Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-Planning and Building CI\...J OF SAN BERNARDOO - REQUr:JT FOR COUNCIL AC' JON Frank A, Schuma From: Plarming Director Dept: Planning Subject: Airendment to Resolution No. 83-48 and Resolution No, 13157 Date: April 9. 1985 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Resolution No. 13157 ''Environmental Review Procedures" adopted by Mayor and Ccmron Cowcil on February 8, 1978 and Resolution No, 83-48 ''Resolution of City of San Bemardino establishing procedures for review and approval of plans" adopted by Mayor and Ccmron Cotmcil on February 21, 1983. Recommended motion: To instruct the City Attorney's Office to prepare the Resolution =ding Resolution No. 83-48 entitled ''Resolution of the City of San Bernardino establishing procedure for review and approval of plans" and to adopt the Resolution =ding Resolution No. 13157 concerning Enviroranental Review Procedures for the City of San Bernardino, ~/~ Signature Frank A. ~ Sclruma Contact person: Fr"nk A S"m= Phone: 31\3-5057 Supporting data attached: Yep., StAff Rpporr Ward: r.ity_T.!irlp FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No, / ,~. C~ OF SAN BERNARDClo - REQUUT FOR COUNCIL Ac.JION STAFF REPORT Subject: Amendment to Resolution No. 83-48 and Resolution No. 13157 To further .the policies enacted by the Mayor and Common Council to provide environmental protection and enhancement, as established by the Environmental Review Procedures adopted through Resolution No. 13157 by the Mayor and Common Council on February 8, 1978, the Planning Department recommends an amendment to Section 7 of that resolution entitled -Ministerial project Exemption.- Staff recommends an amendment to Subsection (i) of Section 7 of Resolution No. 13157. Subsection 7, Ministerial projects Exemption, provides that -Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and no environmental documents are required.- Subsection (i) of Section 7 finds that Review of plans are ministerial and, therefore, exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). To ensure that all proposed developments within the City of San Bernardino that could have a potential impact on the environment or could be adversely affected by an environmental hazard receive adequate review in compliance with CEQA and Resolution No. 13157, the Planning Department recommends that certain Review of Plans applications, which include activities as described in attached Exhibit D, are excluded from the ministerial exemption and receive environmental review as established through the Environmental Review procedures. The proposed amendment would read: Section 7. Ministerial project Exemption (i) Review of plans (except those projects which involve activities as described in Exhibit D) . To facilitate the proposed amendment to the Environmental Review Procedures, it is necessary to amend Resolution No. 83-48 entitled -Resolution of the City of San Bernardino establishing a procedure for review and approval of plans.- The recommended amendment to Resolution No. 83-48 would add Section 13 to provide for a review by the Environmental Review Committee of those Reviews of plans which may create a significant impact on the environment by virtue of the size of the proposed development, activity or location. The recommended addition of Section 13 would require that the review of plans applications which fall into one or more of 1 75-0264 "'- .....-J Amendment to Resolution Nos. 83-48 and 13157 - 4/9/85 the categories, as described in Exhibit the Environmental Review Committee as adopted Environmental Review Procedures. D, undergo review by prescribed by the EXHIBIT D 1. A shopping employing sing more space. center or business more than 250 people than 100,000 square establishment or encompas- feet of floor 2. An office building employing more than 250 people or encompassing more than 100,000 square feet of floor space. 3. An industrial manufacturing or processing plant or industrial park employing more than 500 people occupying more than 10 acres, or encompassing more than 200,000 square feet of floor area. 4. Any project which represents noncontiguous development which would require the extension of services and create a growth inducing impact. 5. Any project located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. 6. Any project which may create a public health hazard, as demonstrated by a need to receive certification of the project from any State agency. 7. Any project which may result in grading involving an existing hillside of 15 percent slope or greater and/or would require earth work quantities of 1,000 cubic yards or more of dirt. 8. Any project which may substantially ambient noise levels for adjoining be affected by noise in excess of 65 increase areas or CNEL. 9. Any project which may cause traffic which is substantial the existing traffic load and street system. an increase in relation capacity of in to the Briefly, items 1 and 2 include those commercial and office projects which encompass a significant amount of acreage 2 ~.. ,,;' Amendment to Resolution Nos. 83-48 and 13157 - 4/9/85 and/or would cause a significant concentration of people using the facility to justify a review of potential environmental effects such as: traffic generation which would affect traffic flow and circulation, availability of public services to serve and protect the facility and environmental hazards such as flood, fire or earthquake, which may affect the safety of the site. Item 3 would include an industrial, manufacturing or processing plant of significant size and intensity to cause potential environmental effects on local and regional air and water quality in addition to the concerns mentioned above. Item 4 is related to a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act, any development which is located outside the boundaries of normal service availability which would require an extension of services such as water, sewer, roads, etc. to serve the development and in so doing would create an inducement for other development to occur, must be evaluated to insure that the long and short term effects of such growth are properly managed and considered at the initial development stage. Item 5 is related to the state Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act which requires that geologic investigation be conducted on all property planned for development which has an identified earthquake fault located within its boundaries. The Act ensures that all buildings for human occupation are located a safe distance from a known fault. ITEM 6 includes those types of commercial or industrial uses which, by their type of activity, could create a public health hazard. This would include those types of activities which would require certification from a state agency such as the Air Quality Management District or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Category 6 would also include any residential development which proposes use of a septic tank disposal system as opposed to a sewer system. Item 7 would relate to those projects which involve alteration of a landform through grading. Grading would be evaluated to ensure that methods are employed to minimize the degradation of ,natural hillsides. A 15 percent slope and/or 1,000 cubic yards or more of earthwork is of sufficient steepness and quantity of grading in which the methods and sensitivity of the grading can significantly affect the visual appearance of the development. Item 8 includes those proposed developments located within the 65 CNEL noise contour established around Norton Air Force Base or adjacent to an existing or planned freeway where the 3 "'"- ....,' '-'" Amendment to Resolution Nos. 83-48 and 13157 - 4/9/85 affect of high noise levels can be significantly mitigated through an acoustical study. Finally, item 9 includes those projects of substantial size or intensity of use in an area which may not have adequate access or street capacity to accommodate the use proposed. A traffic study could quantitatively identify the insufficiencies and provide solutions. 4