HomeMy WebLinkAbout64-Public Works
-
-
-
- . ('), ^ File No. 15.30-26P 1
eM OF SAN ..RNARDlltO - RI!QUIIC5T FOR COUNCIL ACnON
Recision of Action of 4-3-89 and
Adoption of Negative Declaration
for Public Works Project No. 89-6,
Vacation of a 299' Long Section
of Lugo Avenue, North of 4th Street
and East of Sierra Way ~ _
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE REC'O.-A0)41M6~iot:
Dept: Publ i c Works/Engi neertla Ar~ 31 !:4 7: 54
Date: A P r i 1 25, 1989
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
01-03-89
Authorization to Proceed and Plan Approval.
Adoption of Negative Declaration and Finding of
Consistency with Interim Policy Document
04-03 '89.
1. That the acti on of 4-3-89, to adopt a
for Public Works Project No. 89-6,
Section of Lugo Avenue, North of 4th
Sierra Way, be rescinded.
,
Jlo.
- i
?<: ji
Negative Declaratj1{n ~
Vacation of a 2~':'f
Street, and East of
!~
(")
~ ~
....
,
RllCommended motion:
2. That the Negative Declaration (with a response to
comments), for Public Works Project No. 89-6, Vacation of a
299' Secti on of Lugo Avenue, North of 4th Street East
of Sierra Way, be adopted.
'.l. Ji m Robbi ns
,1 i m R i c h a r d son
Jim Penman
Br'~d. Kil gel:.
Contact person: _
Michael W. Grubbs
Statf Report, Inltlal
to Comments, and Neg.
Study,
Dec.
Phone:
Response
Ward:
5179
1
Supporting data attached:
fUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: Wages on W.O. 01266
Source: (Acct. No.)
001-302-53157
(Acct. Descriotion) Street Vacation Proceedings
Finance: ~ i)~
Council Notes:
/'1U:-',;'
^......._-1_ 1..__ Il.I_
~U
ark OF SAN _RNARDIWO - REQUM FOR COUNCIL AC1iON
STAFF REPORT
At their meeting of 3-02-89, the Environmental Review
committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for the
vacation of a portion of Lugo Avenue, Public Works Project No.
89-6. A 14-day public review period was afforded, from 3-9-89
to 3-22-89.
An item for adoption of the Negative Declaration was
prepared for the Council meeting of 4-3-89. This item was
prepared prior to the end of the public review period, due to
agenda deadlines.
On 3-21-89, a comment protesting the recommended
Negative Declaration was received from Mr. Frank Tracadas, an
adjacent property owner. The City of San Bernardino local
environmental guidelines require that the Environmental Review
Committee respond to comments on recommended environmental
determinations. The Planning Department drafted a response to
Mr. Tracadas' comments and rescheduled the project at the
soonest available Environmental Review Committee meeting for
their concurrence. Unfortunately, this item was inadvertently
left on the Council agenda and the adoption of the Negative
Declaration was premature.
At their meeting of 4-20;"89, the Environmental Review
Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration with a
r-esponse to the comments by Mr. Tracadas. The public review
period has already been afforded from 3-9-89 to 3-22-89.
We recommend that the previous
rescinded, and the Negative Declaration
comments received) be adopted.
action
(with
on
a
4-3-89
resonse
be
to
4-25-89
.
.j
,...
--
-
-
/
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8804-1505
TO:
Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer
FROM:
Tricia D. Thrasher, Planner II
SUBJECT:
Environmental Review of Public Works Projects
D1>.TE:
April 24, 1989
COPIES:
Mike Grubbs, Engineering Department
Vern Nadeu, Real Property
Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner
At its meeting of April 20, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee
recommeded adoption of a Negative Declaration for the following
Public Works projects:
3. PUBLIC WORKS NO. 89-6 - Response to comments received on a pro-
posed Negative Declaration to vacate a 299 foot portion of Lugo
Avenue, north of 4th Street and east of Sierra Way.
This Initial Study (see attached) has already receive a 14 day
public review from March 9 to March 22. Comments received during
the review period have been addressed by the Planning Department and
the comments and responses are attached. You must schedule the pro-
jects before the Mayor and Common Council for adoption of the
Negative Declaration. Please include the Initial Study and Response
to Comments 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.
TDT:clp
C4 MEMOPWP420
'"
. <~'".....
.....
'-'"
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-6
The Initial Study for the above referenced project was heard at the
Snvironmental Review Committee on March 2, 1989 and a Negative
Declaration was proposed. The public review period was from March 9
through March 22, 1989.
One letter was received during the public review period (see
Attachment "A"). The letter expressed a general protest to the fin-
dings that the project would have no significant impacts to aspects
of air resources, .water resources, noise levels, land use, cir-
culation and aethetics. However, the comments did not identify the
significant effects they believed would occur if the vacation of a
portion of Lugo Avenue were to occur. It is, therefore, difficult
to formulate a response.
The proposed street vacation is a condition of approval for Review
of Plans No. 88-109, to construct a credit union. Review of Plans
Mo. 88-109 received a Negative Declaration on February 2, 1989 and
the Notice of Determination was filed on February 8, 1989. Impacts
associated with this should have been discussed at that point.
The following are responses to the protested items:
A. The vacation of a 299 foot section of Lugo Avenue does not
create a source that would contribute to air emissions,
odors or noise impacts. Vacating the street involves!no
construction that would degrade air quality or create
noise. The proposed vacation will not create traffic in
and of itself. Therefore, vehicular emissions and noise
will not be increased due to the proposed vacation (2.a ,
b.; 5.a.).
B. The Street vacation will result in minor decreases in the
absorption rates and increases in runoff due to .the paving
of an approximately 13,260 square foot area for the new
dedicated east/west street required as mitigation under
item 9.d. Due to the small size of the increased paved
area, this is a less than significant impact.
C. The vacation of the street does not affect the use of the
land as designated in the Interim Policy Document or the
proposed General Plan (6.a.).
D. Circulation impacts were discussed and mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study. We believe that potential
impacts have been mitigated to be less than significant.
E. The letter does not specify what visual impacts the vaca-
tion would cause, therefore, no specific response can be
made. The Planning Department has not been able to iden-
tify any visual impacts that would result from the street
vacation itself.
-
-
,.".
,"---
'--
,-",,-
'-'
,.
~esponse to Comments
on Proposed Negative Declaration
for Public Works Project No. 89-6
Page 2
The Planning Department believes that the Initial Study adequately
discusses potential impacts of the proposed street vacation. If the
8~ecific concerns are with impacts resulting from construction of
the proposed credit union, those concerns should have been brought
forth during the discussions for that project. Without specific
identification, by Mr. Tracadas, of potential impacts that may arise
from the proposed street vacation, it is impossible to respond in
any More detail then we already have. It is recommended that the
Initial Study stand as is.
C4 PWP896RES&2
j\TTACHMENT "A"
.,
,",,-...-
,-. ,
"''''''
March 21, 1989
Planning Department
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92418
.-..;
. ,
1:701""'"
r
RE: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-6
PURSUANT to the advertisement in the Sun newspaper dated 3/9/89
we are invited to review the Initial Study Cdated 3/2/89) prepared
by the Planning Department as regards the above-referenced proposed
project.
The following items that you have listed in this study as they pertain
to the proposed vacation of a portion of Lugo Avenue between 4th and 5th
Streets are protested herewith:
#2 Ca) & Cb)-----Pollution and Air Resources
#3 Ca) & Cb)-----Drainage and Flooding
#5 Ca) -----Noise
#6 Ca) -----Change in Land Use
#9 Cd) Cf) Cg)---Potential Tr~ffic Hazard and Disjointed Pattern
,.
#12 Cb) -----Aesthetics
This is not meant to be a limiting listing: there may be other items
that will be protested in whole or part and a reservatio~ is made
herewith since the aforementioned are just a few of the ~oncerns addressed
in your initial study of this project. There are ot~er majpr factors to
be considered also. In passing, we note that considerable work has already
been done on this project, yet none of the adjoining property owners have
been notified! It would be prudent to notify in writing or personally the
affected property owners and see if they are in fact agreeable to such a
closure before too much additional time is spent on th~s.
We o~~ three parcels contiguous to this proposed vacation and adamantly
oppose it and especially oppose the manner in which this is being pushed
surreptitiously by the Planning Department.
We also note that the whole project Cie: street vacation and credit union
proposed expansion) is in direct conflict with the new, state mandated
General Plan for this City and is in violation of the Pioposed zoning!
Please advise us in writing as to the additional steps we must take at this
-- time or in the future to protest in part or the whole and to which appropriate
governing bodies. I protested certain actions pertinent to this matter at
the ORC meeting held in February but was told after my timely letter of
protest was filed that I had not posted the appropriate fee which I was not
,
, "
'':It
":<l:'jI.\
, "'\~
"'f
'{
"" I~"
,..,,.,'
d ';,1'
".' 2
,., .' ',.'... ~sdon
';:, '",t... .....6
"Ii,'," '
~;":\1r'."" .
::~';f;' '
,:8~:.~
I'
~ .f or request" to pay upon .,......1 sub!iitul. I WIlS
"tll.tft' that it wu lIet a l.,ttu.tl...test bec:a'iae.$7s.00
I..... Jlet been paidl ".
,. ~er reserve the l'ipt and 1'''' herawith that1f'''~tifie4
$fr ",hift, of any fu~ _ion 011 tliU'proj<<t.,' ,
'~ you for your e6...,'hjt1Ol'1 intMs utter.
tnrly )'OU1'l,
A'..
.~/
". .",'
';'1;\
'I
?'
~)~
" ',;J;'
'.11.
Mttk odL)'II1I aead&s, Trutiees
~ North Slerra Way
s.a lenal'dllliO, CA. "410
J ~:,."" Shapiro, Attomey-at-Law
!-
'"
:~,~~
l<,~';~~r" ~'
..' ~'" ,,,,, wil%',
~I.!~r,~;l~- t ,,",'':'; :i~;~i';'" ' ';
~ ", t'" J I h. l;~~"i'1 )
,~ ;{~~'j";:1'~~:~~':(:~~
~'~('~';ft:l'
". -'< ',:\i! o\~
\l~~~:i:~:,"1
'; hJ~~r'. "/:~\i-,,; ,:'
""i~V""';".-..:':j
~':':" '.:~',:H
,''I....". ."
;', ,{'>',; ;._,'I~~:
l~,\, -:111.',\,1. ,~~
. i..I, I., .
~ -!~::,,"1\'" ":,~~
"
.'
r
I
'i~
i:-
I
\.
.'f'.;
,<,'. ,'.. "'.
:II'...,,~,~,:~,I,
?;' ::~:,.i11:' ~,,', ,~,f~,:'~
~ I, ".Jt~~,>" ;J~~(
, .. ," ,./," 'II"
J' '~'~. """ : /1ill\ ,~>
,.': " J.i';"i;.'~"h
'" " "
~~,?\~\,;:":; ':.j:r~:::';~~ ?
';il'.1 .. .\'. '~,." .
'~&<';,'-"'t.:;,;i~
i~,"'t
.' t,I\:":l',';
''','
\.1';
.." ,.,
,C
.~. '.
f.,'
;
I
I
, !
't
f
,
I
i
I
l
, '
'I~..
.' "
j ,
2/2
CITY vF SAN BERNARDIN~
PLAI-tNING DEPARTt...;NT
INITIAL STUDY
PUBLIC WORKS 89-6
,,~ 4.'
I ' '"
.. I Or ~.. ,:. .
' .-
...!,. '
,-
., "7
J
TO VACATE A 299 FPOT;iPORTION: 9F ~GO ,AVENUE
NORTH OF. 4TH STREET AND EAST OF SIERRA WAY
,
March 2, 1989
PREPARED FOR:
City of San Bernardino
Department of Public Works
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
714-384-5334
PREPARED BY:
Tricia D. Thraaher
Planning Departaent
300 Nc;lrth "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
1
l)'
11
; I . ~
<'j
: ~; ,
j"
..
,.
CITY OrSAN BER~"'RDINu
"'lM'.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
,
Public Works 89-6 is to allow a street vacation of a portion
of Lugo AvenU8 from 4th street north for a distance of 298.89
feet. Lugo Avenue is a north/south street located one block
east of Sierra Way between 4th and 5th Streets.
The site is a rectangular-shaped parcel
feet totaling 14,944.5 square feet and is
area. of local street. It is located.in
. 'I 11:
faction potential.
50 feet by 298.89
currently a paved
an area of lique-
. I
-
,~'....
,
_ J
c.J
'"
""""
,.
u
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
...
'"
BACKGRO!l~
Application Number:
Project Description:
Public Works 89-6
Vacation of a 299 +
ft. portion of Luqo
Avenue. beainnina at 4Th Street and extendina north
Location: East of Sierra Way, between 4th and 5th Streets
Environmental Constraints Areas: Liquefaction
Interim Policy Document:
N/A
Zoning Designation: N/~
B. ~FYJ~Q~~~Nr~~ IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. EaItb Re~QY~ 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
\..
-
-
-
,;',".....
,
.-
"-'
"-"
-...-I
..,
Yes
No
Maybe
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,
liauefaction or
hazards?
x
x
h. Other?
2. ~IR_RE~QYRCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard "area?
x
3 .
W~TER___EESOURCES:
proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
Will
the
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
x
~ ~
REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF 8
.,'
'-
r
------ -
, -
Yes
No
""
Maybe
.J
".......
\-J
("j
4.
BIOLOGIC~L R~~9URC~~:
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. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
c. Other?
6.
LAl!P_ 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?
ll..
REVISED 10/87
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PAGE 3 OF 8
.c
r
.D
':?
7.
MAN-MAI2L.H~~~JlP!l :
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. HOU~: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
9. T~N~!,Q~TATIO~LCI~~YIIATION: 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, parking
structures?
or demand for
facilitiesl
c. Impact upon existing public
transpoltetionsystems?
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
x
No
Maybe
..,
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
.c
,
o
(J
Yes
Maybe
"'IIIl
g.
A disjointed pattern of
roadway improvements?
. Other? Availability of Street Parking
h.
10. rY>>LI~_SERVICES will the proposal
impact ~he following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
police protection?
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
b.
c.
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? Access to utility easements
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
...
REVISED 10/87
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
..
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
...-'
'"
.......
-
-
r
Yes
Maybe
""'"
12 . AESTHET1~:
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.
CP~~U~~~~~9QRCES:
proposal result in:
Could the
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
b.
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 150651
'"
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
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
.)
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
- -
--
r
..
......
'.wi
'wi
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. )
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
signif icant.)
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
-
.c -c:;;
ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUA TION AND MITIGATION MEAS~ES
log.
The site is located in an area identified as having high
susceptibility to liquefaction (Carson and Matti, 1986).
Mayor and Common Council Resolution 82-345 requires all
development (with three exceptions) to prepare a lique-
faction report. A street vacation does not constitute
development, however, any project approved for the site
should the vacation be approved would be subject to the
conditions of Resolution 82-345.
9.d.
The vacation of a portion of Lugo Avenue could alter the
present patterns of circulation.
Although, the proposed vacation does not landlock any par-
cels, two single-family residences on the east side of Lugo
take access from the northern portion not being vacated and
two businesses along the west side have rear driveways onto
this northern section of Lugo Avenue.
The major north/south traffic would be traveling on Sierra
Way which is located one block west of the site. However,
any traffic traveling south on the remaining section of Lugo
Avenue would deadend and have to cross private property to
connect with a publicly-dedicated street. To avoid this
problem, the Engineering Department is requiring a new
dedicated east/west street from the north end of the proposed
vacation.
The provision of
north end of the
mitigate impacts
insignificance.
a new dedicated east/west street from the
proposed vacation west to Lugo Avenue would
to circulation patterns to a level of
9.h.
The proposed street vacation could impact the amount of on-
street parking available to surrounding landowners. Busi-
nesses and residences to the north of the vacation will
retain that area of Lugo Avenue along their frontage as
available parking. The two businesses with frontage along
the proposed vacation have title to the ~and on both sides of
that section of Lugo and with the additional area will be
able to provide adequate onsite parking. Therefore, there is
no significant impact.
.
""""
.c ::;
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA TION AND MITIGATION MEAS~ES
.,"'"
1l.a.5.
The proposed vacation will not pose an impact on the ability
of utilities to access and service their equipment and supply
lines in that the city will reserve all existing easements.
PCAGENDA:PW89.6
r,
,
",..,I
CITy OF SAN BERNARDINO ~ DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM_
LOCATION
CASE PW89-6
March 2, 1989
HEARING DATE
. I L..-L-J ~
--r--- I ~.. .
I. "J '1'''''' I
C-II
.0.
C-II
--~
&& ", .,IIt" <<
--
C-II
[]
~
R-S
rn ~ ,.,
CiL
nr:d. c-. 51.. ~~ :~..
.. . 4 R'3
, .
~r:oOR -:.
I C.4 I W Llli:j ~
[J [] H ':S~~E~:: I ~i ttr;"
~ ~C-. A'P A-P
&1"
"... C.. A-P A-P
Si r S.
[:J
BBD
"'S
"'S
"0"
fI
0-
"0
"0.
T
n
.
.
(
.0.
C-II
"0"
C-II
CII
C-II
"0"
I.a elF' "MI.-
C-II
.0.
--
-
C-4
C-SA
T
~
l~
C-II
R-S-ZOI
R-3
R-S
'f"
R-S
R-S
R-S
.R-S
II'Z II-Z R-S R-S
II-Z R-S R-'
"" ,~...
C.II
R'S M-I
R-S
11'1
C-II
p~"',
.
......
c~
J '. / ,.:
:. ,: .~.- ..... / . l .
, I' --, .' -I -' '-
DIIl$C~OR ~~ PUILIC WOR/(~ lei;... ING-INIER
"".pand II,. L. FOGASSV Sh..t
Ch.ck.d II, I V. N tJotIralJ 1 of 1
DATI I DI.~~..
ARIA VACATED SHOWN THUS ZVhW~~
'ILE NO.115. ](1_ 2.. PLAM MO.I 7511
--..
....)-- - -
STRUT .~
.0'
~
~
,.
c
2- ....
Por 8"-5, R~. 'I''t
....
...
....
l-
ce
..
~
....
~
'Q
~
3
Q,
:l\
",'
'"
STRUT "\
Cli
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC HORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
REM.. PROfIERTV SECTION
STREET I ALLEV VACATION .
PORTION OF LUGO AVENUE, NORTH
OF 4TH STREET
f/tJ -~7-&
r
D.
\..
c
.'"\
.-..)
""
DETERMI~~TJQ!'l
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
[J
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner
Name and Title
O~ ~AM1I/1'n-~ PM}j../4
Signature
Date: 'l'!1aMlt 3; /Cff't
""
.
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
~
-
/"~-"
\...
c
o
::)
May IS, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Councilpersons
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92418
RE:P.W. No. 89-6
Dear Mayor Wilcox and Council:
Reference is made to the above-designated project and the decision
of the Environmental Review Committee to ignore our concerns
regarding the issuing of a negative declaration for this project.
Our main concerns are addessed in the attached letters dated 3/2/89
and 4/14/89 to the Planning Department along with their response.
Please note that their original review is very general and very
broad. They do not give specifics and yet have requested us to do
so. Their response is also very general and not based upon existing
conditions.
We do agree that just the issuing of a negative declaration for the
proposed vacation of a part of a street may not have an adverse effect
on the environment but the vacation should not be taken as a separate item
in this instance from the overall project which is to pave a very large
area and add a street across our front office door!!! This street
would be added between two major streets midblock--4th and 5th Streets
and deadend into another major street, Sierra Way. There are already
numerous accidents along Sierra Way in this immediate area and to add
another intersection will not only make matters worse but is a very
poor planning response to the Credit Union's expansioD plans.
We believe there are other ways to do this project without vacating
an existing street that has been in existence and use for years as
well as impact adversely our business office building. We resent the
proposed "island" that is proposed for the Credit Union at the sake
of not only our property but at the sake of responsible planning.
/
Thank you for your review and consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
~~'. ~~~
Frank and Lynn Tracadas--Owners
463 North Sierra Way
San Bernardino, CA.
1
!
,
~I
-
-
~
c.
o
. ""'\
.....,;
:)
March 21, 1989
Planning Department
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92418
RE: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-6
PURSUANT to the advertisement in the Sun newspaper dated 3/9/89
we are invited to review the Initial Study (dated 3/2/89) prepared
by the Planning Department as regards the above-referenced proposed
project.
The fOllowing items that you have listed in this study as they pertain
to the proposed vacation of a portion of Lugo Avenue between 4th and 5th
Streets are protested herewith:
#2 (a) & (b)-----Pollution and Air Resources
#3 (a) & (b)-----Drainage and Flooding
#5 (a)
#6 (a)
-nnNoise
-----Change in Land Use
#9 (d) (f) (g)---Potential Traffic Hazard and Disjointed Pattern
#12 (b)
-----Aesthetics
This is not meant to be a limiting listing: there may be other items
that will be protested in whole or part and a reservation is made
herewith since the aforementioned are just a few of the concerns addressed
in your initial study of this project. There are other major factors to
be considered also. In passing, we note that considerable work has already
been done on this project, yet none of the adjoining property owners have
been notified! It would be prudent to notify in writing or personally the
affected property owners and see if they are in fact agreeable to such a i .
closure before too much additional time is spent on this.
We own three parcels contiguous to this proposed vacation and adamantly
oppose it and especially oppose the manner in which this is being pushed
surreptitiously by the Planning Department.
We also note that the whole project (ie: street vacation and credit union
proposed expansion) is in direct conflict with the new, state mandated
General Plan for this City and is in violation of the proposed zoning!
Please advise us in writing as to the additional steps we must take at this
time or in the future to protest in part or the'whole and to which appropriate
governing bodies. I protested ,certain actions pertinent to this matter at
the DRC meeting held in February but was told after my timely letter of
protest was filed that I had not posted the appropriate fee which I was not
1/2
c.
Page 2
Planning Commission
RE: P.W. #89-6
c
.-
V
J
informed of or requested to pay upon my personal submittal. I was
told later that it was not a legitimate protest because a $75.00
fee had not been paid!
We further reserve the right and request herewith that we be notified
in writing of any future action on this project.
Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Frank and Lynn Tracadas, Trustees
463 North Sierra Way
San Bernardino, CA. 92410
cc: Eugene Shapiro, Attorney-at-Law
;"
2/2
c.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON
PROPQ''' ") NEGATl VE DECLP'''''ifION FOR
pu~tt WORKS PROJECT ',~. 89-6
<,
)
-'
The Initial Study for the above referenced project was heard at the
Environmental Review Committee on March 2, 1989 and a Negative Declaration was
proposed. The public review period was from March 9 through March 22, 1989.
One letter was received during the public review period (see Attachment "A").
The letter expressed a <general protest to the findings that the project would
have no significant impacts to aspects of air resources, water resources, noise
levels, land use, circulation and aethetics. However, the comments did not
identify the significant effects they believed would occur if the vacation of a
portion of Lugo Avenue were to occur. It is, therefore, difficult to formulate
a response.
The proposed street vacation is a condition of approval for Review of Plans No.
88-109, to construct a credit union. Review of Plans No. 88-109 received a
Negative Declaration on February 2, 1989 and the Notice of Determination was
filed on February 8, 1989. Impacts associated with this should have been
discussed at that point. '
The following are responses to the protested items:
A. The vacation of a 299 foot section of Lugo Avenue does not create a
source that would contribute to air emissions, odors or noise impacts.
Vacating the street involves no construction that would degrade air
quality or create noise. The proposed vacation will not create traffic
in and of itself. Therefore, vehicular emissions and noise will not be
increased due to the proposed vacation (2.a & b.; 5.a.l.
B. The street vacation will not result in changes in absorption rates~ ("
drai nage patterns or the rate of runoff due to impermeable surfaces / fY (,
because it is already paved (3.a.). It wi 11 not result in changes in ~
water courses or flood waters as it is not adjacent to any existing <
(~~~~i~YS, and f;Z~~ C~~;~el }n~r~s;~u(c;~; ;Or,.,;h:,;~a~e.~.~.s }.n/;a:l.e .f 0
# ./J, ~N~.... 4 ( ,:/~ 'v r ,n.r"'.--r- .
C. The vacation of the street does not affect the use of the land as
designated in the Interim Policy Document or the proposed General Plan
(6.a.).
D. Circulation impacts were discussed and miti9ation measures identified 7
in the Initial Study. We believe that potential impacts have been
mitigated to be less than significant.
E. The letter does not specify what visual impacts the vacation would I
cause, therefore, no specific response can be made. The Planning
Department has not been able to identify any visual impacts that would
result from the street vacation itself.
The Planning Department believes that the Initial Study adequately discusses
potential impacts of the proposed street vacation. If the specific concerns are
with impacts resulting from construction of the proposed credit union, those
concerns should have been brought forth during the discussions for that project.
Without specific identification, by Mr. Tracadas, of potential impacts that may
arise from the proposed street vacation, it is impossible to respond in any more
detail then we already have. It is recommended that the Initial Study stand as
is.
C4 PWP896RES 4-5-89
c
.
.
~-
,.""
,
-"
-
I~'
'-'
"April 14, 1989
Attn: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RE: Public Works Project No. 89-6
I am in receipt of a copy of the Response to Comments on the proposed
negative declaration for the above-referenced project.
The "Initial Study" and "Environmental IlIJlIlct Checklist" gave no specific
information or concrete proven data upon which to comment; consequently,
my concerns and questions had to be of the same nature.
In your original study and response no specific data was presented on any
of the issues we have raised as to what the existing conditions are and
what they will be after this proposed vacation would occur.
Merely vacating a part of Lugo in itself may not create adverse environmental
effects but the subsequent development and usage of the property allowed
by the vacation will.
To make unsubstantiated statements that this development will not have an
adverse effect on the environment is ludicrous. The City abounds with
similar such "mistaken" negations.
I have yet to see or be given any specific data on the existing conditions
and the basis upon which the department's determination has been made.....
and I have requested them! The suppositions upon which the statements
are made about the conditions after the development takes places ..the same
lacking specifics are missing.
I understand that certain items were reworded in your hearing of yesterday
and it is this kind of dubious generalizations that I specifically address:
namely Item 3a--the amount of increase in run-off; 3b--- the Change in flow;
Sa--the increase in noise level (you must consider and abate the private
parking lot that this vacation will create!). Of greatest concern to me is
that I will not allow the creation of street running by my front door as a
"mitigating" measure to these proposed vacations! Even 9dnTraffic Flow proposed
where none existed before; having a new street intersection into a major
flood-bearing street midway between two other major parallel streets create
real problems as "mitigating" measures!
/
il
d
,
I
.
,
J
I
I
1
The proposed narrow street southerly of our property to accommodate the Credit
Union does change the existing flow pattern and does not present the same
service as we now enjoy. It is a disjointed, crazy solution to the vacation
of a street.
As stated before, the mere vacation does not present a problem under the best of
circumstances--but this is not the best circumstances and does create severe
circulation, parking and subsequent accommodating development problems.
~~4/:~1-'~~ ~
Frank Tracadas