HomeMy WebLinkAbout20-Public Works
, . '0 0 0 File No. 7.37-38 At)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCILrjCTION
From:
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE REe'a
.-A:JHlII ~~Ject:
\.'1 r.
Public works/EngineeJ3B%JUL 27 ',Ii 2: 02
7-26-89
Adoption of Negative Declaration &
Finding of Consistency with the
Utilities Element of thc Gencral
Plan -Installation of Sewer Lines
in Jefferson Avenue and Hazel
between "1" Street and "J" Street
Dept:
Date:
Public Works Project No. 89-25
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
06-05-89 -- Funding recommendation for Community Development Block
Grant Funds, including $l26,500 for sewer mains in
Jefferson Avenue and Hazel Avenue, approved.
Recommended motion:
1. That the Negative Declaration for Public works Project No. 89-25,
installation of sewer lines in Jefferson Avenue and Hazel Avenue,
between "I" Street and "J" Street, be adopted.
2. That a finding be made that the installation of sewer lines in
Jefferson Avenue and Hazel Avenue between "1" Street and "J"
Street, is consistent with the utilities element of the Gener 1
Plan,
cc: Marshall Julian
~ Jim Richardson
Contact person: Roqer G. Hardqrave
Staff Report, Negative
Supporting data attached: Declaration, Map
Phone:
5025
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Oescriotion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
-"- ---_._.~_.__..- -'-- .---- ~-_._--~~----'----'-
75-0262
"0
Agenda Item No.~
4.
Ih
w.
~
CITvQ.F SAN BERNARDINOQ RE~EST FOR COUNCIL ~TION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-
25 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental 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
15-0264
~-
'z..
" .
,~"
0.0
.
..
, .
o
c'
,
;: ,~
.'.l
~",;'~
,."':,
'i,
~ '.,
o
ST.
MILL
.
<Z.
w
z.,,,
~.iP
\''\'
~\
~..
2S0
"
C I T Y
'Ill ill st.~ eEJ\~"RC\Nn
\. ?\)T" 1t?".S
o F SAN B ERN A R D 'LiC~t~\'i'~ \)::"1-
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM _ 8IN 21 '" It 51
8804-1505 IP .1\'"
o
o
o
.
o
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
------------------------------------------------------------------
At its meeting of June 22, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee
recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for the following
Public works projects:
~BLIC WORKS PROJECT
~Jefferson Avenue and
Street.
NO. 89-25 - To install sewer lines in
Hazel Avenue between "I" Street and "J"
PUBLIC 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.
These Initial Studies (see attached) will receive a 14 day public
review from June 29, 1989 to July l2, 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 '~i th 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$n -fJA~
Ann Larson-Perbix
Senior Planner
ALP: clp
C5 MEMOPWP622
.
c
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
,.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
Initial Study
Public Works project No. 89-25
To install sanitary sewer lines
within the rights-of-way of
Jefferson and Hazel Avenues.
June 22, 1989
Prepared for:
Public works Department
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared by:
Ann Larson-Perbix
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
,
c
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
o
-.,
INITIAL STUDY
Public works project No. 89-25 is to install sanitary sewers within
the existing rights-of-way of Jefferson and Hazel Avenues between
"I" Street and "J" Street.
There is scattered industrial development north of Hazel and north
of Jefferson and single-family residences south of Hazel. The site
has existing streets, curb and gutter and street lights. The site
is relatively level and is within a liquefaction zone.
C5 ISpwP8925A
110..
.
o
c
o
o
r I
L..
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "'"
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
\. ~
, ""\
A. BACKGROll~
Application Number: Public Work~ Prnjp~t: Nn Bq~25
project Description: To in"tall ~ewP"" 1 inpl::. wit-hiT! +-h~ ~Y;c::.t-inlJ
rights-Of-way of Jefferson and Hazel Avenues between "1" and "J"
Street.
Location: Jefferson and Hazel between "I" and uJ" Streets.
Environmental Constraints Areas: Liauefaction zon~
General Plan Designation: IL and RS
zoning Designation: IL and RS
B. ~NVIBONM~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1- ~J~h 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. Mod if icat ion of any unique
geologic or physical feature? X
Iro. ~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
.
.
.
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. ~!B_RESQYRCES: 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.
WATER 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?
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?
...
REVISED 12/87
Yes
x
No
x
x
x
x
x
.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
,
o
o
o
o
,.
Maybe
\..
4.
BIOLOGICAL R~SOURCF;~:
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
b.
change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
c. Other?
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
b.
exterior
dB or
over 45
Exposure of people to
noise levels over 65
interior noise levels
dB?
c. Other?
6.
LAND_ 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,B, or C?
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
REVISED 10/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x.
x
y
~
PAGE 3 OF 8
.
o
c:>
o
,.
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~FP9:
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. rRAt!~FQSTATION/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, or demand for
new, parking facilitiesl
structures?
c. Impact upon existing public
transpolt.c>tion systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedest dans?
\.
REVISED ID/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
o
..,
x
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
c
o
o
o
"""Ill
,.
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
h.
Other?
10. pUBLIC SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
c.
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
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. \.ater?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
x
x
x
y
x
y
y
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
,
o
o
o
o
r
Maybe
'"
Ilo..
l2. 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~~U~~--FESQURCES:
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
env ironment 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
REVISED 10/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 6 OF 8
~
o
c:>
o
'....
'..J
r
.
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.)
y
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
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
See attached discussion
\...
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
~
'-41
..
~
.A.
-
'C (") t'"\
ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUA nON AND MITIGATION MEASlItES
'""\-...
-
l.g. The site is located within a liquefaction zone. The project is
not subject to Resolution 82-345 and, therefore, is not required
to submit a liquefaction report. In the event of a large
earthquake, the site may liquefy and the sewer lines could
break. Effluent could be discharded into the ground. However,
the amount spilled would not constitute a significant impact
on the environment and the lines would be repaired.
3.d. The project may improve the quality of ground water within the
area. Currently all residences and businesses are on septic
or outhouses. with installation of sewers, there will be less
discharge of waste into the ground.
5.b. There may be a temporary increase in exterior noise levels due
to construction activities. This is not considered to be
significant since it is temporary and construction hours will
be limited as required by San Bernardino Municipal Code 8.54.
9.d.
There may
culation.
torn up.
by proper
detours.
be temporary alterations of present patterns of cir-
During construction, parts of the streets will be
This impact will be temporary and shall be mitigated
traffic controls such as baracades, flagmen and
C5 ISpwP8925B
.
..
&
-
.
~
.s
~
.'
.
'0
o
o
.:>
""'"
DETERMIllbI1Qll
On the basis of this initial study,
o
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
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner
Name and Title
~ ~AtilM- fuj~
Signature
Date: ~Lfl./, ad) J9?f
\...
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8