Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-Planning o o o o C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8905-2316 TO: Mayor Wilcox and City Council FROM: Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR, RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOUCMENT AND FINALIZING ADDENDUM DATE: May 31, 1989 COPIES: ------------------------------------------------------------- Last week you were given a copy of the General Plan EIR Response to Comments document and draft Findings, statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program. staff felt it would be beneficial to bring to your attention mitigation measures proposed in the draft EIR and Response to Comment Document. We have also provided recommendations to accept, reject or modify certain proposed mitigation measures with an explanation as to why we are making the recommend- ation. We will toring review. provide a copy of the Findings and Mitigation Moni- program reflecting our recommendations for your .1 r o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 2 I. LAND USE 1. Response Comment measures to comment No. K1 (page 114 of the document) recommends an additional to further reduce land use impacts: Response to mitigation "The city shall also explore the utilization of Redevelopment 20 percent set-aside funds, Community Development Block Grant funds, or other available public funding sources to offset the relocation expenses that developers would be required to pay." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this proposed mitigation measure be rejected. These funds are intended to provide for the construction and rehabilitation of dwelling units affordable to households at or below the area median income. These funds are already insufficient to meet the needs of those requiring financial assistance. This measure would further reduce the funds that would be available. The following mitigation measure will still require relocation at the developer's expense. 2. As additional mitigation measures, the EIR recommends that: "As existing residential units providing shelter for low and moderate income households are removed for the development of higher density units or other uses, the City shall require that the developer provide funds for the relocation of tenants to other suitable housing in accordance with the State of California Uniform Relocation ~ The City shall act as the intermediary in this process to ensure that adequate housing is provided." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this mitigation measure with the following wording: "Relocation assistance shall be provided in accor- dance with the California Uniform Relocation Assis- tanc~nd Real Property ACqui~ition policie~ c,4.eI~ r ~ 3. "The city shall actively involve the public in the o/:J/ formulation and review of specific plans for regional serving uses proposed for the "Regional Opportunities corridor." o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this proposed mitigation measure. The formulation of the specific plans would require review and approval through a public hearing process. Property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project would be notified of the hearing which is open to the public. 4. ,."'1'1.- ~(......" ;i./.'. " ') / "The City shall monitor development .activity qin'Cthi:.;t";L'~u/_.:/ existing "depressed" commercial corridors/at least each two years, including Mount Vernon Avenue, Baseline Street, Foothill Boulevard and other appropriate areas. As their development capacity considerably exceeds market demand projections, the City shall consider the potential of reducing their capacity (by rezoning, establishment of 'holding areas' or other appropriate techniques) and/or increasing development marketing activities should revitalization not be occurring." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends rejection of this proposed mitigation measure. The EIR does not identify any significant impacts relating to this proposed mitigation measure. However, staff believes that it would be beneficial to monitor these depressed areas so that the City can determine to what extent development is or is not occurring and propose appropriate techniques to adjust to the findings. A new mitigation measure is proposed by staff: "The City shall monitor economically "depressed" commercial corridors in the Northwest Redevelopment Project Area to determine to what extent development is or is not occurring and report the findings with recommendations to the Mayor and council every two years." II. HOUSING 1. The EIR recommends that an additional mitigation measure be added to require that relocation assistance be provided in accordance with the California Uniform Relocation Assistance Act for housing units replaced by new development. o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 4 The supply of affordable housing will be impacted by removal of units to accommodate new development. This measure would ensure that people displaced from affordable units, as a result of new development, have a means of being able to relocate and, hopefully, not become part of the growing number of homeless persons. The city is responsible for relocation activities where the City acquires real property through emminent domain. This applies to redevelopment projects also. Projects that use federal funding are subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act which is similar to the California Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. This act applies to federally assisted projects that involve the acquisition of real property or the displacement of people. Both of these laws apply to potentially limited numbers of projects within the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that reworded as follows and Common Council: the mitigation measure adopted by the Mayor and be "Relocation assistance shall be provided in accordance with the California Uniform Relocation Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act." Planning also recommends that the Mayor and Common Council consider, at a later date, the feasibility of requiring developers who remove affordable units and displace people and are not subject to either the state or federal relocation laws to provide assistance consistent with these laws. Also, to be considered is requiring replacement of affordable units that are removed for new development activities. The implications of these measures are unknown at this time, although the intent is well meaning. No actions should be taken at this time. 2. The EIR also recommends monitoring state and Federal housing programs for the provisions of affordable housing with an increase in funding, by the City, if funds are available. Monitoring housing programs that help provide affordable housing enables the city to track the progress of these o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 5 programs. This is important because State and Federal funding may not be adequate to meet the need and the city can determine if additional funding is required. The City can then assist in the provision of affordable housing, if funds are available. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this mitigation measure be adopted by the Mayor and Common Council. III. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. As an additional mitigation measure, the EIR recommends that implementation program 13.4 be amended to provide for the notification of owners when significant resources are identified on their property with an explanation of the benefits and constraints that this condition represents. Implementation program 13.4 states: "The city shall adopt specific criteria for determining significance of historic resources and develop a certification program for historic points of interest, sities, structures and districts." Once the criteria is established and specific sites, structures or districts are identified as significant, this measure would require the City to notify the owner (s) of the identified property with an explanation of the benefits and constraints that this condition represents. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of mitigation measure so that existing or of significant historic property are City's intent and are informed as condition represents. the proposed future owners aware of the to what this 2. Response to Comment No. K9 (page 116 of the Response to Comment Document) recommends an additional mitigation measure to reduce vibration on structures caused by traffic by establishing a program of rehabilitation, preservation, and retrofitting older homes and structures where it might be needed as determined by guidelines of the Historic Resources Commission. o o o .~ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the proposed mitigation measure because this program would benefit property owners as well as the public by protecting and preserving significant historic structures. IV. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION As additional mitigation, the EIR identifies two measures to further reduce traffic and/or circulation impacts: 1. "Prior to development, a detailed traffic analysis should be required for projects expected to produce vehicle trips in excess of a threshold established per implementation program 16.13 and appropriate mitigation measures identified to reduce trip generation and/or maintain a "Level of Service C." Studies should identify specific mitigation measures such as signalization improvements, driveway location, parking vanpools, carpools, preferential parking for carpools, flextime schedules and bike facilities." RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this measure with the Engineering Department who recommends acceptance of this measure with the following modification based on the change made to Policy 6.1.11: add: "or otherwise acceptable to the Mayor and Common Council" after "Level of Service C." change the "should" to "shall" after "studies". add: "or other suitable mitigations after" "bike facilities." 2. "If necessary, the City should require the implementation of Transportation Demand systems to provide for area-wide transportation management for new projects that will provide more than 1,000 trips per day." RECOMMENDATION: The Engineering Department recommends acceptance of this mitigation measure with the following modifi- cation: o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 7 strike out: "that will provide more than 1,000 trips per day." replace with: "identified as having a significant regional impact on the transporta- tion system." V. WATER SUPPLY The Comments and Response document recommends that a policy be added to the General Plan to facilitate water conservation that encourages the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and other non-contact uses for industrial projects, golf courses and freeways. This has already been included in the General Plan as Policy 11.1.4a and Implementation 11.19 has also been added that addresses it. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that no action be taken. VI. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL/USES 1. As an additional mitigation measure, the EIR recommends that future site specific mitigation should stipulate that any development in previously contaminated areas should be preceded by a detailed soil analysis studies for residual hazardous materials and necessary cleanup. The way that it is currently written there is nothing to trigger the requirement for a soils analysis because we may not know that the site is contaminated. We may suspect that the site is contaminated based on the previous use or data in the files. Second is the issue of soils analysis and clea~up preceeding development. Future projects will requ1re environmental review per CEQA prior to project approval. As part of this review, suspected contaminated sites would require studies and appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, this mitigation measure is already required by State Law. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this mitigation measure be accepted and reworded as follows: o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 8 Future development in areas suspected to have soil contamination shall require a soils analysis as part of the environmental review procedure. This analysis or survey will identify any residual hazardous materials and necessary mitigation measures. 2. The EIR also recommends as an additional mitigation measure to further reduce impacts: "installation of gradient from the of aeration towers groundwater." monitoring wells down the hydraulic contaminated source and the construction to treat the areas of contaminated These are wells located throughout the City of San Bernardino owned by various agencies (San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, East valley Water District, City of Rialto, City of Fontana, City of Riverside, etc.). State law requires that these wells be monitored periodically for the presence of contamination. These existing wells not only identify where contamination is moving to (as addressed by the proposed mitigation) but they identify new sources of contamination that may be entering the City. Implementation measures 13.48 -13.50 addresses water monitoring between agencies. The construction of aeration towers is not the only method to treat contaminated water. Granular activated carbon filters is another process that will soon be used by the Water Department to treat contaminated water. The City is not solely responsible for cleanup as implied in the proposed mitigation measure. The responsible agency should determine which clean-up method works best for them. Implementation 13.59 requires the utilization of current technology for groundwater and surface water cleanup. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the mitigation measure with the following rewording: "Recognizing the City's scope of responsibilities and financial capabilities, the city shall treat con taminated groundwater and surface water using the most effective, and best available control technology." VII. NOISE The Comments and Response document recommends rewording of o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 9 Policy 14.1.3 as follows: "Require existing housing, health care facilities and other "noise sensitive" uses located in areas subject to future noise levels of an Ldn of 65 dB(A) or greater be protected from unacceptable noise levels by the installation of insulation, walls, berms or other elements with funding and installation to be the responsibility of the developer (s) of the land uses determined to generate (either directly or indirectly) the incremental noise increase resulting in the unacceptable noise levels." Policy 14.1.3 as originally proposed in the Draft General required that existing noise sensitive uses mitigate impacts if physically and economically feasible to do so. policy was deleted by the Planning Commission and Mayor Common Council because it was felt that it would always be determined to be physically or economically unfeasible and, therefore, this policy would not accomplish what it was intended to do. Plan noise This and The proposed revision to Policy 14.1.3 was in response to the infeasibility of the measure as originally written. However, as proposed, the revised wording overlaps and conflicts with existing policies and implementation measures. Policy 14.1.1 prohibits the development of noise sensitive uses in areas where the existing noise levels exceed acceptable standards unless the proposed use can mitigate the noise impact. Implementation 14.8 requires all proposed commercial, industrial and transportation uses to be evaluated during the environmental review process to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are added to reduce noise to acceptable levels. This gives the City the ability to deny a project if noise impacts cannot be mitigated. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed rewording of Policy 14.1.3 not be included since it is already addressed and the revision implies that noise standards can be exceeded. Policies 14.3.1 and 14.5.1 address working with Caltrans and the railroad companies to install mitigation features where existing uses are impacted by noise. However, the implementation measures do not ensure that this will occur. The concern still exists of existing uses being impacted by existing noise sources - o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8905-2316 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 31, 1989 Page 10 that exceed acceptable levels. No feasible mitigation measures are identified that mitigate this to a level of insignificance. VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES As additional mitigation, the EIR identifies two measures to further reduce impacts to biological resources: 1. Amend implementation program 110.1 to include: "The City shall retain professional biologist (s) evaluate Initial Studies standpoint of potential resources." the services of a qualified whose function shall be to for proposed projects from the for impacts to biological RECOMMENDATION: This requirement is already Implementation program 110.3. that this proposed modifi cation provided for in Staff recommends be rejected. 2. Amend Implementation programs 110.6 and 110.8 to specify: "...The committee shall present to the Mayor and Council a written report of their findings recommendations within two years of Plan adoption." city and RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council modified 110.6 and 110.8 deleting the requirement to establish a mUltidisciplinary committee and replacing it with the requirement that the City shall consult with various federal, state and local agencies and City departments. Staff recommends acceptance of proposed modification to 110.6 and 110.8 with the following change: strike out: replace with: "The committee" "The City" Staff's proposed modification will make this mitigation measure consistent with previous actions by the Planning Commission and Mayor and Council.