Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-Public Works File 15.30-275 CITY t~F SAH BER~RDINO - RBQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION ,~5rom: ROGfR G. HARDGRAVE REC'D.-ApM1~F.~}(f~; tiont&oFindinggof~Consistency .~4 _a ~,j ~ $8 with the circulation element of Dept: Public Works/Engineeri the General Plan -- Vacation of a 152 foot portion of an alley Date: 6/5/89 located North of 11th Street Sepulveda Avenue -- Public Synopsis of Previous Council action: Works Project No. 89-17 04-03-89 -- Authorization to proceed and plan approval. 06-05-89 -- Resolution of Intention. Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-17, ® vacation of a 152 foot portion of an alley located North of 11th Street between Lugo Avenue and Sepulveda Avenue, be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that the vacation of a 152 foot portion of an alley, located North of 11th Street between Lugo Avenue and Sepulveda Avenue, is consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan. cc: Marshall Julian, City Administrator Jim Richardson, Deputy City Admin/Dev. Sig Contact person: Roger G. Nardgrave Phone:. 5025 Memo, Staff Report, Negative Supporting data attached: Declaration and Mau Ward: 2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.l (Acct. Description) j Finance: rCouncil Notes: v c_noa, Agenda Itam Nn CITY OF SAN BERN7CRDINO -REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-17 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of 4/27/89. A 14-day public review period was afforded from 5/4/89 to 5/17/89. 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. t I 6/5/89 94_!17 CA C IT1~ OF SAN BERNAR~NO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8905-1803 TO: Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer FROM: Tricia D. Thrasher, Planner II SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Public Works Projects DATE: May 24, 1989 COPIES: Jim Richardson, Deputy City Administrator; Mike Grubbs, Engineering Department; Ann Larson - Perbix, Senior Planner; Lou Little, Real Property At its meeting of April 27, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for the following Public Works projects: Public Works Project No. 89-17 to vacate a 152 foot portion of an alley located north of 11th Street between Lugo Avenue and Sepulveda Avenue. These Initial Studies (see attached) received a 14 day public ® review from May 4 to May 17, 1989. No comments were received ~ C~f~ during the review period. You must schedule the projects /mod /8°'v before the Mayor and Common Council for adoption of the Ti~'u~• Negative Declaration. Please include the Initial Study with G-S-'89 your request for Council Action form. The Planning r„~ Department will file the Notice of Determination after adoption of the Negative Declaration and a copy of the notice ~ will be sent to you. Tom, ~-~ Tricia D. Thrasher Planner II TDT/ke . ~ . ~ TY OF SAN BERNA~~Nv PLANNWG OEPAFiTMENT . INITIAL STUDY Public Works Project No. 89-17 To vacate a 152-foot portion of an alley, located north of 11th Street between Lugo Avenue and Sepulveda Avenue. April 27, 1989 Prepared for Public Works Department City of San Bernardino ® 300 North "D^ Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared by James P. Mulder Planning Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Ire TY OF SAN BERNAi~tNO o~~rM~r ~ tNlTIAL STUDY Public Works Project No. 89-17 The applicant requests environmental clearaace to vacate 152 foot portion of a 13 foot-wide alley, located north of llth street between Lugo Avenue and Sepulveda Avenue. The alley currently provides rear access to two lots fronting 11th Street and side yard access to two lots fronting on Lugo Avenue. The purpose of the alley vacation is to make it a private access lane for the contiguous properties that, use it. The alley is currently paved and is surrounded by multiple-family residences to the north, south and east, and single family residences to the west. The site is relatively level and is located within a liquefaction zone. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ,r PLANNiN~ DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number: Public works Protect No. 89-17 Project Description: To vacate a 152 foot yortion of an alley Location: North of 11th Street between Lugo and Sep+l~eAa Avenues. Environmental Constraints Areas: T.iA~~afartinn 70ne. General Plan Designation: R~ Residential c,.w...tia,. ,..,der city's ® adopted Interim Policy Document -- Zoning Designation: R-3 Multiple-Family residential B. E~TV~gQN~fENTAL~iPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. _E~~th Resources iVill 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 158 natural grade? x c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? x d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? x REVISED i2/87 PAf3E t Qf 8 o v Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the x project site? f. Modification of a channel, % creek or river? g. Development within an area subject to landslides, mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards? x h. Other? % 2. ~iIR R~$O.SIRCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air ~ quality? ~.~I, b. The creation of objectionable x V odors? c. Development within a high wind X hazard area? 3. W T~R~RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff R due to impermeable surfaces? 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? ?L. e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? _.X-- f. Other? % REVISED ~2/B7 AA(3E 2 OF B © 4 Yes No Maybe 4. }ZIOLOGICA~$~URCE$s Could the proposal result ins a. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? x b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? x c . Other? -~-- 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: Will the proposal result in: 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? R d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? x e. Other? x REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 Yes No !laybe 7. IAN-MADE EAB~jtp~^a: Will the project: a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materisis (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. H,O~( I G; Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? X b. Other? X 9. T~i1~Sg~TAT .N CIRCULATION: 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, or demand for new, parking facilities/ • 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 f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X REVISED 10/87 pAOE 4 OP 8 Yes No Maybe g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? x h . Other? -~- 10. $UBLI~ SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? x b. Y~lice protection? -~- c. Schools (i.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? x d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Medical aid? x f. Solid waste? x g. Other? x 11. )DTI IL TIES: will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond i the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? x 2. Electricity? 3. Water? x 4. Sewer? x 5. Other? x b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? x c. Require the construction of new facilities? x REVISED 10/87 PAGE 5 OF 8 © Yes No Maybe 12. AESTHETICS: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic ~ view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental. to the x surrounding area? c. Other? x 13. ~yyT I~R~i. R~QURCSS: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic x archaeological site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a prehistoric or historic site, structure or x ® object? c. Other? 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 I 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 PAGE 8 OF 8 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.) R c. Does the project have impacts which aze 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.) REVISED 10/87 PAGE ~ OF 8 - -_._ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION M~ GATION MEAS>~iES ~ 1. g. The allay is located within a liquefaction zone. Liquefaction studies ' era required only for projects that involve structures for human occupancy. Since the project does not involve structures, no study is required. 9. d. The alley is currently used as access to parking areas of the adjacent lots. The vacation of the alley will not alter current access/circulation patterns with the following mitigation: 1. Access easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ® 4 ~,,, D. DETERMII~A~~Q}1 ~r•~ 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. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Name and Title n. -' Lim-rvw ~f - ~e~1.K~ Signature Date: err REVISED 12/87 PAOE 8 Of 8 ® ~ BASEL/n/E STiQEET 6 d ~'O~ i z 3 ~ s ~ W 2 W i ~q 6 ~ W a < ~, ~ ~ ~~r 1 p g g R.S.A ~b ~ ~ µ 9 v ~ NoT Tn s^A[~ f}J?F~? of S .LO PRt~istD _ ~ YA~A'rrcW ~Jl. i 2 3 y 5 b W 11 sw STQ EET CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO R OF PUILI NO KS /CITY ENGINEER PUE~IC 1~ORK8 DEPARTMENT ENOINEERINQ DIVISION Prtapa~~d byt , D ShAN REAL PROPERTY 8EC:TION Ch~cK~d by r DATE r j 16 i ai j STREET /ALLEY VA ATION t AREA VACATED SNOMN TNUi ~O~Q,T/ON Qc EAST' W6.Tl' No~rrr tam 11 "~sr , fILE NO.r ,3Q. PLAN NO.r '7751 S1=P[JLVELI~9 /FILE ¢ L.GIrs0 AVE,