I7Ulterials and remediation of any area contaminaJed
by an accidental spill to pre-spill conditions or conditions specified try responsible
regulatory agem:ies. such as the RWQCB or the Depanment of Toxic Substances Control,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and suppon documents indicates that the project has a potential to cause
significant degradation of surface runoff from operational activities, Appendix 4, Volume 2, and Chapter 8, Section
8.1, in Volume I of the Final EIR describe these potential water pollution activities and provide a detailed list of
management requirements to control the release of water pollutants that could cause significant degradation of water
quality, either surface runoff or ground water, The letter from Santa Fe in Appendix 8,2 identifies the types of
programs that Santa Fe must implement. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact to water quality
will be significant without implementing these mandatory programs and the one required mitigation measure. With
mitigation the intermodal yard operational activity water quality impacts can be reduced so little or no water
pollution is generated from the project site which is considered a nonsignificant impact. Based on these data, the
City concludes that the potential operational water quality impacts can be reduced below a significant level in
accordance with implementing the mitigation measure proposed for this issue, The recommended changes in the
project are the responsibility of the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board and these measures will be
28
~ .~
J ~-,
''', --
implemented by the City and Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of their review and approval authority
and during mitigation monitoring,
10. Traffic: Existing Plus Project Traffic
Potential Significant Impact:
Additional traffic generated by the expanded intermodal facility
operations could cause significant deterioration of traffic flow on the
affected circulation system,
Finding:
The project traffic impact issues are discussed in detail in Cbapter 4 of the EIR and the Traffic
Study contained in Volume 3, Technical Appendices, of the EIR, The discussion of the increased
traffic from the expanded intermodal facility indicated that the project could cause significant
deterioration of traffic flow at one intersection, 4~ Street and Mt, Vernon Avenue, The potential
traffic flow impact at this intersection is not considered significant after implementing the
following mitigation measures, Several mitigation measures were identified in the EIR to reduce
impacts to the extent feasibly, but subsequent to the close of the comment period the City and
Santa Fe agreed on an additional mitigation measure that can fully eliminate the potential
significant impact at the affected intersection, This new measure replaces measure 4,5,3,1 in the
ErR and is as follows:
4,5,3.1 When a signal is installed at the 4" Street/Mt, Vernon intersection, Santa Fe shallfund
35 percent (to a maximum of $40.000) of the cost of this intersection signalization as its
fair share of cost,
This measure must be implemented by Santa Fe and the City when monitoring shows that the
intersection falls below the significance threshold agreed to with the City which indicates that
Level of Service (LOS) E is considered significantly adverse, This measure also may elimioate
the need to implement the following measures, but the City shall make this determination upon
implementation of measure 4,5,3,1.
The other traffic mitigation measures are:
4,5,3,2
A larger 'YIELD' sign shall be installed at the merge point of the 4" Streetfree
flow right-turn lane with Mt, Vernon Avenue and a type W28 advance warning
sign shall be installed 300 feet in advance of the "YIELD" sign on 4" Street,
4,5,3.3
The existing stop sign on the 4" Street/Mt, Vernon Avenue approach shall be
replaced with a larger 36" x 36' size "STOP'sign. The "STOP' sign shall
have a high intensity grade of reflective sheeting to ensure maximum visibility to
the motorists,
4,5.3.4
A 36" x 36" size stop sign shall be installed at the 4" Street project site
entrance/exit driveway for exiting traffic,
4,5,3,5
The 4" Street/Mt, Vernon Avenue intersection shall be monitored annually and
a traffic signal shall be installed at this intersection when traffic signal warrants
are met or when a traffic engineering study justifies the need for the installation,
29
,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project has a potential to cause
significant deterioration of one intersection from combined existing traffic and the proposed project. Volume 3 of
the EIR and Table 4,5.4 indicate that all intersections except that at 4~ Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue will operate
at an acceptable LOS with the project, This intersection will operate at LOS E during the afternoon peak hour
according to the data provided in the Traffic Study and Chapter 4 of the EIR, The EIR concludes that the project
will cause significant traffic impacts without implementing measure 4,5,3, I above, With mitigatioo the project
traffic impacts can be reduced so no traffic flow is forecast to experience significant deterioration, Based on these
data, the City concludes that the potential project traffic impacts can be reduced below a significant level in
accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue, The recommended changes in the
project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review
and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring,
11. Traffic: Existing Plus Project Traffic Plus Cumulative Growth Traffic
Potential Significant Impact:
Additional traffic generated by the expanded intermodal facility
operations and cumulative traffic growth could cause significant
deterioration of traffic flow on the affected circulation system,
Finding:
The project and cumulative growth traffic impact issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the
EIR and the Traffic Study contained in Volume 3, Technical Appendices, of the EIR, The
discussion of the increased traffic from the expanded intermodal facility and cumulative growth
indicated that they could cause significant deterioration of traffic flow at one intersection, 4~ Street
and Mt, Vernon Avenue, The potential traffic flow impact at this intersection is not considered
significant after implementing the following mitigation measures, Several mitigation measures
were identified in the EIR to reduce impacts to the extent feasibly, but subsequent to the close of
the comment period the City and Santa Fe agreed on an additional mitigation measure that can
fully eliminate the poteotial significant impact at the affected intersection, This new measure
replaces measure 4,5,3, I in the EIR and is as follows:
4,5,3.1 When a signal is installed at the 4'" Street/Mt, Vernon intersection, Santa Fe shallfwul
35 percent (to a maximum of $40,000) of the cost of this intersection signali7.lllion as its
fair share of cost.
This measure must be implemented by Santa Fe and the City when monitoring shows that the
intersection falls below the significance threshold agreed to with the City which indicates that
Level of SetVice (LOS) E is considered significantly adverse, This measure also may eliminate
the need to implement the following measures, but the City shall make this determination upon
implementation of measure 4.5,3,1.
The other traffic mitigation measures are:
4,5,3,2
A lnrger . flEW' sign shall be installed at the merge point of the 4'" Street free
flow right-turn lane with Mt, Vernon Avenue and a type W28 advance warning
sign shall be installed 300 feet in advance of the . YlEUJ' sign on 4'" Street,
4,5,3,3
The existing stop sign on the 4'" Street/Mt, Vernon Avenue approach shall be
replnced with a lnrger 36" x 36" size "STOP' sign, The "STOP' sign shall
have a high intensity grade of reflective sheeting to ensure maximum visibility to
the IIwtorists,
30
~,. .,: -1
4,5,3,4
A 36' x 36" size stop sign shall be installed at the 4'" Street project site
entrance/exit driveway for exiting traffic,
4,5.3,5
The 4'" Street/Mt, Vernon Avenue intersection shall be monitored annUiIlly and
a traffic sigMI shall be installed at this intersection when traffic sigMI wamlll1s
are met or when a traffic engineering study justifies the need for the installation,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project and cumulative traffic growth
have a potential to cause significant deterioration of one intersection from combined existing traffic and the proposed
project. Volume 3 of the EIR and Table 4,5,5 indicate that all intersections except that at 4" Street and Ml. Vernon
A venue will operate at an acceptable LOS with the project and cumulative traffic growth. This intersection will
operate at LOS F during the afternoon peak bour according to the data provided in the Traffic Study and Chapter
4 of the EIR. The ErR concludes that the project and cumulative traffic growth will cause significant traffic impacts
without implementing measure 4,5,3.1 above, With mitigation the project traffic impacts can be reduced so no
traffic flow is forecast to experience significant deterioration, The 4" Street and Mt, Vernon Avenue intersection
would operate at LOS B with the signal, Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential project and
cumulative growth traffic impacts are unavoidable, but can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with
implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue, The recommended cbanges in the project are the
responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval
authority and during mitigation monitoring.
12. Cultural Resources: Buried Resources
Potential Significant Impact:
Demolition and grading activities have a potential to expose and
damage or destroy buried cultural resources which could cause the loss
of significant historic or prehistoric resources beneath the project site.
Finding:
The buried cultural resource issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix
6 of Volume 2, Technical Appendices, The data indicates that substantial fill has been placed over
the project site, but demolition and grading activities were identified as having the potential for
exposing buried resources of potentially significant value, The cultural resources evaluation
indicated that these activities could cause significant damage or loss to such resources. The
potential buried resource impacts are nOl considered significant after implementing the following
mitigation measures, Two mitigation measure bave been identified in the ErR that change the
project so that potential buried resource impacts are prevented from becoming a significant impact.
These measures are:
4,6,3,J An archaeological monitor(s) qUiIlified in historical archaeology shall be present during
removal of the foundations of existing buildings. particularly those located on or near the
sites of earlier buildings and featUres as identified in the Archaeological Technical
Appendix and during trenching for the proposed water main across the center of the
project site, If remains of earlier buildings or features not previously recorded are
encountered during monitoring of demolition, work in the affected area should be
suspended temporarily until those resources can be evalUiIted, documented, and salvaged
as necessary,
4,6,3,2 In the event that intact subsUlface archaeological resources are encountered during
grading along the nonh and east edges of the project site in areas with structures depicted
on historic /I/ilpS, those resources shall be evalUiIted for significance, and a treatment
31
programfor data recovery prepared and implemented prior to junher disturbance of those
arens found to contain significant archaeological resources,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that project demolition and grading activities
have a potential to cause damage or loss of significant huried cultural resources that may exist beneath the areas
scheduled for demolition and grading. Appendix 6, Volume 2. pages 4-108 through 4-110 in the Final EIR describe
these potential buried resource impacts and provide mitigation measures to control the damage or loss of such
resources that could be affected by demolition and grading activities, The EIR concludes that the project and
cumulative impact to buried resources will be significant without implementing these mitigation measures, With
mitigation the demolition and grading activity impacts to buried cultural resources can be reduced so little or no loss
of such resources occurs which is considered a nonsignificant impact, Based on these data, the City concludes that
the potential buried cultural resource impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with
implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue, The recommended changes in the project are the
responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of their review and approval
authority and during mitigation monitoring,
This completes the discussion of those impacts that are either non-significant without mitigation
or can be reduced to an insignificant level with implementation of recommended mitigation
measures in the EIR.
E. SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
Despite incorporating changes and alterations into the Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion
Project (proposed action), three environmental categories were found to have unavoidable,
significant adverse environmental effects, The following environmental issues addressed in the
EIR were forecast to experience significant impacts: Air Quality; Noise; and Cultural Resources.
The potential impacts for the above issues were concluded to be significant because the impacts
could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed project changes and
mitigation measures (i,e., the impacts are unavoidable). Thus, the potential for significant
effects to occur for these issues would continue to exist (at least for the short-term) regardless
of whether or not the City or other agencies implement the project changes and mitigation
measures contained in the EIR,
These three impact categories, the impacts they will incur, and the mitigation measures (project
changes) designed to minimize them to the degree feasible are summarized in the following
discussion.
1. Air Quality: Construction Emissions
Significant Unavoidable Impact:
Short-term NO, construction etnIsslOns from demolition,
grading and paving activities will exceed regional thresholds
and contribute to continued significant air quality degradation,
Finding:
The construction air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix
I of Volume 2, Technical Appendices, The air resources evaluation indicated that project
construction emissions for nitrogen oxides (NO,) were found to be above the threshold of
32
.
, .,--
significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
regardless of mitigation, Therefore, direct emissions of NO, from construction activities cannot
be reduced below a significant level. The data indicate that a violation of the NO, ambient air
quality standard is not at issue; NO, is a precursor for ozone and the construction activities will
contrihute to continued significant violations of the ozone standard over the shon-term. The ErR
identifies mitigation measures that can reduce NO, emissions, but the volume of direct emissions
(from construction equipment) and indirect emissions (from employee trips) are substantial enough
for this project that the emissions cannot be reduced below the threshold of significance, The
mitigation measures designed to minimize construction NO, emissions to the degree feasible are:
4.2.3,2 All construction equipment s!wll be maintained in peak operating coruiition so as to
reduce operational emissions,
4,2,3,5 Trucks and construction equipment s!wlllimit idling, Trucks and equipment t!wt may be
left to idle for more tlum ten minutes s!wll be shut down,
4,2.3,6 To the maximum extent feasible, construction activities t!wt affect traffic flow will be
restricted to off-peak !wurs (i,e" between 7:00 p,m, and 6:00 a,m, and between 9:00
a,m, and 3:00 p,m,),
4,2,3,7 Construction employees sWI be provided with transit and ride s!wre information,
4.2,3,8 Prohibit demolition, grading, and paving activities during times of smog alerts,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion in the text of the ErR indicates that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) experiences violations of the
federal and state Ozone standards. The discussion in the text of the ErR and suppon documents indicates that the
project will emit more NO, than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD fnr a project in the South
Coast Air Basin, Table's 4,2-3 through 4,2-5 in the Final EIR list the forecast emissious and in each case the NO,
emissions substantially exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The ErR concludes that the project and
cumulative air emissious are forecast to be significant. Given the existing air quality standard violations for ozone
and paniculate matter and the nnn-attainment status of the SCAB for these pollutants, the City concurs that the
construction emissions should be considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact,
The mitigation measures for the proposed project incorporate those feasible measures identified hy the ErR and
contained within the SCAQMD Air Qnality Attainment Plan and the District's "CEQA Handbook", No additional
mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be considered at this time and all of
the changes to the project that are proposed to reduce air emissions are considered feasible. Therefore, the City
finds that the available mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce NO, air emission impacts from project
construction activities below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation
measures have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City and Air Quality Management
District as pan of its conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program, The City concludes that the
proposed project bas the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the SCAB's air quality; that project air
emissions have been substantially lessened to the degree feasible; and that the project specific air quality impacts
remaining after implementing mitigation measures are unavoidable and acceptable due to overriding considerations
as outlined at the end of this document,
33
2. Air Quality: Operation Emissions
Significant Unavoidable Impact:
Long-term NO, operation emissions from the expanded
intermodal facility could exceed regional thresholds and
contribute to continued significant air quality degradation,
Finding:
The operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the ErR and Appendix
r of Volume 2, Technical Appendices, The air resources evaluation indicated that project
operational emissions for nitrogen oxides (NO,) were found to be above the threshold of
significance establisbed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
regardless of mitigation, Therefore, direct emissions of NO, from operational activities cannot
be teduced below a significant level. The data indicate that a violation of the NO, ambient air
quality standard is not at issue; NO, is a precursor for ozone and the operational activities will
contribute to continued significant violations of the ozone standard until AQMP programs reduce
ambient ozone concentrations below air quality standards, scbeduled to occur before the year
2010. The EIR identifies mitigation measures that can reduce NO, emissions, but the volume of
direct emissions (from intermodal yard equipment) and indirect emissions (from transport vehicles)
are substantial enough for this project that the emissions cannot be reduced below the threshold
of significance, The mitigation measures designed to minimize operational NO, emissions to the
degree feasible are:
4.2,3,9
All off-road operating equipment and locomotives shall be maintained in peak
operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions,
4,2.3,10
Operational equipment shall limit idling. Trucks and equipment (exclut/ing
locomotives) that may be left to idle for more than ten minutes shall be shut
down,
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR indicates that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) experiences violations of the
federal and state Ozone standards, The discussion in the text of the ErR and support documents indicates that the
project will emit more NO, than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South
Coast Air Basin. Table 4,2-6 in the Final EIR lists the forecast emissions and the NO, emissions substantially
exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative air emissions are
forecast to be significant, Given the existing air quality standard violations for ozone and particulate matter and
the non-attainment status of the SCAB for these pollutants. the City concurs that the operational emissions should
be considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact.
The mitigation measures for the proposed project incorporate those feasible measures identified by the EIR and
contained within the SCAQMD Air Quality Attainment Plan and the District's 'CEQA Handbook', No additional
mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be considered at this time and all of
the cbanges to the project that are proposed to reduce air emissions are considered feasible. Therefore, the City
finds that the available mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce NO, air emission impacts from project
operational activities below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation
measures have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City and Air Qnality Management
District as part of its conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program, The City concludes that the
proposed project has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the SCAB's air quality; that project air
emissions have been substantially lessened to the degree feasible; and that the project specific air quality impacts
remaining after implementing mitigation measures are unavoidable and acceptable due to overriding considerations
as outlined at the end of this document,
34
., .'
v '7-
3. Noise: lntermodal Yard Operations
Potential Significant Impact:
Intermodal operations from expanded facility activities could cause
noise levels to exceed City significance thresholds at adjacent
residences,
Finding:
The intermodal yard noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix 3
of Volume 2, Technical Appendices. The noise evaluation indicated that intermodal yard
operation activities are not forecast to exceed the City's noise compatibility thresholds for noise
sensitive uses, such as the adjacent residential area to the nonh of the project site, However. the
EIR contained a significance criterion that considered the absolute increase in the noise level, and
the EIR concluded that the intermodal yard operations would exceed this threshold, causing a
significant noise impact, The intermodal yard operations are considered significant because they
may raise noise levels by 2 to 8 dB, The EIR does not identify mitigation measures that can
reduce intermodal yard operations because the yard must operate on a 24-bour basis to meet Santa
Fe's intermodal transpon goals, The level of noise generated is substantial enougb for this project
that the increased noise, although not exceeding the City's compatibility standard, will be
noticeable by adjacent residents,
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and suppon documents indicates that the project will cause noise levels at
adjacent residences to be raised from 2 to 8 dB at the residences, This is a sufficient change in the background
noise environment to be a significant impact, Pages 4-41 and 4-42 in the Final EIR lists the forecast noise level
change that results in the forecast significant noise impact, Based on these data. the City concurs that the potential
intermodal yard noise impacts should be considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact at the nearest
residences,
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be considered at this
time. Therefore, the City finds that no mitigation measures are available to reduce the absolute noise increase
impact from intermodal yard operational activities to a nonsignificant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes
that the proposed project has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the local noise environment; that
project noise levels have been lessened to the degree feasible by project design; and that the project specific noise
impacts remaining are unavoidable and acceptable due to overriding considerations as outlined at the end of this
document,
4, Noise: Cumulative Traffic Noise
Potential Significant Impact:
Intermodal operations from expanded facility activities could cause
cumulative traffic noise levels to exceed City significance thresholds
along routes to the facility,
Finding:
The cumulative traffic noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix
3 of Volume 2. Technical Appendices, The cumulative traffic noise evaluation indicated that
intermodal yard operation activities will contribute to cumulative traffic volumes that will cause
noise levels to exceed the 65 dB noise compatibility threshold along several streets providing
access to the facility, The EIR concluded that the intermodal yard operations would contribute
to the cumulatively significant traffic noise on these access roads because the noise compatibility
threshold will be exceeded by the cumulative traffic forecast. The EIR does not identify
mitigation measures that can reduce cwnulative traffic noise impacts because the residences are
35
}
already established along these routes and no feasible means of mitigating noise impacts has been
identified.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project win contribute to cumulatively
significant noise levels along Mt. Vernon Avenue (near Second and Third Streets) and at the west entrance on
Fourth Street. This is a sufficient change in the background noise environment to be a significant impact. Pages
443 and 4-45 and Table 4.3-8 in the Final EIR list the forecast noise level change that results in the forecast
significant noise impact. Based on these data, the City concurs that the potential intermodal yard contribution to
cumulative traffic noise impacts should be considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact at the residences
adjacent w the entrance on Fourth Street and on Mt. Vernon.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be considered at this
time. Therefore, the City finds that no mitigation measures are available to reduce the cumulative traffic noise
increase w a level below the City's noise compatibility standard of 65 dB Ldn' Based on these facts, the City
concludes that the proposed project has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the local noise
environment; and that the project contributes to cumulative noise impacts that remain unavoidable and acceptable
due to overriding considerations as outlined at the end of this document.
12. Cultural Resources: Historic Structures
Finding:
The hiswrical structure resource issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and
Appendix 7 of Volume 2. Technical Appendices. The data indicates that a total of 18 structures
are qualified as part of an eligible historic district to the National Register. Santa Fe's proposed
demolition activities were identified as causing the loss of these 18 historic structures which is
considered to be a significant unavoidable adverse impact of the project. The EIR identifies
mitigation measures that can reduce this significant impact to historic structures by recording their
features and by making some historic artifacts available for retention. However, the structures
win be demolished if the project proceeds as proposed. and these mitigation measures cannot
reduce this impact below a thresbold of significance. The mitigation measures designed to
minimize historic resource impacts w the degree feasible are
Demolition and grading activities win destroy historic structureS which
have been identified as being eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, which constituteS a loss of significant historic resources
on the project site.
Potential Significant Impact:
4.6.3.3 Santa Fe shall provide an inventory of unique or characteristic artifacts and/or
architectural featUres of the eligible historic district structures. This inventory shall be
compiled by a qualified historic architect or architectural historian. Santa Fe shall make
these materials availllble to local. regional, or state museums or historical societies for
interpretive purposes.
4.6.3.4 Santa Fe shall provide afull architectural record of all contributing structures demolished
wirhin the eligible district in accordance wirh guidelines and requirementS of the National
Historic Preservation Act and its relllted regu/i1tions. Copies of this record shall be
provided to the City (cwo copies). San Bernardino County Museum. State Historic
Preservation Office. and the National Register of Historic Plllces for review and approval.
These agencies shall be provided with' rhe peer reviewed final document.
36
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR identified 18 historic structures that form part of a district that has been
determined to be eligible for the National Register. The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents
indicates that the project's proposed demolition activity win remove all 55 structures from the approximate 50-acre
site. Pages 4-108 through 4-110 in the Final EIR describe the area encompassed by the eligible district and the
previous discussion in subchapter 4.6 describes the historic resources that will be eliminated if the lntermodal
Facility Expansion Project proceeds as proposed. The EIR concludes that the loss of these historic structures
constitutes an unavoidable significant adverse impact. Given the documented value of these structures and the role
they have played in City history, the City concurs that their loss should be considered an unavoidable significant
adverse impact.
The mitigation measures for the proposed project incorporate those feasible measures identified by the EIR that
could be implemented to save some of the knowledge and value of these historic structure resources. Severalletlers
were received in comment on the EIR that indicated at least one structure should be saved, the power house smnke
stack which is visually accessible to most of the community and integral to the City's historic relationship to Santa
Fe through sight and sound. No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that
need to be considered at this time antl all of the changes to the project that are proposed to reduce this impact are
considered feasible. Therefore, the City finds that the available mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce
impacts to the historic structures below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible
mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its
conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program. The City concludes that the proposed project has the
potential to cause a significant adverse effect on eligible district and identified historic structures on the project
property; that project historic resource have been lessened to the degree feasible; and that the project specific
historic resource impacts remaining after implementing mitigation measures are unavoidable and acceptable due to
overriding considerations as outlined at the end of this document.
This concludes the discussion of all potential adverse impacts attributable to the implementation
and operation of the Santa Fe Intermodal Expansion Project.
F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of reasonable project
alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objective!> (14 CCR ~ 15126(d)). CEQA
requires that an E1R evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project that: (I) offers substantial environmental advantage!> over the proposed project,
and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner and within a reasonable period of
time considering the economic, environmental, legal, social. and technological factors involved.
The basic objectives of Santa Fe's proposed project (expansion of the intermodal facility) include
the following: reuse a blighted industrial portion of its San Bernardino rail yard in support
current and future intermodal rail operations; demolish structurally unsound buildings to
eliminate safety and trespass hazards while expanding its successful intermodal facility which
lies adjacent to the project site to the west; take advantage of good access and the site's eastern
location in the Los Angeles Basin in support of intermodal rail operations for transport of semi-
trailers and containers to points east; remove structures that inhibit implementation of an
approved site remediation plan for past contamination of the property by hazardous/toxic
materials/wastes; and utilize the paving of the site which supports intermodal operations while
37
supporting the site remediation plan. The central purpose of the proposed project is to initiate
reuse of this property to create a more valuable asset to Santa Fe as a profitable business.
The EIR considered a total of five alternatives to the proposed action. These alternatives were
defined based on mandatory requirements and alternatives designed to reduce the identified
significant impacts of the project: air quality, noise, and cultural resources. Three of these
alternatives were considered to be technically feasible and were carried forward as possible
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project in the EIR. One of the alternatives was rejected
from further consideration.
The five alternatives that were subject to evaluation in the EIR with the proposed action are:
a. No Project/No Development
b. Alternative Location
c. Alternative Commercial and Industrial Uses
d. Reduced Size Project to Eliminate Significant Air Quality Impacts
e. Modified Demolition Project
The alternative that was considered and screened from further study is the location alternative
and the rationale for eliminating this alternative from further consideration is outlined below.
The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative is
capable of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, "even if
these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or
would be more costly" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d)(3)). The following discussion
provides the City's evaluation of each of these alternatives in determining whether they are
feasible alternatives to the proposed action (State CEQA Guidelines. Section I5126(d)) and
whether an alternative can eliminate or substantially lessen significant impacts described in this
document for the proposed action. A discussion of the alternative eliminated from further
consideration is also provided.
1. Alternative Location
One of the alternatives identified in the State CEQA Guidelines that would normally be considered is an alternative
location. However, in this instance the project is, of necessity, site specific because the "A' Yard is the only
location with rail access that is adjacent to an existing intermodal facility that can be expanded onto the project site.
Similarly, the demolition permits requested by Santa Fe can apply only to the structures on the project site because
they represent the single location with structures requiring demolition in suppon of site remediation and reuse.
Since it is not possible to implement this project at any other location, this alternative, alternative location is
eliminated from further analysis and will not be given further consideration because it is not an alternative that can
"feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project." (State CEQA Guidelines, Section l5126(d))
The City Mayor and Common Council has reviewed the EIR discussion of alternative location and concurs with the
findings regarding the lack of suitability of an alternative location to the proposed project. No alternative location
has been identified at any time during the review process for the project and no alternative locations ate known that
could meet the project's objectives. Therefore. the Mayor and Common Council concurs with the conclusion in
38
(
the EIR that an alternative location for the proposed project was properly eliminated from further detailed
consideration because no alternative location can feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed project.
2. No Project
The no-action alternative would eliminate any demolition of structures and Santa Fe would not construct and operate
the expanded intermodal facility on this propeny. The adverse impacts of the proposed action identified in the ErR
would be eliminated and the existing environmental conditions would persist. This alternative would not eliminate
the cumulative significant traffic impact at the intersection of 4~ Street and Mt. Vernon. Nor would it eliminate
the cumulative significant traffic noise impacts that are forecast to affect roads surrounding the project area. These
impacts win occur whether the proposed project is implemented or not. Air quality impacts would be eliminated
and the impacts to historic resources would be elimiated.
There is also an additional negative environmental effect associated with the no project alternative. Without
demolition of the structures, the Regional Water Quality Control Board approved site Conceptual Remediation Plan
may not be carried out as proposed, and the site surface contamination may not be fully remediated. This would
cause alternative clean-up strategies to be implemented, and there is no assurance that site remediation can be
accomplished with such alternatives.
The EIR concluded that the no-action alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project in some
respects (air and historic resources), but it is not superior in other areas, specific water quality. The no project
alternative is not capable of feasibly attaining the basic objectives of the project which were outlined above. Reuse
of the blighted propeny would not occur, safety and trespass issues would not be eliminated. and the property would
not support Santa Fe's business plan to expand intermodal operations on the west coast. Therefore, the Mayor and
Common Council concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that the no project alternative for the proposed project was
properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because it is not capable of accomplishing the identified
project objectives.
3. Alternative Commercial and Industrial Uses
An evaluation of alternative commercial and industrial uses was performed to determine whether environmental
impacts could be reduced by implementing other alternatives when compared with the intermodal facility. Using
the General Plan and Development Code as guides it was determined that Santa Fe could reuse the - 50-acre- parcel
to develop approxintately 2.178,000 square feet of industrial space, of which about 326,700 square feet could be
supponing retail uses. The net effect of this alternative was to increase air quality impacts, traffic noise impacts,
and traffic flow impacts on the surrounding road system. It might be possible to retain some of the existing historic
structures, but even if this could occur, the effect of this alternative would be more adverse than the proposed
project because of substantially increased impacts for other environmental issues, such as air quality, etc. It was
also clearly established that the needed rental for such alternative uses would prove to make such uses totally
infeasible. The EIR concluded that this alternative is the most environmentally damaging of the alternatives, but
it would allow the reuse objective to be fulfilled if the site could be successfully developed. However, because this
alternative causes more environmental damage it is not superior to the proposed project and is therefore. not
considered a reasonable alternative to the proposed project.
Based on these facts, the Mayor and Common Council rejects as infeasible the development of the property under
the current General Plan Designation as an alternative to the proposed project. This alternative does not meet all
of Santa Fe's identified objectives and it would be more environmentally damaging that the proposed project in all
areas with the possible exception of some historic resource preservation. Therefore, the Mayor and Common
Council concurs with the conclusion in the ErR that the alternative industrial use alternative was properly eliminated
from further detailed consideration because this altemative ca.tlliot feasibly meet the objectives established for the
proposed project and causes greater adverse impact than the proposed project.
39
~/
,
,
4.
Reduced Size Project to Eliminate Significant Air Quality Impacts
This alternative was specifically formulated to eliminate exceeding air quality significance thresholds related [0
construction and operation NO, emissions. Construction activities would have to be restricted to two hours per day
to reduce construction NO, emissions below the significance threshold. Operations would have to be curtailed to
37 deliveries per day and two hours of locomotive operation. Both of these alternative modes of operation are non-
functional because they would require construction [0 take about two years and the intermodal facility could not be
successfully operated with the stated limits. It is assumed that displaced intermodal operations would take place
elsewhere in the SCAB with no actual reduction in NO, emissions.
This alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project for air quality only, but it would not
meet project Objectives because it is uulikely that it would result in successful reuse of the project site. It would
not eliminate noise impacts (in fact it would continue construction noise for a much longer period, although with
less noise each day). It would also not eliminate the impact on historic resources.
Based on these facts, the Mayor and Common Council rejects as infeasible the reduced size project to limit air
quality emissions. This alternative does not meet the project objectives and it would not eliminate significant
impacts, other than NO, contributions [0 ozone. Therefore, the Mayor and Common Council concurs with the
conclusion in the EIR that the reduced size project was properly eliminated from further detailed consideration
because this alternative cannOt feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed project.
5. Modified De11UJlition Project
This alternative considered dismantling buildings and relocating them to an alternative location or retaining a
minimum 7-13 historic structures on a portion of the 50-acre project site. After consulting with the architectural
historian it was determined that relocation of structures off-site, even if economically feasible, would destroy the
eligible historic district. This alternative would not eliminate the significant impact of the proposed project on
historical resources. The proposed ntitigation measures would accomplish a comparable amount of data retention
as this alternative. Since it does nO[ eliminate the significant impact to historic resources, this alternative was not
given further consideration as a feasible alternative.
The second component of this alternative was to retain 7-13 historic structures on-site in an approximate IO-acre
portion of the property. Neither the technical or economic feasibility of this alternative has been examined in detail.
However, since the cost associated with dismantling a building and reconstructing it at an alternative location should
be comparable to constructing such a building. the costs can be estimated. Assuming that it requires about $100
per square foO[ to construCt a building, the cost of dismantling and reconstruction should be approximately $150-
$200 per square feet. Buildings range from a few thousand square feet to - 135,000 square feet for the Machine
Shop, the largest historic building on the propeny. Cost [0 relocate a 10.000 square foot structure at $150 per
square foot would be $1.5 million. The cost for the Machine Shop would be on the order of $20 million.
The California Environmental Quality Act sets a limit for cultural resource mitigation at . An amount equal [0 one-
half of 1 percent of the project cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of
a commercial or industrial project.' (Section 21083.2(e)) Assuming that the total project cost for the proposed
project is -$62 million. 1/2 of one percent mitigation would be equivalent to about $310,000. Using this criteria,
a requirement to relocate or restore buildings that cost Santa Fe more than $310.000 in mitigation costs would
exceed the cultural resource mitigation requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the alternative of retaining and/or
relocating 7-13 historic structures is not considered a reasonable or feasible alternative to the proposed project.
This alternative does not meet the project objective proposed by Santa Fe as it would eliminate approximately 20%
of the area proposed for the interntodal facility. It also entails a substantial cost that would exceed required
mitigation for cultural resources as outlined in the CEQA. The Mayor and Common Council finds that this
alternative is only environmentally superior [0 the proposed project
40
,
Based on these facts, the Mayor and Common Council concludes that this alternative project is considered
environmentally superior to the proposed project. It is not considered economically feasible and does not meet the
project objectives established by Santa Fe. Therefore, the Mayor and Common Council concurs with the conclusion
in the EIR that the modified demolition alternative is properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because
this alternative cannot feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed project.
This concludes the discussion of project alternatives to the Santa Fe Intermodal Facility
Expansion Project.
G. PROJECT BENEFITS
The benefits from approving the Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project are related to
the reuse of blighted industrial land in a rail yard; enhancement of Santa Fe's competitive
position through successful implementation of intermodal operations transporting cargo from the
west coast to points east; increasing jobs and economic activity at its San Bernardino rail
facilities; and implementing its approved Conceptual Remediation Plan for existing site
contamination. The benefits of a project are those positive values and new facilities that would
not be made available to the community without the project's development. As a technical basis
for the economic benefits of the project, Santa Fe commissioned and a copy is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference an economic study by Mr. John E. Husing of Economic
and Political Analysis (ECAP). The project benefits outlined below were considered by the City
Mayor and Common Council in performing the balancing test with those unavoidable significant
adverse impacts presented earlier in this document.
The economic benefits of the project, as outlined in the ECAP Report, will provide a core
economic base which will promote the development of secondary manufacturing. transportation
and service firms in San Bernardino. The expansion of secondary businesses will lead to a
renaissance among these industries and, through diversifying the City economic base, the City
will have greater flexibility in developing social, cultural, and community development programs
in order to increase the quality of life to residents.
1. Benefits
a. The proposed project will add 267 permanent jobs (primary and secondary) to the local economy. An
estimated 127 jobs will be created that are directly related [0 intermodal activities. including facility
operators, Santa Fe employees and trucking jobs.
b. The permanent effect on the local economy is estintated [0 be the addition of approximately $1l,471,756
per year.
c. During construction of the project an estimated $62 million will be spent in the local economy. An
estimate 746 workers will be directly or indirectly employed during 1995 and 1996 based on the
construction expenditures for the project.
d. Demolition of existing buildings will remove obstacles to the performance of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board approved Conceptual Remediation Plan by providing access to soil removal and installation
of vapor extraction wells. Ground water resources will benefit from early implementation of the
remediation plan.
41
~,
)
e. Santa Fe and the City benefit from the elimination of the industrial blight that currently exists on the "A"
Yard parcel. This currently unproductive industrial land will be returned to positive use that will benefit
the community by providing jobs and serving as an integral component to remediating the on-site
contamination that could, if not addressed, become a public health hazard,
f. Successful expansion of Santa Fe's intermodal capability at the San Bernardino Yard will serve as a key
building block in the City's ability to attract manufacturers and warehousers unparalleled access to the latest
in goods distribution technology. The lack of traffic congestion, combined with the ability to ship by air
from San Bernardino International Airport, creates the essential infrastructure required to attract new
business to the area.
g. Air quality will benefit in two ways from the proposed project: the jobslhousing balance is a key
component in meeting the Air Quality Attainment Plan and Growth Management Plans for the South Coast
Air Basin and the jObslhousing ratio for the City of San Bernardino will be enhanced by the 127 intermodal
facility jobs created and 267 jobs created overall related to intermodal facility operations; and an
unquantifiable emission benefit is derived from teducing the total vehicle miles traveled by trucks that
would transport their trailers/containers out nf the basin.
h. Santa Fe will contribute up to $40,000 to install a signal at the intersection of 4" Street and Ml. Vernon
A venue. This will occur much earlier than previously warranted based on the agreement between the City
and Santa Fe.
i. Santa Fe will provide funding assistance to the City to install a needed, larger storm drain from the rail
yard near "I" Street to the Lytle Creek Channel.
j. Santa Fe win eliminate a safety and trespass hazard through building demolition and paving of the project
area.
H. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the findings addresses the requirements in Section 15093 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and to
determine whether the project related significant impacts can be acceptably overridden by the
project benefits when the two are compared and balanced. As outlined in Section E above, the
Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project would produce unavoidable significant impacts
in three environmental categories: air quality, noise. and historical resources.
The San Bernardino City Mayor and Common Council finds that the previously stated benefits
of the Santa Fe lntermodal Facility Expansion Project, contained in the proposed action and as
conditioned by the City, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects to
air quality, noise. and cultural resources that have been outlined above. In a region where
unemployment hovers near 10%; where the ability to attract new business and jobs has been
harmed by a prolonged recession and limited industrial growth; and where industrial blight has
diminished the City's ability to attract new industry; the Mayor and Common Council finds that
the proposed project's contributions to jobs, to the local economy, and to the City's ability to
attract new industrial growth outweigh the effects of air emissions which will not directly impact
the local population; outweigh the limited noise exposure areas that already experience high
noise because of the proximity between residential and industrial uses; and outweigh the loss of
42
"'j-
the historical structures which will be supplanted by new industrial actiVIty and the
implementation of a clean-up plan that will benefit the area's ground water resources and public
health in general.
The Mayor and Common Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified
all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce
impacts to insignificant levels where feasible, or to the lowest achievable levels where significant
unavoidable impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed five alternatives to determine
whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might
reduce or eliminate the three significant impacts of the proposed action. The EIR presents
evidence that implementing the Santa Fe Intermodal Facility Expansion Project will cause
significant adverse impacts which cannot be substantially mitigated to insignificant levels. These
significant impacts have been outlined above and the Mayor and Common Council finds that all
feasible alternatives and mitigation measures have been adopted or identified for implementation
by the City or other Responsible Agencies.
The Mayor and Common Council finds that the project's benefits are substantial as outlined in
Section G of this document and summarized above and that these benefits justify overriding the
unavoidable significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project. This finding is
supported by the fact that many of the benefits listed on above result in project initiating a major
industrial activity in the San Bernardino area. i.e., state-of-the-art goods distribution technology.
Other major infrastructure improvements will benefit the community surrounding the rail yards,
including enhanced flood control facilities and road improvements affecting a deteriorating
intersection at 4th Street and Mt. Vernon. The Mayor and Common Council further finds that
these benefits, when balanced against the three unavoidable significant adverse impacts, outweigh
the impacts because of the social and economic values which accrue to the City of San
Bernardino as outlined in Section G of this document.
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the Mayor and Common Council has
reviewed the project definition in the EIR and Section A of this document, and fully understands
the project proposed by Santa Fe for the Intermodal Facility Expansion Project. Further. the
Mayor and Common Council finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all
feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts have been identified in the EIR, public
comment. and public testimony. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in
Sections D.I, D.2 and E and the Mayor and Common Council concurs with the facts and
findings contained in those sections. The Mayor and Common Council also finds that a
reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document (Section F) and
that no feasible alternatives which substantially lessen project impacts are available for adoption.
The Mayor and Common Council concurs with the ten identified economic and social benefits
which will result from implementing the proposed project. The Mayor and Common Council
has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant
adverse effects of the proposed project. Given the substantial social and economic benefits that
will accrue to the City from developing and operating Santa Fe's Intermodal Facility Expansion
Project, the Mayor and Common Councilers find that the benefits identified herein outweigh the
43
unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and hereby override these unavoidable environmental
effects to obtain the economic and social benefits listed in Section G.
44