Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16A-Public WorksK;IT1i OF SAN BERN/1~RDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION File N< 9.021 Adoption of Negative Declaration From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE RFE~~ _~~~: ~jfpr 1988/89 - 1992/93 Capital Improvement Program -- Public ~~,,t: Public Works/Engineering 13~ ~E~ i,~ ~i? 2WFr~ks Project No. 88-32 Dats: 12- 2 0- 8 8 lJPoi Synopsis of Previous Council action: 11-15-88 -- Workshop Session on proposed Capital Improvement Program, 1988/89 - 1992/93. 12-05-88 -- Adoption of Capital Improvement Program, 1988/89 - 1992/93, continued to I2-19-88. 12-19-88 -- Adoption of Capital Improvement Program, 1988/89 - 1992/93, continued to 1-03-89, to allow for environ- mental review. Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for the Capital Improve- ment Program, 1988/89 to 1992/93, Public Works Project No. 88-32, be adopted. 2. Adopt Resolution. cc: Jim Robbins Jim Richardson /~ ~~ ,r J~ ~ .~/ Signature Contact person: Roger Hardgrave Staff Report, Initial Supporting data attached: Study FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Ward: 5025 Source: (Acct. No ) (Acct Description) Finance: -council Notea: Agenda Item No. / Q/ CITY OF SAN BERN~IDINO -REQUEST F~t COUNCIL ACTION fir^` STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 88-32, the 1988/89 - 1992/93 Capital Improvement Program, was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of 12-15-88. A ten-day public review period was afforded from 12- 22-88 through 1-02-89. No comments were received. We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted. ~... 12-20-88 75-0264 C r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY ENYIRONMENTAL REYIEN OF PUBLIC NORKS PROJECT N0. 88-32 The Five Year Capital Improvement Program for the City of San Bernardino 88/89 - 92/93 `~.. December 12, 1988 Prepared by: MICHAEL N, GRUBBS Public Norks Department/Engineering 300 No. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared for: City of San Bernardino 300 No. 'D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 ~ ~~ ~~ ~.~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N P W 8 8- 3 2 5-Year Capita] Improvement Program ~. This is a Budgeting and Scheduling program for all City of San Bernardino Public Works projects for the next five (5) years. Projects included are General Public Buildings, Streets and Street Lighting, Sewers, Storm Drains, Traffic 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. ~..,. C17C~.: OF SAN BERNARC~10 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number: PM 88-32 Project Description: 5-Year Capj tal Improvement ~oaram 1988/89 - 1992/93 LOCatiOn: flay of San RPrnarAinn Environmental Constraints Areas: N/A General Plan Designation: N/A Zoning Designation: N/A B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or X more? b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater. than 158 X natural grade? - c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies X Zone? - d. Modification of any unique X geologic or physical feature? - ~..,. REVISED 12/87 rRUt ~ yr e Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the project site? X f. Modification of a channel, X creek or river? g. Development within an area subject to landslides, mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards? X h. Other? 2. AIR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air X quality? b. The creation of objectionable X odors? _ c. Development within a high wind X hazard area? 3. WATER_~ RESOURCES: Will the pro posal result in: 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 X of flood waters? c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface X water quality? d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters? X e. Exposure of people or property to flaod hazards? X ~" f . Other? `..~ REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF 8 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Could the proposal result in: a. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? c. Other? 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: 6. a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? c. Other? LAND USE: Will the proposal result in: 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? Yes No X X X X X X X X Maybe REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 Yes No Maybe 7. MAN-MADE HAZARDS: Will the project: a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materi.ais (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, X chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release of X hazardous substances? c. Expose people to the potential R health/safety hazards? d. Other? 8. HOUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional X housing? b. Other? - 9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General X Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ X structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X e. Impact to rail or air traffic? __1L_ f. Increased safety hazards to ~~ vehicles, bicyclists or X ~.., pedestrians? REVISED 10/87 PAGE 4 OF 8 Yes No Maybe w.. a... g. A disjointed pattern of X roadway improvements? h. Other? 10. PUBLIC_SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools (i.e. attendance, X boundaries, overload, etc.)? d. Parks or other recreational X facilities? e. Medical aid? X f. Solid waste? X g. Other? 11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? X 2. Electricity? X X 3. Water? X 4. Sewer? 5. Other? b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility X extensions? c. Require the construction of X new facilities? REVISED 10/87 rAtit o yr n Yes No Maybe 12. AESTHETICS• a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic X view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the X surrounding area? c. Other? 13. CULTURAL RF~SOURCES: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a prehistoric or historic site, structure or object? X 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 REVISED 10/B7 PAGE 6 OF 8 .. ~.. Yes No Maybe important examples of the major periods of California X 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.) 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 X significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) See Attached Sheet REVISED 70/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 D. DETERMINAT~~N On the basis of this initial study, X 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 MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Elv-VIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Name and Title /~,(' Signature `' ~ Date: lam" lF-~'^ RE`itSEO t2/87 PnGE 8 OF B ,~., '`/ .,. O ,,,,~ 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 items are projects that will require environmental review. However, all items are listed as 5-year CIP recommendations. If the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Capital 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.