HomeMy WebLinkAbout22-Public Works
. CJ 0 OFile No. 14.40-65 I"'U
CITY-OF SAN BERNARDINO - REdUEST FOR COUNCIL ~TION
From:
IrE . , ' Adoption of Negative Declaration
ROGER G. HARDGRAVEC D. - AD HII4S'Il'iect: & Finding of Consistency with
ma . F, the Utilities Element of the
Public works/Engineeri~ JUL 27 ~4 2 0 General Plan -Installation Sewer
, ' 2 Lines - Newmark Ave. & Electric
7-26-89 Ave., bet. 38th, 39th, & 40th
.!=;r.rAAt-~
Public works Project No. 89-26
,
~;.
Dapt:
Date:
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
06-05-89 -- Capital Improvement Funding recommendation approved,
including $149,600 to finance 50% of the cost of in-
stalling sewers in this area.
Recommended motion:
1. That the Negative Declaration for Public works Project No.
89-26, installation of sewer lines in Newmark Avenue between
38th Street, 39th Street and 40th Street, be adopted.
2. That a finding be made that the installation of sewer lines
in Newmark Avenue between 38th Street, 39th Street, and 40th
Street, is consistent with the utilities element of t
General Plan.
cc: Marshall Julian
~Jim Richardson
Contact person:
Roger G. Hardgrave
Staff Report, Negative
Declaration, Map
Phone:
5025
Supporting data attached:
Ward:
4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Descriotion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No e!J,.,.!J~
CIT~ SAN "RNARDlNO~ R.cQ.IEST FOR COUNCIL ~IOII
~
~' -'~
idl>:
li;;i
,
~"
....
'1
;
"
~"
~~
<
75-0264
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-
26 was recommended for adoption by the' EnvirOI1lllental Review
Committee at its meeting of 6-22-89.
A 14-day public review period was afforded from 6-29-89
to 7-12-89. No comments were received.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and
a finding made that the project is consistent with the utilities
element of the General Plan.
7-26-89
,
11
~: -
i
i
. ,
;- ~
l
f
.
r..
~'
I
.f,
~~
[
r,
,
f.
;~?;
..
?:
,
.
'0
o
()
'cO
.
z
<.
ct
,..~_;';'~....~:-~~- z ~?4i*r.
,-. ." . ",: ;,." .~. ..
..-
'J
1
1- --z..!.
.-
4)' -I
'. - 1 ' 1
.. ~ ,I I
ii,
lIt
~ ! . 1 t 1 I t
I
. t ~ "
I
I
I~
_ " fl.
c..: e I. j.'
i
,
,
t-:
,
. . . I .
~ i
i ,
. :. Oil e>
, I ~ ~ <!: .
--.
- 10 - i -I "I E> e
~
I
.
. ..
. E> . ..
i)
@
... . --... \<!i\
... e e .. . \,
- " . 'ot~
. d\
'G) '" \
, ,
. 2 ~
e
!
I
~~
~ II (
. is .
..
.
L; I '"
IV ..
..
. ! '"
II:
€> II ...
'"
- ,-
. '\ W').
'-'
,.
E>
'"
~
~ * I
I
I
I
I
I '.'-,. t\
I
'" 7-2~89 , \'
:)
Ii I .'
~~L
~ '.:..' : . r.
. ;..... I
I
; ~
.~ '<<II
,r'"
.
-I -
., .
IiiiIi
. .
.. _.
.'''.
',J .
~~
.",
l
Fi
I
i,.'
t}-.
,
-
-
-
-
c
(.\ 0
-f
~
~
!
L
,.
.:>
C I T Y
'Ill (If stl; eD\~~RC\Nn
\, ~\l%llt l\1?"S
0-'1" r~"1
o F SAN B ERN A R D ~~r;'l:1tf6\ 0, c_"
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM _ JUtt 27 PM \: 51
8804-1505 Q;1
TO: Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer
FROM: Ann Larson-Perbix
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Public Works Projects
DATE: June 23, 1989
COPIES: Mike Grubbs, Senior Civil Engineer
'"\
i
.<'
V
t
------------------------------------------------------------------
At its meeting of June 22, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee
recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for the following
Public Works projects:
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-25 - To install sewer lines in
Jefferson Avenue and Hazel Avenue between "I" Street and "J"
Street.
BLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-26 - To install sewer lines in
Newmark Avenue, Severance Avenue and Electric Avenue between
40th Street, 39th Street and 38th Street.
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-21 - To vacate two east/west alleys
between Massachusetts and Garner Avenues and between 15th and
16th Streets.
./
.
1
These Initial Studies (see attached) will receive a 14 day public
review from June 29, 1989 to July 12, 1989. Any comments received
during the review period will be addressed by the Planning
Department and the comments and responses will be sent to you within
a week of the close of the public review period. After that, you
must schedule the projects before the Mayor and Common Council for
adoption of the Negative Declaration. Please include the Initial
Study ~ith your request for Council action form. The Planning
Department will file the Notice of Determination after adoption of
the Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice will be sent to
you.
~ daM.$Y1- (JA~
Ann Larson-Perbix
Senior Planner
,.
ALP: clp
~
C5 MEMOPWP622
q
';l
: ~
"
,i';
j'"
I
-
J.
-
-
-
'0
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
o
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
Initial Study
Public Works project No. 89-26
To install sanitary sewers within the existing
rights-or-way of Electric Avenue,
Newmark Avenue, Severence Avenue, and
39 Street.
June 22, 1989
Prepared for:
Public Works Department
City of San Bernardino,.CA 92418
Prepared by:
Ann Larson-Perbix
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
-
-
~
.t.
-
-
-
.
o
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
o
Public Works Project No. 89-26 is to install sanitary sewers
within the rights-of-way of Electric Avenue, Newmark Avenue,
Severence Avenue and 39th Street. The site is developed with
single-family residences and is in conformance with the
General Plan Land Use Designation of RS, Residential
Suburban.
The site is relatively level with scattered vacant lots. The
existing rights-of-way are paved with curb and gutter and
street lights. The site is within a 500 year flood zone and
a High Wind area.
GP:89-26IS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACgGROY~
Application Number: Public WorkR Prnjp~T Nn Rq_,~
Project Description: To install sewer lines in Electric Avenue.
Newmark Avenue and Severe nee Avenue.
Location: Same as noted above
Environmental Constraints Areas: High Wind Area
General Plan Designation: RS
Zoning Designation:
RS
B. ~~IBONM~~~PACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. Ea~;h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a.
Earth
fill)
more?
movement (cut and/or
of 10,000 cubic yards or
x
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade?
x
c.
Development
Alquist-P dolo
Zone?
within the
Special Studies
x
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
REVISED l21a7
PAGE 1 OF 8
r
o
o
o
o
.
Yes
No
Maybe
~
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
x
x
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
x
x
h. Other?
2. bIR_RESQYRCES: will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
x
3.
~an:B_ RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
Will
the
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?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazardsl
f. Other?
x
x
x
'"
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 2 OF 8
.
4.
BIOLOGICb~~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.
REVISED 'D/87
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
c. Other?
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?
LA~jD_ 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,S, or C?
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
Yes
No
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PAGE 3 OF 8
I!lL.
~
~
-
-
o
o
7.
MAN-MADE BAj~N>~:
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. HOU~: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
9. l'M~ORTATION/CI~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,
new, park ing
structures?
or demand for
facilitiesl
c. Impact upon existing public
transportotion systems?
d. A:teration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
FlEVISEO ID/87
Yes
-
No
-
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
PAGE 4 OF 8
~
..u
-
-
-
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
Other?
of
h.
10. p~LI~_SERVICES will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
Schools (Le. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
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?
REVISED 10/87
b.
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. liater?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
Yes
L
No
-
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
PAGE 5 OF 8
.
Q
Maybe
"'"
r
\.
o
o
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.
Could the
~P~TURA~~~QURCES:
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
ReVlseo 10/87
Yes
No
a
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGe 6 OF 8
..
,.
c
o
o
(')
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
x
c.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
~
\..
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
o.
o
o
Q
"
GJ
DETERMIl!!A1JQlT
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.
o
o
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Ann Larson-Perbix. Senior Planner
Name and Title
~ rIa"'.1IlrA. fJg ,,~
Signature
Date:
~AU _ ;la, /'l?9
\.
~
REVISED 121B7
PAGE 8 OF 8
o 0 n ~
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA nON AND MITIGATION MEAStltES
2.c. The site is located within a High Wind Area. During
construction there may be an increase in blowing
dust. This will be controlled by watering. The
pavement will be replaced once the sewers are in
place.
3.d. Installation of sanitary sewers may have a beneficial
impact on groundwater quality. Currently septic
systems are used. Removal of the septic systems will
decrease the possibility of groundwater
contamination.
3.e.
The site is
storm drains
sewers will
than already
located within a 500 year flood zone,
exist in the area. The installation of
not create the exposure of more people
existing, to flood hazards.
5.b. During construction there may be a temporary increase
in exterior noise levels. This will only be
temporary with time restrictions per SBMC 8.54 and
therefore will not be significant.
9.d. During construction there may be temporary
alterations of patterns of circulation. Normal
traffic control measures such as baracades, flaqm~n
and detours will be utilized. Because this. ~s
temporary this is not considered to be a significant
impact.
GP:89-26MM
"-
o
c:>
o
o
"""'ill
~
D. DETERMINA1J~
~
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 MAY 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
Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner
Name and Title
~ v/r;A Jt tJY/ - fuJ~
Signature
Date: ~1-1^1. ad, J9f?
\.
.J
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8