Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-Public Works File No. 6.21-01 CRY OF SAN BERN~DINO - REQUEST FC'III COUNCIL ACTION 'lI."." From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Adoption of Negative Declaration REC'O.-&B~.: l)Ffij Finding of IPD Consistency --Proposed New Grade Crossing 19Jj JAN 30 PM 3m32"F" Street at A.T. & S.F. Railroad ~~ Dept: Public Works/Engineering Date: 1-25-89 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 5-02-88 -- Director of Public Works/City Engineer authorized to submit formal application to the Public Utility Commission for a new grade crossing on "F" Street at A.T. & S.F. Railroad. Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for improvement of Grade Crossing for 11Ft( Street on A.T. & S.F. Railroad be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that improvement of a grade crossing on "F" Street is consistent with the interim policy document. cc: Jim Robbins Jim Richardson Jim Penman Planning Department Supporting data attached: Michael W. Grubbs Staff Report & Initial Study for PW proiect 88-18 Phone: 5111 Contact person: Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: 75.0262 Agenda Item No. /7 C.TYOF SAN BERt6:RDINO - REQUEST QR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 2 The crossing on "F" Street with the Santa Fe Railway, south of Rialto Avenue, is proposed to be improved by installa- tion of flashing lights and automatic gates. These protection devices will be installed at the planned ultimate width of "F" Street. This new crossing is a key feature of the Central City South project. Widening of the approach roadways to the ultimate width will be required. This widening will be done under the Central City South Assessment District. At the meeting of 12-08-88, the Environmental Review Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 88-18. The Initial Study for the project is attached. The public December 29, 1988. period. review period was from December 15, 1988, to No comments were received during the review A Notice of Determination will be filed by the Planning Department after adoption of the Negative Declaration. The Planning Department has determined that this project is consistent with the interim policy document. Adoption of the Negative Declaration and filing of the Notice of Determination is a required step toward filing our application with the Public Utilities Commission for the new grade crossing. The remaining step will be to obtain concur- rence of the A.T.& S.F. Railroad. However, their concurrence will be conditioned upon the issue of vacating an existing crossing in trade. Since we have not identified a crossing which can be vacated in trade, this issue will need to be resolved by further discussions between the City and A.T.& S.F. railroad. Phil Arvizo has contacted Mr. Roy Smith, Manager of Special Projects, in Santa Fe's Los Angeles Office to request him to attend a meeting in City Hall. The purpose of this meeting was to negotiate a modification to Santa Fe's policy that no new grade crossing will be approved, unless one is closed as a trade. 1-25-89 75.0264 . . CITY. OF SAN BERNODINO - REQUEST FCR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Page 2 of 2 Mr. Smith has declined to attend a meeting, but has indicated that they might be willing to be present at a Council Meeting when this item is discussed. 1-25-89 75-0264 ,..........., CITY OF SAN BERNARDI PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY '" ~ PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 88-18 TO permit the construction of an at grade railroad crossing at "F" street approximately 500 feet south of Rialto Avenue November 29, 1988 prepared for: Public Works Department city of San Bernardino 300 North "0" street San Bernardino, CA 92418 prepared by: Martin E. Wilkins planning Department .300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 . /---'" r--', "-' v CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY "'\ ~ Public Works proiect No. 88-18 The request is for approval of a railroad line crossing on a section of "F" street, 300 feet south of Rialto Avenue, that is to be constructed as part of the Central city South Redevelopment Area circulation project Plan. Implementation of the plan requires the extension of "F" street to "G" street and includes the crossing with the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Line. An assessment district to fund all of the related improvements of the circulation plan will be developed and additional environmental processing will be required. Under Public Works Project No. 88-18 ~ the railroad at grade crossing of "F" street is proposed. No other alternative location is feasible for the crossing. The railroad is pre-existing and the Circulation Plan for the central City South Redevelopment Area requires the extension of "F" Street to provide satisfactory public access to existing developable land. The crossing site involves an existing railroad line that is surrounded by a mixture of vacant and developed Commercial/ Industrial land. The site is relatively level. There are some native grasses/trees and old buildings within the area. The parcel is located in a liquefaction potential zone. csj/12-1-88 MISC:ISPW8818 .~ . ..-, - "-" , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "'" PLANNING OEP ARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AL IMPA'CT CHECKLIST "- ~ , """IIil A. BACKGROY~ Application Number: Public Works pro;ect No. 88-18 project Description: The construction of an at qrade railroad line crossinq on a proposed section of "Fl. Street under the central r.ity !';ollth Rp-dpvp-lnpmp-n't ~rP-Pl r;Y'~111;ill~;nn Plan Location: On "Fit Street at a point 300 feet south of Rialto Avenue. Environmental Constraints Areas: rrh~ ~rnc::!=;.;nq ~;t'~ 'c 'nr"~FI!d within an area subiect to liauefaction. General Plan Designation: MTl-1- Miypn n!i::~ n;~i"'r;~-r No , nf the City's Interim Policy Document. Zoning Designation: C-M. commercial Manufacturina B. ;;llVIBONM&:!:lTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1- EaJth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement (cut andlor fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? X b. Development andlor grading on a slope greater than 15% natural grade? X c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? X d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? X \. ~ PAGE 1 OF 8 REVISED 12187 . c ----....... -....I PW 88-18 , 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. bIR_RESQQRCES: 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. WATEB_ 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 1C ~ PAGE 2 OF 8 .. ~ '....,; .-"., .....I PW 88-18 r Yes No Maybe """ 7. MAN-MADE HA~b~~: project: Will the a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals o'r radiation)? x b. Involve the release hazardous substances? of x c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? x d. Other? x 8. BOUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? x x b. Other? 9. 1'RA~~i'QETATION/CIRCULATION: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? x b. Use of existing, new, park ing structures? or demand for facilitiesl x c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? x d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? x e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x x ~ tro... PAGE 4 OF 8 REVISED 10/87 .. -- , '- -- PW 88-18 , Maybe ""'lil g. h. Yes A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? Other? of 10. f~~_SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. b. c. d. Fire protection? police protection? Schools (i.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Medical aid? f. Solid waste? g. Other? 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? 2. Electricity? 3. Water? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? b. Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility c. Require the construction of new facilities? No x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X X ~ PAGE 5 OF S 13. ~p~~URA~--F~QURCF.S: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a prehistoric or historic site, structure or object? X c. Other? X 12. AESTBETI~: 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 REVISED 10/87 X X X .~ PAGE 6 OF 8 ,.'" '- - PW 88-18 ~ 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 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) ~ ~ PAGE 7 OF 8 ""'"' '- ,.'.... '-' PW 88-18 ~ ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUA T10N AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1.9- Earth Resources The site is located within a liquefaction environmental constraint area: however, s1nce no habitable structure is involved with the project, a liquefaction report is not required. Once the project desiqn phase beqins soils reports will be procurred to provide desiqn specifications for the improvement plans: therefore no siqnificant impact relative to liquefaction will occur. 9. Transnortation/Circulation The railway line is pre-existinq and is owned/operated by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad Company and runs east and west. The circulation plan for that portion of the central City south Redevelopment Area requires the extension of "F" street from Rialto Avenue which intersects the railroad line. The submitted traffic study projects 7,503 daily trip ends for that section of "F" street and requires that the street have two throuqh lanes for each direction of travel to limit potential impacts to a level of non-siqnificance. In order to reduce potential traffic hazards the Atchison, Topeka. and Santa Fe Railroad requests that the city provide automatic qates as part of the improvements of the "F" street Extension. The followinq mitiqations are required: 1. The section of "F" street "G" street shall have two each direction of travel. from Rialto Avenue to (2) traffic lanes for 2. Automatic installed street. Railway crossinq at the "at qrade" qates shall be crossinq of "F" csj/12-1-88 MISC:ISPW8818 - c ~..~, --' ~ 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 $AN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA A ~1 n LD..rl <:,t";") 1 ~9 > 11' t-'( ~111'\..0\ . Name and Title / r;' 2. -"..J d-I /1 ~ -'-L Signature Date:D.cr..;itV1~'V \ G' 19f;? , Il.. j PAGE 8 OF 8 REVISED 12/87 .11 III' ~IIL . J.A'- ..~ .... . . :. .', ',V~~".I :::':':~:j':';':::::'::'::"::;';~. ~ ".:.\~~::(:!F:~:~ .f.. :/~:::i::/:::'.:;::. . ':;::ji"t"," ..F,.... .'. ...;...,' ....:.........:..... :::.;".i ~. . a.....:.:: . . "..."...... . ", . '" "~ ~~.;.::.~:: :o:}:?:.:; ..;:....:.. ..... .::.:..... ~.~~ : "",'.. .... '. ~ ~.:. . . ..:.... ;, :"':;'.: ~ /(.> .. .. .. 1I ~ J .. .. .. . . :: i .. .. :: .. .. . :2 .. .. .. _..,t. ~. '.... [....;.. . ,:.... ..( t~......,II"".'1 ~ ,,~ --........... ,..I......-I..~..... ....... ~....... P7#/#/#,d tMIut.......,..,""'AK" t~.~_.............. .... ...... .....,.1 "101'0"0 CUlCU..... TION "UN I"/ftJIt>>ID . II F' ~ ",.r. "~F. ~R. GlfltDF X-ING J',' J ] ] ] ] ] 1 ] 1 ] ] ] J ] J J J J l""'- V ,,.".... '-' TRAme ANAL YS1S SIGNAL LOCAnON PLAN STRUT C~CAnON PLAN 2 ~' .J .1 .1 .I : 1 . ] .) - ,""-'" ,......,~" '-' -' Circl&lIdon and Traffk: 1I_.I.....t AM1YsiI The foUowlnlln1ormadon is me relUJt of 1:IIe analysis of 1:IIe most recent modification to the propoleCl Circulation Element for the Central City South Planninl Area (u originaJiy pre..ted In Central City South Plan by UR5 Corporadonl. The proposed modification is illunrated In Pipe 1. The analysis consiau ,of a leneraJized forecast of future travel demand on the circ:uJation network and potentia! "worst-case" traffic impacu &Iona roadway seamenu and at key intersection.. The analysis is based to a Iarle delr.., on previouSlY lenerated data on future land uses within the PlaMina Area, appUcab" trip leneration rates, traffic distribution usumptions, and :existinl traffic conditions. C1n:uIadon Networtc The circulation network is described in Filure 2, and depicted u "Unks" and "nodes" in Figure 3. The proposed key norttl-lOuth arurial streets within the Planninl Area are"G" Street from 3rd Street to Inland Center Drive. and "F" Street from 2nd Street to "G" Street. "F" Street is CIlrrently proposed to terminate at the Lytle Creek Flood Control Channel. The only proposed east-west arterial street is VaJiey Street, rewlned to connect with existing Columbia Street within the PIaMinI Area. The orillnaJ1y proposed relocation o'f the norttlbound 1-21' on and off-ramps at Mill Street to "F" Street north of Mill Street, is CIlrrentiy not under constrUCtion. However. improvements to the norttlbound 1-21' off-ramp at 2nd Street are usumed to be included in the Concept "!o" . circulation network. As previously identified, existinl regional access to the Planninl Area is Umited by the substandard c:onfiguration of freeway ramps, poor street alignments, and lack of norttl- Sduth arteriaJ streets. (nternal c:ircula tion is also limited due to the laclc of developmen t wittlin ttle Planning ""rea. Travet Demand Forec:uu The traffic: analysis zones (T AZ) previously established for the Planning Area under Land Use Aitemative Two, wu utilized in the travel demand forecastinl procedure. The TAZ are illustrated in Figure /J. Previously determined trip leneration data for Land Use Alternative Two were utilized. (S.. Filure ,.) The. data indicated that a total of '4,6" additional vehide trip ends would be lenerated by the subject Planninl Area. if 100 percent build-out were to occur. Previously determined traffic: distribution assumptions ...ere also assumed for the purposes of this analysis. Trip ends were assisned to this c:ircu!ation network. The assilnment data are illustrated in Filure 6. The "toW" column in Filure 6 indicates the projected average daily traffic volumes for eadl of the c:ircula tion network street seamenu (i.e., links). Po,.tial Tra111c ImOKtS As previously determined, the c:alcu!ated trip leneration data indicated that liven the type of land uses proposed, and the number of acres of land involved, the P1anninl Area ...ill not generaJiy produce a silnificant amount of additional traffic. However, the ) . ~I. -: 1 :J :J .J : 1 I I , 1 1 1 J ) ,- '-' , ,--, restricted revised circulation network will be mOd severely impacted alonC two criucal aruria1 secrnenUl (1) "C" Street between ..,.. Street ancI Mill Street, wlUc:II is projecud to inc:reUe in traWc by over 1',000 vehiCle trip encIs per day. (ly comparison, it wu emm.tad dial dIa PlaMinC Are. wou1clCenera<<e only Z,~O vehicle trip ends per day onto me IUbject seament of "C" Street under 1M previously proposed Circulation Element.) (Z) Mill Street be<<ween "H" Street and "C" Street, wIIich is projec<<ed to increase in traffic by over 1/1,100 vellic:1e trip ends per day. (ly comparison, it wu esumatad Nt tile PlanninC Area wou1cllenera<<e only /1,.00 vetlic1e" trip ends per day ontO 1M IUbject secment of Mill Street under the previouslY propoled Circulation !Iement.) In acIclltion, tile northbound l-ZU off-ramp is projected to be lleavily concested by nearly 7,100 vehicle trip ends per day under vus circulation network. This circulaUon network, as described herein, will require the implementation of substantial miucation measures to maintain acceptable leYeis of sel'Yice. The most effecuve of these mitigation measures comes in tile form of new and/or uPlraGed streets of proper design and tratfic carrying capacity; new and/or uPCraGed trafflc signals; and freeway ret&ted improvements. In accordance with the p1&Med p/lUinl of development ",ithin 1M subject Planninc Area, specific recommended improvements inc!ude the foUowinC: I) "C" Street between Rial to A venue and Mill Street, ",ill require two throu'" lanes in each direction, plus a separate southbOund rich<< Nrft lane at Mill Street, and a separate northbound riCht turn lane at ",.. Street. (Phase 1.) 2) "C" Street between ~ill Street and Inland Center Drive, will require twO through lanes in each direction, pius dual left turn lanes on the northbOund "C" Street approach leg to Mill Street. (Phase U.) 3) Mill Street between "I" Street and "E" Street, will require three throuch lanes in each . direction, plus dual left Nrft lanes on the eastbouno "'ill Street approach leg at the "H" Street, "C" Street, and "E" Street intersections. ("C" to "H" Street before Phase 1 is completed - the remainder in Phase U.) ~) "H" Street at ~ill Street, ",ill require dual riCht turn lanes on the northbound "H" Street approach lei at the Mill Street intersection. (Since the north lei of the "H" Street/Mill Street intersection is the northbound on-ramp to the 1-21' Freeway, the outside riCht Nrft lane on the northbOund approach lec can be an optional throuCh/rilht turn lane. (8efore Phase I is completed.) ,) If "F" Street does not go throuch to Mill Street (south of "C" Streed, only one throulh lane in each direction, plus a separate left Nrft lane on the northbound approach lei at the "C" Street intersection ",ill be required. (Phase I.) 6) ..,.. Street between "C" Street and Rialto Avenue ",ill require two through lanes in each direc'tion, and should include a two-",ay left turn lane in Ueu of a median island. (Phase 1.) 7l The southbound "F" Street approach lei at the "C" Street intersection ",ill require dual left turn lanes. (Since only one wou'" lane is needed south of the "C" Street interestion, one of the southbound throu'" lanes on the "P Street approach lei can transition into the outside lane of the dual left Nrft lane confiCuration. (Phase I.) /I ~ ,~ '-' ......, I) vaUey SlNet IMtweeI'I "G" SlNet and "!" SINet, should providl twO wousl' lanes in each dlrecdan andlhouid indudl a twO-way left turn lane in UIU of a median isJand. (PI:IaM IJ 9) The intersections of Riaito AVI/"G" Street and Riaito Avenuel"P' Street, will rlquire twO wousl' laneS and _parateleft turn lanes on all approach IISS. (Phue L) In addition, the nort!lbouncll.21' Preeway off_mps at "M" StreetlMW Street and at 2nd Street, will rlquire subsuntia! improvlment by UIe end of PhaM 1 in order to ..:commodate projected inerta_s in traffic. For multilanl roadway _sments within UIe PlaMinS Aria, No. L throusl' LI/II (j.... the lane nlarllt the clnterline) should be a minimum of II feet in width. The No.2 wouSh lane (or LI/II clOMst to thl curb) should b. a minimum of 16 feet in width. SinSl1 left turn LI/IIS should be a minimum of II feet in width, whill dll&lllft turn LI/IIS may .ac:l\ be La feet in width. Separate rilM turn LI/IIS should be LZ to L_ feet in width, dependins on thl amount and type of truclc traffic anticipated. Raised median islands (1- to L6 feet in width) should be considered alonl Mill Street to controL mid-block Left tum movlments. Similar. median islands should alJO be considered at the "enuancl" intersections to thl Planninl Area, i.... "G" Street at Mill Street, "G" Streit at Riaito AVI, "F" Street at Riaito ,,"venue, on Rialto ,,"venue at "t" Street, on "G" Street at Inland Center Drive, and Valley Street at "E" Sueet. The intersection of "G" Street/"'" Street, per this modification, is reduced ....ith respect to its sisnific:ance to thl Planninl ,,"rea as a "gateway" intersection, and ....ith respect to capacity needs. Therlfore, median islands at this intersection would only serve as an aesthetic enhancement. The intersections of Mill Street/"G" Street, "F" Sueetl"G" Street, Valley Street/"!" Street, "G" Street/Rialto ,,"venue, and "P Street/Rialto ,,"venue, must be all silnalized. The intersections of Valley Sueetl"G" Street, and Valley St~eetl"P Street, may require future sisnaliza tion. The analysis presented herein represents a very generalized assessment of circulation needs within thl Central City South PLanninl ,,"rea. The overall transportation needs of the central business district of thl City of San 6emarclino (particularly ....i th respect to resional access via the 1.21' Freeway), should be further evaluated through in.depth transportation pl&nninl and traffic engineering studies leadins to specific recommendations. The lane configurations and dimensions indicated hereon are valid for the purposes of desisnins roadway and intersections, and should be utilized as approved by tile City of San Bernardino. Howlver, more dltailed ensineerinS studies should be undertaken in order to establish precise alill'ment, horizontal and vertical controls, traffic silnal operations, etc. ... i "" - . Data supplied by KHR ASJOci&tes T ransporta tlon/Environmental/Urban Syl1l1 ms , .. ..1 '""' /"',"" . :1 ; " .. :1 " .. . :1 -< ... ...... , " ..:.:.. ..... ,:;:': 1 :..... . ...... ," " ".:,:-:: t- 0.... 4 , , .. - ,. r/;: /;::,?)?~'F' I ;::.::::'.: ~~~~~,;:: l' :'~'.~\~'''; ~ ~~:"::' "'\ ....... . ...... ..... ~'.~.. . .'," ", ,"_." ." -. " ." ... .. ....:;..: ~ i~?,' .. u .. il ',' - - - ':i',': ~ I .. .. .. . I I F.....t- ' II c/' ,. '",t" I., .... " [':~. ,"_ ..~ t~.....,";".It'1 (M ,..... --......,....., ...... ....-J.......... ...... .....,...., ,.////#//~~ ~"",,,,,,,""M"Ktt ( ~. ,..., .... ---. ........ ........... ~.J II'IIOII'O.ID CIIICULATION 'UN .. FIGURE 1 OJ , J _ 'IIIOW" . MULLINS INC. - ........... , ....".. It" ..."" ............ "'II ... ............ ... ,.. ",., ........ , I .. -6- , ] J . ". , I , - . ,~ p.--'", '-' FIGURE 2 -' SAN BElUfAllDINO UDEV'ELOPHENT AGENCY CENTJAL CITY SO~ MODIFIED NETNOal DESCRIPTION NODE DESCRIPTION ------------------------------------------------------------ ~ 01. 02 03 04 05 07 08 09 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 :z1. 23 24 25 25 28 30 31. 32 33 34 35 , .,j 1 , J , J ~ .~. Street/3r~ Streee "~. Streee/2n~ street .~. Streee/aialto Avenue 'G' Street/valley Street (aealiqned) "G' Streee/"r' Streee "G" sereet/Kill Street" "G' Streee/Inland Center Drive 'r' street/2nd Street 'r' Street/aialto Avenue 'r' Street/Valley Street 'r' Street Cul de Sac "K' Street/Kill Street "K' Street/Inland Center Drive "E' Street/4th Street "E' Street/2n~ Street "E' Street/aialto Avenue "E" Street/Valley Street "E' Street/Kill Str.et "t' Street/Central Avenue . Arro~nead Avenue/2nd Str.et Arrownead Avenue/ai.lto Avenue Arrowhead Avenue/Valley Street Arrowhead Avenue/Kill Street "I' Street/2n~ Street "I' Street/aialto Avenue . I" Street/Kill Street N/B I-21.5 Freeway On-Ramp N/B I-21.5 Freeway Off-Ramp ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 J ... 7 .1' . . c ~ , J " J J , '7 4TH ST J - I _I 18 2 9 2ND ST 25 , , I ~ 19 J2 J 10 ~IAL TO A 26 l- I- I- ..l lJ'I lJ'I lJ'I ~ ... ~ ~ . - \I'l 21 - CO< VALLEY ST 28 ~ I - a 4 2J JJ " MILL S i JO I- ~ lJ'I < Q < ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ < 24 NO SCALE FIGURE 3 Central City South Circulation Network - Alternative 1 Modified .# a ,,-., >..,I '-" . . "TH ST 2ND ST ~IALTO A ... ... ... VI VI VI 1 ~ "" 3 A THOL ST ... VI OAK ST MILL ST ~ -< Q -< .... i Q a:: a:: -< NO SCALE FIGURE 4 Central City South Traffic Analysis Zones - Alternative 2 Modified .. , ., ." ....... - - -'" . ., FIGURE 5 _ _1III1IIlWLII'lIIll' If8Cf CIIIIlllIL CllT 1IllIl1llP lIIIMlllll UIII" "_I. 2 _DAILY DAILY IIIP _TIIII IIIP filii me UIII .. IISIGIloUllll sm IlAJI (II IIIP DIll) _lID ..~ 1'IrMIf"CI L' .all 'lT7//aII. 2._ 1IIIl.,. c.cw l3.J .all IlII/'/aII. I.. 2 ..~ I'IrMIfrrCl 5.0 .all 'lT7//aII. I..' DII'''' CIIIfIi" 12.. .all IlII/'/aII. 1.2111- 3 "1_ I'IrlcIllI'rJCI ..0 .all 'lT7/1D1. 2.21.... a..R1.1 7.' .all 34IIIJtM 2.1ZZ- 4 DIll.,. ClIIlW 1'.4 .all Il111/a11. 1.M! 5 '11111 SIn ..,..-ul,.' 11.5 .all 7lIIIIaI. '.l1li . ..~ I'IrlcIllI'rJCI '.7 .all 'lT7//aII. 2.1117 '11111 SIn e.twllllD' U .all 1lIII/aII. Mil a..R1.1 lQ.3 .all 34III/aII. 3." 7 DIll.,. cnar 3.0 .all 1lIII/aII. 3D ~1.1 1.' .all MI/aII. 5IIZ . ..._I'IrlcIllI"ICI 4.1 .all . 'lT7/1D1. 1.357 . ..._ I'IrlcIllI'rJCI 13.1 aD 'lT7//aII. 3.1121 C--cl.. 4.2 aD MI/aII. 1..... I a..R1.. 12.1 aD Mia 4.115 ..._ I'IrlcIllI'rJCI 14.2 aD mllal. 3.m 10 C--cl.. 1.3 aD 34S11a1. 2." 11 a..R1.1 1'.7 aD 34S11a1. 5.11:1 "lllt4L "'" .all 14._ . - 10 " ~ 11 i. a. [ r [ " l~ " , '. 1- L [ [ t " " HTRAL CITY SctctrH SIGNAL..LOCATION PLAN '. o - EXIS'1'1NG ".w- . - !XlST. '-'L. 10 . UNUDID C - ~ ..I~L. .- NTUIII ~ r I PHASE 1 c nd 5T /II '"" en PHASE 2 c ~ Nrs . , """""1 .. ...- . iJ,,,','rv'll''If'lO - .'- BRO'2JiJtt;tJJ.S. INC. OIT" or IAII. ..IIIIAIIDIIIO CENTRAL CITY SOUTH. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STANDARDS ..... -..- . 1M __.,_ len...... . 12 . , . -."'- -- ENTRAL CITY SdltrH. STREET CI.ASSIFICA TION. PLAN. - "' .... - MA.lClt llMIIID HIGHWAy 11M _.~JClIt tI~JfIl SH - .C~ tI...-r cs -...... I ~CTClll STIlIIT .. In 2nd 5T (MH) AV PHASE 1 57 MH - Future MOH) PHASE 2 "" ~ CENTRA AvE Q c "" :I: ! IE c ~ Air. ,.....IT: ..- OIT'" 0.. ..\11' ....N...OINO . IRQ ceNTRAL CITY SOUTH CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STANDARDS - 13 , . CENTRAL CITY SOtTtH INTERSECTION DIAGRAMS AV""-. .,,,.. ;-J .......~- tfIM ...".....~.... 1-...."" -~-~) I !III .11 ~ I II Lllf I ~ \ II I ;\ \ " I ---1 ,....---- .' .....1 " ':', I I \ L" "- \---- ---- ~ ~u: I...~~. --- ~L..".U.-.. I ..0-.....,.. ,.".. ('J .;y ( . \ ,-unPf6 Ifl/fll" ~ ~ l' \ . . OIT." 0" IAIf "..IU..DIIIO ....AIlIII.,,'... '''- , . ~ 0---'- . . _ . IRo'TJiltJ6ll!. INC. CENTRAL CITY SOUTK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STANDARDS . ..... ......a.- .. ___1_ Icn4l-"- 16 . NTRAL CITY scidTH 'NTERSE'CTION DIAGRAMS - ---------- _____ ___I . . RJ.A.L~:= ~ '" - ""\ "- " """.. ",,""""'" ~"...~ AT _-~r--' /'rY'-) .'.t '. .' ....,.-I"f1. . ~ - t- 11,1 ,11,1 a: t- en I I J...-- ;I __ I I --~ " -- I II \ I \ Vi \ \\'\\ :\ II \ II \111 1\, a- ,\ 11 . I 1\ I <<....1.4: I~.~. -- ~ -- - ~ .-~ ------------- ------------ A-V-E*Y E-- ,11 i/ f I ~'""" v--... ........."...,.(,..",.) n' I I OIT" 0,. IAII ,,""A"DI"O UNTRAL CITY SOUTH, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STANDARDS 19 ~ '-'" ; """ r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING OEP ARTMENT PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM ~ j , {PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS SHALL INCLUOE ATTACHMENT 'A'l """lIii , A. 9ENERAL lNFORMATIOH 1. Applicant/Developer APPLICATION NUMBER 2. Contact person for environmental ROQ~r G. HArrlQr~vp Name (.20"''' Name rity nf ~an R~~n20~rl;n~ Firm 300 North "0" Street Street Address Firm Street Address San 8ernaridno. CA. City State 384-5111 Telephone Number 92418 Zip City State Zip Telephone Number 3. Address/General Location of Project "F'" .ar....' .pprnv;m'h1y 300' South of Rialto Avenue at AT & Sr tracks! 4. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 5. Description of Project New at qrade public crossina of "F" None S~rp_t ~t AT ! ~~ g20;'~~aA 6. Will any permits be required from agencies other than the city? )( yes no If yes, list the permits and responsible agency: See ~xo'~n~t;nn in att.arhm.nt .... \... pAGE ,CK- 5 REVISEO 10/87 c 2. 4. Site Area: Building Height: Building Area: Non-applicable square feet, acres. B. P~OJ.BC:~.~ 1. feet 3. Number of Floors: square feet s. parking Required: ---- space. 6. Parking Provided: spaces 7. Will project be built in phases? ____ yes ---- no a. If yes, how many units/square feet per phase? b. Total units, square feet? C. LAND y~~ subject Property: Mf'lt' apI"; ra:d",' A ~t~AA+ o;gk+-^~-Y~Y North Existing: Industrial and vacant proposed: C-M " " south " " East " " West D. f~J~~~ SITE 1. Indicate any unique existing topographic features. 2. Will the project modify existing natural features? Explain. Nnn~ Wf"'I 3. If applicable, estimate cubic yards of grading involved in project: NIA Cut- Fill- 4. Maximum height and grade of natural slopes: NIA PACEZOF 5 REVISED 12/87 o N/A s. Maximum height ano graoe of construct eo slopes: 6. MethOds oudlle) used to prevent soil ,erosion in construction and after development: project area NIA E. FLORA al'lU.. [~YlI~ 1. List types of vegetation and trees in project area: N/A 2. List types of wildlife found in project area: NIA F. b~~~9~~~~kLHISTORICAL 1. Is there any known of the site area or If so, explain: archaeological within 1/2 mile None known or historical significance from the proposed site? G. HtJMANJbUIY POTEllTIAL 1. Will the project increase project area? Explain. ex ist ing no ise No levels in the 2. Will the project use, store hazardous materials such as or explosives? Explain or dispose of potentially toxic substanCes, flammables No 3. Will the project increase the amounts of dust, ash, smoke or odors during construction or after development? Explain. Nn H. [~~~rI_~~I~~IMPACTS Not Applicable 1. Location of nearest Fire Station: Distance from project site: PAGE 3 OF 5 REVISED 10/87 o - """liI 2. Location of nearest police Station: Distance fro. project site: 3. Location and names of nearests schools: r School district: 5. Distance from project site:. Location and name of nearest parks: DistanCe from project site: Location and name of nearest. library: Distance from project site: 4. 6. Are sewer trunk lines available within 200 feet of project site? ____ yes ____ no If no, how far? 7. Are sewer capacity rights available? ____yes ____no number . (Check with Water Dept.) 8. Are water trunk lines available within 200 feet of project site? _ yes ____ no I. MITIGATI9~-MEASURES (Attach additional sheets if necessary) type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to or eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental Describe mitigate impacts: .-... ..-- PAGE' OF \... REVISED 12/87 J. aT'rACJJMEN'rS. -- (20 copies of 11-5, if require~ Yes No y 1. GeOlogy/SoilS aeport 2. Liquefaction aeport 3. Traffic aeport y 4. Noise Andy.'!i.S 5. Drainage Study 6. Prelimina~y Grading Plan It. CERTIU~bl'J9!:! y. y. x y. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Mav 10. 1988 DATE ROGER. G. NAME FOR: Public Works Department Di ,.@~tnr of Pub' ; ~ Wo,..k~/Ci tv Enq TITLE PAGE 5 OF 5 REVISED 12/87 "''''\ ,r o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM PUBLIC WORKS PROJ.CTS AnACMII.NT eA- ~ '" '" ... r 1. Application NUmber: z. Initiating Department: Public Wroks/Engineering 3. contact Person: Mike GrubbS Telephone No.: 384-5179 4. How will this project be funded? Exact funding unknown. but assessment district presently being considered. 5. Is this project part of a larger or future project? ..l..- yes _ no If yes, explain: circulation plan Central City South ~edevelopment area 6. Have Public Health and Safety Findings been made? ____ yes --1- no If yes, give date of adoption by City Council: ~ '" p~lOFI 10187 1"'" '-' '"", ...J Explanation of Project: , E'xtension of "F" Street, South of Rial to to "G" Street. is necessary to implement the Central City South Redevelopment Plan. There is no existing right of way or improvements on "F" Street South of RiaTto Avenue. In order to complete "F" Street according to Plan, a new grade crossing on the A.T. & S.F. tracks South of Rillto will be required. The following steps must be completed to obtain a new grade crossing on an existing railroad line: a) Obtain concurrence of railroad company, b) Apply to the Public Utilities Commission for the new grade crossing. We have already obtained concurrence from A.T.& S.F. (subject to certain conditions) and are currently preparing our application to the PUC for the new crossing. One requirement of the application is that a copy of the Envi ronmenta 1 Rev ie'll be provi ded. therefore. we are requesting environmental clearance for the crossing only. Environmental Review of the actual construction of the crossing and related street improvements will be the subject of a future environmental review application when the proposed assessment district to Lnd the improvements is more fully developed. The attached traffic analysis prepared by Brown and Mullins. Inc. indicates that "F" Street should be four thru lanes with a two-way left turn lane. The A.T. & S.F. Railroad is requiring that the City install automatic gates at the proposed "F" Street crossing. and at the existing crossings on "E" Street and "G" Street together with closing several existing crossings along their line as a condition of their approval of the new crossing.