Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-003 20 to-wit: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 11/18/88 28 tilt 1 RESOLUTION NO. 89-3 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 1988/89 TO 1992/93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AS FOLLOWS: 5 SECTION 1. The 1988/89 to 1992/93 Capital Improvement 6 Program, attached hereto marked Exhibi t "A," and incorporated 7 herein by reference as though fully set forth, is adopted as the 8 policy of the City of San Bernardino relating to construction of 9 capital improvement projects. 10 SECTION 2. A review of the Capital Improvement Program 11 shall be conducted during each annual budget review, and adjust- 12 ments made as deemed appropriate by the Mayor and Common Council. 13 SECTION 3. Revisions may be made to the Capital Improve- 14 ment Program at any time during the fiscal year by resolution of 15 the Mayor and Common Council. 16 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 17 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 18 Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19 3rd day of January I , 1988, by the following vote, AYES: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, MInor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller NAYS: None ABSENT: 'None r:;;t/ / ",4fLV6;;z;!'; '1i!1'''' ,/ Ci ty Cler RESO: ADOPTING THE 1988/89 TO 1992/93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM of The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this~6Lday 9 , 19 8~. .1 rI nl] rI ry p Approved as to form and legal content: ~ ~ p -/&-?lr::t:, - 2 - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STU,DY "'" ,. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 88-32 The Five Year Capital Improvement Program for the City of San Bernardino 88/89 - 92/93 December 12, 1988 Prepared by: MICHAEL W. GRUBBS Public Works Department/Engineering 300 No. "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared for: City of San Bernardino 300 No. "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 lit..... ~ r. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "" PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY ~ "'- r """ P R o J E C T DES C R I P T ION P W 88- 3 2 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Thi s is a Budgeti ng and Schedul i ng program for all Ci ty of San Bernardi no Publ i c Works projects for the next fi ve (5) years. Projects included are General Public Buildings, S t r e e t san d S t r e e t L i 9 h tin g, S e 'iJ e r s, S tor r.1 D r a ins, T r a f fie Controls, Parks and Recreation, and Recreational Field Lighting. The program was developed within each category based on anticipated yearly revenues, individual project priority and estimated individual project cost. -... .J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A . BACK GROY1m. Application Number: PW 88-32 Project Description: Program 1988/89 - 1992/93 5-Year CaDi tal Improvement Location: City of San Rprnarrlino Environmental Constraints Areas: MIA General Plan Designation: MIA Zoning Designation: MIA B. ~~IBONM~~TAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. EaJth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? x b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater. than 15% natural grade? x c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? x d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? x REVISED 12/87 PAGE 1 OF 8 Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the project site? x f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? x g. Development subject mudslides, other similar within an area to landslides, liquefaction or hazards? x h. Other? 2. bIR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial an effect quality? air upon emissions or ambient air x b. The creation of objectionable odors? x c. Development within a high wind hazard area? x 3. WATEB__ RESOURCES: proposal result in: Will the a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? x b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? x c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? x d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters? x e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? f. Other? x REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF 8 Yes No 4. BIOLOGICAL R~SOURCEp: proposal result in: Could the a. Change unique, species habitat trees? b. Change unique, species habitat? c. Other? in the number of any rare or endangered of plants or their including stands of x in the number of any rare or endangered of animals or their x 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? x b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? c. Other? 6. LAND_ USE: result in: a. A change in designated Plan? x Will the proposal the land use as on the General x b. Development within an Airport District? c. Development' within "Greenbelt" Zone A,B, or C? x d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? e. Other? x x Maybe REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 Yes Maybe 7. MAN-MADE HA~bWp: project: Will the a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release hazardous substances? of c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? 8. HOUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. ~RAN~f'QBTATION/CIRCULATION: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation .systems? d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? No x x x x x x x x y x REVISED 10/87 PAGE 4 OF 8 a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools (i.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc. ) ? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Medical aid? X f. Solid waste? X g. Other? 11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal: g. A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? of h. Other? 10. ~UBLIC SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? 3. Water? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? b. Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility c. Require the construction of new facilities? Yes No X x X X X X X Maybe REVISED 10/87 PAGE 5 OF 8 12. AESTHETICS: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? c. Other? 13. ~p~~URb~--FESQQRCES: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Adverse impacts historic object? physical or aesthetic to a prehistoric or site, structure or c. Other? 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. a. Does the project have the potential to 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 Yes No x x x x Maybe REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF8 Yes No Maybe important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.> x x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.> x d. Does the project have env i ronmental .. effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.> See Attached Sheet- REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 ""'" D. DETERMINA~JON On the basis of this initial study, [!] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project ~~Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o o E~~IRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA . I 1 I ..,..,., t': /" " "';: . .;., _~~/t:;. (... ~c..:..."'? ~m" (,.'r~ "'1 AAJN@!... Name and Title V'.i: '.'~~ t.," .('-~ Signature Date: / Z" / 5 - 68 REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF a C. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and determined that some of the items are not projects and, therefore, not subject to CEQA, some of the items are projects but are exempt from CEQA and some of the i terns are projects that wi 11 requi re environmental review. However, all items are listed as 5-year CIP ,recommendations. If the Mayor and Common Counci 1 adopt the Capi ta 1 Improvement Program, it means that they will consider these items for possible future action. Prior to allocating funding in the budget, all of these items should be reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The CIP should be consistent with the General Plan. At this time the Interim Policy Document functions as the General Plan for the City of San Bernardino. Upon adoption of the General Plan in May, 1989, the CIP should be reviewed for consistency. The City may find that priorities will change and this should be known prior to adopting of the Capital Improvement budget. The Environmental Review Committee felt that adoption of the Capital Improvement Program did not commit the City to any of the projects listed and specific item review would occur prior to consideration and approval of any project. Based on this, the committee recommended a Negative Declaration.