Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-Public Works File No. 15.30-267 CITY OF SAN BERNQIDINO -REQUEST P~i COUNCIL ACTION Adoption of Negative Declaration From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE EtgG'TI _AiJ)~ili ~pject: & Finding of Consistency with the ~~''++~~ circulation element of the General rll(spt: Publ i c Works/Engi neeri n ~ _8 Pik 3: tyg P1 an -- Vacation of a 145 foot portion of Esperanza Street Date: 6/5/89 located between the right-of-way Synopsis of Previous Council action: Public Works Project No. 89-16 03-13-89 -- Authorization to proceed and plan approved. Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-16, vacation of a 145 foot portion of Esperanza Street, located between the right-of-way of I-215 and "H" Street, be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that the vacation of a 145 foot portion of Esperanza Street, located between the right-of-way of I-215 and "H" Street, is consistent with the circulation element o he General Plan. cc: Marshall Julian, City Administrator Jim Richardson, Dept. City AdmlDev na re Contact person: Roger G. Hardgrave phone: 5025 emo, a epor ega ive Supporting data attached: Declaration dhd Map Ward: 2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) r (Acct. Description) Finance: ~ouncil Notes: ~s-ozsz Agenda Item No..-~_ CITY OF SAN BERNlIRDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-16 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of 5/4/89. A 14-day public review period was afforded from 5/11/89 to 5/25/89. No comments were received. We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and a finding made that the 5/4/89 project is consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan. 6/5/89 75-0264 o "~~ C ITY OF S AN BERNARD I NO ~ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDOM 8804-1505 TO: Gene Rlatt, Assistant City Engineer FROM: Tricia D. Thrasher, Planner II SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Public Works Projects DATE: May 19, 1989 COPIES: Mike Grubbs, Engineering Department; Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner;. Vern Nadeau, Real Property; Jim Richardson, Duputy City Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------ At its meeting of May 4, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee found that the following project was Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301. Public Works Project No. 89-16 - To vacate a 145 foot portion of Esperanza Street located between right-of-way of interstate 215 and "H" Street. This Initial Study (see attached) has already receive a 14 day public review from May I1, 1989 to May 25, 1989. Comments received during the review period have been addressed by the Planning Department and the comments and responses are attached. ,You must schedule the projects before the Mayor and Common Council for adop- tion 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. /l/GGLDV ~~Lfi'o~L. TT i~Cia D.D. Thrasher Planner II TDT:clp Attachments: Initial Study ' ~'+~ CS MEMOPW8916 rr./ 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARl~INO . PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY City of San Bernardino Planning Department Initial Study Public Works Project No. 89-16 To vacate a 145 foot portion of Esperanza Street located between right of way of Interstate 215 and "H" Street. May 4, 1989 Prepared for: Public Works Department City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared by: Ras Cannady Planning Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT !NlTIAL STUDY Public Works Project No. 89-16 is to vacate a 145 foot portion of Esperanza Street, located between right of way of Interstate 215 and "H" Street. The site is a paved street surrounded by a commercial building to the north, church to the south, vacant lot to the east and Interstate 215 to the west. The site is relatively level and located in a liquefaction zone. C4 ISPWP8916A © o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. A$ CRGROUND Application Number: Public Works Project No. 89-16 Project Description: 7b vacate a 145 foot x~ortion of Esr+eranza Ctra~t Location: 'fie right of way of Interstate 215 west of "H" Street_ Environmental Constraints Areas: Liquefaction zone General Plan Designation: ""'T-' re„+ral r;+., ~„+r, M;Y,~ rr~ ® Zoning Designation: C-M Cartnercial-Manufacturing District ~ B. E~IRONM~NTA IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. ~ 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe I I a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or % more? I I b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 158 X ~ natural grade? c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies X Zone? ® d. Modification of any unique X geologic or physical feature? REVISED 12/87 PAGE 1 OF 8 ~ O Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the x project site? f. Modification of a channel, X creek or river2 g. Development within an area subject to landslides, mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards? x h. Other? ~ R 2. SIR RES~IRCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality? X ® b. The creation of objectionable odors? x c. Development within a high wind hazard area? X 3. W~R~~tESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? 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 REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF B o ' Yes No Maybe 4. ~iOLOGiCA~tFS00RCE$: Could the proposal result ins a. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of~ plants or their habitat including stands of x trees? -.--- b. Change in the number of any unique, rare of endangered species of animals or their habitat? x c. Other? x 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? x b. Exposure of people to extecior noise levels over 65 d8 or interior noise levels over 45 dB? % c. Other? x 6. LAND_ USE: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? R b. Development within an Airport District? % c. Development within "Greenbelt" Zone A,B, or C? X d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? % e. Other? x REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 0 I `.r~~ ' ' Yes No Maybe 7. MAN-MADE HAZ~iItp,$: hill the project: a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not i limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b. Involve the release of X hazardous substances? c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X d. Other? X 6. ~QUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? X b. Other? X 9. T~ANbSgO~2TATI0N/CIRCULAT N: 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, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? X c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x REVtSEO t0~87 PAGE a OP e . ~ Yes No Maybe g• A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? x h. Other? K 10. py~~C_~^fRVICES Wi12 the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? _X_ c. Schools (i.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Medical aid? ® f. Solid waste? X g. Other? 11. gT~LITIES: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or requite the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? X 3. Water? x 4. Sewer? 5. Other? All existing utilities g b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? x c. Require the construction o£ new facilities? x REVISED 10/87 PAGE 5 OF 8 Yes No Maybe 12. ~ESTHETI~: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic x view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? X c. Other? X 13. QU~~UR~\L R~Q()RCES: Could the proposal result in: ' a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic ' archaeological site? R b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a prehistoric or historic site, structure oc object? X c. Other? X 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) I 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. i a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ~ quality of the environment, ~ substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife i 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 t0/87 PAGE 6 OF e o ~ Yes No Maybe important examples of the major periods. of California x 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.) 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 X significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, x either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 o D. DETERMI~j•~Q]i ® 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. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ~ ~ ~ I~Q.~ sal - P.,uh~ x~.w.~m._~.N n r., N//a/~me and Title ~/~ ® Signature Date: ~ ~ 1 ~ r~'~ REVISED t2/87 PAGE 8 OF 8 -- o 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASIJFiES l.g. The street is located in a liquefaction cone. Liquefaction studies are required only when projects involve structures for human occupancy. Since the project does not involve any structures, no study is required. 9.d. The Engineering/Public Works Department has determined that the vacation meets State criteria/guidelines for vacation. The vacation also meets the current levels of service and the circulation needs of the Streets and Highways Master Plan. The vacation of the street will not create any significant health/impacts with the following mitigation: 1. All existing easements for utilities must be reserved. C4 ISPWP8916B - .- o !1 i4 , 19 i 20 Z ~ ' !x ~ ~ ° R~l011 of Ur~rif i ~ ~ b p• e. s/s4 !3 ~ i 1 ~ ~J•e• -STR Ff T e --1 £SPfRANZA AREA ro BF ' VRCATED e ' ' ~ i ` • 9 ~ ~ ~ ' T ~- 3 ~ 2 ! 10 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ® c~; Ll a ~.': Lt ~ T T ti . r scµc ,•~ !ee' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DIR C OR OF PUiLi K iTV ENGINEER PLIE~LIC MORKS DEPARTMENT ENOINEERINCi DIVISION Prepared byf L. FOOA88Y Sh~~t REAL PROPERTY SECTION CMcK~d by t es1/ 1 of 1 DATE s -~ STREET /ALLEY VACATION i AREA VACATED SNOWN TNUf ESPERANtA STREET WEST of " H' STREET FiIE NO.t ~1,+J0-~t67 PLAN NO.t 7y~ d AGENDA COY pF 3AN BERNAR~NG G pEPARTt~AENT ITEM # public Works No. 89'16 LC)C~?T1~'N HEARING DATE ~_t ~ i ~ . 1 R I _ M' 1 ". ~jl 1~.~..~ R-1 R 1 = ~ 1 ~t R•t s R-= R•9 R•1 `aa • M- t R•a R•t R a R. t N pM~~ :.a R.2 R•a M-1 W R.a R t C-M = M-1 •9' R•t M•1 1M1 '•1 T Rd R'1 • • . 0 'o' •o M t M-2 ,a~Rl wl C-M M 1 '0• a T R't R't M.Z 5 :1 T Rt R R't M-t R'1 C M M•Y qe ,M MION R-9 t.i.. R•1 feNOCI. M•1 M•1 'd i Y•t R•3 R.j c c-a s 1 C-M C•M ® R-3 R-3 •o ;a T i .1 a Ri C•Y C-M C -M M. t Y-t r R.3 R•3 cY R-1 R•t T = M.1 R- 1 e•Y ~ 1 E \ :aT R"t r I Md . ~v'.\ C-M ~ ~ \ i oR' ~ ~ T C-M ~'Y „~/ \ OV R-1 C Y C Y '/ ` ~ ~-M ~I 1 ,, G r ~ MD Mahe ~ ~ ' V a { 1 c' Y t t R-1 R•t ~ 1 i - 1 C T R-t R'Y ~+t~ ' t:t.cw t cY -1 11 ~ a CtTT IY/Ta ,`\ ~•pi r~/~ R-1 t 4 F`~ I ,111 R•t R•I R•1 R•1 R•1 / // ~ C.~ R-1 C-M /~/ C•M ~~, M'1 1 ~JC.