The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS01-Public Works !!ll "-I 1, CITY OF SAN BERtGRDINO File No. 15.30-279 - REQUEST QR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 5-15-89 Adoption of Negative Declaration Su~~: & Finding of Consistency with the Interim Policy Document --- Vacation of a Frontage Road approximately 830' Long, Located West of Waterman Avenue, So. of Caroline St. Public Works Project No. 89-14 From: ROGER G . HARDGRAVE Dept: Public Works/Engineering Synopsis of Previous Council action: 03-20-89 -- Authorization granted to proceed and plan approved. Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-14, vacation of a frontage road approximately 830' long, located west of Waterman Avenue and South of Caroline Street, be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that the vacation approximately 830' long, located west of south of Caroline Street, is consist Document. of a frontage road Waterman Avenue and ith the Inter' 0 icy cc: Jim Robbins Jim Richardson Contact parson: Roqer G. Hardqrave Staff Report, Initial Study, and Map Phone: 5025 Supporting data attached: Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Waqes on W.O. 01266 Source: (Acct, No.) 001-302-53157 (Acct. DescriPtion) Street Vacation Proceedings Finance: ~ ~~ Council Notes: Aoenda Item No, .5 - / A CITY OF SAN BIERNCRDINO - RIEQUIEST OR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-14 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Re- view Committee at its meeting of 4-20-89. A 14-day public review period was afforded from 4-27- 89 to 5-10-89. 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. URGENCY CLAUSE: A resolution of intention for the vacation will be on the Council Agenda of 6-5-89. Past practice has been to have the Negative Declaration adopted prior to or concurrently with the resolution of intention. Plans have been sub- mitted for development of the adjoining parcel. These items will need to be acted upon at the Council meeting of 6-5-89 in order to avoid delaying the development. 5-15-89 75.0264 1 . , C I T ~O F SAN B ERN A R ~ N 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8904-1801 TO: Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer FROM: Tricia D. Thrasher, Planner II SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Public Works Projects DATE: April 24, 1989 COPIES: Mike Grubbs, Engineering Department; Ann Larson perbix, Senior Planner; Vern Nadeau, Real Property ------------------------------------------------------------- At its meeting of April 20, 1989, the Environmental Reivew Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for the following Public Works projects: Public Works Project No. 89-14 - To vacate a frontage road, approximately 830 feet long, located west of Waterman Avenue and south of Caroline Street. This Initial Study (see attached) will receive a 14 day public review from April 27, 1989 to May 10, 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 with your request for Council Action form. The Planning Depart- ment will file the Notice of Determination after adoption of the Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice will be sent to you. ~~Z~S~ Planner II kdm PW89-14M CD \D ~....j ...~; !Q 'i.'::! ;'2 ~~ := ~ f~:~ V~ '.'lo ~ -- T'" ~ '.~t~ .') Z ::~ 7t;;,; --. .,... '..1. ',....-. .r.-'...... Attachments: Water Department Standard Requiremtns Initial Study AI::> ~fVItfN~ ~vt$ ~ ~/Cdl 77ftlASH!!'fZr I"t<M:r $-I.5"-8'f ." :II:: w c..." L-1_~ coy OF SAN BERNA~INO '>..r; PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY I """I PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-14 To vacate a frontage road, approximately 830 feet long, located west of Waterman Avenue and south of Caroline Street. April 20, 1989 Prepared for: Department of Public Works City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 Prepared by: Tricia O. Thrasher Planning Department City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 cr1y OF SAN BERNAPQINO '",.., PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY "'" r Public Works Project No. 89-14 is approximately 830 feet long. The parallel to and west of Waterman end. to allow a street vacattpn of a frontage road frontage road is a north/south street running Avenue. south from Caroline Street to a dead- The site is an irregularly-shaped parcel totalling approximately 1.4 acres. It is currently a paved local street and is located in the 500 year flood area and an area of high liquefaction potential. ^ - , CITY OF SAN BERNAR INO ""IIi PLANNING OEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST .. ~ ,. ""IIi A. BACKGROlllW Application Number: Public Works No. 89-14 Project Description: Vacation of a frontaae road aooroximatelv 830 feet in lenath. Location: West of Waterman Avenue. south of Caroline Street. Environmental Constraints Areas: 500 vear flood Area: hi2h susceotibility to LiQuefaction. Interim Policy Document . CR - Commercial Re~ional . Zoning Designation: M-l, LiIlht Industrial B. ~NVIBONM~~-1MPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1- Ea!:~h Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes tlo 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. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? x li... ~ REVISED 12/87 PAGE 1 OF 8 . , . . , - Yes ""lll 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, liquefaction or hazards,? x h. Other? x 2. ~1B-RESQY~: 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. ~6n:B_ RESOURCES: 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? d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? f. Other? 1C x x ~ ~ REVISED 12187 PAGE 2 OF 8 . , "" , 4. BIOLOGIC6~~SOURCE$: proposal result in: Could the a. Change unique, species habitat trees? b. Change unique, species habitat? c. Other? in the number of any rare or endangered of plants or their including stands of in the number of any rare or endangered of animals or their 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to noise levels over 65 interior noise levels dB? exterior dB or over 45 b. c. Other? 6. LAND USE: r-esul tTil: 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? ....... - Yes No x x x x x x x x Maybe ~ ~ ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 ~ . . - Maybe ""'IIil ,. Will the 7. MAN-MADE HA~~N>~: project: 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. HQY~: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. 1'BM!~i'QI!TATIO~RCULATION: 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 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? IlIo.. REVISEO 10/87 -0 No x x x x x x x x x x ~ PAGE 4 OF 8 , - Maybe ""'" ,', . - - A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? h. Other? of g. 10. i~~_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. Y!ILITIES: 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? b. Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility c. Require the construction of new facilities? !l.. REVISED 10/87 es No x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ~ PAGE 5 OF 8 . '. n Maybe " ,. 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? 13. Could the ~~~~URA~--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) lo... 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 - Yes No x x x x ~ PAGE 6 OF 8 , " - - 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.) ~ ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF a ENV1RONMe.Cf AL EV ALUA TJOH AND MJt:;A rlON MEAS~ES l.g. 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 liquefaction 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. 3.e. The site is located in the 500 year flood plain (City Hazards Map). However, a street vacation does not constitute development and of itself will not result in exposure of people or property to flood hazards. Any development proposed as a result of an approval of the vacatio~would be subject to the CEQA review process. . 9.d. The proposed vacation is not anticipated to alter present circulation patterns in that it is a deadend street surrounded by vacant property which can take future access from Caroline Street. - u_ "I I I I I I I :i@ . ~," ~;, . . . 'C' . .-- < . Po,. 3 @ pOI Par. I @ Par.' 8 ; ., ~ . ., ~ @ ! ~. l Ll4AC. ~ Par. lit 7 .. ~@ ., ~ ~ ~ 3AC. Foe" .i @~ . .. .,.." Par.2 , lc . ~.~ .. , ' . . ~H /~ '- 1" __ /A/..a-> 10"""" .#11: ~I. "'MU~ ~ 8 ""r.3 2. 21 C. ~ @ '.3Ul:. l ~ I~.~ ~ . A..~ '" ~. v"eA1'C @ Por." 1.5 C. 1" ~ 'Z.DOI' . ~ I SS' gp I., I ~ I " ~ I I MAP 401-31.30& !'AIt, , @ ..,. AC. - Fl. _ ___ - - - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~a.JC l<<3f'K8 aPMTMENT P--..'UNII DIYl81CJN RaM.. ~"CfI...-rV 8aCTICJN "''''T I ALLEY WlCRION I V"tA1'ION tJF FR.OA/rlN-lI R.f)~/j.- war ,>' WAT'EItMAN AV.NU., "CUT" tF ~~A.~ Na s,.,....-r 'UII "0.1 77:1. 'IL "0.1'1:30- '1 - . . '...... , ^ - - """"Ill D. DETERMINA7J~ 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. o o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL -REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Ann Larson-Perbix. Environmental Review Committee Name and Title ~ f. ~-'":J ....""~ """'.-. ignature Date: ~ -,3-0 - 89 ... ~ REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8