Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-241 ~ . RESOLUTION NO. 90-241 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MT. VERNON CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (the "Community Development Commission") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor (the "Project Area") Redevelopment Project (the "Project") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, .e.t. J>..e.9:. ["CEQA"]), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Administrative Code Sections 15000, .e.t. J>..e.9:., [the "State EIR Guidelines"]), and procedures adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino ("Common Council") relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects, and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and thereafter, in accordance with the State EIR Guidelines, forwarded the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested, to incorporate comments received and the Community Development Commission's response to said comments and, as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR has been submitted to the Common Council as a part of the Report to the Common Council, as supplemented, pertaining to the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing was held by the Community Development Commission and the Common Council on June 11, 1990, on the Redevelopment Plan and the Final EIR relating thereto, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard, and the Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having. been considered; and , WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented, made a part of the Community Development Commission's Report on the Redevelopment Plan, as supplemented, and incorporating all comments received and the response of the Community Development Commission and the Common Council thereto as of the date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino as follows: SECTION 1: The Common Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the Common Council pursuant thereto, and that the Common Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR. SECTION 2: The Common Council has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR. SECTION 3: The Common Council hereby makes the written findingp set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein for each of the significant effects set forth in Exhibit "A", and further approves the Findings of Fact set forth in Exhibit "A". Based on such Findings of Fact, the Common Council hereby finds that all significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the Project have been eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance. Based on the foregoing, the Common Council finds and determines that the Project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. SECTION 4. The Common Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in the Final EIR. / / / / / / / / / / / / / , I / / / / / / b4/25/90 8187n/2601/011/39(f) -2- SECTION 5: Upon approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the Common Council, the Clerk of the Common Council is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and the State EIR Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto. ADOPTED this c{/..4( day of June, 1990. ~ ATTEST: ~//&4/&2f# crt;~'of the City of San Bernardino I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a requIdl meeting thereof held on the 18th day of June, 1990. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Estrddd Reillv Flores MdudsIev. Mi nor Mill AI.' NOES: Non" ABSENT: Non" ABSTAIN: ('lil1nl"il Mpmhpr Pnpp_T.llnl~m ~~~~ City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, CI~Y ATTORNEY By: IJ{/)tj~j/dm'0 ~ CITY ATTORNEY 04/25/90 8187n/2601/011/39(f) -3- EXHIBIT A FiNDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE MT. VERNON CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINDINGS OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR 1. Demographics A. Impact Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan will facilitate growth, thereby increasing the demand for housing in the Project Area. Estimated increases in population and housing in the Project Area are consistent with General Plan projections. Under a "worst case" scenario, over the life of the 41 year Plan, the Project could cause displacement of approximately 759 people. B. Mitigation 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 1 . Not less than 20 percent of all taxes which are allocated to the Community Development Commission in accordance with Section 33334.2 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be" used by the Community Development Commission for purposes of increasing and improving the City's supply of housing for persons and families of low and moderate income. . 2. Relocation advisory assistance shall be furnished by the Community Development Commission to business establishments or residents, if any, whose property is acquired by the Community Development Commission in connection with implementation of the proposed Project. Relocation payments will be made to any businesses or residents displaced by the Project according to Community Development Commission rules and regulations adopted pursuant to California Government Code and guidelines. The Community Development Commission could also provide additional financial assistance which, in the Community Development Commission's opinion, may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the proposed Project, subject to the availability of funds for such purpose. EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 of 22 3. Development of the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan is expected to ensure the attainment of the City's goals for balanced land use and housing within the community. C. Finding of Significance The resulting impact on housing demand from the Project and the residential displacement and/or relocation impacts of the Project are fully mitigated by implementation of the above measures as conditions of approval. 2. Traffic and Circulation A. Impact Over the proposed life of the Redevelopment Plan, it is estimated that trip generation in the Project Area may increase due, in part, to an increase in the Project Area's economic viability, improved housing market and employment base. I, B. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. 2 . 04/25/90 93 74n/2 60 1/0 11 1. All proposals for growth inducing projects within the proposed Project Area shall be reviewed by the Lead Agency, in accord with this Program Environmental Impact Report, to assess the need for additional Environmental Impact Analysis. In the event an analysis is deemed necessary by the Lead Agency, and said analysis shows evidence of significant negative impact to the existing circulation/transportation network, appropriate mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project(s) prior to the project(s) development. 3 . Coordinate any major changes in circulation patterns, e.g., street additions, street vacations, etc., with the City of San Bernardino Planning Department, the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) and the County of San Bernardino as necessary. EXHIBIT A PAGE 2 of 22 4. Short-term impacts to motorists and pedestrians should be mitigated with the use of standard safety precautions generally employed during project construction. These include rerouting of traffic, use of flagmen and limited construction hours. The following measures are not recommended as a condition of Project approval, however, the Agency should consider pursuit of these mobility goals developed by the Southern California Association of Governments as part of a draft regional mobility plan to further reduce Project Area circulation system deficiencies: 5. To attain and maintain mobility in an environment of continuing population and economic growth. 6. To provide sufficient capacity to safely and efficiently meet the demand to move people and goods resulting from the overall level of population, employment, land use, and housing growth projected in the baseline growth projection. . 7. To be accessible to everyone in the region including the elderly, the handicapped, and the transit dependent. 8. To be adaptable and to encourage major changes in travel behavior including both reducing the number of home-to-work trips and reducing the use of the single-occupant vehicle. 9. To achieve the most efficient mix of modes including automobiles, trucks, buses, vans, rail, non-motorized vehicles and new technologies. 10. To assure the productive use of facilities through integrated growth management and transportation system development and by implementing system development and by implementing system and demand management techniques in a cost-effective manner, particularly those which increase the use of high occupancy vehicles. 04/25/90 9374n/260l/0ll EXHIBIT A PAGE 3 of 22 11. To be compatible with the environment and to support the air quality management plans of the South Air Quality Management District. 12. To support a pattern of development which shortens trip lengths through improved job/housing balance. Additionally, the following measures have been recommended by the Department of Transportation in order to further reduce the number of trips generated within the Project Area: 13. Formation of a Mount Vernon Corridor Transportation Management Association to handle such programs as ride sharing, van pooling and transit coordination for the area. 14. Development of a City-wide program where each development project contributes toward a Park and Ride program. C. Finding of Significance Upon implementation of the above mitigation measures, no significant adverse impacts will result to intersection operations or traffic circulation in the Project Area. 3. Noise A. Impacts There will be a significant short-term increase in noise and vibration levels on and adjacent to specific development sites in the Project Area during demolition, excavation, grading and other construction activities. However, the long-term noise impacts resulting from the Project are insignificant. B. Mitigation 1. All subsequent redevelopment activities shall adhere to the policies and actions described in the Noise Element to the San Bernardino General Plan. 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 4 of 22 2. Any future developments generated through implementation of the proposed Project shall be allowed only in the areas as designated for that particular use by the City's General Plan to ensure land use noise compatibility. 3. All construction activities should be limited to daytime hours. 4. Construction activity contracted by the Redevelopment Agency should be monitored to ensure that U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Construction-Noise Specifications are met. 5. New development located adjacent to existing noise sources shall be appropriately buffered to assure maximum land use compatibility. Appropriate measures shall be determined on a project-by-project basis in accordance with the necessary project specific environmental impact analysis. 6. Sensitive noise receptors shall not be located adjacent to existing noise emitters. C. Finding of Significance Upon implementation of the above mitigation measures, the noise impacts of the Project will be fully mitigated. 4. Climate and Air Quality A. Impact The degree of impact on regional and local air quality should be insignificant due to the Project's long-term period of implementation and given that most projects will actually involve rehabilitation of infrastructural deficiencies. Construction of specific development of proposals in the Project Area will produce exhaust emissions during construction, and dust generation as a result of earth movement and equipment traffic over temporary roads. Other long-term impacts associated with future growth under the Project consist of emissions generated from stationary and mobile sources. 04/25/90 9374n/260l/0ll EXHIBIT A PAGE 5 of 22 B. Mitigation No mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of Project approval. However, the Agency should consider the following measures as conditions to restore and perpetuate improved air quality within the City of San Bernardino: 1. The Agency shall participate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the County of San Bernardino in the development of long-range solutions regarding the regional air quality. 2. Specific projects, as appropriate, shall be reviewed by the Lead Agency for their individual and cumulative impacts upon the local and regional air cell during the appropriate stage of planning. 3. Watering is the normal method of dust control on construction sites. An effective watering program (complete coverage tNice daily) could reduce emissions by about 50 percent. The conditions of approval for affected projects shall require that all construction contracts include provisions for a comprehensive dust control effort, involving frequent watering of all dust sources and clean-up of all mud carried out from construction sites onto roadways. C. Finding of Significance The individual and cumulative air quality impacts of this Project are potentially insignificant or reduced to a level of insignificance by implementation of the above mitigation measures. 5. Cultural Resources A. Impact The proposed Project could have an affect upon archaeological/historical resources in the Project Area, particularly in these portions of the Project Area identified as being within the Urban Archaeological District. Development and/or redevelopment projects could disturb, or render inaccessible, known or potential 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 6 of 22 archaeological/historical sites of significant value. B. Mitigation Prior to initial planning studies being undertaken for Plan related projects within the proposed Project Area, the appropriate project representative(s) shall determine if a given project will pact a known or potentially significant archaeological/historical site. Following this initial determination, compliance with the following mitigation measures, as appropriate, shall occur: Archaeological Sensitivity 04/25/90 9374n/260l/011 1. Prior to planning level approvals (i.e., general plan, zone change, etc.), a literature and records search and a spot-check field survey shall be performed by a City certified archaeologist, retained by the project proponent, ard approved by City officials. 2 . Prior to planning level approvals, (i.e. general plan, zone change, etc.), a certified archaeologist shall be retained by the project proponent to complete literature and records research for recorded sites and previous su.rveys. In addition, a field survey shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist unless the entire proposed project site has been documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets City approval. A report of the literature and records research and the field survey shall be submitted to City staff for their approval. Future mitigation shall depend upon the recommendations of this report and will be completed prior to implementation level approvals (i.e., tentative tract, site plan, etc.). . 3. (a) Prior to ini tial implementation level approvals (i.e., tentative tract, site plan, etc.), a certified archaeologist shall be retained by the project proponent to complete literature and records research for recorded sites and previous surveys. In addition, a field EXHIBIT A PAGE 7 of 22 04/25/90 9374n/260l/0ll (b) ( c ) (d) survey shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist unless the entire proposed project site has been documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets the approval of City officials. A report of the literature and records research and the field survey shall be submitted to and approved by City officials. Future mitigation shall depend upon the recommendations of this report. Prior to initial implementation level approvals, a certified archaeologist shall be retained by the project proponent to perform a subsurface test level investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The test level report evaluating the site shall include discussions of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendatioD~ and cost estimates. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and based on the report recommendations and City policy, final mitigation shall be carried out based upon a determination as the site's . disposition by City officials. Possible determinations include,' but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage, or no mitigation necessary. Prior to issuance of grading permits, project proponent shall provide written evidence to City officials that a certified archaeologist has been retained by the project proponent to conduct salvage excavation of the archaeological resources in the permit area. A final report shall be submitted to and approved by City officials prior to any grading in the archaeological site areas. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, project proponent shall provide written evidence to City officials that a certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at the EXHIBIT A PAGE 8 of 22 04/25/90 9374n/260l/0ll pre-grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to City officials. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project proponent, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of City officials. Historical Sites 1. Prior to planning level approvals (i.e., general plan, zone change, etc.), a literature and records search and a spot-check field survey shall be performed by an historian, retained by the project proponent,'and approved by City officials. 2. Prior to planning level approvals (i.e., general plan, zone change, etc.) an historian shall be retained by project proponent to complete literature and records research for recorded sites and previous surveys. In addition, a field survey shall be conducted unless the entire proposed project site has been documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets the approval of City officials. A report of the literature and records research and the field survey shall be submitted to and approved by the City officials. Future mitigation shall depend upon the recommendations of this report and will be completed prior to implementation level approvals (i.e., tentative tract, site plan, etc. ). EXHIBIT A PAGE 9 of 22 3. Based on existing information, no historic resources are located on the project site. However, if historic resources are discovered on site during an archaeological or historical resources field surveyor by additional information revealed during the implementation phase of development, the project proponent shall notify City officials. 4. (a) Prior to initial implementation level approvals, (i.e., tentative tract, site plan, etc.), an historian shall be retained by the project proponent to complete literature and records research for recorded sites and previous surveys. In addition, a field survey shall be conducted unless the entire proposed project site has been documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets the approval of City officials. A report of the literature and records research and the field survey shall be submitted to and approved by City officials. Future mitigation shall depend upon the recommendations of this report. (b) 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 Prior to initial implementation level approvals, an elevation of the historic resources shall be completed by an historian through comparative analysis with other historic resources or with materials collected by subsurface testing on site. The evaluation report shall include discussion of significance, final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and based on the report recommendations and City policy, final mitigation shall be carried out based upon a determination as to the site's disposition by City officials. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to, preservation, relocation, salvage, adoptive reuse, partial salvage, complete documentation, or no mitigation necessary. EXHIBIT A PAGE 10 of 22 (c) Prior to issuance of grading permit, project applicant shall provide written evidence to City officials that an historian has been retained by the applicant to implement final mitigation measures. A final report shall be submitted to and approved by City officials to alteration of the historical site area. (d) Development adjacent to a place, structure, or object of historic significance shall be designed so that permitted uses and architectural design will protect the visual setting of the historic site. Such design shall be submitted to and approved by City officials prior to any alteration of the historical site area. C. Finding of Significance Upon implementation of the above mitigation measures into the Project, the impacts of the Project on cultural resources are reduced to a level of insignificance. 6. Earth Resources A. The proposed Project, being consistent with the City's General Plan, will allow development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Plan related development within this zone will require mitigation measures to minimize earthquake related health and safety risks to the general public such as ground shaking, liquefaction and erosion. Portions of the Project Area are within aggregate resource zones of regional significance as classified by the State Division of Mines and Geology. The Project has the potential to create land use conflicts that would prevent future mining of these areas; loss of significant resources will have td be mitigated. Related projects could ultimately involve the modification of unique geologic or physical features located within the Project Area. Loss of significant resources will have to be mitigated. 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 11 of 22 B. Mitigation Seismic 1. Geotechnical and soils engineering reports shall be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of preliminary design layouts and grading plans for the Project Area. These studies will determine areas of seismic and geologic sensitivity and will provide specific mitigation measures for the treatment of potential seismic hazards and other hazardous geologic conditions. 2. All rehabilitation and new development projects implemented as a result of the proposed Project, shall be built in accordance with current and applicable Uniform Building Code standards and applicable County ordinances and safety provisions, which may limit construction and site preparation activities such as grading, and make provisions for appropriate land use restrictions, as deemed necessary, to protect residents and others from potential environmental safety hazards, either seismically induced or those resulting from other conditions such as inadequate soil conditions, which may exist in the proposed Project Area. 3. Rehabilitation programs for upgrading deficiencies where such improvement in warranted shall be practiced by the Agency. All new development projects within the proposed Project Area shall be built in accordance with current and applicable Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards and other applicable City, County, State and Federal laws, regulations and guidelines. 4. The Agency shall work with the City in the monitoring of and Compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill 547, the structure hazard program. Mineral Resources 1. The value of existing aggregate reserves within the proposed Project Area shall be assessed by the Lead Agency, in cooperation 04/25/90 9374n/260l/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 12 of 22 with the State Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology, on a project-by-project basis to determine the need for, and feasibility of, specific project mitigation measures, e.g., extractive development of resources prior to other types of development, appropriate and compatible development locations, etc. Application of this mitigation measure will assure that the Agency continually monitor aggregate reserves within Project Area boundaries fOllowing the parameters established by the Department of Conservation. 2. The Redevelopment Agency shall, when feasible, work with other City departments to direct urban growth to areas demonstrating less mineral resources in order to protect any existing aggregate reserves. 3. Provision shall be made for the reclamation of mining sites, pursuant to Section 4.3.4, Mineral Resources, of the City's General Plan. 4. The Redevelopment Agency shall, when feasible, promote higher densities and/or clustering areas of development to allow a greater portion of those parts of the proposed Project area to remain available for mining of aggregate reserves prior to allowing urban development. C. Finding of Significance This City Council finds that incorporation of the above mitigation measures into the Project will reduce the seismic and geological impacts of the Project to a level of insignificance. 7. Biotic Resources A. Impact Future redevelopment activities within the Project Area could affect various types of vegetation and some small rodents located in the Project Area. However, most of the Project Area has undergone extensive disturbance by urban land uses. 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 13 of 22 B. Mi tigation 1. Development in the Project Area shall comply with the requirements of the City's biological management overlay zone as appropriate. C. Finding of Significance Incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the Project fully mitigates the impacts of the Project on biotic resources. 8. Public Health and Safety/Man Made Hazards A. Impact Short term negative impacts upon the general public's health and safety will be limited to those impacts associated with construction activities that are necessary to implement the Project. Such negative impacts may include, but not be limited to: (1) temporary traffic congestion resulting from roadway and utilities infrastructure improvement/expansion projects; (2) increased noise and air pollutant levels resulting from construction projects; and (3) temporary impediment of some pedestrian pathways during reconstruction and improvement of those same routes. The Project is not expected to expose people to potential man-made hazards such as hazardous wastes and toxic chemicals. The City has initiated procedures for monitoring industries that store, utilize or transport such chemicals. Industries within the Project Area that have contact with such chemicals will be subject to these existing procedures and restrictions. B. Mitigation 1. The use of standard safety precautions generally employed during project construction phases, which interface with the general public, shall be used as a means to mitigate potential safety hazards. Such precautions may include, but not be limited to: 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 14 of 22 a. rerouting of traffic away from construction areas; b. use of flagmen at hazardous construction zones; c. timing of construction to take advantage of light periods of traffic; d. use of exhaust and noise filters on construction equipment; e. limiting construction projects which include earth moving to months of low rainfall, thereby reducing the chance of erosion; and f. use of water applications upon graded areas during dry summer months to provide dust control. 2. Depending upon the specific project, additional mitigation measures may be required. The Community Development Commission, acting as the Lead Agency, shall determine on a project-by- project basis and, in accord with this Program Environmental Impact Report, the need for additional environmental assessment. The need for additional mitigations to lessen impacts of short term construction related hazards that affect the health and safety of the general public shall be analyzed at that time. C. Finding of Significance Incorporation of the above mitigation measures into the Project fully mitigates the public health and safety impacts of the Project. 9. Schools A. Impact Short-term impacts from redevelopment activities could include traffic disruption and noise related to infrastructural improvement projects and road construction taking place near or adjacent to the school sites located within the 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 15 of 22 Project Area. Long-term impacts of the proposeq project upon the affected school districts are related to the increase in population incurred from redevelopment related housing programs and commercial/industrial employment base increases. However, no significant impacts upon the three school districts presently serving the Project Area are expected to occur as a result of the Plan's implementation, because the number of new students that will be generated as a result of new housing and employment opportunities within the Project Area is insignificant over the 41 year life of the Plan. B. Mitigation 1. Short-term impacts to school children shall be mitigated with the use of standard safety precautions generally employed during traffic related construction such as: rerouting of traffic, use of flagmen, etc. 2. Construction activity contracted by the Agency should be monitored to ensure that U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) construction-noise specifications are met. 3. The School Districts should continue to collect the development fee for purposes of funding school facility programs. C. Finding of Significance Upon implementation of the above mitigation measures into the Project, the potential school service impacts in the Project Area are reduced to a level of insignificance. 10. Water A. Impact Implementation of the Project may result in impacts on water supply services. Daily water consumption subsequent to the completion of new development in the Project Area could increase as a result of Project implementation. However, the increase in water consumption should be insignificant on a regional scale. 04/25/90 9374n/2601/01l EXHIBIT A PAGE 16 of 22 B. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval to further ensure the long-term availability and conservation of regional water resources: 1. All proposals for future growth inducing projects shall be reviewed by the Lead Agency, in accord with this Program Environmental Impact Report, to determine the need for specific projects environmental impact analysis relative to impacts such development may have upon regional water resources and local distribution facilities. 2. Water distribution system expansion and/or improvement projects shall precede or be concurrent with all growth generating projects. 3. Consideration by the Lead Agency, in accord with the Department of Water Resources recommendation, consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free up fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water supplies. Additionally, the following mitigation measures should be established, when appropriate, to reduce water use, thereby reducing demands upon the existing and future distribution systems: 4. Plumbing fixtures that reduce water usage shall be utilized (i.e., low volume toilet tanks, flow control devices for faucets and shower heads) in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 5. The use of drought-tolerant plant species and drip irrigation systems shall be considered in order to reduce water usage. 6. Installation of low flush toilets in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3. 7 . Installation of low flow showers and faucets in accordance with California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F. 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 17 of 22 8. Future developers should be assessed a water capacity fee for importation and distribution facilities. 9. The use of approved American National Standards Institute (ANSI) showerheads, lavatory faucets and sinks in all new development, in accordance with California Administrative Code, Title 20, Section 1604(f). 10. Compliance with California Administrative Code Section 1606(b) (Appliance Efficiency Standards) which prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations. 11. Compliance with the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Section 2-5307(b) (California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings) which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate stanc"rd. 12. Compliance with the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Sections 2-5352(i) and (j) which addresses pipe insulation requirements that can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. 13. Compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 4047 which prohibits installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. 14. Compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7800 which specifies that lavatories in all public facilities constructed after January 1, 1985, be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water. Recommendations to be implemented where applicable: 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 18 of 22 .' Interior: 15. Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 psi be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. 16. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush. 17. Drinking fountains: recommend installation of self-closing valves. 18. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling units be insulated to provide hot water quickly with less water use and to prevent hot pipes from heating cold pipes. 19. Restaurants: use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or retrofitting spray emitters. Drinking water to be served upon request only. 20. Hotel Rooms: conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms. Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower. 21. Laundry Facilities: water-conserving models of washers be used. 22. Ultra-low-flush-toilets: 1-1/2 gallon per flush toilets be installed in all new construction. Exterior: 23. Landscape with low water-consuming plants. 24. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied to top soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 25. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 19 of 22 .' 26. Minimize the use of law by limiting it to. lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. 27. Group plants of similar water use to reduce overirrigation of low-water-using plants. 28. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. 29. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 30. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetatior. 31. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. 32. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and to aid in ground water recharge. 33. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized. 34. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. 35. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 36. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water recharge. 04/25/90 9374n/260l/0ll EXHIBIT A PAGE 20 of 22 .' 37. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. C. Finding of Significance Upon implementation of the above mitigation measures, the impacts of the Project on water supply services are fully mitigated. 11. Other Impacts Based on the EIR and the Record before the Mayor and Common Council, the Mayor and Common Council hereby find that implementation of the Project results in no other significant adverse environmental impacts. FINDINGS OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL CONCERNING THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Each of the alternatives presented in the EIR has been considered. Those alternatives are hereby found to be infeasible based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth below. 1. Infeasibility of the No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would not accomplish the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Adoption of the No Project Alternative would serve only to delay the potential adverse impacts associated with development of the Project site (increased traffic, noise, or air pollution). If private development of sites within the Project Area does not occur in the near future, adoption of the No Project Alternative would result in a direct loss of revenue to the Community Development Commission as well as a potential indirect loss since the values of surrounding properties would be adversely affected. Uncertainty in development also could make it more difficult to generate developer interest in redevelopment of the Project Area. Accordingly, the No Project Alternative is found to be infeasible. 2. InfeaSibility of the Alternative Project Areas and Size Alternative. The environmental impacts of the proposed Redevelop- ment Project would be greater under these alternatives because decreasing the size of the Project Area does 04/25/90 9374n/260l/0ll EXHIBIT A PAGE 21 of 22 . .' not eliminate the need for the identified infrastr~c- ture improvements. In the final analysis, decreasing the existing Project Area size is not appropriate since the established boundaries were chosen on the basis of existing conditions including physical deterioration, social maladjustment, and economic decline. The existing Project Area represents a well-defined area with specific revitalization needs. Accordingly, the Alternative Project Area Size Alternative is rejected as infeasible. 3. Infeasibility of the Limited Redevelopment Activities Alternative. The environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Limited Redevelopment Activities Alternative would be greater than those occurring as a result of the Project's implementation. Additionally, tax increment revenues would be severely restricted. Such restrictions or limitations would result in commensurate reductions in the Community Development Commission's ability to undertake the Redevelopment Program as cor.templated by the amended Redevelopment Plan, including: (1) reductions in public improvements and facilities provided; (2) a restricted ability to eliminate conditions of deficiency; and (3) a reduced ability to implement the goals of the General Plan and to eliminate existing environmental deficiencies and problems occurring within the Project Area. In the final analysis, the Limited Redevelopment Activities Alternative is not an environmentally superior alternative to the Plan amendment and, therefore, it is rejected as infeasible. 4. Infeasibility of the Alternative Financing Alternative. As an alternative to the Redevelopment Project, the Community Development Commission or City could attempt to undertake a similar program utilizing alternative sources of revenue (sources other than tax increment revenues). However, no single source would be sufficient in amount or purpose to accomplish the activities contemplated by the Redevelopment Project. Accordingly, the Alternative Financing Alternative is rejected as infeasible. 04/25/90 9374n/2601/011 EXHIBIT A PAGE 22 of 22