Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-Public Works F~le No. 15.30-271 'CITY OF SAN BERN~INO - REQUEST F()q COUNCIL ACTION From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE REC1l.-ADMIM. ~ect: Public Works/Engi~eetS$!1~AR 16 l~ 8 36 3-14-89 Adoption of Negative Declaration & Finding of Consistency with the Interim Policy Document-- Vacation of a 370' Long Unnamed Frontage Street located on the South Side of Highland Avenue, east of Elmwood Road Public Works Project No. 89-~ Dept: Date: Synopsis of Previous Council action: 10-24-88 -- Authorization to proceed and plan approval. Recommended motion: 1. That .the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89- 3, Vacation of a 370' long unnamed frontage street, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of Elmwood Road, be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that vacation of a 370' long unnamed frontage street located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of Elmwood Road, is consistent with the Interim polic Document. cc: Jim Robbins Jim Richardson Contect person: Supporting data attached: Roger G. Hardgrave Memo, Staff Report & Negative Declaration Phone: 5025 Ward: 7 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Waqes on W.O. 01266 Source: (Acct. No.! 001-302-53157 Acct. Oescri tion Street Finance: Council Notes: 75.0262 Agenda Item No Jf - - . , 'CITY OF SAN BERrQRDINO - REQUEST "R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-3 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Re- view Committee at its meeting of 3-02-89. A 14-day public review period was afforded from 3-9~89 to 3-22-89. 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. 3-14-89 - - - . , o ;::it F A,O./S,30-27/ MEMORANDUM C 'CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - To Gene Klatt Assistant City Engineer Subject Envi ronmenta 1 Revi ew of Pub li c Works Projects From Ann Larson-Perbi x Senior Planner Date March 6, 1989 Approved Date At its meeting of March 2,.1989, the Environmental Review Committee recommeded adoption of a Negative Declaration for the following Public Works projects: 1. PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-2 - To vacate an existing alley located between Wall Avenue and Sepulveda Avenue, approximately 150 feet south of Baseline Street. ~ PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-3 - To vacate a 370 foot long unnamed ~ontage street, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of Elmwood Road. 3. PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-4 - To vacate a 270 foot long .section of "J" Street, located between Oak Street and Lytle Creek Flood Control Channe 1 . 4. PUBLIC WORKS PROjECT NO. 89-6 - To vacate a 299 foot long section of Lugo Avenue, north of 4th Street and east of Sierra Way. These Initial Studies (see attached) wi 11 receive a 14 day public review from March 9, 1989 to March 22, 1989. Any comments received during the review period will be addres~ed 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. } . . ~. I' ft'NI/vV :iLI ~./.)II - f/..u! -I)J/}t- nn Larson- erb x Senior Planner cp C3 MEMOPWP32 ~ . ;>:. ,y---"t'j' ,/ ,), ;,i -. '~R:rt: I "iN ;)PCCHt:S3 .... _.~i! - - - o 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT I NI TlAL STUDY Public Works No. 89-3 To vacate a 370 foot unnamed frontage street located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of Elmwood Road March 2, 1989 Prepared by Scott Wright Planning Department 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared for Department of Public Works City of San Bernardino . o 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY The proposal is to vacate an unnamed frontage street 40 feet in width and 370 feet long. The frontage street abuts a small commercial strip center located on the south side of.Highland Avenue east of Elmwood Road. The purpose of the street vacation is to expand the parking area serving the adjacent commercial center. C3 ISPW893A . ~ o o ,. "'" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ ~ , "'" A. BACKGRO!'llD Application Number: Public I\Orks No. 89-3 Project Description: 'lb vacate a frontaqe street 40 feet in width am 370 feet 10M. Location: '!he south side of Highlaro. Avenue east of Eln1Nood Road. Environmental Constraints Areas: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: . B. I~BQHBI~-1BPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. L Ea.rth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement filll of 10,000 more? (cut and/or 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 12/8.7 PAGE 1 OF 8 . . o Maybe "'" r e. !oil 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_~QYRCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial an effect quality? air upon emissions or ambient air 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 o Yes No x x x x x x x . x x x y y x ~ PAGE 2 OF 8 - . o Maybe """ , 4. BIOLOGICAL R~~URCE~: 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_~: 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? "" o Yes No x x x x x x x x x x x ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 (') ("'\ Maybe "'" , 7. MAN-MADE HA~~FP~ I projectl 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. HOU~1 Will the proposal I a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. TRA~~!,ORTATIO~CI~!lJ"ATIONI Could the proposal result inl 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 No x x x x x x . x x x x x x ~ PAGE 4 OF 8 o ("\ No Maybe "" , g. ~ disjointed pattern roadway improvements? of h. Other? 10. r~~~_SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? b. - Police protection? c. Schools (Le. 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? 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? 3. Water? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? All existinJ utilities b. Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility ,-, Require the construction of new facilities? c. ll... REVISED 10/87 Yes x x x x x x x x . x x x x . x x . '< y ~ PAGE ~ OF 8 o o Maybe ..., 13. ~~~T~~--F~9URCES: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic X archaeological site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a prehistoric or historic site, structure or object? X c. Other? X F :--. 12. AESTIETJ~: 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? 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. 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 ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 60F8 , o o Yes No Maybe """ impottant 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.) x 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? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) x ~ ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 . o o ,. ~ D. DETERMINA1JON 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. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o o ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner Name and Title /-, , ./ '2. '- t/A-->".' ,rx'!{1 "I (1)1 - fz,? bCt!- Signature 1} /J., J' j / I Dc Date: . /". /I!J\ ~ 1'1 7 '- ~ REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8 . r. 9.d. ~ - ...... "-~. ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUA TION AND MITIGI\ ION MEAS~ES The proposed street vacation in and of itself will not significantly a1te~ present patterns of circulation or cause traffic safety problems in that only an isolated 370 foot length of frontage street will be vacated. The area of the proposed vacation will be more useful as an addition to the adjacent parking lot. A Review of Plans application will be required for the parking lot addition. The proposal may impact existing utilities or require the construc- tion of new facilities if easements are not reserved. This potential impact shall be miti gated by reservi ng easements for a 11 exi sti ng utiliti es. 11.a.5. C3 ISPWag3B "- . ~ - , . ,0 -= ~ .HiGHLAND T ~ A .,HuE .. .. .. + ~ , : ~ ....... ... ..~ 1- 33" U' ffIo'''' I .. I.P I ....1 tf "zI i ~ 0 ! C) .",...... ~. ~. . "... ~ Z ~ ... 5 , 7 ~o 60 Q II 0 0 ~ ARfA TO BE i. d VACATED /". I~' ,. --.~ ~ i' . ~ /', If. .j..> ~r ..' ,. .-.. . . ., ~ . ~. . .. DIRitTOR OF PUILIC wORtCS JCI"'" E"GI"ElR Pr.p.r.d ll!ll L. FOGASSY ::," SII..t CII.d.d II, I V.NAP_AU 1 of 1 DATE I 10-03-88 AREA VACATED SHOWN THUS ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PU&IC HQAKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION REM. P"~ERTY SECTION STAEET I ALLEY VACATION I FQONTAGE ROAD SOUT~ OF Hlr.HLAND AVE~UE. EAST OF EL~"'OOD ROAD. FILE "0.1 :~.~C-:::7: PLA" "0.1 760"- o L1'A I. ,^v,. 17'- . - . o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM #: LOCATION 3 .J1 ~ 1-1 L..H. . R-l-2 R-I : I :; ... R-I .5 .. .. -- -- I.a CITY.I..MIT. R-I .. ~ ColA c .. . .. .. c- ,. 0 c-,. Ro3 R-' Ro' co,. C-'A C"A c.'" Co'A ,,-'~~ c.... -- SIT t . Co'" I c::J Co'A I R-" 2 -= ti :---.