HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-Public Works
+-_.o"",,,",,."_~<_..,,.....,...,,,,~,___"_.
-
-
CITY' OF SAN BERNA()INO
File No. 15.30-268
- REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION
From:
ROGERG. HARDGRAVE
REC"l). - ADMf~~:
Adoption of Negative Declarat~on&
Finding of Consistency with the
Interim Policy Document- Vacation
of a 299' Long Section of Lugo
Avenue, north of 4th Street and
east of Sierra Way -- ~
Public Works Project No. 89-
Dept:
Public Works/Engineerim MAR 16 f~4 8 36
3-14-89
Date:
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
01-03-89 -- Authorization to proceed and plan approval.
Recommended motion:
1. That. the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-6,
vacation of a 299' long section of Lugo Avenue, north of 4th
Street and east of Sierra Way, be adopted.
2. That a finding be made that the vacation of a 299' +ong Section of
Lugo Avenue, north of 4th Street and east of Sierra Way, is con-
sistent with the Interim Policy Docume
cc: Jim Robbins
Jim Richardson
Contact person: Roger G. Hardgrave
Memo, Staff Report and
Supporting data attached: Neqative Declarati nn
Phone:
5025
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: Wages on W.O. 01266
Source: (Acct. No.)
001-302-53157
(Acct. DescriDtion)
Street Vacation Proceedings
DJ2. _:/
Finance:
Council Notas:
Aoenda Item No - ~
- ~
CITY' OF. SAN BER~DINO - REQUEST lOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No.
89-6 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Re-
view Committee at its meeting of 3-02-89.
A 14-day public review period was afforded from 3-9-89
to 3-22-89. No comments were received.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted.
and a finding made that the project is consistent with the
Interim Policy Document.
3-14-89
1'""\
~.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
r
o Fit$' Nt. 1~.Jo ~2,"R--
MEMORANDUM
. .
-
To Gene Klatt
Assistant City Engineer
Subject Environmental Review of Public Works Projects
From Ann Larson-Perbi x
Senior Planner
Date March 6, 1989
Approved
Date
At its meeting of March 2, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee recommeded
adoption of a Negative Declaration for the following Public Works projects:
1. PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-2 - To vacate an existing alley located
between Wall Avenue and Sepulveda Avenue, approximately 150 feet south
of Baseline Street.
2. PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-3 - To vacate a 370 foot long unnamed
frontage street, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of
Elmwood Road.
3. PUBLl C WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-4 - To vacate a 270 foot long secti on of
"J" Street, located between Oak Street and Lytle Creek Flood Control
Channel.
At:) PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-6 - To vacate a 299 foot long section of
~o Avenue, north of 4th Street and east of Sierra Way.
These Initial Studies 'see attached) will receive a 14 day public review from
March 9, 1989 to Marc~ 22, 1989. Any comments received during the review
peri od wi 11 be addres~ by the Pl anni ng Department and the comments and
responses will be sent to you within a week of the close of the public review
period. After that, you must schedule the projects before the Mayor and
Common Council for adoption of the Negative Declaration. Please include the
Initial Study with your request for Council Action form. The Planning
Department will file the Notice of Determination after adoption of the
Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice will be sent to you.
r2<Y~ ~A~.lJli - P~I.b.t~
nn arson- er lX
Senior Planner
cp
\:'
'-
,,1I111? 0
. ~l
. ,Of)
....,Qo~
~..~"
"'q ..
C3 MEMOPWP32
r~.
,
~ .
\'/
PRIDE -I
"~N PROgrESS
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
PUBLIC WORKS 89-6
t".~ ~,
.' ",
..
. ...,~.
,
.
_-:1, .
,
..
~. "'7
VI
TO VACATE A 299 FOOT; .iPORTION OF LuGO AVENUE
, ,. - ., I . ,
NORTH OF 4TH STREET AND EAST OF SIERRA .WAY
Ma'rch 2, 1989
PREPARED FOR:
city of San Bernardino
Department of Public Works
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
714-384-5334
PREPARED BY:
Tricia D. Thrasher
Planning Department
300 Nl;lrth "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA . 92418
.
CIT OF SAN BERNARD 0
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
~
Public Works 89-6 is to allow a street vacation of a portion
of Lugo Avenue from 4th street north for a distance of 298.89
feet. Lugo Avenue is a north/south street located one block
east of Sierra Way between 4th and 5th Streets.
The site is a rectangular-shaped parcel
feet totaling 14,944.5 square feet and is
area. of local street. It is located,in
. I' '.'1
faction potential. .,
50 feet by 298.89
currently a paved
an ,area of lique-
.
.
-
\..,.'
o
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ""'"
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
li... ~
,. . "'"
A. BACKGROyllQ
Application Number: Public Works 89-6
vacation of a 299 + ft. portion of
Project Description: Luqo
Avenue. beainning at 4Th Stree~nd extendina north
Location: East of Sierra Way, between 4th and 5th Streets
Environmental Constraints Areas: Liquefaction
Interim Policy Document: N/A
Zoning Designation: N/n
B. ~NVIBQ~~~Nr~~ IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
L EaI~h-Bgsources Will the proposal result in:
Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or x
more?
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15' x
natural grade?
c. Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies. x
Zone?
d. Modification of any unique x
geologic or physical feature?
\. ~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
-
.
-
L-
o
r-
Yes
No
Maybe
"'"
-
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
x
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
x
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
x
x
h. Other?
2. ~IR_REgOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
x
3.
W~TER___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?
x
x
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
x
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
.f. other?
x
x
x
~ j
REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF 8
.
.-'
~'
o
~
Yes
No
Maybe
'""'Ill
4.
BIOLOGI~AL R~~9URC~~:
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
I
x
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
x
.
x
c. Other?
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
x
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
b.
Exposure of people to
noise levels over 65
interior noise levels
dB?
exterior
dB or
over 45
x
x
c. Other?
6.
LAND_ 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'
ll...
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
~ ~
.
.
-.
~ )
Maybe
"""
,
7.
MAN-MADL~M~W~:
project:
the
Will
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limfted 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. DOU~: Will the proposal:
a.
existing housing or
demand for additional
Remove
create a
housing?
b. Other?
9. ~BM~~!,ORTATIO~CIRC!!!oATION: 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,
new, parking
structures?
or demand for
facil itiesl
c. Impact upon existing public
transport8tion -systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
lro...
REVISED 10/87
-
Yes
x
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
x
x
x
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
-
....
--
-
,
Maybe
"""'"
g.
h.
,.....,
-
Yes
A -4isjointed pattern of
roadway improvements?
Other? Availability of Street Parking
10. ~Y>>L1~ SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Medical aid?
f.
g.
Solid waste?
Other?
11. YI!LITIES: 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
b.
c.
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other? Access to utility easements
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
Require the construction of
new facilities?
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
,
o
o
,
""'l
I
12.
13.
AESTHET~:
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?
CP~~U~~___R~~QQRCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
\..
REVISED 10/87
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
Yes
No
Maybe
x
x
x
.
x
x
x
PAGE 60F8
~
-
-
.
,
o
o
Yes
No
Maybe
'"
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. )
x
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
. .
~ ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
- -~
. .
.
-
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA TION AND MITIGATION MEASlJtES
1.g.
The site is located in an area identified as having high
susceptibility to liquefaction (Carson and Matti, 1986).
Mayor and Common Council Resolution 82-345 requires all
development (with three exceptions) to prepare a lique- .
faction report. A street vacation does not constitute
development, however, any project approved for the site
should the vacation be approved would be subject to the
conditions of Resolution 82-345.
9.d.
The vacation of a portion of Lugo Avenue could alter
present patterns of circulation.
Although, the proposed vacation does not landlock any
cels, two single-family residences on the east side of
take access from the northern portion not being vacated
two businesses along the west side have rear driveways
this northern section of Lugo Avenue.
the
par-
Lugo
and
onto
The major north/south traffic would be traveling on Sierra
Way which is located one block west of the site. However,
any traffic traveling south on the remaining section of Lugo
Avenue would deadend and have to cross private property to
connect with a publicly-dedicated street. To avoid this
problem, the Engineering Department is requiring a new
dedicated east/west street from the north end of the proposed
vacation. .
The provision of
north end of the
mitigate impacts
insignificance.
a new dedicated east/west street from the
proposed vacation west to Lugo Avenue would
to circulation patterns to a level of
9.h.
The proposed street vacation could impact the amount of on-
street parking available to surrounding landowners. Busi-
nesses and residences to the north of the vacation will
retain that area of Lugo Avenue along their frontage as
available parking. The two businesses with frontage along
the proposed vacation have title to the land on both sides of
that section of Lugo and with the add~tional area will be
able to provide adequate onsite parking. Therefore, there is
no significant impact.
.
.
~
-
-
r"\ -
-
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA TION AND MITIGATION MEAS~ES
11.a.5.
The proposed vacation will not pose an impact on the ability
of utilities to access and service their equipment and supply
lines in that the city will reserve all existing easements.
PCAGENDA:PWS9.6
.
""
I
.
.
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~ DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
IT.EM#
LOCATION
CASE PW89-6
March 2, 1989
"-
HEARING DATE
r--'-'" . . L-.L.-J L---J .-.----- I .....- I I n .. .1."''''' I
~ CoM
EEJHJ;] 11-, C>3A --~
C.4 C., · AP' R-' R" R-' & trr ...,. .
"0" ..
C-' CoM
T n
.0. (
I
CoM I
--
C"3A
R"
.0.
CoM
CM
R-' R-,
C-3A
C'3A
.-3
A-P
A-P A-P CoM R" "0"
I
R-' .
~/" CoM
IIA'" A-P A-P .0.
~ ..& t:lr, 1;1'""-
r ST. .. -
r::J I C-3A Q
C-4 A-P T
C
I ~ CoM R-:S-2OC
R-' R-' .,..
I ._11"'.. ~
R" R-' 0 e."...,. .
A" ,.,_ C.M R-'.
I (1=---- '"'
R-'
M-2 A-' A-'
It-! ,"= 800' .$
CoM ~
M-I
A-' R-ll R-'
CoM R-'
C.M
" A" M.I
-
.
. ~ '., ..
, " .... -'- / .. / .' '\..
If., ,,,~"i .. -t. .,',
, " , ,', -,' /. -.
DI~TO. OF I'UILIC ~ORfCS ICITV ENGINEER
Pl'.pal'.d IIltl L. FOGASSV Sh..t
Ch.cll.d lilt I V. "" ~t:":a II 1 of 1
DATE IDS-%.3-'
AREA VACATED SHOWN THUS ~
FILE NO.1 IS. 30- 2.., PLAN NO.1 7511
STRI-r .~
.0'
~
~
~
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC HORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
REAL PR~EATV SECTION
STREET I ALLEY VACATION I
PORTION OF LUGO AVENUE, NORTH
OF 4TH STREET
, j/{J -cf7-&
-
. 0 0
r ""'IIIl
D. DETERMIF~~lQ~
On the basis of this init ial 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.
o
o
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner
Name and Title
CJ~ ~ A M111h1.-~ pjAjM'-x
Signature
Date: maM.A 3, 1ft?'!
I
....
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8