HomeMy WebLinkAbout19- Public Works CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO - REQUEST F^R COUNCIL ACTION
File No. 19.11
Adoption of Negative Declaration &
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Subject: Finding of Consistency with the
Circulation Element of the General
Dt Public Works/Engineering Plan - Construction of a Cul-de-Sac
on Morgan Road, West of Little
Date: 4-27-95 Mountain Dr. (Closing Morgan Road
Intersection with Little Mountain Dr.
Synopsis of Previous Council action: Public Works Project No. IS 95-03
02-06-95 - Expenditure of $33 , 500 from Account No. 250-370-57477 ,
approved.
03-20-95 - Plans approved and authorization granted to advertise for
bids.
1�.1�• C('r �r
�F' 0' �U
Recommended motion:
1 . That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. IS
95-03 , for the construction of a cul-de-sac on Morgan Road,
immediately west of Little Mountain Drive and closing Morgan
Road at Little Mountain Drive, be adopted.
AND
2 . That a finding be made that the construction of a cul-de-sac on
Morgan Road, immediately west of Little Mountain Drive, and
closing Morgan Road at Little Mountain Drive, is consistent with
the General Plan Circulation Element./"*-A— X&
cc: Shauna Clark Sig
Contact person: Roger G. Hardqrave Phone: 5025
Staff Report, Initial
Supporting data attached: Study, Map Ward: 5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
COL' rotes:
75-0262 Agenda Item No.
CITY OF SAN BERK..RDINO - REQUEST I-JR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No.
IS 95-03 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review
Committee at its meeting of April 6 , 1995 .
A 21-day public review period was afforded from April 6 ,
1995, to April 27 , 1995 . No comments were received.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and
a finding made that the project is consistent with the
Circulation element of the General Plan.
1
4-27-95
75-0264
1
1 "0 INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT: Initial Study 95-03
Project DescriptionfLocation: Construction of a cuI-de-sac on Morgan Road, Immediately west
of Little Mountain Drive, closing the Morgan Road intersection with Little Mountain Drive, and
approval of a Cul-de-sac greater than 500 feet in length.
Date: March 27, 1995
Applicant:
City of San Bernardino
Public Works Department
300 North 'D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared by: Bob Prasse
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Budding Services
300 North 'D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 2
March 22, 1995
INITIAL STUDY
Project: Initial Study No. 95-03
INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for the proposed closure of Morgan
Road where it intersects with Little Mountain Drive. It contains an evaluation of potential
adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed closure is implemented.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) -equires the preparation of an Initial Study
when a proposal may result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. The purpose of
the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies
for a Negative Declaration or if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.
The following components constitute the Initial Study for Initial Study 95-03;
• Project Description
• Site and Area Characteristics
• Environmental Setting
• Environmental Impact Checklist
• Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures
•
Conclusion/Environmental Determination
Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project will close through traffic from Morgan Road on to Little Mountain Drive. The
purpose of :he Closurz :s .o prevent speeding on Nfo gan : cad. Closure of Morgan Read will
be achieved by the construction of a cul-de-sac on ;Morgan Road at the location where it
presently intersects with Little Mountain Drive. In order to construct the cul-de-sac, existing
curb, gutter, sidewalk will be removed and an existing catch basin will be relocated.
Landscaping will be installed in the cul-de-sac parkway area, and the sidewalk on the south side
of Morgan Road will be replaced and will connect with the sidewalk along Little Mountain
Drive. The cul-de-sac created by the closure of Morgan Road will be approximately 850 feet
in length. In order to provided for emergency access, a gate, drive ramp and Knox Box will
be placed between the end of the proposed Cui-de-sac and Little Mountain Road.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 3
March 22, 1995
Section I9.30.200(6)(C)(2) only permits Cul-de-sacs greater than 500 feet if they are approved
by the Planning Commission, and upon the recommendation of the Director of the Planning and
Building Services Department, the Fire Chief and the City Engineer. However, since approval
of the road closure and related improvements proposed require approval by the Mayor and
Common Council, they will also make the final decisions regarding the overall project, including
the Environmental Determination and approval of the Cul-de-sac length.
STTE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The site is relatively flat. Existing single family homes are located in the vicinity of the rite.
There is also a middle school located on the east side of Little Mountain Drive. The cul-de-sac
created by the project will provide access to 28 single family homes.
ENVIRONINIENTAL SETTr i G
The site is within an already developed area. Immdediately to the south of the site are the
Shandin Hills. The site is located within the boundary of the High Wind Area depicted in
Figure 59 of the General Plan.
CITY CONTACT: Bob Prasse (909) 384-5057.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 4
0
March 22, 1995
t
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY No. 95-03
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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.
13 The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although
there will not be significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
013 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
Name and Title
Signature
/4k4
Da
0
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
C) Page 5
March 22, 1995
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPAR1:V1ENT
ENVIRONYMNTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain "Yes' and "Maybe" answers on a separate attached sbeet.
"No" answers are explained on this checklist. See Attachment "A" Preliminary Environrncntal
Description Form, where necessary.
1. Earth Resources: Will the proposal Yes No Maybe
result in:
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill)
on s.opes of 15% or more based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental
Description Form No. D.(3)? X
b. Development and/or grading on a
slope greater than 15% natural
grade based on review of General
Plan HMOD map, which designates
areas of 15!o or greater slope in
the City? X
c. Development within the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone as `
defined in Section 12.0-Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the
Gen--mi
d. Niodic,cation of any unique geologic
or physical feature based on field
review? X
e. Development within areas defined
for high potential for water or
wind erosion as identified in
Section 12.G-Geologic & Seismic,
Figure 53, of the City's General
Plan? X
f. Modification of a channel, creek
or river based on review of
USGS Topographic Map (Name)
X
City of San Bernardino
OWN Environmental Impact Checklist
%W) Page 6
March 22, 1995
g. Development within an area Yes No Maybe
subject to landslides, mudslides,
subsidence jr other similar
hazards as identified in Section
12.0-Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the
City's General Plan? X
h. Development within an area
subject to liquefaction as shown
in Section 12.0-Geologic &
Seismic, Figure 48, of the
City's General Plan? X
i. Other? X
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an
effect upon ambient air quality
as defined by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, based on
meeting the threshold for significance
in the District's, "CEQA Air Quality
Handbook"? X
b. % c-ea:.cn of •.-b;-*ionable
odors based on information
containea in Pr,-Ii:-, ,,nary
Descrpuon Form, No. G.(3-)? x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area as identified in
Section 15.0-Wind & Fire, Figure
59, of the City's General Plan? X
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 7
March 22, 1995
that cannot be mitigated by Yes No Maybe
Public Works Standard
Requirements to contain and
convey runoff to approved
storm drain based on review
of the proposed site plan? X
b. Significant alteration in the
course or flow of flood waters
based on consultation with
Public Works staff.) X
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality based on
requirements of Public Works
to have runoff directed to
approved storm drains? X
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground water? X
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards as identified
" in the Federal Emergency _ • - _ .
Management Agency's Flood
Insuranc'- Rate Map,, Community
P:^ `v
iz! i1 U11.V-- C'602 Qi1 L/V 1/--B,
and Section 16.0-Flooding,
Fi sre 6Z. of _:.e Clty's General
Plan? X
f. Other? X
4. Biological Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological
Resources Management Overlay, as
identified in Section 10.0-
Natural Resources, Figure 41,
of the City's General Plan? X
Ciry of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 8
March 22, 1995
1. Change in the number of any Yes No Maybe
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants or their
habitat including stands of
trees based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. B.(1) and verified
by on-site survey/evaluation? X
2. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of animals or their
habitat based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. E.(2) and verified
x
by site survey/evaluation? X
3. Impacts to the wildlife
disbursal or migration corridors? X
b. Removal of viab:--, mature trees
based on site survey/evaluation
_ and review of the proposed site
plan? (6" or greater trunk
diameter at 4' above the around) X
c. Other? X
5. Noise: Could the praposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health
care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities
or other noise sensitive uses
in areas where existing or
future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an
Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as
identified in Section 14.0-Noise,
Figures 57 and 58 of the City's
General Plan? X
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 9
March 22, 1995
b. Development of new or expansion Yes No Maybe
of existing industrial,
commercial or other uses which
generate noise levels above an Ldn of
65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of
45 dB(A) interior that may affect
areas containing housing, schools,
health care facilities or other
sensitive uses based on
information in the Preliminary
Environmental Description Form
No. G.(1) and evaluation of
surrounding land uses No. C., and
verified by site survey/evaluation? X
c. Other? X
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as
designated based on the review
of the General Plan Land Use
Plan/Zoning Districts Map? _ X
b. Development within an Airport
District as identified in the
Air Inst:Vatic i Compatible Use
Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land
Use Zoning District 'vlap? ;{
c. Development within Foothill Fire
Zones A & B, or C as identified
on the Development Code Overlay
Districts Map? X
d. Other? X
7. Man-Made Hazards: Based on
information contained in Preliminary
Environmental Description Form,
No. G.(1) and G.(2) will the project:
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 10
March 22, 1995
a. Use, store, transport or dispose Yes No Maybe
of hazardous or toxic materials
(including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? X
b. Involve the release of
hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards? X
d. Other? X
8. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing as verified
by a site survey/evaluation? X
b. Create a significant demand for
additional housing based on the
proposed use and evaluation of
project size? X
c. Other? X -. -
9. Transportation/CircuIation: Could
_::e prcpcsal, in comparison with '"he
Circulation Plan as identified in
')eCdon 6.0-Circulation of the City's
General Plan and based on the
conclusions of to City Traffic
Engineer and review of the Traffic
Study if one was prepared, result in:
a. A significant increase in traffic
volumes on the roadways or
intersections or an increase that
is significantly greater than the
land use designated on the
General Plan? X
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parldng facilities/
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 11
March 22, 1995
Yes No Maybe
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
L Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? X
h. Other? X
10. Public Services: Based on the
responses of the responsible
agencies or departments, will the
proposal impact the following
beyond the capability to provide
adequate levels of service?
a. rise prot,ticn? X
b. Poiic-- protection? X
C. Schools (:.e., attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Medical aid? X
f. Solid Waste? X
g. Other? X
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 12
March 22, 1995
11. Utilities: Will the proposal: Yes No Maybe
a. Based on the responses of the
responsible Agencies,
Departments, or Utility Company,
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities? X
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electricity? X
3. Water? X
4. Sewer? X
5. Other? X
b. Result in a aisjointed pattern
of utility extensions based on
review of existing patterns
and proposed extensions. X
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could .::e P-Cpos,:I :eSult in the
obstruction of any significant or
sc'—nic view used on
evaluation of the view shed
verified by site st:r:eyl
evaluation? X
b. Will the visual impact of the
project create aesthetically
offensive changes in the
existing visual setting
based on a site survey and
evaluation of the proposed
elevations? X
c. Other? X
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
,i Page 13
March 22, 1995
13. Cultural Resources: Could the Yes No Maybe
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site by
development within an
archaeological sensitive area
as identified in Section 3.0-
Historical, Figure 8, of the
City's General Plan? X
b. Alteration or destruction of
a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the
City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey? X
c. Other? X
Mandatory Findin gs of Si
gniFcancQ
(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. Based on this Initial Study:
a. Does .::e project have the Yes `:o _NIaSbe
potential to degrade the
quaiky of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildIite spec=s,
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 important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory? X
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
0 Page 14
March 27, 1995
b. Does the project have the Yes No Maybe
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
B. DISCUSSION OF =\�'I.2O\--NF_N7AL EVALUATICN AND tIIT:G.- 7:CN 11r_1S!.=S
2!0 :fir Resources The project is located within the Hi-C h W:nd Area :de ltified by the General Plan. The
project only involves the reconfiguration of the existing street pattern, and does invoive the construction of any
buildings. The affects of wind erosion during the construction phase of the project will be addressed by
Department of Public Works standard requirements for fugitive dust control during construction.
9(d) Transportation/Circulation Although the closure proposed will alter present patterns of circulation
Morgan Road is not included in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. Therefore the impact on
traffic patterns is not considered significant.
10(a) Public Services The Cul-de-sac that would be c. .ted by this project would be 850 feet in length, or 350
feet greater than the city's standard length of 500 feet. In order to address public safety issues associated with
the length of the Cul-de-sac proposed, the project has been designed to include a gate, drive ramp and Knox
r which will be placed between the end of the proposed Cul-de-sac and Little Mountain Road.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDiNO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Al Boughey, Director of P!anning and Building Services
FROM: Roger G. Hardgrave. Director of Public Works,City Engineer
:.U6JEC 7. --:--sure of Morgan Road at Little Mountain Drive
DATE: February 22, 1955
FiL E. 10.05 "M"
Transmitted enc.-osed is the Preliminary Environmental Cescription form for the sul:ject
Public Works Project.
T;:e pro cc-. :;onsiss -f cons:rL;c:ing a cu!--:e-sac en 1Acrgan Rcad ;ust west --f Little
Mountain urive. removal of exrs:fng curb. gutter, sideviaik :ird /'C
of catch basins, r wNaticr, of curb, gutter and sidewalk on the .vest side of L;ttfa
" r.--!rrnin 3rd ;ns:aHation of landscaping in the cul-de-sac park'.vay area. The
scde%vaik- "iil be repiaced on the south side of ,Morgan Road for pedestrian access to
- , ale Mountain Drive.
to comclaints cf cut-through speeders by !coal residents and the area
y
Z.ty s i fafs.c JaiCr/ vvr%";,��. .:�.0 vr�LGr] :arn;.:r3ry :r
Mlo,an °,o_d at !;;the Mountain Crive on Decemcer 3. 119-0d. as 3n experiment to
:eterrnine Per;4•a;`�ent C=Lre .vould ce wcri<ac a ana cJw.°.rk:1�1C' :o J e mna cri, Jf
;nvoivea residents. Some complaints were received immeciateiy after the closure;
:c .pater, a genarai r espcnsa :ias :.een favcrabie and no ser'ous access or service
-3+=ted problems have been encountered. The Mayor and Common Council approved
:o .:.n-nnce the ;cork invo�ved .n d`te cicsur2 of iory^3n i�.Cad 3L ;elf �^�eeti^g of
February 6, 1995.
Alternate access is available to the area via Brookfield Drive (approximately 1.300 feet
viest) to Kendaii Drive and via Morgan Road to University Parkway (approximately 1 mile
-.vest). Sorre residents rear "ie point ^f closure may have to travel approximately one
mile additional when going to and from their residence; however, these are the people
who benefit most from the closure and generally favor it
0
Page 2 Environmental Clearance-Closure of Morgan Road - 2/22/95
m The closure will create a cul-de-sac approximately 850 feet long. Twenty eight single
family residential units will use the cul-de-sac as their single means of access. The cul-
de-sac is adequate to carry the anticipated traffic load and there is an existing fire
hydrant approximately 300 feet west of the closure. A 32 foot radius cul-de-sac bulb .vill
be provided at the closure as a `.um-around ror sire Department apparatus and refuse
vehicles, since parking will nct need to be pravioed.
We feel there will be no adverse environmxmtal impacts from this project and no
mitigation's are being proposed.
Rcger G Hardgrave, Director of Public WorkslC4 Engineer
Michael IN. Grubbs
Senior Civil Engineer
anc
I
I
p i i-1 III
.moo AO
g 3e -
: � I
Cs A I
Q1 Q• I�
-
= 0 I FURL M'rD.
F.L. 9.9 3
0
TO 11.03 J
O F OL t► 8 - O I I
Ifni W _ co
In
Ln
` IL
Il I
tf3
°c 2�1
1
/ ,Ay-
�JP .
f oa
j
o �
s