HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-Public Works
.
o
CITY 011 IAN _RNARDlNO -
Fi 1 e NoQ .372
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date:
5-10-88
! " ',,",V ')f, ,,, n: 34
h..,... llill L..'I /, 1 \J
Findings of Need for Health & ~
Safety Reasons -- Installatio~
of Traffic Signals and Drainage
Improvements at Ninth Street and
Del Rosa Drive, per Plan No.
7348
From:
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Subject:
Po ~ ""'l) , to, l~ I ',I 0 ,-;-
Public Works/Engineeri'"'!I~ ,.",J..",. 'rr.
Dept:
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
June, 1987 Allocation of $90,000 from Federal-Aid Urban Funds,
under Account No. 242-362-57372, approved in
1987/88 Street Construction Fund Budget.
Recommanded motion:
That a finding be made that the installation of
traffic signals and'drainage improvements, at the
intersection of Ninth Street and Del Rosa Drive,
in accordance with Plan No. 7348, is needed for
health and safety reasons.
cc: Jim Robbins
Jim Penman
Jim Richardson
Signature
Supporting data .uac:hed:
Staff ReDort
Ward:
5025
2
Contact person:
Dng~"" ~20rrlgY"'avA
Phone:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N/ A
Source: (Acct, No,)
(Acct, Descriotion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
APPROVED BY CITY ATTORNEY:
DATE: U - I'" - J.f
75-0262
Agenda Item No II
CITY OF IAN -RWORDlNO - RIQUI!ST ~ COUNCIL ACTION
,STAFF REPORT
Traffic signals were warranted at Ninth Street. upon
ctmpletion of the project to extend Del Rosa Drive to Baseline
street.
Stop signs have been Installed on all four approaches
as an interim measure to control traffic.
Installation of traffic signals will improve the safety
and traffic flow characteristics of this Intersection.
We recommend that a finding be made that the Installa-
tion of traffic signals Is needed for health and safety reasons.
5-10-88
75-026.
o
o
Planning Department
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY
Public Works No. 88-11
To construct street and storm drain
improvements and to install traffic signals at
the intersection of Ninth Street and Del Rosa Drive
Apr i1 27, 1988
Prepared by Scott Wright
Planning Department
300 North wD- Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared for
Department of Public Works
.
Section
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
5.0
6.0
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . .
. . .
. . . . .
. . .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . .
Proposed Project . . . . . . . .
Project Impacts ........
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . .
Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site and Project Characteristics . . . . .
Existing Conditions ...........
Project Characteristics .........
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS ........
Environmental Setting ..........
Environmental Effects ..........
Development within an Area Subject to
Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increases in Existing Noise Levels . . . .
REFERENCES .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A - Environmental Impact
Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B - Location Map . . . . . . . .
Page
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
6-2
6-10
-
o
o
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for Public Works Project No. 88-11,
involving street and storm drain imp~ovements and the
installation of traffic signals at theintersectiort of
Ninth Street and Del Rosa Drive.
As stated in Section 15063 of the StJte of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Quidelines, the
purposes of an Initial Study are to:
2.
I
,
Provide the Lead Agency with info~mation to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or
a Negative Declaration. I
I
Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impac~s before an EIR
is prepared, thereby, enabling the project to
qualify for a Negative Declaration~
1.
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is re-
quired by: I
a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant.
b. Identifying the effects deteJmined not to be
significant.
c.
the reasons for 'determining that
significant effects would not be
Explaining
potentially
significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessmertt early in the
design of a project.
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project
will not have a significant effect on the environ-
ment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIR's.
7. Determine whether a previously ptepared EIR could
be used with the project.
I-I
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - Planning Department
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works Project No. 88-11
April 27, 1988
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project I
The proposed project is to widen Nint~ Street for 190
feet east and west of the intersection and to widen
Del Rosa Drive for 350 feet north ~nd south of the
intersection. Traffic signals willi be installed at
their ultimate locations in order to accommodate any
future widening of the street. Improvements will be
made to the underground storm drains. Curbs and
gutters will be constructed.
2.2
Project Impacts
I
The following impact was checked
attached environmental checklist: !
l.g. Development within
liquefaction.
an
area
RyesR
subject
on
the
to
The following impact was checked IRmaybeR on the
attached environmental checklist:
5.a. Increase in existing noise levels.
2-1
"
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - Planning Department
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works Project No. 88-11
April 27, 1988
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I
The proposed public works project is located in the
public right of way at the intersection of Ninth
Street and Del Rosa Drive. Ninth street will be
widened for 190 feet east and west of the
intersection and Del Rosa Drive will be widened for
350 feet north and south of the intersection.
Location
Site and Project Characteristics
Existing Conditions
The intersection of Ninth Street and Del Rosa Drive
currently has no curbs or gutters. There is no
widening of the streets at the intersection to
facilitate traffic turning corners. The intersection
currently has stop signs for all four directions of
traffic.
Project Characteristics
See Proposed Project, Section 2.1
3-1
J
. 0,
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY - Public
April 27, 1988
- Planning Department
Works Project No. 88-11
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.1 Environmental Setting
I
Ninth Street is designated as a secondary arterial on
the East San Bernardino-Highland General Plan. Del
Rosa Drive is a local street. The land abutting the
intersection is currently vacant.
4.2 Environmental Effects
The following impact was checked .yes. on the
attached Environmental Impact Checkli$t.
4.2.1
Will the proposal result in construction in an area
subject to liquefaction?
Although the project is located in an area subject to
liquefaction, standard plans and construction
procedures for this type of project 'are adequate to
mitigate the potential for liquefaction.
The following impact was checked .maybe. on the
attached Environmental Impact Checklist.
4.2.2
Could the proposal result in increases in existing
noise levels?
Any noise caused by construction will be very slight
and of brief duration. Construction will only be
allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m.
and will normally cease at 4:30 p.m.
4-1
t ~,
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY - Public
Apr il 27, 1988
5.0 REFERENCES
o
- Planning Department
Works Project No. 88-11
Michael Grubbs, Senior Civil Engineer,
Department of Public Works
5-1
w.
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY - Public
April 27, 1988
- Planning Department
Works Project No. 88-11
6.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A - Environmental Impact Checklist
Appendix B - Location Map
csj/4-l9-88
DOC:MISC
ISPW8811
6-1
.
APPENDIX - A
0 Jl
, ""
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT C,HECKLIST
\.. ~
~ "'"
A. BACKGROYND
Application Number: Public Works No. 88-11
Project Description: Street improvements. storm drain improvements.
and traffic siRnal installation.
Location: The intersection of Ninth Street and Del Rosa Avenue.
Environmental Constraints Areas:
General Plan Designation: Pnhlil" ri lY't' nf way
Zoning Designation: --
B. ~NVIEONM~NTAL-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
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 12187
PAGE 1 OF 8
6-2
.
o
o
PW 88-11
Maybe
....,
,
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_RESOURCES: 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.
Will
the
WATER RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
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?
'llo..
REVISED 12187
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.)
PAGE 2 OF 8
.
,
o
PW 88-11
Yes
No
Maybe
""Ill
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
x
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
x
c. Other?
x
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
x
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
x
c. Other?
x
6.
LAND_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
x
b. Development within an Airport
District?
x
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
x
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
x
e. Other?
x
Ilo.
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
.
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~~~:
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. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
9. TRA~~!,QETATION/CIRCULATION: 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, parking
structures?
or demand for
facilities/
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
Yes
PW 88-11
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
PAGE 4 OF 8
u
. .
g.
h.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
Other?
10. PUBLI~ SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
b.
a.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
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?
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?
ill
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1r
x
x
Maybe
PAGE 5 OF 8
~
PW 88-11
Yes
No
Maybe
12. AESTHETI~:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
x
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
c. Other?
x
13. ~P~~URA~~ESQURCES: 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? x
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 shal~ 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 10/87 PAGE 6 OF 8
. .
,
o PW 88-11
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.)
j
/
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?
/
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
~ ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
. ..
o
o
PW 88-11
'"
DETERMINA~JON
o
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.
GJ
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
/;NV/~M~/... I(~II?('J COM~I"1'~
Name and Title
~C,RtJ#
Signature
~ te,/1&e
Date:
\...
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
o
APPENDIX B
- Q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~ DEPARTMENT AGENDA
ITEM#"
LOCATION CASE PW 88-11
HEARING DATE
d:~UU_ L.-...-": -
i'! [
(
t
c.! 0-1
C.M
C-3A Rot .0.
R.I
PRO R-l
14u/IIC
PRO l! ...
MHP 14u/ac ~ C tiff
MHP ..
.. COli
flLTE ~ ~lI' --;
oi
IIHP MHP I4l1/Oc "-
--
PRO
14u1ac
I .
.
PRO
14u/llc
.
I
1
T,
~tI'\''i
COIl~
S,8' )
l~
~.. ,.,..., ,IMW._
R-I
.
.. "I'"
-
M'" "0.
, I
I
6-10
I't
-
M-I