HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-Public Works
. o. 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -
F~S No. 6.2101 & 15,30-265 c:>
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From:
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Subject:
Finding of Need for Health &
Safety Reasons .- Adoption of
Negative Declaration-- Vacation
of Broadway Street and Main Street
at Grade Crossing with Santa Fe RR
Dept:
Public Works/Engineering
Date:
4-22-88
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
2-01-88 .- Authorization granted to proceed.
Recommended motion:
1. That a finding be made that the vacation of Broadway Street and
Main Street, at the grade crossings with Santa Fe Railroad; is
needed for health and safety reasons.
2. That the Negative Declaration for vacation of Broadway Street and
Main Street, at the grade crossings with Santa Fe Railroad, be adopted.
3. That a finding be made that the vacation of Broadway Street and Main
Street, at the grade crossings with Santa Fe Railroad, is consistent
with the Interim Policy Document,
cc: Jim Robbins
Jim Richardson
Jim Penman
Planning Director
L, . ////,,'
~ ~- /Z/.....
~~\..0Z-, /.,fc~~/
Signature
Supporting data attached:
Michael W. Grubbs
Staff Report and
Initial Study 88-8
Phone:
5179
Contact person:
Ward:
3
FUNDING REOUIREMENTS:
Amount: N / A
Source :
Finance:
Council Notes:
CITY ATTORNEY: ~ 1_/~
C/ '
APPROVED BY
DATE: ')- 20-.l-f-
75-0262
Agenda Item No.2,
C~T~OF SAN BERNARDI~ - REQUE'" FOR COUNCIL AC,QN
STAFF REPORT
At their meeting of 3-30-88, the City's Environmental
Review Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration,
based upon the Initial Study for Public Works Project No. 88-a.
A copy of the Initial Study is attached for reference.
The public review period was from 4-07-88 to 4-20-88.
No comments were received during the review period.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be approved,
and a finding of need for health and safety reasons made.
A Notice of Determination will be filed by the Planning
Department after adoption of the Negative Declaration.
These crossings are protected by stationary "crossback"
signs. The pavement for both of the streets is less than
standard.
Vacation of these portions of Broadway Street and Main
Street will allow the grade crossings to be closed, which will
eliminate any possibility of vehicle - train accidents.
All appropriate City Departments have been notified of
the proposed vacation and no objections have been received.
The Planning Department has determined that this project
is not inconsistent with the Interim Policy Document.
4-22-88
"0
4/22/88
.0
:>
o
"
.
.
t
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Initial Study
for
Environmental Review
Public Works 88-8
To vacate 2 railroad crossings
located between "I" Street and "J" Street
one on Broadway Street and one on Main Street
Prepared by:
Mary Lanier
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5057
Prepared for:
Department of Public Works
Real Property Section
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5334
,
o
o
o
C)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sect; on , Page
1.0 Introduct;on 1-1
2.0 Execut;ve Summary 2-1
2.1 Proposed Project 2-1
2.2 Project Impact 2-1
3.0 Project Oescr;pt;on 3-1
3.1 Locat;on 3-1
3.2 Ex;st;n9 Cond;t;ons 3-1
3.2.1 Project Character;stfcs 3-1
4.0 Env;ronmental Assessment 4-1
4.1 Env;ronmental Sett;n9 4-1
4.2 Env;ronmental Effects 4-1
4.2.1 Transportat;on/C;rculat;on 4-1
5.0 Attachment "A" - Env; ronmenta 1 Impact 5-1
5.0 Attachment "B" - S;te Map 5-9
5.0 Attachment "C" - Locat;on Map 5-10
I
o
o
o
o
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for
Public Works 88-8 to vacate 2 railroad crossings.
As stated in Section 15063 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the purpos~s of an 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 a project, mitigating
adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby, enabling the pro-
ject to qualify for a Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an.EIR, if one is required by:
a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,
b. Identifying, the effects determined not to be significant,
c. Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially signifi-
cant effects would not be 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 environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIR's;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the
project.
1-1
o
o
o
o
Initial Study - Public Works 88-8
To vacate 2 railroad crossings
March 24, 1988
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project
The project under consideration, Public Works 88-8, is to allow vacation of 2
railroad crossi ngs located between "I" Street and . JM Street, one on Broadway
Street and one on Main Street.
2.2 Project Impact
This project will not land lock any parcels, however circulation could be
effected by this vacation. The impact on present circulation was identified in
the attached Environmental Checklist.
2-1
~
.'
o
o
o
o
Initial Study - Public Works 88-8
To vacate 2 railroad crossin9s
March 24, 1988
3.0 PROJECT OESCRIPTION
3.1 Locati on
Both railroad vacations are located between "I" Street and "J" Street, one on
Broadway and one on Main Street.
3.2 Existing Conditions
The site to be vacated, located on Broadway is irregularly shaped and is
currently a railroad crossing. The site on Main Street to be vacated is rec-
tangularly shaped and is also currently a railroad corssing. Both streets are
approximately 20 feet wide and have the appearance of alleys rather than
streets. Two way traffic is limited through the alley due to the width.
Fencing near the railroad crossing limits visibility of on comming trains.
3.2.1 Project Characteristics
Vacation of two railroad crossings. The vacation would eliminate the public
right-of-way across the railroad crossings, and allow for the possibility of
barriers to be put in front of the crossings.
3-1
,
o
1
o
o
o
Initial Study - Public Works 88-8
To vacate 2 railroad crossings
March 24, 1988
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.1 Environmental Setting
The railroad crossings are currently paved with railroad tracks across them. No
natural vegetation nor wildlife is currently located on the site.
4.2 Environmental Effects
The environmental checklist identified one area of possible concern as follows:
- The possible alteration of present circulation patterns.
4.2.1 Transportation/Circulation:
Could the proposal result in;
d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation?
The present circulation patterns may be affected by the proposed vacation. The
vacation of the railroad corssing will restrict circulation on both streets by
allowing ingress and egress from one direction and not allow through traffic
from "1" Street to "J" Street (see Attachment "B"l.
All streets shall provide adequate turn around as defined by the Engineering
Department.
All parcels have access to streets other than Broadway and Main except five'par-
cels. Three parcels on Broadway have ingress and egress onto MIM Street ,and one
parcel has ingress and egress onto MJ" Street. One parcel on Main Street has
ingress and egress onto "l II Street. No parcels wi 11 be 1 and locked.
/kdm
PW PW88-8PI-6
4-06-88
.
o
o ATTACHMENT "A'O
o
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "'"
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
lIIo.... ~
~ ""
A. BACKGRO!lND
Application Number: Public Works 88-8
Project Description: To vacate 2 railroad crossin2s.
.
Location: Both crossings are located on Broadway Street and Main Street
between "I" Street and "JIt Street.
Environmental Constraints Areas: None
.
General Plan Designation: N/A
Zoning Designation: N/A
B. ~FJIBONM!:~ IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1- EaJ.~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fil1) 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
Ili.... ~
I
REVISED 12/87
5-1
PAGE 1 OF 8
o
o
o
o
Maybe
""Ill
,.
.
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. ~IR RESOU~: wil1 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.
WATER RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
Wil1
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?
Ili.... .
REVISED 12/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
y
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
.
o
o
o
o
~
Maybe
"'Ill
4.
BIOLOGI~L Rj:SOURCES:
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?
b.
c. Other?
6.
~ USE:
result in:
exterior
dB or
over 45
Wil1 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
x
x
x
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~~~:
project:
Will
the
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. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
9. ~RANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: 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 facilities/
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?
REVISED 10/87
Yes
No
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PAGE 4 OF 8
o
,.
\....
g.
h.
o
o
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
Other?
of
10. F~C SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Medical aid?
Solid waste?
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 facil it ies?
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
No
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
""'lIil
,~
PAGE 5 OF 8
o
o
o
r
12. AESTHETI~:
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
~P~~URA~~ESQURCES:
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)
\....
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
Maybe
o
""
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 6 OF 8
o
o
o
o
~
Yes
No
Maybe
""'Ill
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. )
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
.
x
x
~ ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
" ,0
o
o
o
D. DETERMI~7!QF
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 ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
~ ~~~/
Signature
Date: I / d.1 '8K
REVISED 12187
PAGE 8 OF 8
ATTACHMENT "Bit
0 O.
"- L
3'^'-. @.:. H"".~ ., ,
STREET- ~ - - -t---
., \ I
II." ,IfQ J I
-r-" ,... . .., I -.I ,
'I I
I l' ..
.. 4' !
; ! i :,!) I
.. ~ .... Ii\ ,- -.. I fi, II)
en 'J; .' .!I ' ,
~ -' '" I ..... ,
I j . I
,
,
'0 , I 5 3 I , l
" .
" !
.
~"~WlA ST"IEE1' .... _"."0' .... .'IClZ
-.
AReR TD Be i'
, VACATE 0 ~ ,'ij' '3
, .-
n' @I
I
l't~ . .UJ 14)
. ,~ 14 -
- ~"'J ~,I ,
,t.l . . "5' ~
. "
, 1 ,~ -'
. .-
M IN STREET . . .
. Jo- I
0 I 2-4 U I 22 ZI I 2 :7 ,. !P I' ~
"
~
, i .1'
!I . '" -. I -.. -' il\ (
" :-,. ::r -l.!, t~ z, .,.
.
j - --_.
. I ... .
..... ii' ,-
j
',' ~ iff ..1
,.
'''.1 ." f '0 ......1
.::.~ 'VO l
Z~ ,
-~._- -. '-- - STREET- . '~,
,
-, I I II r
Per. C'A~T'R$ $u&J,,,,StOll M.I.I/7.,
DIRECTOR OF PUILlC WORKS /CITV EHGl"IER
P".p.,..ct tI,1 L. FOGASSY Sh..t
Ch.cll.ct It, I 1/,/'oI.d~..o.l 1 of 1
DATE : _ I _
ARrA VACATED SHOWN THUS ~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUa.1C NOAkS DEPARTMENT
.--ClEAINQ DIVISION
REAL PRo-aERTY SECTION
FILE NO.1 $:311.26$ PI. A" MO.I "''1%2.
STREET / ALLEY VACATIDN I
~""MJ or fII"''' $Tlt!&T /tHO
IlR_OlU~Y ~Tl.en' 8aTWeeH
'-oZ' ~1It&.Y' 1IH40 ":1- S~
~
~
5-9
ATTACHMENT "e"
CITY OF SAN BERNAROINO PLANNING OEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE Public Works 88-8
HEARING DATE
,- I
M.I
~ R-3 ~.I
CI:Z I
.'1 I El ..1 I
..1 I I
..1
I ..1 I
~ R.4 R-4
.
%
III C I" CIA
%
c....l@
c....
eo...
c....
~I C-4
I;
R.Z I R-Z II R-Z L L--l
.L.JLJ~ I
BEJBEJBffi
IT. OMDDcl
0000 :,M2
~
R.3
.0.
~ qt:J~
I ~.I
...
C.1ll
C. .. C4
C.M
C-4
C.4 \ ~:~
,,'
I" IT. "~'Y"
M-Z C.4 ".t".L
T C.4
~ C.3A C.4
. I. IT.
-I" c....
T T GJ.EJ
..1 C'3A
CoM ,--
RIAL III
M.I M-Z
i
i M-l M-I
%
C.M
..
. M-l
R-Z
'0' M-I
CoM
.1 lI'"C1 . .,' M-I
5-10