HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-Public Works
CITY, OF SAN BEC)IARDINO - REQUESQ.~1!R ~f?U'!~!~6~CTION
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Subject:
Adoption of Negative Declaration &
Finding of Consistency with the
Parks and Recreation Element of
the General Plan - Construction
of Buckboard Park, Phase I, lo-
cated on SE'ly Side of Kendall
Drive, SE'lv of Pine Avenue
Public Works Project No. 92-01
Dept: Public Works/Engineering
Date: 5-01-92
Synopsis of Previous Council ection:
June, 1986 Allocation of $10,000 in 1985-86 Park Construction
Fee Budget, for development of concept plan for
Buckboard Park, approved.
June, 1986 - Application of Supplemental funds in the amount of
$15,000, for development of concept and design plans
for Buckboard Park, approved in 1986-87 Park
Construction Fee Budget.
10-05-87 -- Resolution No. 87-366 adopted authorizing the
execution of an agreement with Kammeyer & Associates
for professional design.
June, 1988 - Allocation of $250,000 in 1988-89 Park Construction
Fee Budget, approved.
(Cont. on 2nd Page)
Recommended motion:
1. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 92-
01, construction of Buckboard Park, Phase I, located on the
southerly side of Kendall Drive southeasterly of Pine Avenue,
be adopted.
2. That a finding be made that the construction of Buckboard
Park, Phase I, is consistent with the Parks and Recreation
Element of the General Plan.
cc: Shauna Clark
Supporting data attached:
Roger G. Hardgrave
Staff Report, Notice
Init.Study,Neq.Dec.,
Phone:
of Preparation,
Map Ward:
5025
Contact person:
5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item No
q
CITY, OF SAN BEOARDINO - REQUEs()FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 92-
01 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Com-
mittee at its meeting of April 23, 1992.
A 21-day public review pp.riod was afforded from April 30,
1992, to May 20, 1992. No comments were received.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and
a finding made that the project is consistent with the Parks and
Recreation element of the General Plan.
SYNOPSIS OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Continued:
June, 1989 - Allocation of $200,000 in 1989-90 Park Construction
Fee Budget approved.
12-18-89 -- Finding made that scope and concept has been changed,
and paynent of an additional $1,020 to Kammeyer &
Associates approved.
June, 1990 - Allocation of $110,000, in 1990-91 Park Construction
Fee Budget, approved.
June, 1991 Allocation of $200,000 in 1991-92 Park Construction
Fee Budget approved.
01-06-92 -- Plans approved for Buckboard Park, Phase I, and auth-
orization given to advertise for bids.
05-01-92
75.0264
o
o
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration
for the following projects. The Environmental Review Committee
found that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment on the basis of the Initial Study and mitigation
measures (if applicable).
PARCEL MAP NO. 13885 WITH VARIANCE NO. 92-06 - To subdivide 36.37
acres into 7 parcels ranging in size from 5 acre to 7.2 acres with
a variance request to allow an approximately 1,000 foot long cul-
de-sac for access to one of the proposed lots. The site is located
adjacent to I-215 and the Cable and Devil creek Flood Control
Channels in the IH, Industrial Heavy, General Plan land use
district.
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06 - To change the General Plan
designation from IL to CR-3 on an approximately 23 acre site
surrounded by Caroline street on the north, Waterman Avenue on the
west, the Southern Pacific Railroad on the south and Gardena street
on the east.
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 92-01 - Construction of Buckboard Park
including landscaping and irrigation, street improvements along
Kendall Drive, some trees, grading and a site located on the
southerly side of Kendall Drive, southeasterly side of Pine Avenue
in the PP, Public Park, General Plan land use designation.
Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at the
Planning and Building Services Department, 300 North ROn Street,
San Bernardino, California 92418, and the Feldheym Library, 555
West 6th street, San Bernardino, California. Any environmental
comments you have should be received in this office no later than
4:00 p.m., May 20, 1992. If you do not respond in writing, we will
assume that you have no opinions and/or recommendations on the
above projects.
PUBLISH:
April 28, 1992
April 30, 1992
SUBMITTED:
ci ty of San Bernardino
(714) 384-5057
NOTICEOFPREP
DRC4-.-92
"2.~ I:S
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
r
""'I
Initial Study for Environmental Impacts
for
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 92-01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION and LOCATION :
Construction of Buckboard Park includinq landscapinq and
irriqation, street improvements alonq Kendall Drive, some
trees, qradinq and a wallalonq the eastern side of a 17
acre site located on the southerly side of Kendall Drive,
southeasterly of Pine Avenue in the PP, Public Park,'
General Plan land use desiqnation. .
April 15, 1992
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Public Works/Enqineerinq Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared by:
Patti Nahill
Associate Planner
city of San Bernardino
Planninq and Buildinq Services Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
.
~-=-===
PlAN-8..D7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
o
o
1.0 IBTRODUCTIO.
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an
Initial Study for Public Works Project No. 92-01 which
proposes the construction of Buckboard Park including
landscaping and irrigation, street improvements along Kendall
Drive, some trees, grading and a wall along the eastern side
of a 17 acre site located on the southerly side of Kendall
Drive, southeasterly of Pine Avenue in the PP, Public Park,
General Plan land use designation.
2.0 PROJBCT DBSCRIPTIO.
The applicant's request is for the construction of Buckboard
Park including partial landscaping and irrigation, street
improvements along Kendall Drive, some trees, grading and a
wall along the eastern side of the project. The completed
park will be fully landscaped and irrigated and shall contain
a physical fitness circuit, walking trails, two tot lots with
swings, slides and playsystems, in addition to having picnic
areas and restrooms. The additional work such as play
equipment, trash enclosures, drinking fountains, restrooms and
other minor construction details on the site will be handled
under separate contacts.
The site is owned by the City of San Bernardino and is
designated PP, Public Park according to the City's General
Plan.
2.1 Projeot Site aDd surrounding Area Characteristics
The 17 acre site is located between 1-215 on the west and
Kendall Drive on the east and adjacent to Buckboard Drive on
the south. The proposed site for the park is currently vacant
of structures, however it does contain a number of trees, the
majority are California Walnuts. The balance of the on-site
vegetation is non-native plant species. The existing grade of
the site is generally flat with elevation ranges between 1577
feet in the southern corner to 1591 feet in the northern
corner of the property. The soil type is mapped as Tujunga
gravelly loamy sand and surficial geology consists of
Alluvium.
The immediate area surrounding the proposed park is comprised
of I-2l5 to the southwest, a vacant lot followed by Cable
Creek to the north and northwest, Kendall Road to the east and
existing residential properties to the south.
3.0 BllVIROmm!l'1'AL ASSBSSMB!l'1'
3.1 Bnvironmental setting
The subject site is located in a High Wind Hazard Area, a
Biological Resources Management OVerlay area and experiences
High Noise from 1-215 and Kendall Drive. There are existing
trees on-site that will be incorporated into the proposed
development.
. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTtv1ENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: Public Works Proiect No. 92-01
ProjectDescription: Construction of Buckboard Park including landscaDina and
irrigation. street imDrovements along Kendall Drive. some trees. aradina
and a wall along the east side
Location: Southerly side of Kendall Drive. southeasterly of Pine Avenue
Environmental Constraints Areas: Hi gh Wi nd Ha7ard Area _ Ri 01 ogi ca 1 Resources Manage-
ment Overlay & High Noise Area from Kendall and 1-215
General Plan Oesignalion: PP. Public Park
Zoning Oesignalion: pp _ Pub 1; c Pa rk
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, an a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resource. Will the proposal result in: Ves No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic X
yards or mare?
b. Development and/or greding an a slope greater X
than 15% natural grade?
c. Development within the Alquist.priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 . Geologic X
& Seismic, F"l!lure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d. MadWication of any unique geologic or physical X
feature? .
.
e. Development within areas defined far high potential far
water or wind erosion as identWied in Section 12.0 -
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General X
Plan?
f. MadWicalion of a channel, creek or river? X
~~
PLAN-1.lIO PAGE 1 OF l 111.ocl)
, , ~
r
g, Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No .Maybe
mudlllldes, Iiquetaclion or other similar hazards as
idenlllied in Section 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic, X
FlglnS 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan?
h. Other? X
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal resull in:
a. Substantial air emisSions or an effect upon ambient X
air quality as defined by AQMD?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? )(
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0. Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's )(
General Plan?
3. Wmr Resources: Will the proposal resull in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to X
impermeable surfaces?
b. Chenges in the course or flow of flood waters? X
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alleration X
of surface water quality?
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? X
e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 ~ - A, and Section 18.0. X
Flooding, Figure 62. of the City's General Plan?
I. Other? X
4. BlologlcIIl Resources: Could the proposal resull in:
a. Development within the Biological Rasouroes
Management Overlay, as identifIed In Saction 10.0
_ Natural Rasouroes, FIllUr8 41, of the Clty's X
General Plan?
b. Chenge in the number of any unique, rare or
lIIldangered species of plants or their habitat including X
stends of trees?
c. Chenge in the number of any unique, rare or X
endangered species of animals or their habitat?
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6' or greater) )(
e. Other? X
5. NolM: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of houSing, health cera facilities, schools,
Ubraries, raligious facilities or other "noise' sensiIiYe uses
in areas where existing or futura noise kMtls exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A=rior and an Ldn of 45 dB~~ Interior
as identified in . n 14.0. Noise, Figures and X
58 of the City's General Plan?
...
5'J!...C!~~ ............ P",.u OF.1.- (11-10)
. , n
~
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial. Ves No Maybe
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
area conteining housing. schools, heatth care facilities
or other sensttive uses ebove an Leln 01 65 dB(A) exterior X
or an Leln of 45 dB(A) intarior?
c. Other? X
8. und u..: Will the proposal ruutt in:
a. A change in the land use a designated on the X
General Plan?
b. Development within an Airport District as identWied in the
Alr InstaUatlon Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and )(
the land Use Zoning District Map?
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zonu A & B, or C as )(
identWied on the land Use Zoning Distrid Map?
d. Other? X
7. Man-Made HaZlIrde: Willlha project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazanlous or
toxic materials (including but not lim~ed to oil, X
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release 01 hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the potential heatthlsalety hazards? X
d. Other? X
8. Houelng: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand X
lor add~ional housing?
b. Other? X
I. Trenepormtlon I ClrcuIMlon: Could the proposal, in
comparison ~h the Circulation Plan as identWied in Section
6.0 - Circulation 01 the ~'s General Plan, resutt in:
a. An incr_ in traffic that is greater than the land X
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use 01 existing, or demand lor new. perking X
facilities/structures?
c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X
d. Atteratlon of present patterns 01 circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or X
pedutrians?
g. A disjointed pattem of roadway improvements? X
h. SignWicant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways X
or Intersections?
i. Other? X
g:.&~ 'LAN-I.08 'MJE 300 L (11-10)
~
10. Public Servlw8: Will the PfllPOsaI impaclthelollowing Y.s No Maybe
beyond th. capability to provide adequate IeVll,ls 01 s.rvice?
a. Fn protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools (i.... att.ndance, boundari.s, ov.rload, .tc.)? X
d. Parks or oth.r recreationallacil~ies? X
e. Medical eid? X
I. Solid Wast.? X
.
g. Other? X
11. Utllltlee: Will the proposal:
a. Impect the following beyond th. capability to
pnwide adequate IeVllts 01 service or require the
construction 01 new faciUties?
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electricity? X
3. Water? X
4. Sewer? X
5. Other? X
b. Resuft in e disjointad pattem of utility .xtensions? )(
c. Require the construction 01 new Iacll~ies? ~
12. Ae8thetlc8:
a. Could the pIOpOsaI resuft in the obstruction 01 any X
scenic view?
b. Wiil the visuel impact of the projlIcI be dlllrimentel X
to the surrounding lIl8a?
c. Other? X
13. CUnurel Reeou_: Could the PfllPOsaI resuft in:
a. The eftendlon or destruction 01 a prehistoric or
historic erchuoIogicals~. by development ~in an
archuological sensitive lIl8a as identified in Section X
3.0 . Historical. FIgure 8, 01 the City's General Plan?
b. Afteration or destruction 01 a historical site, structur.
or object as listed In the City's Historic Resources X
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other? X
..
-..--
.
r
n
14. MIlndatory Finding. of SlgnUlclInce (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality I'd states that H any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the projec:l may have a signHicant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be preplll'ed.
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wlldlHe species, cause a fish or
wIldl.e population to drop below ..I sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate. plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the dislldvantage a11ong-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definRive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the Mure.)
~
x
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
IimRed, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more ..parate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is signlicant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effec:ls which will
cause substantial ad_ effects on human beings,
eRher direc:lly or indiractly?
x
I
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAllON AND MITIGAllON MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
See. "FoL.L.DI.'J(~\::t SHe:er.
...
~'=,,:L
PlNl-I.ll8 PMlEOOF"1 (''''O)
o
o
conditional Use Permit No. 91-53
Initial study
Page 6
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. AJ:R RBSOURCBS
c. The proposal will result in the development within a high wind
area as identified in Section 15.0 - Wind & Fire, Figure 59,
of the city's General Plan. All future structures constructed
on site will be required to adhere to the Uniform Building
Code and City Codes regarding development within the high wind
hazard area. A 110 m.p.h. wind load should be used for
calculations purposes.
. . BJ:OLOGJ:CAL RBSOURCBS
a. The park proposal will result in development within the
Biological Resources Management OVerlay as identified in
Section 10.0 - Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's
General Plan. A Biological Assessment was prepared by Pacific
Southwest Biological Services, Inc. (PSBS) in February, 1992.
The report revealed that no sensitive plants were found on the
project site. The report did note, however, that the subject
property has the potential to support two sensitive rodent
species: the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse and the San Bernardino
Kangaroo Rat. The assessment recommended that a focused
trapping study be commissioned to determine the status of the
species on the site. In compliance with the recommendation of
PSBS, Stephen J. Montgomery, representing SJM Biological
Consultants conducted a survey of the site which included a
walking search and a one-night trapping event on March 10,
1992. Based on the habitat analysis and the trapping results,
he concluded that neither species occur on-site.
d. The construction of the park will necessitate the removal of
some Desert Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) shrubs to
accommodate park facilities. The existing California Walnuts
identified in the Biological Assessment will be retained in
their present locations. Notes have been added to the
demolition plans and the planting plans regarding the
protection of the trees in place. Further, the plans state
that pruning of the trees during construction shall be by a
trained and California Certified Arborist.
5. NOJ:SB
The subject site is located in an area that experiences
exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dBA from Kendall Drive
and 1-215. The public park with landscaping and fencing will
be a compatible land use in this area. There will be no
structures for human occupancy constructed on-site.
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
'FVI' The proposad project COULD NOT have a signHicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
I,.c.l TION will be preparad.
o The proposad projact could have a signHicant effect on the environment, a~hough there will not be a signHicant
effect in this case because the m~igation measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposad projact MAY have a signHicant effect on tha environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is requirad.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Name and Trtle
~~k/
Date: April 23, 1992
&'.J",&':::~l....
............ PAGE
("_
'," ~
:I:
..
</)
lD
</)
II..
..
~._._.. _.
-- "/'"
\ '~ " . 1-'
-'7--' ".J --'''1 ~l'
.. :-!""
.......... .<
r:P:'-' ,
-
-
,
,
,
/ .
\,j' '.
I
!
\)
'-/
\~
~,
...J
.
.
-'
..-,
.-
.:
= :
;)
.';'
.,'
\ i
/',1'-'4
/ ~
.
.'
:If
l'
'I ..i;,'!
] I l :~, "
~j~t ~',~. ".'
,~~if -.~
'-'. I
._~, \
\,\
. ,
V
..
i
.
-
\
. \
- ~~
;' / #
.1 I'
t / /
, /
, /
/
/
I
I
/
I
-i
'::J
...
,~
."
,..
,..,:
"
~
'-
~
o
,
---6
".
I
, .
y.''-
~.~.
"
.-'
....
...;'-~...
\:
\; , / ',j
1Ir:-'.. ,,,..; -",
... ~..... :~~ ,
'~, \ - '" .' J "', /".
- : ~~ ' . . ~ ,-/' I
~~.:, ;-_.;/ .-' ../' /"
..~~..:", ( ..,/
-''';:''~''....", \ ...,,'
.... --.......',' -~..
'N~" .1<
..~.,
~...\ "
.~~~
e'
'"
-/
!-,"
~,
if!'"
~i
;.:
~
t:l'
j "
~.
::
,
I
;
I
""
~!
-;;;
Q
e
.2
~
~
-!!
~
~
c
~
I
a
i
.c
2
"
</)
c
co
LL
Z ~
0 :a:
~ ~
~
w
Cl ;s
w C
>
D z
0
~
!ij
(!)
w
>
(\j
w
a:
:J
(!)
II
o
o
PSBS #H50
,..'~ ,-, ,-,....~-,., '" A1;' .-
I . -0, '(... 0' .. .,.. ~~
J ,!7I"J " . :'J.i'i .-.r
,-, ~'''''"'. s,"
"",> ..~::...( _lf4eO ".., .'i
- ...., II ItIt:
. __ ..-. .00".9
'~ ~-16BO-'-- l?...... .:.........> F
\' ",};'''''.. ~.. .....~ "'-
. ~ /J..,"~1i" 000/1 '
".,. ...... :"~i!t"':'.: ~ -l .-r
,I .:j.-:;;,i,:. :" l q:"", .-/. -'( "
. ..,' ..... ,~.. ....
';;;:<"""".' ", k' "~ We" '- --.._,---
--~._- .!-- -::.~.. ~....="'.,."..:: - --\;--_....
\;::"'l~' ,. '.'(..~'. '0 "
~ '-" f ..... i:~~' .ce
I '", 'I.: 1<
116 0..' ,z
'" ,'"
"""~o
'<::I '<(
I (
.
'\
-_._---~.\
------~ .
';
Basins
-
;:,'/:
.
.- -
.-,
. '/
.,:'/,'
.;,.
.,i-/'-
.,~//
.../../- ,-.
,-
/
tv!' ~ -i"
- ,'-' .
.~ .;i:-~~i\;1 Tan~...'
:;::' ,:'. .0';
.'
I~".
....."':T,..-:,,;..:::
.....'..... . ...
...~.....:.~.:~!~:
..-....
.....
'~
-.'~ ~
.'
_._.:+~:
:.0-
':'<:0
FIGURE 1.
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
USGS 7.5' san Bernadino North
N
.
1- . 2:00()'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
HEARING DATE
~'.
"7".~ ...
\
r'fC,
~, 0
\~~
"
"
"
"
<\.
IH~r~
"
"
"
,\
"
"
"
o
o
o
C\I
m.:.A:1l~==
PlAN-I.l1 PAGE 1 OF 1 (~