HomeMy WebLinkAbout57-Planning
CITC'OF SAN BERNARDII,--) - REQUE,] FOR COUNCIL AC'[ ~N
Date:
December 10, 1987
Adoption of Negative Declaration
S'iifiie~. _ Aef1flpF~J;J.9-ing of General Plan
"'" Con's'i!;Umcy, Public Works Project
.. L:~ ~ B7-26" (ptreet Vacation)
Mayor and Council Meeting
December 21, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
From:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Planning
Dept:
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Environmental Review Committee Action:
~0
On November 25, 1987, the ERC considered the vacation of a portion of
"r" Street south of Highland Avenue and recommended for approval a
Negative Declaration on the project.
Recommended motion:
Adopt the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project 87-26, vacation
of a portion of "r" Street south of Highland Avenue.
Adopt a Finding of Consistency with the General Plan.
'I
Signature
Contact person:
R. Ann Siracusa
Phone: 384 -5 3 5 7
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
csi
Anpnrl;:a Itpm I\ln
S7
CI,(;' OF SAN BERNARDIW - REQUU FOR COUNCIL AC......oN
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Public Works No. 87-26
(Street Vacation)
Mayor and Council Meeting
December 21, 1987 at 2:00 p.m.
DESCRIPTION
This
south
Maps)
is a proposal for a vacation of a portion of "I" Street
of Highland Avenue. (See Exhibits A & B, Location
The proposed street vacation will not restrict access nor
landlock any surrounding parcels. In addition, this street
vacation will not effect traffic circulation or patterns.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY
Approval of the proposed street vacation is consistent with
the letters dated June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987 and August 3,
1987 from the State Office of Planning and Research to the
City of San Bernardino which stipulate that "... land uses
proposed during the period of the extension will be consis-
tent with the purpose of the updated general plan provisions
...", and with the City of San Bernardino Housing and Scenic
Highways Elements.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
An initial study (Exhibit C) was prepared by staff and was
reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on November
25, 1987. A determination was made that the proposed project
would not have a significant effect on the environment. The
ERC recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration. The
required ten (10) day public review period began December 2,
1987, and expired on December ll, 1987. No comments were
received.
PREVIOUS ACTION
Due to the Office of Planning and
tions on public works projects,
gested that all such projects be
Review Committee prior to the
action. Action on the required
was taken on November 2, 1987.
Research and court restric-
the City Attorney has sug-
viewed by the Environmental
City Council's review and
Health and Safety findings
7"_n.,,,,,
/~-I(i;I-'7
C'
...........
M & CC Meeting, December 2l, 1987
Public Works No. 87-26
(street Vacation)
Page
Prepared by Mary Lanier, Planner I
Planning Department
attachments:
Exhibit A - Site Map
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Initial Study
csj
l2/10/87
DOC:MISC
PW8726
C'
"
EXHIBIT "A"
'-"
PW f67~'tb
",/
-
)
L
.
~Hf:.AND A:V-e:--
3
2
. , .-
...-,5 79 35 00 E
. ,
,.' 6,0'0 r-
I
I
I
I
AREA TO BE
I
VACATED
1
()2
0>
LO
(\J
~
~,
I
(9
-
I
W
.-
~
(/)
uJ
a-
'f
.-
30 31 w III
W
0::
l-
V)
~
H
l::
2-'J.SL&:mEE"'J:
l
DIRECTOR OF PUBLI HORKS ICITY ENGINEER
P"'.p..,.ed b~1 L. FOGASSY Sheet
ChecKed b!j: V- N'ad!:'aU
DATE: /0-/4- 7
AREA VACATED SHOHN THUS ~~~hW~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
REAL PRm=>ERTY SECTION
1 of 1
FILE NO.1 5.30-2.51
PLAN HO.I 7357
STREET / ALLEY VACATION I
;Oor_ "'.I~ Street .solJl~
,
or /,J/GHl.liPO Ilvel/UF
'-
,....'~XHIBIT liB"
'"'-,
'-'
I L,---J L-.J L-.-.. I I" , I I - l'
I~.R-I fH R_H'~- ~
II ,'-'
, '
Ii.
[I, f" =600' -
E;J .. , In-I
I
I : R-I R-I R-I Wr
R-I U R-I J':I
'1
rnoo.
[~~ .,~
~. G~ R-I R-:
~ S R-I ~
u 23RO
Eifa I C-~A I
~ Jilt "leM
. SCHOOL
R-I
HI HLAND
I C-'A I I C'3A
I T I <<R.uO "I!.
~IS't I T
::: :: '0;:-: :89 };:
1t.1 ~:l R- t 10:
R" I R-' 10
R-' ~r.J
R-, ~IO
:~: I :~', EJ
R-' I '.';;-, 1r.J
R-' I R-I IR.iU
""-R_"~"'"R-I
Tilt''''",,,
1 R-I I wcccr 17TH
.. IR-' All"
I _ I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
lOCATION
CASE PW 87-26
"-
HEARING DATE
~R-I'Ici:ID UUIII'::I~U~'
I ~U U~\\'\ R-I a:
I' II
FRE'tWAY II
II
n-, II
rURE
"
CROSSTO,WN
,
j R-I
...
>
..
R-I - t~
- -;- -
, , . . -
a: a: a: r! a:
R-I
-
.
.
a:
a:
R-I
R-I
R"
R"
R-I
:.~
fl-l
?4TH
R-I
T
0-3.
c>..
I
SITE
C-2
M >-
..
3
:I:
~
:I:
C'3A
R-I
o
r
z
C-2 <i
u
z
~
'"
I-
~
M-I
R-2
C-2
M-I
,
R-(
AGENDA
ITEM #
..
R-l
R-I
R
AVE.
I j .~~":. I~
II T l
1:1.. ,R:,' r-1.
~ "EJEB
T
R-3
,n
"
..
R-
HIGH SCHOO\.
R-3
C'
'--
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT 87-26
Street Vacation of a portion of I Street
south of Highland Avenue
Prepared by:
Mary Lanier
Planning Department
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5057
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Department of Public Works
Real Property Division
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
EXHIBIT "C"
c ,,, ,,~,,\
( - --t ,
SECTION
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
4.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Int roduct ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Executive Summary.....................
Proposed Project......................
Project Impacts.......................
Project Description...................
Location. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .
Site and Project Characteristics......
Existing Conditions...................
Project Characteristics...............
Appendices........................... .
PAGE
1-1
2-1
2:1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
Appendix A - Environmental Impact Checklist
Appendix B - Site Map/Location ~lap
......
'-
".J
l.O INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an
Initial Study for the Public Works Project 87-26, for a
street vacation of a portion of I Street south of Highland
Avenue. As stated in Section 15063 of the State of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the
purposes of an Initial Study are to:
1.
Provide the Lead Agency with
basis for deciding whether
Negative Declaration;
information to use as
to prepare an EIR
the
or a
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project,
mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby, enabling the project 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
potentially
significant.
the reasons
significant
for determining that
effects would not be
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
design of a project;
5.
Provide
finding
not have
documentation of the factual basis for the
in a Negative Declaration that a project will
a significant effect on the environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be
used with the project.
1-1
.
""-,
---
.....;' (
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT 87-26
November l7, 1987
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project
The project under consideration,
to allow a street vacation on a
south of Highland Avenue.
Public Works 87-26,
portion of I Street
2.2 There are no impacts identified as the project does
not restrict access nor land lock surrounding parcels
and no circulation problems will result from the
street vacation. The City of San Bernardino will
reserve existing easements.
2-1
C- . /,"'" .'\
( V ,~ /
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT 87-26
November 17, 1987
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The proposed street vacation is located on a portion
of I Street south of Highland Avenue.
3.2' Site Project Characteristics
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
The site is a irregularly shaped parcel which is
currently a section of paved alley.
3.2.2 Project Characteristics
Vacation of the portion of I Street.
3-1
.
"
~'" ,....
(
-
i
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT 87-26
November 17, 1987 '
4.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A - Environmental Impact Checklist
Appendix B - Site Map/Location Map
4-1
"',..,.-'
,--.
~
-
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
""
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
'"
,
A.
~
""'"
BACKGROYN'
Application Number:
Public Works No. 87-26
Project Description:
Street Vacation
Location:
Portion of "I" Street south of Highland Avenue
Redevelopment Area, Enterprise Zone or other Special District: __
None
General Plan Designation: N/A
Zoning Designation: N/A
B. ~HVIEQNM~~TA1~PACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. EaItD-E~~ources Will the proposal result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a.
Earth
fill)
more?
movement (cut and/or
of lO,OOO cubic yards or
x
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15%
natural grade?
x
c.
Development
Alquist-Priolo
Zone?
within the
Special Studies
x
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
\...
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
'-
r"".
---
~' '......
'-'
PW 87-26
,
Yes
No
Maybe
"""Iil
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
x
x
g. Development within an area
subject
to landslides, mudslides,
liquefaction or other similar
hazards?
x
h. Other?
x
2. bIR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
x
3.
!.'lbTEF-__ F-ESo.QRCES:
proposal result in?
Will
the
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
x
l
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 2 OF 8
">""--,,.y
(
c
J
PW 87-26
,.
No
Maybe
"'"
Yes
4 .
BIOLOGICbL R~SOURC~~:
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.
LANP_ USE:
result in:
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
"
"""....
'~
......
I"",;
-...,/
PW 87-26
Yes
No
Maybe
7.
MAN-MADE JiAE~J{Pp:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
x
b. Involve the, release
hazardous substances?
of
x
c, Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
x
d. Other?
x
8. MOUSING: Will the proposal:
a.
Remove
create a
housing?
existing housing or
demand for additional
x
b. Other?
x
9. TBJ\.!:l!?!,QBTATIO~LCIRCULATION: 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,
new, parking
structures?
or demand for
facilities/
x
c. Impact upon existing pUblic
transport~tionsystems?
x
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
x
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedest rians?
x
x
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 4 OF 8
~~-
--
..-"
PW 87-26
r
No
g.
h.
Yes
Maybe
""
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
x
Other?
x
10. PUBLI~ 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?
x
Police protection?
x
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
x
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
x
Medical aid?
x
Solid waste?
x
Other?
x
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?
b.
c.
\.
REVISED 10/87
1. Natural gas?
x
2. Electricity?
x
3. Water?
x
4. Sewer?
x
5. Other?
x
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
x
Require the construction of
new facilities?
x
)
PAGE 5 OF 8
PW 87-26
,.
Maybe
"
12. AESTHET]:CS:
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. ~p~rURA~--FESQgRCES: Could the
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 lS06S)
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.
l
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
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
.
......"..
......./1.
,
PW 87-26
Yes
No
Maybe
.,
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
x
,
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
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.)
l
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
.
"".../
'\
)
'.....,."
\.,,/
........,.~
PW 87-26
D. DETERMI~~!JON
On the basis of this initial evaluation,
o
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
D
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Name and Title
Signature
Date:
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 8 OF 8