HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-Public Works
-
ill
ci
o
F~e No. 15.30-263 0
- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
From:
ROGER G; HARDGRAVE
Subject:
Adoption of Negative Declaration
--Vacation of Portions of Ohio
Avenue. Olive Avenue and Pine
Avenue, per Plan No, 7376
-'?~
-'J IC~;~
Dept:
Public Works/Engineering
Date:
3-31-88
~
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
12-21-87
Plan No. 7376. for vacation of portions of Ohio Avenue,
Olive Avenue and Pine Avenue, approved,
12-21-87
Finding for Health and Safety reasons made,
Recommended motion:
That the Negative Declaration for vacation of
portions of Ohio Avenue. Olive Avenue, and Pine
Avenue. in accordance with Plan No. 7376. be
adopted,
cc: Ray Schweitzer
Ann Siracusa
Supporting data attached:
lllWii E Littls
Staff Report and
1Ritial Stygy QQ 2
Phone:
Ward:
6328
5
Contact person:
FUNDING REOUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.1
(Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Notas:
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
9,
~Ifi OF SAN BERNARDI~ - REQUaOr FOR COUNCIL AC'hbN
STAFF REPORT
At their meeting of 2-11-88, the City's Environmental
Review Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration,
based upon the Initial Study for Public Works Project No, 88-2.
A copy of the Initial Study is attached for reference.
The public review period will be from 3-24-88 to 4-06-88,
No comments were received during the review period.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be approved.
A Notice of Determination will be filed by the Planning
Department after adoption of the Negative Declaration,
3-31-88
75-0264
o
o
o
o
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Initial Study
For
Environmental Review
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 88-2
Located on the south side of Ohio,
between Walnut and Pine Avenues,
west side of Pine Avenue,
between Belmont and Rancho Muscupiabe line,
east side of Olive, between Ohio Avenue
and Rancho Muscupiabe line.
Prepared by:
Michael Norton
Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5057
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
.L
0'
o
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Site and Project Characteristics . . . . . 3-1
3.2.1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2.2 Project Characteristics . . . . . . . . 3-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2.1 Increase in Traffic . . . . . . . . . 4-1
5.0 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Appendix A - Environmental Impact
Checklist . . . . . . . . 5-2
Appendix B - Vacated Areas . . . . . . . 5-10. ..-
Appendix B-1 - Vacated Areas . . . . . . 5-.11
1
0'
o
o
o
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for Public Works Project No. 88-2,
located on the south side of Ohio, between Walnut and
Pine Avenues, west side of Pine Avenue, between Belmont
and Rancho Muscupiabe line, east side of Olive, between
Ohio Avenue and Rancho Muscupiabe line.
As stated in
Environmental
purposes of an
Section 15063 of the State of California
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or
a Negative Declaration.
2.
Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an
is prepared, thereby, enabling the project
qualify for a Negative Declaration.
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is re-
quired by:
a
EIR
to
a.
Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant.
b. Identifying the effects determined not to be
significant.
c.
for determining that
effects would not be
Explaining the reasons
potentially significant
significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
design of a project.
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for. the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project
will not have a significant effect on the environ-
ment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIR's.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could
be used with the project.
1-1
-
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works Project No. 88-2
March 17, 1988
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project
The applicant proposes to vacate portions of the south
side of Ohio Avenue, between Walnut Avenue and Pine
Avenue, west side of Pine Avenue, between Belmont
Avenue and Rancho Muscupiabe line, east side of Olive
Avenue, between Ohio Avenue and Rancho Muscupiabe
line.
2.2 Project Impacts
The Environmental Impact Checklist identified one area
of minor concern, (See Appendix -A-).
9.h. Circulation
2-1
- -
e
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works Project No. 88-2
March 17, 1988
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The applicant proposes to vacate 10 feet on the south
side of Ohio Avenue, between Walnut and Pine Avenue,
10 feet on the west side of Pine Avenue, between Ohio
Avenue and Belmont Avenue, two feet on the east side
of Olive Avenue, between the Rancho Muscupiabe line
and Ohio Avenue and two feet on the west side of Pine
Avenue, between the Rancho Muscupiabe line and. Ohio
Avenue, four feet on the north side of Ohio Avenue,
between Olive and Pine Avenues, (See Appendix wBw and
WB_IW) .
3.2 Site and Project Characteristics
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
The area north of Ohio Avenue between Olive and Pine
Avenues is vacant with no improvements - Tentative
Tract 11291 is located in this region. South of Ohio
between Olive and Pine Avenue is developed with single
family homes.
3.2.2 Project Characteristics
(See 3.2.1)
3-1
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works Project No. 88-2
March 17, 1988
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting north of Ohio Avenue,
between Olive and pine Avenues is vacant with no
development. The area is witness to weeds with no
wildlife noticed. The area south of Ohio Avenue,
between Olive and Pine Avenues is currently under
construction with single family residential units.
The zoning in the developed area mentioned above is R-
1-7200, Single Family Residential zoning, while to the
north of Ohio, R-1-14,400 Single Family Residential
zoning is in place.
4.2 Environmental Effects
The item noted on the attached Environmental Impact
Checklist is identified below: -
9.h. Other
Could the proposal result in: the actual removal of
gutters and sidewalks, with new gutters and sidewalks
built in order to carry out the street vacations?
The physical location of the streets, sidewalks and
gutters are currently in place with no relocation
plans being considered, nor planned, thus, no physical
change in location will be conducted. Improvements
are in south of Ohio Avenue, while north of Ohio
between Olive and Pine Avenues no curb, gutter or
sidewalks are in place at this time. The Verdemont
Area Plan designates the above streets as .Local
Continuous., which calls for only a 60 foot right of
way. Vacating the above portions would bring the area
in conformance with the .Area Plan. Public Works
Project 88-2 will not affect traffic flow or hazards.
4-1
o'
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works Project No. 88-2
March 17, 1988
5.0 APPENDIX
Appendix -A-
Appendix -B-
Appendix -B-l--
csj/3-9-88
DOC:MISC
ISPW882
Environmental Impact Checklist
Vacation Areas
Vacation Areas
5-1
ci
OPPENDIX "A" 0
o
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO """'l\
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
Ilio..
, ""'IIi
A. BACKGROYND
Application Number: Public Works No. 88-2
Project Description: Street Vacation
Location: South side of Ohio, between Walnut and pine Avenue:
west side of Pine Avenue, between Belmont and Rancho Muscuoiabe
line, east side of Olive, between Ohio Avenue and Rancho Muscupiab
ffQrionmental Constraints Areas:
General Plan Designation: Medium - Low Residence 4-7 p/ac.
Zoning Designation: R-l. ~iMqlp F~mi'y ~~~;n~n~;~l
B. ~~IB~~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on .,a
separate attached sheet. -
1. EaJ.th Resources Will the proposal result in: -- - . .
Yes No 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. Mod if icat ion of any unique
geologic or physical feature? X
"'- ~
REVISED 12187
5-2
PAGE 1 OF 8
1
u
.
o'
o
o
,
.
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 RESOURCES: 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 12187
Yes
No
x
o
,,'" RR-?
Maybe
""'l
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
..1 lL lJ Ih t::l -
. 0
0 0 0
PW 88-2
, """'Ill
Yes No Maybe
4.
BIOLOGIC~L R~SOURCE~:
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
x
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
x
c. Other?
x
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
x
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
x
c. Other?
x
6.
LAND USE:
resi1Itiil :
Will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
x
b. Development within an Airport
District?
x
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
x
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
x
e. Other?
x
\..
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
0'
o
o
o
PW 88-2
,.
Maybe
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~~~:
project:
Will
the
Yes
of
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
"
--
X
Verdemont Area Plan.
x
x
x
x
x
~
..
PAGE 4 OF 8
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?
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a.
existing housing or
demand for additional
Remove
create a
housing?
b. Other?
9.
TRANS!'ORTATION/CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result ~n:
a.
An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan? vacation is being carrien
out to come into conformance with
Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilitiesl
structures?
b.
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?
REVISED 10/87
o'
r
...
g.
h.
o
o
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
Other?
10. ~UBLIC SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
b.
c.
Fire protection?
police protection?
Schools (Le. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
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?
REVISED 10/87
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?
Yes
ow AA_?
o
"'"
No Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
o'
o
o
o
r
PW 88-2
Yes
No
Maybe
~
12. AESTHETICS:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
x
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
c. Other?
x
13.
~g~~URA~--F~QURCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
x
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
x
x
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
j
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
0'
o
o
PW 88-2
o
'"
~
Yes
No Maybe
~
i
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
i.mpact 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.)
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
(9h) Streets in place due to the Verdemont Area Plan - excess
right-of-way is veing vacated.
~
\....
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
o'
o
o
o
,
PW 88-2
"""'Ill
o
DETERMI~7JQlI
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.
D.
o
D
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Name and Title
Signature
Date:
'lIo..
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
+ 1t!.
..t~
i
I .,..~
i:,.
! .. .. :b
...
".1. ~
".~ tt ~
,~. ~
'h
~
-, ....
S
-'- ". J ... \- ~
I . ".1.- l:J
I I
,. .~
I I
.~:
..~~'
: ..~ ...
..~ ....
.
.
!
I * , .-
i '.!)'lI"~ ,,~: I
, I l
! ,
: I .... '!I' "'to. '"
.. . .... .. ~ .....
f I
"' .------
0'
(
Q,PENDIX "B" 0
,
TO Bf VACATf D
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC HCRKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINeERING DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY SECTION
STREET / ALL.EY VACATION I
PT/f O~ ""'0, OLIIIE If". rlN6 ,I10(6""'$.
c.~./V'
DIRECTOR OF PUIL.IC WORKS /eITV ENGINEER
P".p.".d t1~1 L. FOGASSY
CII.clled t1~ I
DATE I 1/-3-'7
ARiA VAeATED SHOWH THUS W/hWAV~h0V~
Sh..t
1 of :2
FIL.E HO.: 5.36-2'3 PL.AH HO,: 7'''6
5-10
~)
4'
. ,
AREA
TO BE
VACATED
_..
@ i ~~/
~7
\ ; !.,
- .
"
;,..
,.
.
,
:
~
!!
1
J'
'"
,
~ ~i l
.. .
I
;!:
~l
~
-
. .
,
DIRECTOR OF PUIL.IC WORKS /eITV ENGINEER
P".p.".d t1~1 L. FOGASSY
CII.cll.d t1'J :
DATE I //-,3-87
A.F.A VACATED SHOWN THUS 7PL~~~-'-n'n
Sh..t
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC HQAKS DEPARTMeNT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
REAL p"OPeRTY SECTION
Z of.2
STREET / ALLEY VACATION I
h"N ~ DH16, ~/V; -. ;,"'. AI,~ues
FIL.E HO.: /4.~,,-~r.3
PL.AH HO.: 7"'"
5-11