Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-Public Works CI~Y OF SAN BERN.OINO File No. 1.653 . _ REQUEST F. COUNCIL ACTION From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Subject: Adoption of Negative Declaration and Finding of Consistency with the Circulation Element of the General Plan .. Widen the Existing Bridge on nEn Street over Santa Ana River & Install Traffic S1gnal at nEn St. & Fairway Dr. Public Works Project No. 89-39 Dept: Public Works/Engineering Date: December 7, 1990 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 7-87 Sum of $250,000 budgeted in 1987/88 Budget for engineering design of South "E" Street Bridge. Authorization to nominate prOle~t fnr FAU Funding. Reso. 88..271 approved i'tuth-)rj.z'.ng .::h" execution of an Agreement with Mof:fa';:~ & Nichol, El1<J"ineers for enginp.ering design of ,!ic1nning ':I1p. Snuth "E" Street Bridge. 12-87 7-18-88 Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-39, widening of the existing bridge on "E" Street over the Santa Ana River and installation of a traffic signal at "E" Street and Fairway Drive, be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that the widening of the existing bridge on "E" Street over the Santa Ana River and installation of a traffic signal at "E" Street and Fairway Drive, is consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan. cc: Shauna Edwins Supporting data attached: Roger G. Hardgrave Staff Rpt.,Notice of Init.Studv. Neq.Dec. Phone: Preparation, & MaD Ward: 5025 Contact person: 'I FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: NIl'. ....'. ': ., Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Descriotion) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No /..3 75-0262 CITY OF SAN BERNADINO - REQUEST F. COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89- 39 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of 11-1-90. A 21-day public review period was afforded from 11--8-90 through 11--28-90. No comments were received. We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and a finding made that the project is consistent with the Circula- tion element of the General Plan. 12-07--90 75-0264 -,--~ . . NO'l'ICZ OF PREPARATION OF NEGAT:IVE.DECURATION OF ENVI1~ntnnP.M'I'AL 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 siqnificant effect on the environment on the basis of the Initial Study and mitigation measures (if applicable). PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 90-28 - To remove several existing trees, install new trees and automatic irri- gation systems, new ornamental street lighting, and new gray cobblestone pavers along the streets located in the Main Street Project Area. The Project Area being between 2nd and 6th Streets and between "E" Street and Arrowhead Avenue is in the CR-2, commercial Regional land use district. ~UBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-39 "E" Street bridge, along the traffic siqnal at Fairway Drive - To widen the existing west side and install a and "E" Street. PARCEL MAP NO. 13320 - To subdivide one .35 acre parcel into two lots both consisting of 7,672 square feet located on the west side of Sepulveda Avenue at 51st Street in the RS, Residential Suburban, General Plan land use designation. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-56 - To install a cellu- lar antenna atop a 60 foot monopole and to place related equipment in one storage unit at an existing mini- storage facility located on the northwest corner of Cajon Blvd. and Highland Avenue, further identified as 1450 West 23rd Street in the IL, Industrial Light, 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 92418, and the Feldheym Library, 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, CA. Any environmental comments you should have should be received in this office no later than 4:00 p.m., November 28, 1990. If you do not respond in writing, we will assume that you have no opinions and/or recommendations on the above projects. SUBMITTED: November 6, 1990 PUBLISH: November 8, 1990 City of San Bernardino Planning Department (714) 384-5057 r. . CITY 0... ;)AI't DCnI'tAJ1UII'tU ~GOEPARlMen . INITIAL STUDY ~ . Initial study for Environmental Impacts For ftJfl",e; W,,(ZJ:.~ No. ~-59 Project NWII1:ler Proj ect description/Location TME. COIJST1tlXTlO-.J er- A e,FtIO&fE. WID~'tJ<9 o/J THE wesf "OIDIS OF 1l-le- E1l.I~f1...(it "00I.l1l-l \' E" ~e:,.. ~D4e CNr:.fI- -nte. so....n-A. I>.JJA. tz.\VEtz. AIJO iHf. IIJ.:'ifllll..l:AllOIJ OF A. ilZAFFIC 'SlelNA,L.. A~ f^,Il.WA""T' Df4'VE:. AND e ~ Date ..J\JL~( l~, ~qO Applicant(s) Address City, State Zip Prepared for: .fU~~p~~~61 {tJeEf'2.,tJt:t ~ ~0fZ.: "0 N Sf(2-E.E:.T" swJ ~",~p.p'NO. CA eJ24ll!> Prepared by: EOAUA. 01,..1"0- ~EZ- Name ,l>..~IA.""E f'1..A/JN E f2... Title city of San Bernardino Planninq Department 300 N. "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 l MISC: ISPREPARATION ke/9-1-89 - . ... , .TV OF SAN BEAN~DINO . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ," 10... Environmental Constraints Areas: 61ol.OGl IC,6.1.. ~E~L.l~ t-l.o..-.!t>6EI"'\ENi ~Fl.~'"(..I ,!).UpUIST f'f2Io/..O sruo-r ...tz.eA.~ A/..Jo \...IQu'F~o..J ~1b.L. General Plan oesignation: A"C, pue,LIG FL.coD COI-lTfLOL..- Zoning Designation: _ "0" ZO...Je. OISTltIC'f" B. ~~B~~~~PACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. EaI.~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? )( c. Development Alquist-Priolo Zone? within the Special Studies :>< d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? x "" REVISED 12/87 PAGE 1 OF I , . .e. . No e. SOil eroaion 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. 6IB-~QY~: Will the proposal result in: a. air upon emissions or ambient air x substantial an effect quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? ;( c. Development within a high wind hazard area? )<.. 3. ~6IjE___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? )< X Maybe 'X 'X' x /' x REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF 8 e eyes 4. BIOLOGIC6UJ~~:;1 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 in the number of any rare or endangered of animals or their 5~ NOISE: Could the proposal result in: 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? 6. ~_-Yn: result in: Will the proposal a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District? 'f. c. Development within "Greenbelt" Zone A,B, or C? d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? e. Other? No . ~ )( ;;><. x Maybe >< x. ?<. x REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 file. . 7. Will the MAR-MADB BAj~jq)JlI projectl 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. HQY~: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. 1'M~~FQETATIq~~ATION: 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 facilitiesl 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? REVISED 10/87 No . x >< ><. x ><. )( ")( ~ x. Maybe "f... PAGE 4 OF 8 10. g. . A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? h. Other? f~C SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Fire protection? police protection? Schools CLe. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? Parks or other recreational facilities? Medical aid? Solid waste? Other? 11. UIILITIES: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? REVISED 10/87 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? eYes of " No Maybe . x x )( x x y )( 'X x ~ i. >< " 'I.. 'f.. PAGE 5 OF 8 . '- eyes 12. ABSTBETIkil 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. Could the ~P~1~~--F~QORCES: proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 6J physical or aesthetic to a prehistoric or site, structure or Adverse impacts historic object? 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 ~ffect 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 No . x x x. x Maybe REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF 8 . ee. , . No Maybe b. ~rtant example. of the ..jor periods of California hi.tory or prehistory? 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, defi-itive period of time while ~ong-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 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.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 'f x d. C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) ~~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 . . . C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES .-... ~ The p~8ed project will involve the construction of a bridqe widenblq on the west side of the existinq South E Street bridqiover the Santa Ana River. The existinq South E Street bridqe over the Santa Ana River was constructed in the mid 1970's and replaced an older bridqe structure located to the west of the new aliqnment. The project will also involve a traffic siqnal at Fairway Drive and E Street. The proposed bridqe wideninq is located in the Bioloqical Resources Manaqement OVerlay, the Alquist priolo Study Area, and an area of potential liquefaction as defined in the City's General Plan. These environmental concerns are discussed below. EARTH RESOURCES & WATER RESOURCES lc) The subject site is located in the Alquist Priolo Study Area. Accordinq to a qeotechnical study prepared by Moore & Taber, July 11, 1990, based on recorded earthquake maqnitudes and locationsl the bridqe site is located in a particular active area of southern California. The quantification of seismic risk is a complex and fairly subjective procedure, however, it is their opinion that the probability; of a major earthquake capable of causinq siqnificant surface rupture (M>6.0) occurinq in close proximity to the bridqe site within a desiqn period of 50 years is on the order of 30 to 50 percent. It should be noted thbt even if the actual location of the fault trace lies to the southwest of the proposed abutment, it will tansect the abutment approach. Therefore, reqardless of its location, rupture alonq the fault trace could still adversely impact the serviceability of the bridqe. Due to the conclusions of the qeotechnical investiqation an exploratory fault trench report was prepared by Moore & Taber on May 14, 1990. This study concluded from the data collected from this study and on a review of previous fault studies conducted in the area, that any active trace of the San Jacinto Fault 'system would most likely be located west of the current exploratory trench and would not transect the proposed bridqe wideninq aliqnment. Therefore compliance with the recommendations of the qeotechnical study prepared by Moore & Taber on July 11. 1989 shall serve to reduce potential impacts to a level of insiqnificance lq) The project is located in an area of liquefaction susceptibility. Liquefaction potential was evaluated in the qeotechnical study prepared by Moore & Taber qeotechnical enqineers. Compliance with recommendations of the study will serve to reduce any impacts to a level of insiqnificance. le, f; . . 3a,h,e) . . The proposed project may result in soil erosion, the ~ification of the Santa Ana River, chanqes in ~.orption rates. chanqes in the course or flow of flood waters, and the exposure of people of property to flood hazards. Accordinq to the County Flood Control District the proposed wideninq appears to have no appreciable effect on the bridqe openinq for the Santa Ana River Channel, hence no involvement with the Water Resources Division is necessary. However, continuinq coordination and necessary permits will be required throuqh the Flood Control District's Field Enqineerinq Division. Soil erosion and chanqes in absorption rates shall be reduced to a level of insiqnificance by complyinq with standard Public Worksl Enqineerinq Department requirements. MITIGATION: None BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4a.b) The proposed project is also located in a the City's Bioloqical Resource Manaqement OVerlay. A bioloqical assessment. dated May 17. 1990. was prepared by Gerry Scherba, Desert Studies Consortium. California Stat;e University. Sixty-eiqht species belonqinq to nineteen plant families were found on the site. Most of the species present are considered pioneer species, and are characteristicallY found qrowinq in disturbed sandy washes and river beds. The site appears to be suitable habitat for several sensitive species of plants: however, none were found durinq the investiqation. Accordinq to the study, qiven the current level of disturbance and the presence of an existinq br idqe ..adjacent to the site. it is unlikely that the construction of a similar bridqe will cause any more lonq-term neqative effects to the existinq community than a "no action" alternative. Since the community is dominated by pioneer species, any further disturbance caused by the construction would likely have minor and short-term effects. with the community returninq rather quickly'to its present state. However. care should be taken to ensure that actual habitat destruction is kept to an absolute minimum. This may be achieved by leavinq an undisturbed corridor durinq construction, servinq as a connection between adjacent upstream and downstream habitats. Compliance with this recommendation should therefore, reduce any potential impacts associated with habitat destruction to a level of insiqnificance. MITIGATION: None NOISE Sa,b) Operation of construction machinery will temporarily . . increase noise levels in the project area. In ~onsideration of nearby development, construction shall ~ limited to the hours between 7.00 AM and 10:00 PM. these restricted hours will minimize any potential neqative impacts to a level of insiqnificance. MITIGATION. None LAND USE 6b) The subject site is located in Airport District II (ADII). As mentioned previouslY, the proposal is the wideninq of an existinq bridqe: as such, exposure to crash hazards and hiqh noise levels qenerated by airport operations remain unchanqed and shall not cause a siqnificant environmental impact. MITIGATION: None pw8939 . . " D. DETERMI~1JQlI On the ba.i. of this initial study, The propo.ed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. rn 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 ENVIRONMENrAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ':;;;;A./ fZtA/7't:tJI"1d r , /bAl(Ir'/I~ ~N'KU , Name and Title s~r':1'. 't}' Date: /1-1-9'/J REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8 . .' '- , \l tt ~ & i ~ \ i ~I ~ :t I~~ "'- i~ - a! ~ ~~ i ~~ - , - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE pv.J B=f. 31 LOCATION HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM # ~ . . f'f L "_" Y~i n. t.~j .. l~ I - - .,.. . N 1\ ~~!n PLAN-I.ll PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-g())