HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-Public Works
CITY OF SAN
BEFtitARDINOfr~ REQJ~~~' r~F:2C~UNCIL ACTION
;-, ~ """-, i -- '" ,.
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE',:,,,~,. c.,;' J"r-:.
. Adoption of Negative Declaration
CFf. Subject: Finding of Consistency with the
. r', Infrastructure, Community Ser-
.v vices, & Utilities Elements of
the General Plan - FIVE YEAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1989/90 Throu9h 1993/94
!~"",_.....: l~'~. !,,-,
Dept: Public Works/EnginEl-Qrioiq -:;
Date: 3-07-90
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
ll-l5-88 Workshop session held on proposed Capital Improvement
Program for 1988/89 - 1992/93.
Ol-03-89 Resolution No. 89-3 approved adopting the 1988/89 -
1992/93 Capital Improvement Program.
Recommended motion:
2.
That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 90-
04, the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for 1989/90
through 1993/94, be adopted.
That a finding be made that the Five Year Capital Improvement
Program for 1989/90 through 1993/94 is consistent with the
infrastructure, community services and utilities elements of
the General Plan.
....a
V
~/
tdt/ < " VL
ts?gn ture
1.
cc:
Marshall Julian
Jim Richardson
~
Contact person:
Roger
Staff
Init.
G. Hardgrave
Report, Notice of
Study, Neq.Dec.
Phone:
Preparation,
Ward:
5025
Supporting data attached:
5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No
1/
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST ...OR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No.
90-04 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review
Committee at its meeting of 2-8-90.
A 2l-day public review period was afforded from 2-l5-90
to 3-07-90. No comments were received.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted
and a finding made that the project is consistent with the
infrastructure, community services, and utilities element of the
General Plan.
The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the
1989/90 - 1993/94 Capital Improvement Program at their meeting
of 3-l3-90 to verify that it is in compliance with the General
Plan.
3-07-90
75-0264
- -....
---
NOTIL~ OF PREPARATION OF NEGATIV~ DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT,
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration
for the following projects. The Environmental Review Committee
found that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment on the basis of the Initial Study and mitigation
measures (If applicable).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-61 - To change the use of an
existing residential building into an alcoholic recovery center.
The .91 acre site is located at 1133 and 1135 North "0" Street
and is designated CO-I, Commercial Office, General Plan land use
designation.
REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 90-02 - To construct a 306 stall parking lot
on a site encompassing 6.5 acres in the IL, Industrial Light,
General Plan land use designation located at the westerly ter-
minus of Cooley Avenue, northwest of Cooley Court.
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 90-05 - To install an underground storm
drain in Meyers Road, between Little League Drive and Meyers
Creek.
~UBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 90-04 - Five Year Capital Improvement I
Program for the City of San Bernardino for the years 89/90 - I
89/94.
REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 89-89 - To add 5,057 square feet of retail
lease space to an existing 1,700 square foot mini-market to
create a 6,757 square foot retail strip center on a 0.46 acre site
located to the immediate southwest of 1-215 at 841 south Inland
Center Drive in the CG-l, General Commercial, General Plan land
use designation.
Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at the
Planning Department, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, CA
924l8, and the Feldheym Library, 555 West 6th Street, San
Bernardino, CA. Any environmental comments you have should be
received in this office no later than 4:00 p.m., March 7, 1990.
If you do not respond in writing, we will assume that you have no
opinions and/or recommendations on the above projects.
SUBMITTED: February 13, 1990
PUBLISH: February 15, 1990
c.,_~:'
-r't ., '-'l'
I I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 9241&
384-5057
tn
11 .
~")
"--
.+:-
'...'
CP
C7 NOPND2890
.r
,
,
- - --
CITY Of :SAN ~t:HNAHUINU
PLANNING DEPARTMcl. r
INITIAL STUDY
Applicant(s)
Address
City, State
Zip
MISC:
IS PREPARATION
ke/9-1-89
Initial study tor Environmental Impacts
For 'PuaL.lc \JCllt~ 'JIUJ::r&t::T u,. ~~
Project Number
proj ect description/Location ~, FIVE 'fE-Ail
~~:~"A:;F :r~:~rV:~~~I~G.:;iq~~~~
Date :1'AtlIA.AIt.V SA., "'0
,
Prepared for:
C.t1'VoF .sAN ~u&~A.l~
~PAQ.-n.\~"'''r~ ~LIC. \JOllieS
~ t.lOte"U "bll s-rRE:~T
.saw 'RI='bJAltNfII t') J CA ~4' ~
Prepared by:
...PAu.L Go. ~OGGS
Name
ASS\S'rA~ ?LA~~E~
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planninq Department
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
- -- ----
':ITY OF SAN BER~ .RDINO
PLANNING OEP ARTMENT
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACRGROY~
Application Number: 'Pt.mLl~ WlMJC.S ~1"l.""O=r~ N('). <10-04
Project Description: 5 YEAIl.. c:NITAL ~PIl/tJ<<MP.IJ'"
'fYl.DG.AAM ICf"imo - l'Iq~ I,qq'f
Location:
C. '-rY' W 1J)E. AIlJ!5A!;. iHto~o"'T SAtJ 1IeIWA~l.tJ~
Environmental Constraints Areas:
~/A
I
General Plan Designation:
tJ/A
,
Zoning Designation:
N/A
I
B. ~~IBONM~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. EaJ.~h 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
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
h. Other?
2. ~IR RESQYRCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
3.
HATEB_ 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?
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
Yes
No
--
"""'IIIl
Maybe
x
x
.
~
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF 8
4.
BIOLOGICAL R~SOURCE~:
proposal result in:
Could. the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
6.
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
Yes
No
Maybe
x
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
c. Other?
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
c. Other?
LAND_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
b. Development within an Airport
District?
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e.
Other?
.
x
x
)(
x
x.
x
x
Yes
No
Maybe
.
7.
MAN-MADE BAj~N>$:
project:
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Will
the
x
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
x
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
x
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
x
b. Other?
9. 1'RA~~FORTATION/CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
x
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities/
structures?
x
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
x
x
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
x.
x
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 4 OF 8
Yes
No
Maybe
.
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
x
h. Other?
10. fYBLJC SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
a.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Sc6001s (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
X-
X
"X.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
x
X-
X
Medical aid?
Solid waste?
g. Other?
11. YIILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
b.
c.
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
x
X
X
X
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
><
Require the construction of
new faCilities?
x
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 5 OF 8
No
12. AESTHETI~:
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.
~Q~1URA~--FESQURCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
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
.
x
x
x
x
-
Maybe
REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF 8
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. )
d. Does the project have
environmental 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.)
-rfl~ S YEAR.. eAPITAL ~MPIfDvEM.cNT Pllo(;ftAtII. IS A G<.\1f)~LbJE. ~
~11IIc.;. FWlJ)(NG- 'P.<IoJtmE oS FO~ c:.API'1'AL- ":IYI.P~EAJT f"R.OJI;~ !AI
ntE C lory.
E~ 'P~cr rill "T"'& P/l.b(y1l..N'\ WILL U .!l.\BJ'e'CT To cNVIR.DNME/lrAL
.~v~e\J pRJDfl.. ~o PItoJ'~cr ftPf'fi!.a.M.L AAI.b PLAN APPti!..tJ\JAL BY 1'fIE MAYD~
ANob CbM.M.ON cor.uJc..L.
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
j,." .
j.e.
~".
'Ilrcl.
"".- """'.J l;;.,-,... .,...............~..
Date
c.
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation
Measure. (contined)
SoM.E ~d:!Ec.iS MAY :r~YOL.VE '11fE MDVE.tl\E.W'T of
Git6A1E'({ "llIAN 10.000 C>>oB.c. YAAbS oF EACTtof. TJb.SE
. ,
~f:crs WfLt. 45 RLVlE:WE:l> 0.... A~ :I:r.l!lWLbtAAL &ASlS
Mb Af'f~.o~\A1'E fV\r'tI6-KnorJ PtbsPoseb.
~ SOIL. E~to,.J MAY 0(:("8(' ~rJG- f>(l..t:JcCf" ~-
IOJJ t 1lIt,$ Wlt.L. BE M.fTl.GoATeb BY 4"'" EIl.aStON CtJ,.sr~L PL~
f'OL ~oa: f'No':rEcrS wtfEllE WLIoI~ o({.W~ ~lo'" IS lJI:ELV.
L.ot.ll;- TERM EIloScoIJ a::>~~L. IltEASIJ.KE.S. Su.d4 -AS ~"flN(i
,
Oft. SLoP_ 3TA&LLZJrrION WIU..8e %N~ IN AU- ~c.'T.S'.
~ ~E. III ~u.R.F"CE flDJ,J-oFF MAY RESuLT .Dl4.E
10 Co~~{oA) Of 7.JI\f'Efl..MEA/J.,C SI4A.FAt'F!'; 1-l00000Se.J
1Jlt$ :r:NCflCA~~ IS .INSIGftJ'f'tcAr-lT A~1) ItJ\L..L BE. J>\,(B:;r'& 1"'1"0
e<lSiING- l>~\NAG-e. .sYSicM.S.
CotJSiRw:..TION Or NEW PuSL..IC. RtUU'N(;.S . f~.
, .
WlheNltJG- AN,!) XM!f(DVIN(;. ~Q~S MAY USCAL-r I.... Loc~L
.::!.NC.~ES IN TRAFFIC.. 71iES'e 3"\f1ACT"s Wtu.. 6E
ST\A,t)c.EJ) 01'1 A PRo.l~c..T-I!.v- f'~CT gAS"~ 'l4wb
MI"r,(;.ATloNS' .DJGL~)) IN THE' ~CT t)€&~N
..X:l.tJE~ A~P(,lA'TE. -niE CLl.M\AL.n\VE EFFECT oF'
~ ~ P@GAAM o..s TAAf=f'IC Wlt.l. NO'T"' 8E SU;,.)WfCANT.
"""
~
D.
DETERMINAl'JON
On the basis of this initial study,
r.?(The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
L:J environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
.
o
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 MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
..:LrtJ I(.Nr,:(),.,,,~r. ~A/~/&;.? d~A/N'er(
,
Name and Title
~~
Si~ature .
Date: r:J - $- '10
""--
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8