Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16-Development Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: James Funk, Director Subject: Request to adopt the mitigated Of' r. . I ~ INegative Declaration for the renovation and , I , 1,,11 j W M uetrofit of the San Bernardmo Santa Fe Depot. Dept: Development Services Date: December 6, 2001 File: 6.7178 MCC Date: December 17, 2001 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: 7/9/01 Allocation of $3,000,000 in the 2001/02 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for rehabilitation and structure retrofit for the Santa Fe Depot (Account No. 123-558-5504-7178). Recommended Motion: The Mayor and Common Council adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ~,~ Contact person: Raymond A. Casey, Deputy Director Phone: ';127 Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Map, I.S., Review Period Resps. Ward: I FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: NIA Acct. Description: Restoration of San Bernardino Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. I Co . /~/J7 jtJ/ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Request to adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration for the renovation and retrofit of the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot. Background: The Santa Fe Depot Restoration Project consists of the renovation and retrofit of the Santa Fe Depot located at 1170 West Third Street. The plan contains the detailed specifications enabling the City of San Bernardino to undertake the actual restoration and retrofit activities. The City of San Bernardino and SANBAG obtained a series of Federal/State Aid and local grants to study, design and restore the Santa Fe Depot. The first phase of the work program included the preparation of the Santa Fe Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse Study to identify how to reuse the Depot as a multimodal surface transportation facility. The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopted the Study in March 2000. Subsequently, CEQA and NEPA enviromnental compliance documents were prepared and approved for the Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse Study. Included in this phase was submittal of an application to the State Historic Preservation Officer for placement of the Santa Fe Depot on the National Register of Historic Places. In August 2000, the Santa Fe Depot was placed on the National Register. During the past 1 Y, years the specifications were developed and work completed for the Phase IA Hazardous Material Removal, and the specifications were developed and work started on the Phase m Hazardous Material Removal. In addition, the plans and specifications were recently completed for the actual renovation and reconstruction, including interior design modifications to accommodate the ultimate users of the facility. On November 29,2001, Enviromnental Review Committee (ERe) reviewed the initial study, and moved to Mayor and Common Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa Fe Depot Restoration and Retrofit Plan (final drawings). The ERC received responses from only the staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control during the mandatory public review period. Only the response from the Department of Toxic Substances Control necessitated a response (see attached). Financial ImDact: None. Recommendation: The Mayor and Common Council adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 300 NORTH "D" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418. (909) 384-5057 .:. .:. .:. PROJECT REVIEW ROUTING ~--~ --~--~ -- - -- --~-- -------~--- PROJECT: Public Works Project No. 01-02 - Initial Study TO: Valerie C. Ross - ERC/DRC Chair Jim Goodos - Parks & Recreation Joe Lease - Plan Check Wes Farmer - Police Department Geri Franske - Fire Department Michelle Dyck -Turner - Public Services Department Y oun Kim - Public Works Division Sue Morales - Economic Development Agency Anwar Wagdy - Traffic Division Councilperson Estrada - City Council Ward 1 James Dye - Water Department Jim Watson - Waler Reclamation Plant FROM: Y oun Kim - Staff Representative DATE: November 26, 2001 E/DRC MEETING DATE: November 29,2001 DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Proposed structure renovation and retrofit of the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot. The subject property is located at 1170 W. Third Street. OWNER/APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino GEN. PLAN/ZONING: lH, Industrial Heavy APN: 0138-261-22 CEQA STATUS: Subject to CEQA COMMENTS: (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Y oun Kim, Senior Engineer M h S h. S . E' IA. '), e ran epe n, em or ngmeer FROM: SUBJECT: . Santa Fe Depot Initial Study DATE: October 29,2001 CC: I would like to request that the Initial Study for the Santa Fe Depot be put on the November 15, 2001 Development Review Comity/Environmental Review Comity (DRC/ERC) agenda. As you know this Initial Study was completed by Valerie Ross, the city's Principal Planner. At one point this Initial Study was on the DRCIERC agenda, but was continued to allow for staff to respond to outside agency comments. Also the Notice of Exemption and NEPA were completed by Deborah Woldruff, the city's Associate Planner and Caltrans Environmental Office Chief. A Negative Declaration (ND) was submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The review period was closed on July 27, 2001, and the city received comments from California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control on this project. Attach please find their comments and staffs response to their comments. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. Please let me know if you need additional information. S/mehranlEnvironment&IntialStudy/MemotoKen4 ;~~:~" ~." . ~ ""411%'\;" ~r~~, '~7,,?tj ./-C~~ ~~~ ','.,' 1 ~. \ .:~ J'U:~ d,,',i'c,?t~ITY OF SAN BERNARDINO , ".' :,.~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF INTENT ,--:1. '.'," '. ,j:'o';\'-' ... ,'i. d.< FROM: I Uv~'" ',' . ;_..,;~~~\:; CITY OF SAN BERNARDiNO Development Services Depamnent 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 TO: 181 OFFICE OF PLAl'<'NING AND RESEARCH 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 181 COUNTY CLERK County of San Bernardino 385 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92415 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of !ntentto adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Section 21 080e of the Public Resources Code and Sections 15072 and 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines. Project Tille: Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Plan State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to Clearinghouse): N/A Lead Agency Contact Person: Valerie C. Ross Area CodefI'elephone: 909.384.5057 Project Location (include county): The Santa Fe Depot is located at I 170 W. 3'" Street is bounded by 3'" Street on the south and east, the BNSF rail lines on the north, and Metrolink parking and service facilities on the wesl. It is in the City/County of San Bernardino. Project Description: The City of San Bernardino obtained a Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA-21) grant to prepare an adaptive reuse plan for the Santa Fe Depot. The fIrSt phase of the work program included the preparation of the Santa Fe Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse Study to identify how to reuse the Depot as a multimodal surface transportation facility. The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopted the Study in March 2000. CEQA and NEPA environmental compliance documents were prepared for the Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse Study. Included in this phase was submittal of an application to the State Historic Preservation Officer for placement of the Santa Fe Depot on the National Register of Historic Places. In August 2000, the Santa Fe Depot was placed on the National Register. The current phase consists of the preparation of the Santa Fe Depot Restoration and Retrofit Plan. This plan contains the detailed specifications to enable the City of San Bernardino to undertake the actual restoration and retrofit activities. The work to be done consists in general, of restoring existing roofmg, interior and exterior walls, windows, doors, light fixtures, structural seismic retrofit of the building, and installation of new mechanical, plumbing, electrical, telephone and data systems. This is to notify the public and interested parties of the City of San Bernardino's inlent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above referenced project. The mandatory public review period will begin on Thursday, June 28, 200 I and will end on Friday, July 27, 2001. The Initial Stud)' and supporting Technical Studies are available for public review at the public counter in the Development Services Depamnent, located on the third floor of City Hall (address listed above). The project site is not listed in the State of Cali fomi a Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(E). Following the public review period, the project and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be reviewed by the City's EnvironmentaJIDevelopment Review Conumllee on Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room-A located on the fourth floor of City Hall. Signature: YIIJAiv O.&- Valerie C. Ross Date: June 25. 2001 Title: Princioal Planner Date received for filing at OPR: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INITIAL STUDY FOR Public Works Project No. 01-02 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONILOCATION: Public Works Project No. 01-02 is a City-initiated project to renovate and retrofit the Santa Fe Depot, located at 1170 W. 3rd Street in the City of San Bernardino. DATE: June 21, 2001 PREPARED BY City of San Bernardino Development Service Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 _.' (909) 384-5057 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. 1. Project Title: Proposed structure renovation and retrofit of the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot 2. Lead Agency' Name: City of San Bernardino Address: 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 3. Contact Person: Phone Number: Raymond A. Casey, P.E. 909.384.5111 4. Project Location (AddresslNearest cross-streets): 1170 West Third Street 5. Project Sponsor: City of San Bernardino 6. General Plan Designation: IH, Industrial Heavy 7. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases ofthe project and any secondary, support, or off-site feature necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary): The City of San Bernardino obtained a Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA-21) grant to prepare an adaptive reuse plan for the Santa Fe Depot. The first phase of the work program included the preparation of the Santa Fe Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse Study to identify how to reuse the Depot as a multimodal surface transportation facility. The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopted the Study in March 2000. CEQA and NEP A environmental compliance documents were prepared for the Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse Study. Included in this phase was submittal of an application to the State Historic Preservation Officer for placement of the Santa Fe Depot on the National Register of Historic Places. In August 2000, the Santa Fe Depot was placed.on the National Register. The current phase consists of the preparation of the Santa Fe Depot Restoration and Retrofit Plan. This plan contains the detailed specifications to enable the City of San Bernardino to undertake the actual restoration and retrofit activities. The work to be done consists in general, of restoring existing roofing, interior and exterior walls, windows, doors, light fixtures, structural seismic retrofit of the building, and installation of new mechanical, plumbing, electrical, telephone and data systems. IS I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Mixed use urban setting that includes public transportation facilities. commercial and medium density residential. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, finance approval, or participation agreement): Caltrans, FHW A IS 2 U;'&nII Fe ""'IniliaIS&ud,. - 07.11._ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. o Land Use and Planning o Population and Housing o Earth Resource~ o Water . i:8I Air Quality DTransportationlCirculation i:8IBiological Resources o Energy and Mineral Resources o Hazards o Noise o Mandatory Findings of Significance o Public Services o Utilities and Service Systems o Aesthetics i:8ICultural Resources o Recreation o Geological Determination. On the basis of this Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino, Environmental Review Committee finds: That the proposed project COULD NOT have significant effect on the environment, 0 and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the t8l environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required. That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)-have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. V4/JJ.ll; (;, ~ rU,1J;01 Da Signature VALERIE C. ROSS Printed Name IS 3 U:\SaataFc~SIJd,.-07.1I._ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Unle.. Le.. Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Will the proposal result in: a) A conflict with the land use as 0 0 0 IZI designated based on the review of the General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map? b) Development within an Airport District 0 0 0 IZI as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AlCUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? c) Development within Foothill Fire 0 0 0 IZI Zones A & B, or C as identified on the Land Use Districts Zoning Map? d) Other? 0 0 0 IZI a. The Santa Fe Depot is located in the IH, Industrial Heavy land use district and currently operates as a transportation center with Amtrak offices in the depot and an adjacent Metrolink facility. The renovation and retrofit will enhance, not conflict, with the office and transportation-related uses. No mitigation required. IS 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Will the proposal: a) Remove existing housing (including 0 0 0 181 affordable housing) as verified by a site survey/evaluation? b) Create a significant demand for 0 0 0 181 additional housing based on the proposed use and evaluation of project size? c) Induce substantial growth in an area 0 0 0 181 either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or an extension of major infrastructure)? d) Other? 0 0 0 0 c. The area surrounding the Santa Fe Depot is currently developed with a mix of commercial, industrial, and residen~ial uses. The site is presently served with an forms of infrastructure (roads, sewers, water, utilities, etc.) Completion of the renovation and retrofit project has no potential to induce substantial growth in the community. No mitigation required. IS 5 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY III. EARTH RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) on 0 0 0 ~ slopes of 15% or more based on information contained in the Preliminary Project Description Form No.D? b) Development and/or grading on a slope 0 0 0 ~ greater than 15% natural grade based on review of General Plan HMOD map? c) Erosion, dust or unstable soil 0 0 0 ~ conditions from excavation, grading or fill? d) Development within the Alquist-Priolo 0 0 0 ~ Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0, Geologic & Seismic. Figure 47, of the City's General Plan? e) Modification of any unique geologic or 0 0 0 ~ physical feature based on field review? t) Development within areas defined as 0 0 0 ~ having high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0, Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General Plan? g) Modification of a channel, creek or 0 0 0 ~ river based on a field review or review of USGS Topographic Map ? h) Development within an area subjeci "to 0 0 0 fZI landslides, mudslides, subsidence or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0, Geologic & Seismic, Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? i) Development within an area subject to 0 0 0 ~ liquefaction as shown in Section 12.0, Geologic & ~eismic, Figure 48, of the City's General Plan? j) Other? 0 0 0 181 IS 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY a, b, and c. The Santa Fe Depot site is fully developed and no earth rnovement is proposed in conjunction with the renovation and rehabilitation project. No mitigation is required. d. The Santa Fe Depot is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. It is located approximately 1/2 mile northeasterly of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Part of the renovation and rehabilitation project includes seismic retrofitting of the building as addressed in the Renovation and Retrofit Plan. .' , IS 7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY IV. WATER. WiIltheproposalresultin: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 181 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces that cannot be mitigated by Public Works Standard Requirements to contain and convey runoff to approved storm drain based on review of the proposed site plan? b) Significant alteration in the course or 0 0 0 181 flow of flood waters based on consultation with Public Works staff? c) Discharge into surface waters or any 0 0 0 181 alteration of surface water quality based on requirements of Public Works to have runoff directed to approved storm drains? d) Changes in the quantity or quality of 0 0 0 181 ground water? , e) Exposure of people or property to 0 0 0 181 flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Ratc Map, Community Pancl Number , and Section 16.0, Flooding. Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? f) Other? 0 0 0 181 IS 8 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY V. AIR QUALITY. Will the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 181 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation based on the thresholds in the SCAQMD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook"? b) Expose sensitive receptors to 0 0 0 181 pollutantS? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 181 temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors based on 0 0 0 181 information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Fonn? a. The demolition and removal of materials could contribute to air quality degradation. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 will reduce short-term air pollutant emissions impacts to a level of less than significant. ' d. Completion of the rehabilitation and retrofit project will create the opportunity for a restaurant to support the office and transportation-related activities. There are no sensitive receptors in the project area, and no potentially significant adverse impacts are forecast to occur. No mitigation is required. : IS9 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULA TION. 0 0 0 ~ Could the proposal result in: a) A significant increase In traffic 0 0 0 ~ volumes on the roadways or intersections or an increase that is significantly greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b) Alteration 'of present patterns of 0 0 0 ~ circulation? c) A disjointed pattern of roadway 0 0 0 ~ improvements? d) Impact to rail or air traffic? 0 0 0 ~ e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or 0 0 0 ~ off-site based on the requirements in Chapter 19.24 of the Development Code? f) Increased safety hazards to vehicles, 0 0 0 ~ bicyclists or pedestrians? g) Conflict with adopted policies 0 0 0 ~ supporting alternative trarisportation? , h) Inadequate emergency access or access 0 0 0 ~ to nearby uses? i) Other? 0 0 0 ~ a. There will be a less than significant impact on local traffic during the renovation and retrofit project because there will be a limited number of trips associated with the construction phase. The staging area and parking area for work-reiated vehicles will occur in the parking lot area that is currently not in use. No mitigation is required. b. - h. The renovation and retrofit project does not involve any physical changes to the circulation system or any roadway improvements that could create a disjointed pattern of traffic or circulation. It has no activities that will affect air or rail traffic systems. No mitigation is required. IS 10 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Could the proposal result in: a) Development within the Biological 0 0 0 (gI Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0, Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan? b) Impacts to endangered, threatened or 0 0 0 (gI rate species or their habitat (including, but not limited to, plants, mammals, fish, insects and birds)? c) Impacts to the wildlife disbursal or 0 0 0 (gI migration corridors? d) Impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, 0 0 0 (gI riparian and vernal pool)? e) Removal of viable, mature trees based 0 0 0 (gI on information contained m the Preliminary Environmental Description Form and , verified by site survey/evaluation (6" or greater trunk diameter at 4' above the ground)? l) Other? 0 0 0 0 a. - d. The project site is not located in or adjacent to the City's Biological Resource Management Overlay district, nor are there endangered, threatened, or rare species of plants or animals on or around the project area. No mitigation is required. e. The Santa Fe Depot contain landscape elements that contribute to its historical setting. The plant materials will be protected during the construction phase as identified in the Renovation and Retrofit Plan. : IS 11 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy 0 0 0 ~ conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources In a 0 0 0 ~ wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in' the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ~ known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IS 12 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY IX. HAZARDS. Will the proposal: a) Use, store, transport or dispose of 0 0 0 ~ hazardous or toxic materials based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. G(l) and G(2) (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? . b) Involve the release of hazardous 0 0 0 ~ substances? c) Expose people to the potential 0 0 0 ~ health/safety hazards? d) Other? 0 0 0 0 a., b, and c. The City retained a team qualified to removeguano, asbestos, and lead-based paint from the Santa Fe Depot. This work program has been completed, as intended to ensure that the removal and disposal of hazardous or toxic materials were in compliance with applicable state and federal requirements, and to reduce the risk of exposure to the renovation and rehabilitation construction team. IS 13 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY . .~ X. NOISE. Could the proposal result in: a) Development of housing, health care 0 0 0 ~ facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities or other noise sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as identified in Section 14.0, Noise, Figures 57 and 58, of the City's General Plan? b) Development of new or expansion of 0 0 0 ~ existing industrial, commercial or other uses which generate noise levels above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior that may affect areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses based on information III the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. G(l) and evaluation of surrounding land uses No. C, and verified by site survey/evaluation? c) Other? 0 0 0 0 b. The Santa Fe Depot is immediately adjacent to the BNSF rail lines to the north and west, the Metrolink parking lot to the west, industrial uses to the east, and a commercial retail center to the south. There are no sensitive receptors in the area, and the renovation and retrofit activities will not impact the adjacent land uses. Construction activities that generate noise cannot occur between 11 :00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. as per the City's noise ordinance. No mitigation required. IS 14 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 IZI b) Medical aid? 0 0 0 IZI , c) Police protection? 0 0 0 IZI d) Schools? 0 0 0 IZI e) Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 0 IZI t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 IZI g) Maintenance of public facilities, 0 0 0 IZI including roads? h) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 IZI , a. - g. Part ofthe renovation and retrofit program includes securing the building to minimize unauthorized entry, lessening calls for police and fire services. Completion of the renovation and retrofit program is not anticipated to increase calls for services or create demands for public services. f. IS 15, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY XII. UTILITIES. Will the proposal, based on 0 0 0 ~ the responses of the responsible Agencies, Departments, or Utility Company, impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? a) Natural gas? 0 0 0 ~ b) ElectricitY? 0 0 0 ~ c) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ~ d) Water distribution? 0 0 0 ~ e) Water treatment or sewer? 0 0 0 ~ f) Stonn water drainage? 0 0 0 ~ g) Result in a disjointed pattern of utility 0 0 0 ~ extensions based on review of existing patterns and proposed extensions? , h) Other? 0 0 0 0 a. - g. Completion of the renovation and retrofit program and future tenant uses will not create demands for utilities and services beyond what is currently existing at the site. No mitigation required. IS 16 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY XIII. AESTHETICS. a) Could the proposal result In the 0 0 0 ~ obstruction of any significant or important scenic view based on evaluation ofthe view shed verified by site survey/evaluation? b) Will the visual impact of the project 0 0 0 ~ create aesthetically offensive changes in the existing visual setting based on a site survey and evaluation of the proposed elevations? c) Create significant light or glare that 0 0 0 ~ could impact sensitive receptors? d) Other? 0 0 0 0 a. and b. Completion of the renovation and retrofit program will improve the aesthetics of the Santa Fe Depot, an important historic resource in the City. It is anticipated that completion of the construction project will provide the incentive for adjacent property owners to undertake renovation programs. No mitigation required. c. Completion of the renovation and retrofit program and future tenant uses will not creates significant light or glare. No mitigation required. IS 17 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Could the proposal result in: a) Development in a sensitive 0 ~ 0 0 archaeological area as identified In Section 3.0, Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan? b) The alteration or destnlction of a 0 ~ 0 0 prehistoric' or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3.0, Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan? c) Alteration or destnlction of a historical 0 ~ 0 0 site, stnlcture or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? d) Other? 0 0 0 0 a. and c. The Santa Fe Depot is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. All renovation and rehabilitation work will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historical Buildings, the 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation, the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the 1996 California Historical Building Code, and the 1996 California Building Code, Title 24. Pursuant to Section IS064.5(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act, projects that follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historical Buildings shall be considered as mitigated to a level ofless than a significant impact on the historical resource. b. The renovation and retrofit program includes the removal and replacement of the asphalt in the parking area. A minimal amount of leveling will be required to ensure proper drainage once completed. It is not anticipated that the leveling will uncover any archaeological artifacts, but the City will require an on-site construction inspector at all times. If any artifacts are uncovered, the construction inspector shall have the autliority to halt construction activity until a qualified historic archaeologist can make a determination as to its significance. IS 18 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood 0 0 0 181 or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect eXisting recreational 0 0 0 181 opportunities? " . a. and b. Completion of the renovation and retrofit program and future tenant uses will not increase the demand for recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities. It is anticipated that upon completion of the improvements, the lobby area of the Depot would be available for community events. No mitigation required. IS 19 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 IZI degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or-animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 IZI achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 IZI individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? , ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 IZI effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The goal of the Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Plan is to rehabilitate an important historic resource in the City of San Bernardino and to establish office and transportation-related uses that enhance the Depot and the adjacent area. The evaluation included in this Initial Study determined that the renovation and retrofit program has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts during the construction or operation phases. Mitigation measures, including compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historical Buildings, have been identified to reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to a less than significant level. IS 20 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY REFERENCES. The following references cited in the Initial Study are on file in the Development Services Department. 1. City of San Bernardino General Plan. 2. City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map. 3. City of San Bernardino Development Code (Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code). 4. City of San Bernardino Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey. 5. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 7. Federal Emc:rgency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 8. Public WorkS Standard Requirements-water. 9. Public Works Standard Requirements-grading. i6. San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse Study (March 2000). 11. San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Plan (June 2001). IS 21 li'Jl - ;- , ~~ , "'..,...... ~'~ ,. ~ f * ) ~.'-~. '" ...,,# l'ro,c.\.\fGI"" "'CO' oJ. 'II.. I II! i, PiJnnlt1:/ ,-lllj t{\\ d!'I..ll I I,. ! \ ; i j , ',:~ 1 1 \ ~" \ '~ ~tt'\'t" :\:iss~n IJIRI cr'lR July 30, 2001 "\ "i r-s Ir'- i'~; 'U'IIV1 rr=. [Q) u< !~~ \.2"<; L5 \'!J LS : n \ -" ",";;: 2001 Valerie Ross City of San Bernardino 300 North 0 Street. 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 :"i":i- S.';N BERNARDINO -""'ELOPMENT SERVICES QFPARTMENT Subject: Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Plan SCH#: 2001061124 Dear Valerie Ross: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on July 27, 2001, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. Iftros conunent package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more infonnation or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft ':nvirc!'~~:l!:!! d0Ctl..rne~ts. purs'..!:!!!.t!(' !h~ C!\!if')m!~ Envi!'c!'l.."'!1~!!tl!! Q'..!::oHty A~t. P'!~as~ ':Or.t3,=t th~ State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely. ~~ Terry Roberts Senior Planner. State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency \-WCii!"-.JH:';i'lUri ': -, i;'>\j:,-'.H \\i 1\i.\!r-~,f!' \ [tl"[!'\l' '.;":' :!'-..j., i);!> .~.!~-n:.l~ 1\\ '-ifi~-!,"-',()L'; \\\\\\.;ll'j\,( '\,( .,\'L i ,- \h1\l.:!il( '!.iil ,Ii SCH# Project ntle Lead Agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base 2001061124 Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Plan San Bernardino, City of Type Description Neg Negative Declaration The current phase consists of the preparation of the Santa Fe Depot Restoration and Retrofit Plan. This plan contains the detailed specifications to enable the City of San Bernardino to undertake the actual restoration and retrofit activities. The work to be done consists, in general, of restoring existing roofing, interior and existing walls, windows, doors, light fixtures, structural seismic retrofrt of the building and installation of new mechanical, plumbing, electrical, telephone and data systems. Lead Agency Contact Name Valerie Ross Agency City of San Bernardino Phone 909 384-5057 emall Address City Fax 909 384-5080 300 North D Street. 3rd Floor San Bernardino State CA Zip 92418 Project Location County San Bernardino City San Bernardino Region Cross Streets W. 3rd Street Parcel No. 0138-261-22 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1-215 Airports Railways Santa Fe & Burlington Northern Waterways Schoals Land Use IH, Industrial Heavy Project Issues Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans. District 8; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Public Utilities Commission; State Lands Commission Start af Review 06/28/2001 Date Received 06/28/2001 End af Review 07/27/2001 Ml"lto' I::U~nlt-C! in l"I~t!3 fiolrlc rOlcldt frnm incllffi,..iont infnrrn~tinn nrnvirlArl hv IA::an =:anAnrv e California Regional Water Quality Control Board~ Santa Ana Region V:!lIl!J Internet Address: hnp:/Iwww.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8 3737 Main Street. Suite: 500. Riverside. California 92501.3348 Phon. (909) 782.4130. FAX (909) 781.6288 Gray Dam G~mo, \Vinston H. Hickox S~cr~tary for DI~'irunm~fIlal PrUI~I'(lun Tlt~ energy challenge fot'in! California is (t!al Eref)' Californian needs to take immediate anion to reduu entrE." con,l'l4ntplion. For a list of :iimple ways you can rl!duce demand and rut your energy CQSU, see our ....ebj.ite at K.w......jWrcb_('a.go~./rwqcb8. July 19,2001 Valerie Ross / RECeIVED I~ City of San Bernardino ~ l..<t 300 North "D" Street 3"' Floor JUl G " /;!'11 '1 ~IY-" San Bernardino, CA ' ISTATECIJ:jD,IJ".". . e., RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION TO AIJOP".f'l~rrRI.It'ItARATlON I SANTA FE DEPOT RENOVATION AND RETROFIT PLAN I STATE CLEARING I<<mSE NUMBER 2001061124 Dear Ms. Ross: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), has reviewed the Notice of Completion for the above referenced project. The proposed project consists of the restoration of the historic Santa Fe Depot. The work to be done includes restoring existing roofing, interior and walls, windows, doors, light fixtures, structural seismic retrofit of the building and installation of new mechanical, plumbing, electrical, telephone and data systems. The location of this project is adjacent an area in which soil and groundwater has been found to be contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents. and heavy metals. This area is currently in the process of remediation overseen by this Regional Board. As a result, the following steps should be taken during the construction process. 1. If contamination is encountered (often noted by discoloration of soil or odors of petroleum or solvents) contact the appropriate local Agencies such as the County Environmental Health Department and the City Fire Department. In addition, contact Mancek Chichgar of this Regional Board. 2. During the construction process take the appropriate safety measures if contamination is encountered. If you should have any questions, please call Mancek Chichgar at (909) 782-3252. Sincerely, :jJc.w-J ~. UJ~ David G. Woelfel Planning Section cc: Scott Morgan - State Clearinghouse California Environmental Protection Agency o Rt<yt:lcd Papt' a Winston H. Hickox Agency Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 e Department of Toxic Substances Control Gray Davis Governor July 24, 2001 Ms. Valerie Ross City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, California 92418 J RECEIVED ' "" 7 I'"'' I IS~ CLEARINGHOUSf -.------ WCYl -1lv7/~ I ...e..-. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SANTA FE DEPOT RENOVATION AND RETROFIT PLAN - SCH # 1.00 I (J IR II 2'1 Dear Ms. Ross: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative Declaration for the above-mentioned Project. Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: 1) The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the Project area. 2) The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the NO needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. 3) The NO should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which govemment agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. 4) The ND fails to address the remaiflder of the Hazards' section checklist which includes the following questions': . Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a.significant hazard to the public or the environment? The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. Fora list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut yourenetg'y costs. see our Web-site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. @ Printed on Recycled Paper Ms. Valerie Ross July 24, 2001 Page 2 . For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? . For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? . Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? . Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 5) If during construction of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, stop construction in the area and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the NO should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. OTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact Ms. Rania A. Zabaneh, Project Manager at (714) 484-5479. ~~ Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office cc: see next page Ms. Valerie Ross July 24, 2001 Page 3 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 o Winston H. Hickox Agency Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency Edwin F. Lowry, Director 1001 I St. 25th Floor P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 8 Department of Toxic Substances Control Gray Davis Governor MEMORANDUM TO: Johnson Abraham, Branch Chief Site Mitigation Program, Region 4 FROM: Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section DATE: July 3, 2001 TRANSMITTAL AND REVIEW OF LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Plan. 2001051124 SUBJECT: The Department has received a(n) Negative Declaration for the project listed above. The project is being referred to you as a: " Non-EssentiaUlnforrnation Item Only A Courtesy Copy of the Notice of Completion Transmittal Form Has Also Been Sent to: o Sensitive Land Use Project o Non-Sensitive Land Use Project . Permitting Branch (document not included) The Department is encouraged to review this project and if applicable make comments pertaining to the project as it rela~s to hazardous waste and/or any activities which may fall within the Department's jurtsdiction. Please have your staff: 1) conduct its review of the attached document prtor to the end of the comment pertod: 2) complete the approprtate items below; and 3) return this transmittal sheet and a copy of any response letter from your office to: Planning & Environmental Analysis Section (PEAS) CEQA Tracking Center 10011 St., 22"" Floor P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, Califomia 95812-0806 Fax (916)323-3215 Date Comment Pertod Began: 06/2812001 07/2512001 07/2712001 Comments Due to Lead Agcy: Comments Due to OPR: Ll ~ \ . ~ - So.........ro. i=e De.poi r~~-c.:T"\c..-~ - N D _ C. c$ ~ ,~\~ Reviewed By: ':::<.c...,).'""" A - 7......2,..,.,,"'&H Date: -:::+-12=/oi COMMENTS have been prepared and a copy has been p(ovided to PEAS via: ;>fZ Attached Copy o FAX (916-324-1788) NO COMMENTS NECESSARY because: o All Department concems have been adequately addressed; OR o Project does not fall within the Department's areas of responsibility. Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions, please contact Ken Tipon , CEQA Tracking Center, at (916) 322-5266 or CALNET 492-5266. 17re energy crisis facing California is real. Every Californian needs to talee immediate action to reduce energy cOflSumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy cosU, see OUT We~site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. @ Printed on Recycled Paper DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT '" 300 North "D" Street. San Bernardino' CA 92418-0001 Planning & Building 909.384.5057. Fax: 909.384.5080 Punl", \\'orks/Engiueering 909.384.5111 . Fax: 909.384.5155 www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us October 29, 2001 Haissam Y Salloum, PE Unit Chief 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, Ca. 90630 Phone # (714) 484-5479 RE: Respond to Department of Toxic Substance Control comments for Negative Declaration for the Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Project Clearing House 2001061124 Dear Mr. Woelfel: Thank you for your letter dated July 24, 200 I for commenting on Negative Declaration for the Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Project Clearing House number 2001061124. Following are respond to your comments: I) The ND need to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the project area. The San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot was constructed in 1918 to replace the Original 1886 Carpenter Gothic Wood depot which was destroyed in the 1916fire. The building served as a combination passenger station and administrative headquarters of the Santa Fe Railroad on the West Coast. The property is bounded by the tracts of the Santa Fe railroad on the north and 3rd Street on the south. To the north of railroad tracks is the railway site, which still serves as a center for the shipment of freight, it has been covered by the tracks. afreight shop, repair shops and a smoke stack. The railway site has recently gone through a major renovation and environmental remediation. The depot is currently used only as a ticket counter for Amtrack which occupies 8080 square feet of the 57.360 square feet building. The proposed uses of the building after the renovation was determined to be a transportation center for trains and bus services. The building will also provide office spaces for transportation government agency and banquet hall to serve local community. The proposed uses of the building will not generate or release hazardous waste and substance at the project area. 2) The ND need to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. Phases 1 & II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) were performed on the project site. The Phase I ESA was performed to identifY by site reconnaissance and records review the past and present operations on and nearby the site which could have resulted in hazardous materials migrating through soil, possibly to groundwater beneath the site, to identifY through visual observations potentially asbestos - containing material in the existing Depot building. The Phase I ESA was performed by Remedial Action Corporation in February. 1993. The Phase II ESA was completed by Hoalguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. on August 23, 1993. This assessment was to provide information regarding the presence of hazardous materials in soil and ground water at the site. The site inspection revealed the following: · One 500 gallon steel above ground storage tanks. . 5 transformers. . One - 80 gallon diesel fuel holding. . One - 55 gallon drum. · Asbestos containing material sin ceiling tiles, exterior building stucco, baseboard, tile mastic, thermal system insulation and penetration mastic. · The building was painted with leas based paint. · Polychlorinated biphenyl 9PCB) in the fluorescent light ballasts. A total of 1 0 soil borings, 39 soil samples and /0 groundwater samples were collected an analyzed as part of Phase II ESA. The result of the analysis are as follows: · The regional water table was encountered at a depth of approximately 80 feet below ground level. · The soil samples contained a very low concentration of the chlorinated solvents PCE and TCE. The maximum concentration was 0,028 mg/kg of PCE and 0.017 mg/kg ofTCE. · All other analyses in all the soil samples showed non-detectable petroleum fuels and volatile organic compounds (VOC). · Soil samples from beneath the building were additionally analyzed for PCB's and showed non-detectable concentrations. · The ground water samples showed a maximum concentration of 42 pgll of TCE, 45 nil of PCE in 9 of the 10 samples and 1.1 pgll of DCE in 3 of the 10 samples. · The Benzenes, toluene and xylenes were detected in 3 boring, with maximum concentration of 1.4,3.3 and 2.1 pgll respectively. · The Phase II ESA report also identifies the origination of groundwater contamination to be from the old repair shops located in the railway site. 3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. As a result of the Environmental Site Assessment reports, the City of San Bernardino had contracted Janus Corporation to perform Lead based paint, Asbestos and PCB abatement and clean up at the depot building. Earth Tech Company was retained to provide supervision and inspection services. The abatement and clean up works were performed under the Federal and State regulations. 4) The ND fails to address the remainder of the Hazards' section checklist which includes the following questions: · Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project site is not listed in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances site list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (E) · For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not within airport land use plan. · For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. · Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project site will not impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. · Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project will not expose people or structure to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire. 5) If during construction of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, stop construction in the area and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. Ifit is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the NO should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. The City of San Bernardino will retain a qualified inspector to monitor the construction. If contaminated soil is encountered, the soil will be removed off-site to an approved disposal and replaced with clean soil. The San Bernardino County Fire Hazardous Materials Division will provide regulatory oversight. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 385-5111. Sincerely ,llJu" Q1l- Mehran Sepehri Senior Civil Engineer MS:JT:mdw cc: 0.0. Dirim, Transleck Phone (909)383-8579, Fax (909)595-8863 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT .. 300 North "[)" Street. San Bernardino' CA 92418-0001 Planning & Building 909.384.5057 . Fax: 909.384.5080 hJh',c WurkslEngineering 909.384.5111' Fax: 909.384.5155 www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us David G Woelfel Planning Section 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, Ca. 92501-3348 Phone # (909) 782-4130 Fax # (909) 781-6288 October 29,2001 Subject: Response to CRWQCB comments for Negative Declaration for the Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Project Clearing House 2001061124 Dear Mr. Woelfel: Thank you for your letter dated July 19,2001 and for your comments regarding the Negative Declaration for the Santa Fe Depot Renovation and Retrofit Project Clearing House No. 2001061124. Regarding your first comment, if contamination is encountered the appropriate local agencies such as the County Environmental Health Department and the City Fire Department will be contacted. Also our construction manager 0.0. Dirim from Transtech, will contact Mr. Mancek Chichgar of your office at (909) 782-3252, if contamination is encountered. Regarding your second comment, during the construction process appropriate safety measures will be taken by our contractor. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely /1 i ( I , ,. 'I ",A-::c."\ ~'/.i-^~ Mehran Sepehri Senior Civil Engineer Cc: a.D. Dirim, Transteck Phone (909)383-8579, Fax (909)595-8863 S/Mehran/Environml:ntal&lnitiaIStudylRespondtoCommentslRespttoCRWQCBComts...