HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-Public Works
File No. 4.429
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
P.EC'O.-ArEMbJy:Cf"t9option of Negative Declaration
"1 '" & Fi ndi ng of Consi stency wi th
Lto AU~ I () PI~ 2' 11'1terl m Po 11 cy Document --
Installation of Storm Drain in
21st Street, from Twin Creek t
San Gabriel Street
Dept: Pub 1 i cWo r k s / E n gin e e r i n g
Date: 8-11-88
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
June, 1987 Allocation of $83,600 in 1987/88 Storm Drain Construc-
tion Fund Budget approved.
03-07-88
Finding made that this project is needed for health
and safety reasons.
Recommended motion:
I. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 88A-22,
installation of a storm drain in 21st Street, from Twin Creek to
San Gabriel Street, be adopted.
2. That a finding be made that the installation of a storm drain in
21st Street, from Twin Creek to San Gabriel Street, is consistent
with the Interim Policy Document.
cc:
Jim Robbins
Jim Richardson
aF~
Supporting data attached:
Roger G. Hardgrave
Memo, Staff Report, and
Negative Declaration
Phone:
5025
Contact person:
Ward:
2
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N / A
Source: (Acct. No.) 248-368-57821
(Acct. Description) Twenty-First Storm Drain -
Twin Creek to San Gabriel Street Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
7
CIT1' OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUE~r FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 88A-22
was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee
at its meeting of 7-28-88.
A 14-day public review period was afforded from 8-4-88 to
8-17-88. No comments were received.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and
a finding made that the project is consistent with the Interim
Policy Document.
8-11-88
;'/1--<:
, #.~
,... . r -" I
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8808-1501
TO: Gene Klatt, Assistant city Engineer
FROM: Valerie C. ROSS, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of public Works projects
DATE:
August 4, 1988
(7522)
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Grubbs, Engineering Department
At its meeting of July 28, 1988,
committee recommended adoption of a
the following public WorkS projects:
the Environmental Review
Negative Declaration for
public Works No. 88A-22 -
street from San Gabriel
control Channel.
To install a storm drain along 21st
street to the TWin creek Flood
These Initial studies (see attached) will receive a 14 day
public review from 8-4-88 to 8-17-88. 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 with 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.
planning has reviewed this project and found that it is not
inconsistent with the preferred Land Use Alternative and
Interim Policy Document.
Y diu0J [.1(141-
VALERIE C. ROSS
Senior planner
csj
IlU
r., Cr....
'-< .
.
\
I
...
~
'-
"
'.
,.-./'
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Initial Study
for
Environmental Review
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 88A-22
Located on 21st Street from San Gabriel
to Twin Creek Flood Control Channel
July 28, 1988
Prepared by
Vivian Stevens
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5057
Prepared for
City of San Bernardino
Public Works Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
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
5.0
6.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION . . .
1-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Project .
Project Impacts
2-1
2-1
2-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location . . . . . .
Site and Project Characteristics
Existing Conditions
Project Characteristics
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
Environmental Setting
Environmental Effects
4-1
4-1
4-1
REFERENCES
5-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Environmental Impact
Checklist . .
Appendix B - Site Plan . .
Appendix C - Location Map
6-1
6-2
6-10
6-11
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San
Bernardino as an Initial Study for the installation
of a storm drain using 42" RCP, including the
installation of manholes, catch basin, outlet
structure and reconstructing street profile.
.As stated
California
Guidelines,
to:
in Section 15063 of the
Environmental Quality Act
the purposes of an Initial
State of
(CEQA)
Study are
1 .
Provide
use as
prepare
the Lead
the basis
an EIR or a
Agency with information to
for deciding whether to
Negative Declaration.
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 EIR on the
determined to be significant.
effects
b. Identifying the effects determined not to
be significant.
c. Explaining the reasons for determining
that potentially significant effects
would not be significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment 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 environment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIR's.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR
could be used with the project.
1-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88A-22
storm Drain, Manholes, Catch Basin, outlet
21st street - San Gabriel to Twin Creek Flood Control Channel
July 27, 1988
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1
Proposed Project
The proposal is to install a storm drain along 21st
Street from San Gabriel to the Twin Creek Flood
Control Channel. The project will include laying a
42" pipe, installing manholes, catch basins, an
outlet structure and reconstructing the street
profile. The project will take approximately four
weeks. The project will be expanded in the future
as the storm drain will be extended along 21st
Street west to Kenwood Avenue.
2.2
Project Impacts
Impacts identified in the attached
include:
checklist
J.b. The project will change the course or flow of
flood waters.
5.b. The project could result in an increase in the
existing noise levels.
9.d. The project could alter the present pattern of
circulation.
2-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88A-22
Storm Drain, Manholes, Catch Basin, Outlet
21st street - San Gabriel to Twin Creek Flood control Channel
July 27, 1988
3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1
Location
The storm drain will be approximately 8 feet
underground. A catch basin will be installed on
the north side of 21st Street at San Gabriel. The
drain will be laid across 21st Street and enter the
East Twin Creek Flood Control Channel south of 21st
Street.
3.2
site and Project Characteristics
3.2.1
Existing Conditions
Presently there is not a storm drain in this
location and the project will relieve the nuisance
water that crosses 21st Street at San Gabriel.
3.2.2
Project Characteristics
The project includes laying
manholes, catch basins, an
reconstruction of the street
a 42" pipe, installing
outlet structure and
profile.
3-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88A-22
Storm Drain, Manholes, Catch Basin, Outlet
21st Street - San Gabriel to Twin Creek Flood control Channel
July 27, 1988
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.1
Environmental Setting
The project is located in a four lane street in a
residential area. The area is zoned for single
family residential use. The proposed storm drain
will direct the nuisance water into the flood
control channel which is designed for that purpose.
The channel feeds the overflow into the Santa Ana
River.
4.2
Environmental Effects
The environmental checklist identifies three areas
of potential concern. Each item checked "maybe" or
"yes" on the checklist is identified below and
followed by a recommended mitigation measure.
3.b. will the proposal result in changes in the
course or flow of flood waters?
Flood water is currently carried down the
public streets. The catch basin and storm
drain are needed to prevent the nuisance water
from flooding 21st Street.
5.a. Could the proposal result in increases in
existing noise levels?
The work schedule shows
because of the intense
Care is to be taken
residences along the
Street.
a 7 a.m. start
heat during the
not to disturb
south side of
time
day.
the
21st
9.c. Could the proposal result in an alteration of
present patterns of circulation?
The work is to be done in a four lane street.
only two lanes will be under construction at
the time. Traffic will be slowed but not
detoured around the construction which should
only take a month to complete.
4-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88A-22
Storm Drain, Manholes, Catch Basin, Outlet
21st Street - San Gabriel to Twin Creek Flood Control Channel
July 27, 1988
5.0 REFERENCES
Mike Grubbs, Senior Engineer
City Public Works Department
5-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88A-22
Storm Drain, Manholes, Catch Basin, Outlet
21st Street - San Gabriel to Twin Creek Flood Control Channel
July 27, 1988
6.0 APPENDICES
Negative Declaration Attached
csjl7-18-88
DOC:MISC
ISPW88A22
6-1
APPENDIX "A'
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
""
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
.)
""Iil
BACKGROYlID
Application Number: Public Norks No. 88A-22
Project Description: To construct a storm drainaqe usinq 42"
concrete pipe and installinq manholes, catch basins, outlet
structures and reconstructinq street profile.
Location:
nn ?1~~ ~rrpP~ frnm ~~n ~~hripl ~rrppr rn ~in
Creek Flood Control Channel.
Environmental Constraints Areas:
None
General Plan Designation:
RS area
zoning Designation:
Residential Area
B. ~NVIEONM~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. Ea~th 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-Priolo
Zone?
within the
Special Studies
x
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
\..
..)
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
6-2
--
PW 88A-22
~
Yes
No
Maybe
"""Ill
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
h. Other?
x
2. ~IR RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
b. The creation of Objectionable
odors?
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
x
3.
hlbTEB_ 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?
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?
x
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
x
J(
llo..
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 2 OF 8
~
-
PW 88A-22
r
"""IIIl
Yes
No
Maybe
4 .
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCEp:
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
designated
Plan?
the land
on the
use as
General
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
'"
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
-
No
PI-I 88A-22
Maybe
"'"
~
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~N>?:
project:
Will
the
a. Ose, 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
create a
housing?
existing housing or
demand for additional
b. Other?
9. ~RANSPORTATION/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, park ing
structures?
or demand for
facilities/
c. Impact upon existing public
transpolt~tion systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
110..
REVISED 10/67
Yes
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE40FB
-
-
PW 88A-22
,
Yes
No
Maybe
"
g.
h.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
x
Other?
x
10. FUBLIC 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?
x
Police protection?
x
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
x
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
x
Medical aid?
x
Solid waste?
x
Other?
x
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
~
REVISED 10/87
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
3. ~vater?
x
4. Sewer?
x
5. Other?
x
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
x
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
x
~
PAGE 5 OF a
~
PN 88A-22
r
Maybe
""
12. AESTHETICS:
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.
~P~TURA~--FESQURCES:
proposal result in:
Could the
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 lS06S)
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.
lo.
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
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
-
-..--
Pl'l 88A-22
Yes
No
Maybe
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
x
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
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
sign if icant.)
x
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 3
-
- "-----
-
~~
PW 88A-22
"""'IiIi
o
DETERMINAnON
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.
[1]
o
The proposed project ~~Y have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONME~~AL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Name and Title
Yu.uw C.P#Y
Signature
Date:
17 M. /7'86
i! I
\..
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF B
---.-- -
-- --~-----~~._--
-
-
APPENDIX
I'BI'
H/ - HL"ND
I--r- .1V=. ,
5TORM
,:un/. E c.1f1l:/I BASIN
! 21 sl' \
IH
\
\
\
SI. \
----------- ------
~
~
"I:::
"\
3'
Ii) $
0 w
0 ~ I.ll
0 ...
3 ~
2 Ii. I-
UJ ~ In
::.: I.I..l
~
UJ ac
\. ~ U
I~T~
51-:'
~
~
\7iH
( ] .
Z.O'"'T'~ ST ~
[ ] J
\~
Ii 'r..c> ...
\q,&..J. ~T ~
..( '~>.'~
\9
o ,0..0
~ ~".,~~
a~
l'JIL.ES 51. ~
""9'1
~
4-
~
J
1-
~
')
\ \
-
~
::.:
~
$
~
Ul
-I
~
'-
0 I"REI-lTO"-l 51:
0
0
3 [ 1
:2
\lJ
16 TH ~ 5T
~VANS
51.
6-10
-
-~~
-
APPENDIX "C"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE PW 88A-22
HEARING DATE
ttOHLANO
II
,vl
I ......J#'*
I ,,-.A I\"'AI 1 C-3A
II C-3A II C-3A I , C-3A IS~
m I HIGHLAND ~
A- P I
:... . + ST. ICIIl.""OII1' "0" / "0"
HO~"TaL C/ "0"
,,'-- "0"
rEI \1 -
--, A-P I Iff R-l "'-'- R-I ~I "0""'\
r-- i9 "0" -
R-I
R-I R.l R-I ) R-l
~.. R-I R-I ~ ~
It.! " ~ R-I
, .. "d "'
- -"' I~~ "G:
-1.-. r\. .10t' .r. R-I R - I
APi Tot "I~ I
I R-3 ~.!~' R-I
A-P
R.!
lAP .
R-! .' R-l
I A-P R-l \ R-t
"0'
" "ACI"C sr.
I H R-t l R.! iF' + R-I In -- <-- ~.. 0 m:
R.3 AP A~ cOUalT"
HO,,,tT,L I
R-l R-I I
1 lL r- ~ ~ (
A-P R-l V( T
-----.. ~ ...R" I;
] R-3 AP II T A-P .. ~ou~
R-t R.t R-I R-t ;;:;;;;.. .~
R-l ~ .--- s.s
]~ I
i ! I
R" AP!oi A-P R-3 R-I ,
- ,~ r-- ~j.J ~R-I) R-t R~ R-t
Ip .. o.L../:
JIL
l~' :, R-I ./ R-l R-t
,--
".].
It SOO< .. R-! R.t
C-2 4-)-
T T ~ R-I ~~
T
] C-3 C-3 fc.3 C-3 I I i
C-3 C'3 C'3 . C'S C-3
~l rQ/ R-t BASEL INE 5T.
If.., C-3 C-! e-3 e-!Ji\~:~ rote.! e-! (
O~ANff sr.~ T T T oi .'91 h
a r-;:
. -
6-11