HomeMy WebLinkAbout58-Planning
CI1C 'OF SAN BERNARDIU - REQUE:J" FOR COUNCIL ACT })N
R. Ann Siracusa
From: Director of Planning
Negative Declaration for
rr:C'D,-^D~aef:.. Public Works Project No. 87-22
Dept:
Planning
--, I,'
,'. ~ , -, \.~ '~' \-
i
Mayor and Council Meeting of
December 21, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Date: December 10, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
d'if
None
Recommen<:led motion:
To adopt a Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 87-22.
, '\
~
"
1\
r~ ~~(tvoi-
Signature R. Ann Siracusa
Contact person:
R. Ann Siracusa
Phone:
384-5057
Ward:
3
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
.." n""'''
A~enda Item No, Sf!
CI1-.,; OF SAN BERNARDI~ - REQUbT FOR COUNCIL AC't1"ON
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No.
87-22
Mayor and Council Meeting of December 21, 1987
REQUEl>1'
The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department requests
approval for the construction of a geothermal production well
having a casing l6 inches in diameter and reaching a maximum
depth of l,OOO feet. The well will supply additional hot
water to supplement existing geothermal facilities and
provide for future expansion of the Geothermal District. The
District provides hot water for use in space and/or water
heating through heat exchanger elements.
pIT~_!!~b:!,ION
The well site is a square shaped area encompassing
feet and located in a large, unpaved parking area
of the Orange Show and approximately 296 feet
intersection of the centerlines of Arrowhead
Central Avenue.
625 square
to the east
west of the
Avenue and
M~~ICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Code Section 19.44.020.B permits flood control channels,
spreading grounds, settling basins, freeways, parkways, and
park drives in the "0" Open Space District and such other
uses as the Commission determines to be similar in nature.
The existing geothermal well near the site of the proposed
well indicates that the City has determined the proposed use
to be permitted in the Open Space District in the area in
question.
Approval of the proposed geothermal well is consistent with
the stipulation made by the Office of Planning and Research
that ". land uses proposed during the period of the
extension will be consistent with the purpose of the updated
General Plan provisions. . ."
CEQA S1'b1'~p
At the meeting of October 2l, 1987, the Environmental Review
Committee recommended a Negative Declaration for Public Works
Project No. 87-22. The Initial Study (Attachment A) was
advertised from November 12 to November 25, 1987.
2
75-0264
/~ -10-1'1
"
,",-",..
'-~
,J
Subject: Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No.
87-22
Mayor and Council Meeting of December 21, 1987
BACKG~9IJm>
There is an existing geothermal well similar in
appearance in the same unpaved, parking area 320
northeast of the site of the proposed well.
function and
feet to the
In a memorandum (Attachment B) addressed to Cynthia Grace,
Deputy City Attorney, Bernard Kersey, the Water Department
Director of Administration and Finance, pointed out that the
Water Department entered into a funding agreement in 1983
with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission to develop a geothermal heating system. Mr.
Kersey expressed the belief that the geothermal project is
exempt from the restrictions set forth by the Office of
Planning and Research because it was under construction prior
to effective date of the restrictions. Ms. Grace, in her
memorandum to Mr. Kersey (Attachment C) concurred with the
belief that the geothermal project is exempt from the OPR
restrictions.
ANALX!?I!?
Ligy~f~~tlQD_B~port
According to the attached geology report (Attachment A,
Appendix B) regarding the proposed well site, the area is
susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake, but the
well casing will extend far below the depth that could
liquefy and will act as an anchored pile. The report asserts
that if liquefaction occurs, the only possible damage would
be to the pump platform and accessory facilities and that
even these fixtures may suffer no damage if the soils are
dense or finely grained. The well site will normally not be
tended by workers. Therefore, no mitigation measures are
necessary.
Site_f~nci.!!g
The site plan indicates
by a fence that will
risk of accidents.
that the well site will be surrounded
prevent public access and reduce the
~ompatibl1itL~ith_tb~_Neigh!?9!bood
The areas adjacent to the proposed well site are zoned "0"
Open Space, M-l Light Industrial, and M-2 General Industrial.
Nearby land uses include unpaved parking areas for the Orange
Show, a livestock laboratory, and some light industrial
businesses.
3
1~-1G-'7
r
".
'v
,
",~
,...,/'
Subject: Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No.
87-22
Mayor and Council Meeting of December 21, 1987
CONCLUll.!.9~
The proposed
land uses and
or welfare of
geothermal well is compatible with surrounding
will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
the citizens of San Bernardino.
RECOMMENDATIO~
It is recommended that the Mayor and Common Council approve
the Negative Declaration.
Prepared by:
Scott Wright, Planner I
Attachments:
Attachment A -
Attachment B -
Initial Study
Memorandum from Bernard
Kersey Dated 7/24/87
Memorandum from Cynthia
Grace Dated 7/24/87
Attachment C -
mkf
12/10/87
DOCUMENTS:M&CCAGENDA
PW8722
4
'-.-
"
-, ....
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY
PUBLIC WORKS NUMBER 87-22
A Geothermal Production Well
at
the parking area east of the Orange Show and due west of
the intersection of Arrowhead Avenue and Central Avenue
October 5'-, 1987
Prepared by:
Scott Wright
Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared for:
Department of Public Works
c
SECTION
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
'.,/
"' "'
"e~
PAGE
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
4.0 Environmental Assessments...................... 4-1
4.1 Environmental Setting........................... 4-1
4.2 Environmental Effects.......................... 4-1
5.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.. .... .... .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ......
Executive Summary...........................................................
Proposed Project..............................................................
Project Impacts...............................................................
Project Description............................
Locat ion.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Site and Project Characteristics...............
Existing Conditions............................
Project Characteristics........................
References.. .. .. .. .... .. ............ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .
6.0 Appendex A
Appendex B
Exhibit A
Exhibits Band C
Exhibit D
clj
misc./doc.
10/2187
intstudpw87222
5-1
"
"
-"
\,.",
'--.
l.O INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an
Initial Study for the proposed Public Works 87-22, a
geothermal production well located 296 feet west of the
centerline of Arrowhead Ave. where it intersects with Central
Avenue. As stated in Section 15063 of the State of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the purposes of
an Initial Study are to:
1.
Provide the Lead Agency with information to
basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Negative Declaration;
use as the
EIR or a
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project,
mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby, enabling the project to qualify
for a Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required by:
a. Focusing the ErR on the effects determined to be
significant,
b. Identifying the effects determined not to be
significant,
c.
Explaining
potentially
sign if icant .
the reasons
significant
for determining that
effects would not be
4.
Facilitate environmental
design of a project;
Provide documentation of the factual basis for
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project
not have a significant effect on the environment;
assessment early in the
5.
the
will
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be
used with the project.
1-1
\......,
CITY OF
INITIAL
October
r ,
SAN BERNARDIN~PLANNING DEPA~ENT
STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS 87-22
5, 1987
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.l PROPOSED PROJECT
The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department requests
approval for construction of a geothermal production well.
2.2 PROJECT IMPACTS
Impacts identified in the attached checklist (Appendix A)
includes:
l6. The identification of the site as an area susceptible
to liquefaction.
2-1
;
'-'
c
,--.
-
j
CITY OF
INITIAL
October
SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS 87-22
5, 1987
3.0
3.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LOCATION
The 625 square 'foot site of the
located approximately 296 feet
Arrowhead Avenue and Central
Exhibit Al.
proposed geothermal well is
west of the centerline of
Avenue (see location map,
3.2 SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The
and
the
D.l
site is
located
Orange
a square shaped area
in a large, unpaved
Show (see Exhibits B
encompassing 625 square feet
parking area to the east of
and C and site plan, Exhibit
3.2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The well, which will have a casing 16 inches in diameter,
will reach a maximum depth of no more than 1,000 feet. The
actual depth will be determined by temperature measurements.
The well will supply additional hot water to supplement
existing geothermal facilities and provide for future
expansion of the geothermal district. The district provides
hot water for use in space and/or water heating through heat
exchanger elements.
3-1
.
.......~
....-/
CITY OF
INITIAL
October
SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS 87-22
5, 1987
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed well site is located in a large unpaved parking
area to the east of the Orange Show and to the west of the
intersection of Arrowhead Avenue and Central Avenue. Other
nearby land uses include a livestock laboratory and some
light industrial businesses. The site and surrounding areas
are in the "0" open district. Other nearby districts include
M-2, General Industrial, to the northeast; M-l, Light
Industrial, to the southeast, and C-M, Commercial
Manufacturing to the south and southwest. Arrowhead Avenue
and Central Avenue are both secondary streets.
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The item checked "yes" on the Environmental Impact Checklist
(Appendix A) is identified and discussed below.
16.
Will project be located in immediate area
adverse geological nature such as slide prone
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc?
of any
areas,
According to the liquefaction report written by Eric
Wetzstein and Gary Rasmussen of Rasmussen and Associates
(Appendix B), the soil on the site of the proposed well has
high ground water, sandy sedimentary deposits and material of
recent age, and is located near an active fault. It
therefore has a significant potential for liquefaction.
The report adds, however, that the well will extend far below
the depth that could conceivably liquefy, that the well
casing will act as an anchored pile, and that in the event of
liquefaction the only damage to the well would be to the pump
platform and accessory facilities with shallow foundations,
and that these fixtures may not be susceptible either if the
soils are dense or very finely grained. Therefore, no
mitigation measures are necessary.
4-1
CITY OF
INITIAL
October
C
SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS 87-22
5, 1987
"-'
"-,.<"
5.0 REFERENCES
Persons Contacted: Rich Meyer, Water Department
Consultant:
Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates
1811 S. Commercenter West
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(714) 888-2422
Eric Wetzstein, Staff Geologist
Gary Rasmussen, Engineering Geologist
5-1
,
......
F' APPENDIX A "
'-' ...)
~
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
"""\
DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL
""
IMPACT CHECKLIST..
, ""'l
A. BACKGROUND
l. Case Number (s) : PUBLIC WORKS 87-22 Date: 10/1/87
2. Project Description: The applicant requests approval
for construction of a geothermal production well.
3. General Location: 296 feet west of the centerline of
Arrowhead Avenue where it intersects with Central Avenue,
'~----'- --------
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES :'lAYBE ~O
- - -
l. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi-
cated on the General Plan, either on project site or
within general area? X
- - -
2. \,ould significant increases in either noise levels,
dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener-
ated from project area, either during construction
or from completed project other than those result-
ing from normal construction activity? X-
- -
,
i J, Will project involve application, use or disposal
of hazardous or toxic materials? X-
I -
I 4. \<111 any devi.J.tion from any established env i ron-
mental stand3.rds (air, water, noise, 1 igh t , etc.)
and/or adopted plans be requested in connection
with project? L
- -
5. Will the project require the use of si;~nif icant
amounts of energy wh ich could be reduced by the
use of appropriate mitigation measures? X-
- -
6. Could the proj ec t create a traffic hazard or
congestion? - X-
7. Could proj ec t result in any substantial change in
quality, quantity, or accessibility of any portion
of region's air or surface and ground water re-
sources? 2L
'- - -
""-
MAY '81
E.Re. FORM A
PAGE , OF 3
,,'
C'
;'~"
_,_n.""
'-"
.....,)
YES
8. Will project involve construction of facilities in
an area which could be flooded during an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood?
9. Will project involve construction of facilities or
services beyond those presently available or pro-
posed in near future?
10. Could the project result in the displacement of
community residents?
11. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro-
ject area unique or rarc (i.e. not normally
found in other parts of country or regions)?
12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical
sites in vicinity of project area which could be
affected by project?
13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea-
tional area or area of important aesthetic value
or reduce or restrict access to public lands or
parks?
14. Are there any known rare or endangered plant
species in the project area?
MAYBE
>..j
""'II
NO
..x
A
A
-X
-X
lC
A
15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source,
nesting place, source of water, migratory path,
etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish
species? A
16. Will project be located in immediate area of any
adverse geol()gic nature such as slide prone areas,
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.? --X-
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
resource?
18. Will any grading or excavation be required in
connection with project which could alter any
existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill-
side, canyons, drainage courses, etc?
19. Will any effects of the subject project together
or in conjunction with effects of other projects
cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environmellt?
l'
MAY '81
...x
x
-X
~
ERe. FORM A
PAGE 2 OF :3
.
.....~"..
\"...,"
r
",."....
'-'
"-'
~
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND C~ruLATIVE EFFECTS
If any of the findings of fact have been answered YES or 1-'AYBE, then a brief
clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion
of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed).
The well casing will act as a pile anchored below the level
that soils could possibly liquefy (See Appendix B)
"
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
\.
-. 'I
E. DETER}\INATION
On the has is of this initial evaluation,
0 We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
0 I,e find that although the proposed project could have a s ignif ican t
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an at tached sheet
I have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREP~~ED.
0 \./e find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVlRONHENTAL I1lPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRO~1ENTAL REVIEW CO~ITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
(Secretary)
DATE:
\
II. ~
MAY'SI
ERe. FORM A
PAGE 3 OF 3
.r'-,.-
'-
"
.....
'-'
APPENDIX B
GARY S. RASMUSSEN &:; ASSOCIATES / ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
~.;.,_........_,,"........:-~-,.
.,."c .'_.
~__...<l. n ~.- ""'-'l__ ~ ....-
1811 SO. COMMERCENTER WEST. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92408 . (714) 888.2422 . 17141825.9052
September 10, 1987
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
P.O. Box 710
San Bernardino, California 92402
Project No. 2447
Attention: Rich Meyer
Subject: Geologic Factors Regarding Liquefaction Potential, Proposed Geothermal
Production Well, Located Approximately 250 Feet West of the Intersec-
tion of Arrowhead Avenue and Central Avenue, San Bernardino,
California.
In accordance with your request, we have researched the geologic factors affecting
the potential for liquefaction at the site of the proposed geothermal production
well, located approximately 250 feet west of the intersection of Arrowhead Avenue
and Central Avenue, San Bernardino, California. The site lies within an area of
high liquefaction susceptibility as defined by Matti and Carson (1986).
Ground-water information from wells in the vicinity was obtained from publlshed
and unpublished reports. Ground-water records were researched dating back to
1936. The site lies within the boundary of an artesian area or upper confining area
as defined by Dutcher and Garrett (1963). Published data indicate the site had
ground water at or near the surface in 1936, 1945, and 1951 (Dutcher and Garrett,
1963). These ground-water depths reflect levels of ground water within monitored
wells which mayor may not penetrate artesian aquifers. Actual static ground-water
depths within the upper unconfined aquifer beneath this area may have been slightly
greater.
From 1951 to 1978, the basin was significantly overdrafted. Ground-water levels in
the basin rose significantly following the years of abnormally high precipitation in
1978 to 1983. The minimum depth to ground water in the vicinity of the site
during the period of 1973 through 1983 was less than 10 feet (Matti and Carson,
1986). Artesian conditions currently exist at a well approximately 265 feet north-
east of the site (Meeks and Daley No. 66, monitored by your Department).
P>
'-
"
,.,.,.'......
-'
....,;
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
September 10, 1987
Project No. 2447
The sIte is underlain by approximately 1,200 feet of Holocene and Pleistocene age
alluvium (Fife, !!t ai., 1976). The Holocene alluvium includes unconsolidated gravels,
sands and silts. The site lies approximately 1 mile northeast of the active San
Jacinto fault and approximately 5 3/4 miles southwest of the active San Andreas
fault. We' expect maximum peak ground accelerations in bedrock under the site to
be greater than 0.62g (Campbell, 1987), with a maximum repeatable bedrock acceler-
ation of 0.40g (Ploessel and Slosson, 1974).
Youd and Perkins (1978) and Youd, et al. (1978) list the parameters for increased
liquefaction susceptibility as: 1) high ground water (less than 33 feet below the
surface); 2) sandy sedimentary deposits; 3) recent age of material; and 4) close
proximity to an active fault. The sediments encountered on the site fall into all of
these geologic parameters. Therefore, the sediments on-site are considered to have
a significant potential for liquefaction from a geologic standpoint. However, the
well will extend far below the maximum depth that could conceivably liquefy (50
feet). The well casing will act as a very effective pile, founded well below the
liquefaction zone. Therefore, the only damage anticipated to the well in the event
of liquefaction would be the pump platform and appurtenant facilities that have
shallow foundations. The shallow foundation materials may not be susceptible
either, if the soils are dense or very fine grained.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
t--c~~
Eric E. Wetzste'
Staff Geologist .
~4;-I~
Gary S. Rasmussen
Engineering Geologist, EG 925
EEW:GSR/pg
Distribution: San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (6)
2
GARY s. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES
"..,." ,
""",",
'-'
"
-..,;
REFERENCES
1
.~,-/
"-
Campbell, K.W., 1987, Predicting strong ground motion in Utah, in Evaluation of
regional and urban earthquake hazards and risk in Utah, Hays, W.W. and Gori, P.L.
(eds): U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper (in preparation).
Dutcher, L.C., and Garrett, A.A., 1963, Geologic and hydrologic features of the San
Bernardino area, California, with special reference to underflow across the San
Jacinto fault: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1419.
Fife, D.L., et al., 1976, Geologic hazards in southwestern San Bernardino County,
California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113.
Matti, J.C., and Carson, S.E., 1986, Liquefaction susceptibility in the San Bernardino
valley and vicinity, southern California: a preliminary evaluation, U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 86-562.
Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., September 1974, Repeatable high ground accelera-
tions from earthquakes: California Geology, v. 27, no. 9, p. 195-199.
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, February 1981, The Effects of Rising
Ground-Water Levels within the Bunker Hlll Artesian Zone, San Bernardino, Cali-
fornIa.
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, April 1981 - September, 1987, Depths
to Ground Water in Monitored Wells within the San Bernardino Valley, Unpublished
Water Well Data.
Youd, T,L., and Perkins, D.M., 1978, Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure
.potential: Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, p. 433-446.
Youd, T.L., Tinsley, J.C., Perkins, D.M., King, E.J., and Preston, R.F., 1978, lique-
faction potential map of San Fernando Valley, California: Proceedings 2nd Inter-
national Conference on Microzonation, San Francisco, p. 267-278.
GARY s. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES
.
c.
~
d~ ~I -0
f~~ OJ
r 0 >
-0 z
.>>, 0 ,:;
~ ~ ' '"
m
0 ~
\1 9
1 ., '" >
I ;1 M
0 Z
~ ;:j
~ ::: "
>
, M
,I '" ~
>
:: ~
'i z
"
" "
, >
- , M ~
: 2 >
r ~
r z
~
.
:: ~
;;; .
'. "
:;"':.0
"""1J:m .~
~ r
" r
',-, \
. :;,
I r-I~ I ~lJ
Lbl+
,r-.,o,.
'-
,
~
,
'-"""
.
.
~
o
~
"
o
,
"
r
r
r
o
n
.
~
5
z
,
\',
" "
x ,
~
z
.
,
,
n
~
.
"
.
..
.
N
.
m
~
e.
EXHIBIT D
,
1
~I
~I
<I
~I ..
~ 0
I
I
, I
'"
"'~
"
"
<
;:
o
,';I
~
X
r
'"
,
,
.
~
"
"
z
"
:> ~
r
"".I
"
~
-
~
i
.
.
I: "
s
x
"
.
.
,1i
r
r
.
r
.
z
~
"
,
~'I
~
~
';;?
;C;-
A R no W H E AO
.
<
"
1
g r--~---l
':A,------------;
"-,.-/ N I
: I ;: I:
I
I
I
,
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I
L __________-...:;__J
f-:~ ~
,~"';,
1
I
_I
~I
-,I
I
I
./g'.
z,
0,
.
,0'
z
P'
I
0,
t
.'
.
,0
o
.
~'
.
0,
.
.
~
\
N
~
AVE.
,
.
; -
"
.
c:
,
\
EXISTING SITE
LOOKI~G NORTHEAST
PROPOSE 0 SITE
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
. C EXHIBIT A
~ j
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION CASE PW 87-22
HEARING DATE
'-
~ ~ R-3
M-I CoM
CoM M-I
M-2 C'M
M-I
. ~~ CoM M-I M-I M-I M-I
M'2 M-I CoM
CLEM,
S<HOC C-3A
C, C-3 C-3
M-2 M-2 M-I
"0" (
CoM
M-2
M-I
M-I ..
~
.. C
"0" "0"
..
M-I '"
:II
SITE, ;.
"0" M'I M~ C
."0"
>, CoN
C'M
"0"
.. C'M
'" "0"
l ~~ I M-I
.... ~
...' CoM 0
, ~~ a: "0"
'-~"'\C a: M-I M-I M'I M-I
..
,'"
\ CoM M-I
"0"
M-I "0" M-I M-I
C'M
CoM IL
CoM
ORANGE SHOW 00_
CoM CoM "0" M-I M-I
C
,
~-~
r
"-
,
,
I
I 1 , c
'0 i 'D
"V> CD
10 , 0 "
8 l>~ 'D >
0 <
I " OJ ~
< co
I -, m "
0 z
>
, "
~
: co z
0 0
, m <
0 c
z
- -i c
0 I ;
:1 t m r
OJ >
~
I "
- - - ~
, , " " v
, 0 0 >
m "
, , "
0 0 r ~
r z
I ,
-
,
,
"
"
,
"
PI roo
X 0
o '
-I ~
z'" ;0
------"-:'sJ". o. ~
. ;:,
~ '
-~LI- --- } '~[WI: 1
I ----- _r::p:=f-=-_
c L ~
+ ~
..-.---/..,>.,
'-"
~
o
V
o
w
'^
o
~
r
r
"
r
o
c
>
"
5
z
1
",I
~I
,~I '"
~l ~
--;1 It.~
'i ~
I
I
, I
,I
"
,
"
"
~
,
,
,
,
,
\",
,,' "-
t:. '
..1 "-
~ ",
~
o
~
.
,
~
,-
il,
I
~
o
V
>
"
,
..
'"
.
N
-
0,
N
"'
0'
,.
N
"
z
'"
c
'""
J
'^
,
w
"
Z
0
Il~ ~
0
~
,,'
"
~
'"
r
r
V
r
>
z
~ "
" 0,
.
---j
" I
V
V
~
~ r
$. ;;;
-L:= \
A A A 0 W H E AO
n
,,'
z
"
.
>
r
>
<
m
~t=~-~-~, _ -l
<> __nn_
-I'I-----~, . : I
,I " .' --.. -I:
I < I
_ I " n - I I.
~ I " ~ I 1-
;;:t- t " :':: I:'
I ~ ,. I
I J: J: I
w'
Lul 'i I
1~~~----~1--Ll
, ~
.
"
A V E:.
"
~ c "
,""
c
/-"
'-"'" ,""...,;
ATTACHHENT B
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8707-606
TO:
Cynthia Grace, Deputy City Attorney
FROM:
Bernard C. Kersey, Director, Administration
Finance/Water Department
SUBJECT: GEOTHERMAL DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
July 24, 1987
(7145)
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
The City of San Bernardino Water Department has an agreement
with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission in the amount of $2,750,000.00 to develop a
geothermal district heating system in the City of San Bernar-
dino. The agreement was entered into on September 15, 1983.
Under terms of this agreement, the Water Department commenced
development of the system in September, 1983 including
drilling of a geothermal production well; drilling two (2)
temperature gradient wells, installation of geothermal
transmission and distribution mains, installation of service
connections, and development of the disposal lines. The
project is developed in "clusters" and the next portion of
the project is the installation of the geothermal transmis-
sion main from Central Avenue, just east of Arrowhead Avenue
to the Hospitality Lane area.
The development of the district heating system has been
accomplished with Water Department crews, with scheduling of
construction activities dependent upon availability of crews.
The project must be completed by June 30, 1988.
It is our belief that this project is exempt from the re-
strictions set forth by the State Office of planning and
Research, since it was under construction prior to May, 1987.
It is requested this project be approved to proceed so that
the project can be completed.
Respectfully submitted,
Lut-dci/~1?t
/Bernard C. Kersey/ ~
Director, Admini t ation & Finance
BCK:mka
"I,
&
,
C' C1............M.......L.l..L.IL........L.....
-CITY OF SAN BER'NARDIN0~\U:D MEMORANDUM)
JUL 24 19tH
To Bernie Kersey
From Cynthia Grace
Subject Geothermal District Heating system
Development
Date July 24, 1987
Approved
Date
This memo is to let you know that I concur with your memo of
July 24, 1987. It is my opinion that the geothermal project
is exempt from the conditions of the State Office of Planning
and Research because the project was under construction prior
to June 11, 1987. Thank you for your information.
Very truly yours,
f
f
~ (f),A'/U
CYNTHIA GRACE
Deputy City Attorney
CG:cs
!
Ii. .: . -..9;~
pC,'. ~ '1-<;2/).17
(Y'v