Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16- Public Works CITY OF SAN BERNf -IDINO - REQUEST F( l COUNCIL ACTION File No 6.21-32 Adoption of Negative Declaration & From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Subject: Finding of Consistency with the Utilities Element of the General Dept: Public Works/Engineering Plan - Mt. Vernon Storm Drain, from Base Line Street & Mt. Vernon Date: 3-15-95 Avenue to Lytle Creek Channel Public Works Project ??o. 94-05 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 06-21-90 - M t. Vernon Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Mar. ac:,cpt-ed. 08-09-93 - Allocation of $1 . 8 Million in bond proceeds approved for the Mt. Vernon Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan. 09-07-93 - Authorization to prepare plans for construction of Mt. Vernon Avenue Storm Drain granted. 12-20-93 - Resolution No. 93-464 adopted authorizing execution of an Agreement with BSI Consultants, Inc. for engineering design services. 01-09-95 - Increased amount of City' s share, from $265 , 000 to $670 , 000 , decreased EDA' s share from $3 ,585 , 000 to $2 , 470 , 000 ; plans approved, and authorization granted to advertise for bids . Recommended motion: 1 . That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 94- 05 , installation of a storm drain in Mt. Vernon Avenue, from Base Line Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue to Lytle Creek, be adopted. AND 2 . That a finding be made that the installation of a stows drain in Mt. Vernon Avenue, from Base Line Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue to Lytle Creek is consistent with the Utilities Element of the General Plan. cc: Shauna Clark Signature ;ontact person: Roger G. Hardgrave Phone: 5025 Staff Report, Init. Study supporting data attached:__ _Negative Dec & Map Ward: 1 , 3 , & 6 =UNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) lAcct. Description) Finance: ,ouncil Notes: CJ :L. St 5-0262 c• 10 !� �� Agenda Item No. CITY OF SAN BERNNDINO — REQUEST F%oA COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 94- 05 , Mt. Vernon Storm Drain, was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of February 2 , 1995 . A 21-day public review period was afforded from 2-09-95 to 3-01-95 . 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. 3-15-95 0264 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC WORKS NO. 94-05 Prepared For: City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared By: John Burke PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY PROJECT: PUBLIC WORKS NO. 94-05 APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino, Public Works Department DESCRIPTION: To install storm drains LOCATION: Between Baseline Street at Mt. Vernon Ave. and Lytle Creek south of 5th Street (Mt. Vernon Ave. , 11th St, Pico Ave. , 9th St. , 7th St. , Medical Center Dr. , and 5th St. ) . The drains will be contained within existing rights-of-way or easements or in rights-of-way/easements to be obtained (see Exhibit 1) . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSTRAINTS: The proposed storm drain alignment is within the boundaries of the City of San Bernardino in existing or future rights-of-way/easements. The drain will follow the streets as mentioned above. The path does not involve any environmental restraint area other than the souther extreme is within an area of high potential for liquefaction. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various CITY CONTACT AND PHONE NUMBER: John Burke, Assistant Planner, (909) 384-5057 PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, X 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 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. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA .� 4 Name an Tit e Sig ur Date PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on a separate attached sheet. "No" answers are explained on this checklist. See Attachment "A" Preliminary Environmental Description Form, where necessary. 1. Earth Resources: Will the proposal Yes No Maybe result in: a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) on slopes of 15% or more based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. D. (3) ? —X- b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15% natural grade based on review of General Plan HMOD map, which designates areas of 15% or greater slope in the City? —X- c. Development within the Earthquake Fault Zones as defined in Section 12 . 0-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan? —X- d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature based on field review? _X_ e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General Plan? —X- f. Modification of a channel, creek or river based on review of USGS Topographic Map (Name) San Bernardino South. Calif? _X_ PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 5 g. Development within an area Yes No Maybe subject to landslides, mudslides, subsidence or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic, Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? _X_ h. Development within an area subject to liquefaction as shown in Section 12 . 0-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 48, of the City's General Plan? —X- i. Other? 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by South Coast Air Quality Management District, based on meeting the threshold for significance in the District's, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook"? _X_ b. The creation of objectionable odors based on information contained in Preliminary Description Form, No. G. (3) ? _X_ c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15. 0-Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's General Plan? —X- 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces that cannot be mitigated by PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 6 Public Works Standard Yes No Maybe Requirements to contain and convey runoff to approved storm drain based on review of the proposed site plan? —X- b. Significant alteration in the course or flow of flood waters based on consultation with Public Works staff? —X- c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality based on requirements 'of Public Works to have runoff directed to approved storm drains? _X_ d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground water? —X- e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060281 _0020-B, and Section 16. 0-Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? —X- f. Other? 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0- 1 Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan? _X_ r PW 94-05 Initial study Page: 7 1. Change in the number of any Yes No Maybe unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. B. (1) and verified by on-site survey/evaluation? _X_ 2 . Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. E. (8) and verified by site survey/evaluation? _X_ 3 . Impacts to the wildlife disbursal or migration corridors? _X_ b. Removal of viable, mature trees based on site survey/evaluation and review of the proposed site plan? (6" or greater trunk diameter at 4' above the ground) _X_ c. Other? S. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities or other noise sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as identified in Section 14 . 0-Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? _X_ PW 94-05 Initial study Page: 8 b. Development of new or expansion Yes No Maybe of existing industrial, commercial or other uses which generate noise levels above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior that may affect areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses based on information in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. G. (1) and evaluation of surrounding land uses No. C. , and verified by site survey/evaluation? _X_ c. Other? 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated based on the review of the General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map? _X_ b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? _X_ c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as identified on the Development Code Overlay Districts Map? _X_ d. Other? 7 . Man-Made Hazards: Based on information contained in Preliminary Environmental Description Form, No. G. (1) and G. (2) will the project: a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) ? _X_ b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? _X_ PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 9 Yes No Maybe c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? _X_ d. Other? S. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing as verified by a site survey/evaluation? _X_ b. Create a significant demand for additional housing based on the proposed use and evaluation of project size? —X- C. Other? 9. Transportation/circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6. 0-Circulation of the City's General Plan and based on the conclusions of the City Traffic Engineer and review of the Traffic Study if one was prepared, result in: a. A significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections or an increase that is significantly greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? X b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? X c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? _X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X e. Impact to rail or air traffic? _X_ f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _X_ PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 10 Yes No Maybe g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? —X- h. Other? 10. Public Services: Based on the responses of the responsible agencies or departments, will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? —X- b. Police protection? —X- c. Schools (i.e. , attendance, boundaries, overload, etc. ) ? _X_ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? —X- e. Medical aid? —X- f. Solid Waste? —X- g. Other? 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: a. Based on the responses of the responsible Agencies, Departments, or Utility Company, 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 . Water? —X- 4 . Sewer? X 5. Other? PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 11 b. Result in a disjointed pattern Yes No Maybe of utility extensions based on review of existing patterns and proposed extensions. —X- 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any significant or important scenic view based on evaluation of the view shed verified by site survey/ evaluation? —X- b. Will the visual impact of the project create aesthetically offensive changes in the existing visual setting based on a site survey and evaluation of the proposed elevations? —X- c. Other? 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3 . 0- Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan? —X- b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? —X- c. Other? t PW 94-05 Initial study Page: 12 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. Based on this Initial Study: a. Does the project have the Yes No Maybe 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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? —X_ b. Does the project have the 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 significant. ) _X_ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _X_ PW 94-05 initial Study Page: 13 B. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Earth Resources: a-g. The proposed storm drain alignment is contained within the rights- of-way and/or easements for the streets along its course. It is not in the Hillside Management Overlay District, in the Earthquake Fault Zones, in the High Wind area, high water or wind erosion area, in or adjoining a blueline stream nor in an area subject to ` landslides, mudslides, subsidence or other similar hazards. The project will not affect any unique geologic or physical feature. h. The extreme southern section of the project (between 5th St. and Lytle Creek) is within an area of high susceptibility to liquefaction. The construction design is such that potential concerns will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 2. Air Resources: a-c. The project will not affect air quality. There will be a temporary increase in ambient dust during the construction phase of the project, however, standard dust control methods (watering down the I disturbed area) will be used. The site is not within the high wind/high fire hazard area. 3. Water Resources: a-e. Absorption rates, surface water quality, ground water quantity and exposure to flood hazards are not affected by the project. Flood water shall be diverted into the storm drains as designed. 4. Biological Resources: a. The project site is not within the boundaries of the Biological Resources Management Overlay and the project will have no affect on unique, rare, or endangered species of plants or animals. b. There are some trees on the storm drain alignment route, three or four of which may require removal. Removed trees shall be replaced I with species as approved by the Parks & Recreation Department. 5. Noise: a-c. The proposed use is not a generator of noise. There will be a temporary increase in noise during the construction phase of the project. Noise control shall be addressed by limiting the hours of operation to 7: 00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 6. Land Use: a-d. The proposed project will not change the land use designations along the alignment route it is not in an Airport Zone nor in the Foothill Fire Zones. PW 94-05 Initial Study Page: 14 7. Man-Made Hazards: a-d. There are no man-made hazards associated with the project. 8. Housing: a-c. The project will have no affect on existing or future housing. 9. Transportation/Circulation: i a-h. The project will not affect existing traffic or traffic patterns. There will be temporary disruptions during construction. There shall be redirection of traffic within existing streets which shall be handled in accordance with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook. Street closures are not proposed. 10. Public Services: a-g. The project will not have an impact on any public service. 11. Utilities: a. The project will impact existing water facilities in the path of the proposed storm drain. Potentially 265 domestic, fire and irrigation services may require disconnection/reconnection at a total estimated cost of $200, 200.00 to the City Water Department. This type of service disruption and cost is inherrently a factor associated with upgrading the City's infrastructure and it will not require the construction of new facilities (see Exhibit 2) . b. The project will not result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions. 12. Aesthetics: a-b. The project has no impact on any view and shall not affect the visual setting. 13. Cultural Resources: a-b. The project site is not located in an area of archaeological concern nor shall affect any structure on the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey. T T-- EXHW 1 30 Q HIGHLAND AV. I Q � � U_ W i U BASELINE ST. y -Cr QCATM TH 2 TH S T 5TH S7. FOOTHILL BLVD. • 66 � 9 c�FF Q pG O N Q > o > 2 N W Q: cc Q 10 3 VICINITY MAP PROPOSED ALIGNMENT FOR FUTURE MT. VERNON STORM DRAIN