Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-Public Works ~ i is ir~~u++,, 1:/.JV-L/U CITY OF SCAN` BERI~Rd1N0 -REQUEST MR COUNCIL ACTION Adoption of Negative Declaration rom: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Subject: & Finding of Consistency with the circulation element of the General Dept: Public Works/Engineering Plan -- Vacation of Chestnut Avenue between Irvington Avenue Date: 6/5/89 & Ohi o Avenue Public Works Project No. 89-18 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 02-06-89 -- Authorization to proceed. 03-13-89 -- Plan approval. 06-05-89 -- Resolution of Intention Recommended motion: I. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-18, vacation of Chestnut Avenue between Irvington Avenue and Ohio Avenue, be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that the vacation of a Chestnut Avenue, between Irvington Avenue and Ohio Avenue, is consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan cc: Marshall Julian, City Administrator Jim Richardson, Dept. City Adm/Dev. Sig ure i Contact person: Roger G. Hard rave phone: 5025 Memo, Sta f Report, Negative i Supporting data attached: Declaration and Map Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A ~ Source: (Acct. No.l (Acct. Description) Finance: ~ouncil Notes: 75.0262 Agenda Item No.~fL~ CITY OF SAN •BERN~DINO -REQUEST FdR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-18 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of 5/4/89. A 14-day public review period was afforded from 5/11/89 to 5/25/89. 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. i I 6-5-89 75.0264 0 0 _ C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM f~ 8905-1802 (,, j 52C~ 0~~ ~--- 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; Vern Nadeau, Real Property At its meeting of May 4, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee recommended adoption of a Negativq Declaration for the following Public Works projects: Public Works Project No. 89-18 - To vacate Chestnut Avenue Between Irvington Avenue and the Muscupiabe Line. This Initial Study (see attached) has already received a 14 day public review from May 11, 1989 to May 25, 1989. Com- ® ments received during the review period have been addressed by the Planning Department and the comments and responses are attached. You must schedule the projects before the Mayor and Common Council for adoption of the Negative Declaration. Please include the Initial Study and Response to Comments 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. ~ Tricia D. Thrasher Planner II TDT/ke C5 MEMOPWP54 V _ CIT OF SAN BERNARD O PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY Planning Department City of San Bernardino Initial Study PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-18 To vacate Chestnut Avenue between Irvington Avenue and Ohio Avenue Q May 4, 1989 Prepared by Scott Wright Planning Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared for: City of San Bernardino Department of Public Works CIT OF SAN BERNAR O PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ INITIAL STUDY The proposal is to vacate Chestnut Avenue between Irvington Avenue and Ohio Avenue. Said portion of Chestnut Avenue is not currently maintained as a street and exists only on paper. The area to be vacated is in a high wind hazard area and partially in a 100 year flood area. The area of the vacation does not include Belmont Avenue where it intersects with Chestnut. C4 ISPWP8918A ~ O CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACRGROUND Application Number: Public Works Project No. 89-18 Project Description: ~ vacate Chestnut Avenue between Irvington Avenue and Ohio Avenue mt including the intersection with Belmont Avenue. Location: Chestnut Avenue between irvirxrton Avenue and Ohio Avenue. Environmental Constraints Areas: 100 year flood area and high wind hazard area. General Plan Designation: n/a Zoning Designation: n/a B. ENVIRONMENTAL~PACTS Explain answers, where approgriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: ~ Yes No Maybe ~ a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or I more? ~- I b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 158 ~ natural grade? X c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone? ~ ~, d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? ~S- REVISED 12/87 VAGE 1 OF 8 Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the project site? x f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? x g. Development within an area subject to landslides, mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards? x h. Other? ~ v 2. AIR RESO~RC S: Will the proposal result in: ' a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable ® odors? v c. Development within a high wind hazard area? 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? x b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? ~ c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? x d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters? !c e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? x ® f. Other? R REVISED 12/87 PaGE 2 OP B Yes No Maybe 4. SIOLOGIC~IL RESOURCES: Conld the proposal result in: 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? 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 ~y interior noise levels over 45 dB? x c . Other? --~- 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? x d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? ._1L_ e. Other? x ~' REVISED X0/87 ?AGE 7 OF 8 Yes No Maybe 7. MAN-MADE HAZAI2Q~S: Will the project: 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 of hazardous substances? x c.. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? --~- 8. HQUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional _ Q housing? x b. Other? ~- 9. TRA~IS~PO~tTATI .N/CIR ULATZON: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is gceater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand fot new, parking facilities/ structures? x c. Impact upon existing public t:ansportotion systems? x d. A:te:ation of present patterns of circulation? y e. Impact to rail or air traffic? Y f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or ,~^~ pedestrians? ~- ~•/ FEVISED t0/87 PAGE < OF 3 Yes No Maybe q. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? v h. Other? 10. PUBLIC_,^~RVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? x. b. Police protection? c. Schools (i.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? x d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Medical aid? ~"'~ f. Solid waste? ~ ~r/ g . Other? 11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or cequire the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? x 2. Electricity? X 3. Water? x 4. Sewer? % 5 . Other? b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? x c. Require the construction of new facilities? x AE`/ISED t0/87 PnGE 5 OF 8 o 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 surrounding area? x c. Other? ~- 13. Q~ILTURAL R~QURCES: Could the proposal result in: ' a. The alteration oc destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? x b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a prehistoric or historic site, structure or object? x '~i/ 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 i 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 i quality of the environment, ~ substant'_ally reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife j 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 t0/81 PAGE 6 OF d I 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 tersr„ 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. ) -~- 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.) REVISED t0/87 PnGE 7 6F d ® '~ D. D TE M 1~ATION On the basis of this initial study, ? The proposed pcoject COOLD 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. f-'l The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the L ± environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Ann Larson-Perbix S,Q,Uin't ~I[)„I~L?'l.Q~ Name and Title Signature Date: ~ j~(~~ "'~ AEVISED t2/87 PAGE 8 OF B 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGAT{ON MEASI)~iES 2.c. Potential impact: The site of the proposed street vacation is in a high wind hazard area. Since the vacation does not involve construc- tion, there are no potential impacts due to high winds, Mitigation: none required. 3.e. Potential Impact: Part of the proposed street vacation is located in a 100 year flood area. Since the proposed vacation does not invo- lve any construction on the vacated street area, there is no~potential for exposure of the people or property to flood hazards. The street vacation will not alter the flow of flood water. Mitigation: none required. 9.d. Potential impact: The portion of Chestnut Avenue which will be vacated is not used as a street. The street exists only on paper. Therefore, the proposed vacation does not constitute a potential impact on present patterns of circulation, Chestnut Avenue between Ohio Avenue and the Muscupiabe Rancho Line shall not be vacated in order to avoid landlocking certain parcels north of Ohio Avenue, Pursuant ~*y to Code Section 19.48.020, no building permit may be issued V for any building on a lot which does not have access on a dedicated and improved street or on a private road accep- table to the Planning Commission and the City Engineer. Leaving Chestnut Avenue between Ohio Avenue and the Rancho Muscupiabe Line unvacated will preserve that portion of Chestnut as an option for selecting the best possible access and circulation plan at such time as development is proposed in the vicinity of Chestnut, north of Ohio. Mitigation: No further mitigation is required. ll.c. Potential Impact: The proposed street vacation could impact existing utilities if existing utility easements were not reserved. Mitigation: Any existing utility easements located in the area of the proposed street vacation shall be reserved. C5 ISPTAP89I88 © C~ 0 \ ~O(,~, 3rrs ~ j $ ~ti ~ , ? • 1, '4 • wy INiI ~ ~, IN ~ i J ~ ? ~ j ~ ! w \ i 3 ~ d ~ ~V? - --- --- - --- ;'~s \ /? /j { t e / ~' ~ ~ _ - - ,~ d ~~'~\ i ~r ~ : `"' o \ I ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~ _ DIRECTOR OF iU1liC W RK: /CITY ENGINEER PUa1..IC NORKS DEPARTMENT EN[iINEERING DIVISION Prdpar~d byi A~~O~t Shddt REAL PROPERTY SECTION Ch~eM~d by ~ ,t/: Soft DATE s ~ 9 STREET /ALLEY VACpiTION ~ AREA VACATED SMOMN THUS e/f~jr /VENUE' Na¢rrr ~ ~ ViMGTbK AvENLt E FILE NO.t /.~f.30~.Z7~' 'LAN NO.i~/7 TMENT AGENDA ~N~; DEpAR ITEM # CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ? CASE PwP 89-18 g LOCATION HEARING DATE ~Y 4 1984 R- I- 20,000 i r\L~R 3TR[LT1 M~ s~~p~. R -1- 14, 40o sF R-I-I ACRE I.I R Ae. ~0'y0 R -4 -14, 400 4pF MI'I ACRL R-I-ID,900 ti' • R-1- 14,400 PF ~W 4~ R-I- R-I-10,800 R-1 -10,800 PF ~ \ j ?AKR aTRLtTS ~ R-I R-I-IO,B00 ~ I 'I ?A?LR 3T. 1 R•1 ~ Pf ~ ~ R-1-IO,e00 R-I 4 R-1- 4; R 1 e 10,800 cy~~ ~Nt ~ PRD ~r1rQ` f4 units/oe R 1 ~ tij R-I-10,800 4} J ~ R.I R'I PRO R-1.10,800 „~?'~ A~4o~ 14u/ae R•I ~tq C•3A ~ ?r' n R-1 R-f R•I