HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Public Works
. C' 0 0 File No. 15.30-267 ~ 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCICUACTION
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE nEe'D. -J!.OH1N. ~flj8j:t:
Dept: Publ i c Works/Engi neeri n!39 JUN -8 Pi, 3: 49
Date: 6/5/89
Adoption of Negative Declaration
& Finding of Consistency with the
circulation element of the General
Plan -- Vacation of a 145 foot
portion of Esperanza Street
located between the right-of-way
II II
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Public Works Project No. 89-16
03-13-89
Authorization to proceed and plan approved.
Recommended motion:
1. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-16,
vacation of a 145 foot portion of Esperanza Street, located between
the right-of-way of 1-215 and "H" Street, be adopted.
2. That a finding be made that the vacation of a 145 foot portion of
Esperanza Street, located between the right-of-way of 1-215 and "H"
Street, is consistent with the circulation element 0 he General
Pl an.
cc: MarShall Julian, City Administrator
Jim Richardson, Dept. City Adm/Dev
Contact person: Roger G. Hardgrave Phone: 5025
Memo, ~~aTT Kepor~, Nega~lve
Supporting data attached: Declaration and Map Ward: 2
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
15-0262
Agenda Item NO.---.:i !:I..-
-
Ul
ill
. O' 0 0 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-16 was
recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee
at i~s 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 Negati ve Decl arati on be adopted and a
finding made that the 5/4/89 project is consistent with the
circulation element of the General Plan.
6/5/89
75.0264
Jj
o.
o
o
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8804-1505
TO:
Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer
FROM:
Tricia D. Thrasher, Planner II
SUBJECT:
Environmental Review of Public Works projects
DATE:
May 19, 1989
COPIES:
Mike Grubbs, Engineering Department: ~n
Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner: Vern Nadeau, Real
Property: Jim Richardson, Duputy City Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
At its meeting of May 4, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee
found that the following project was Categorically Exempt from CEQA,
Section 15301.
Public Works project No. 89-16 - To vacate a 145 foot portion of
Esperanza Street located between right-of-way of Interstate 215 and
"H" Street.
This Initial Study (see attached) has already receive a 14 day
public review from May 11, 1989 to May 25, 1989. Comments 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 adop-
tion 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.
~12,T1-w~L.
T icia D. Thrasher
Planner II
TDT:clp
Attachments:. Initial Study
C5 MEMOPW89l6
. o.
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
o
INITIAL STUDY
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
Initial Study
Public Works Project No. 89-16
To vacate a 145 foot portion of Esperanza Street
located between right of way of Interstate 215
and "H" Street.
May 4, 1989
Prepared for:
Public Works Department
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared by:
Ras Cannady
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
. o.
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
..
Public Works project No. 89-16 is to vacate a 145 foot portion of
Esperanza Street, located between right of way of Interstate 215
and "a" Street.
The site is a paved street surrounded by a commercial building to
the north, church to the south, vacant lot to the east and
Interstate 215 to the west. The site is relatively level and
located in a liquefaction zone.
C4 ISPWP8916A
.-
. o.
o
o
o
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
.. ~
r '"
A. BACKGRO!l~
Application Number: Public I'brks Project No. 89-16
.
Project Description: To vacate a 145 foot oortion of EsPeranza
Street.
Location: '!he riqht of way of Interstate 215, west of "H" Street
Environmental Constraints Areas: Liquefaction zone
General Plan Designation: MU"';3. ('"Antral City ~llt'h M;VM n~
Zoning Designation: CoM. Calmercial-Manufacturincr District
B. ~~BONM~NTAL-1MPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. Ea!"~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
filll 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. Modif icat ion of any unique
geologic or physical feature? X
.. ~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
j
, Q.
o
o
o
,
Maybe
""'Il
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
h. Other?
2. ~IR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
3.
Will
.!fbTEB_ RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
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?
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
~ .
REVISED 12/87
the
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
it
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
- OJ
o
o
o
r
Yes
Maybe
""\
4.
BIOLOGIGa~~SOORCE~:
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
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
c. Other?
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
c. Other?
6.
~_ USE:
result in:
will the proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
b. Development within an Airport
District?
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
'lIo..
REVISED 10/87
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 3 OF 8
. c.
o
o
o
Yes
No
Maybe
""'ll
7.
MAN-MADE BAj~!'lP~:
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. BQY~: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
x
b. Other?
x
9. 1~NSPORTATION/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 facilitiesl
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?
f. Increaaed safety hazards, to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
x
x
REVISED 10/87
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
~
0"
o
o
o
,
Maybe
""lil
g.
h.
Yes
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
Other?
of
10. f~~_SERV1CES will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
b.
c.
Fire protection?
police protection?
Schools (Le.. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
11. YIILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
I
lo..
REVISED 10/87
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
s. Other? All exist~ utilities
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
y
x
x
y
y
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
c.
o
o
o
r
Yes
No
Maybe
"'"
12. AESTHETI~:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
x
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
c. Other?
x
13. ~P~1URA~~ESQURCES: Could the
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or 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
c. Other? X
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
lIo..
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
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
.:'>':'-:"'",,",
-
> o.
o
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.)
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 6n
the environment is
significant. )
x
x
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.)
~
lro..
.
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
\
"'-
'^".C_..~;';'.C;"'---
Q.
o
o
o
""l
DETERMINA!lQll
On 'the basis of this initial study,
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.
rxr
o
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
A-\II ., , n A'S"'" -l?u..~llf ) S". i IY1 PI" \\ II CI\
Name and Title
0....__ ~A~-()OAi~
Signature
Date: ~119~"f
~
\...
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
~
".-.~,"'
Q.
o
~
o
o
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA nON AND MITIGATION MEASlIlES
l.g. The .street is located in a liquefaction zone. Liquefaction
studies are required only when projects involve structures
for human occupancy. Since the project does not involve any
structures, no study is required.
9.d. The Engineering/Public Works Department has determined that
th~ vacation meets State criteria/guidelines for vacation.
The vacation also meets the current levels of service and the
I circulation needs of the Streets and Highways Master Plan.
The vacation of the street will not create any significant
health/impacts with the following mitigation:
1. All existing easements for utilities must be reserved.
C4 ISPWP8916B
I:!
{;j
,1i;
.
.
....~
c.
o
o
o
1/ .+ I " ao
."") I
c.. ,
I .
It I ~ I
Ponto,. 0' Ur'ttc I 6D'
11.1. ;'/$4 I
"
ESPERANZA
.
----------- ----
,
.. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. ......I
I
/0 I
I
. I
-----------
7
.... ... .. .. - - - - - --.. ....
AREA TIJ BE
VRCII T~D
.,-
3 .....
.....
(i)
J.:
s:
'"
'I..
---
'-<
l,,:,,\
~
r~
~
<.!;1
.
~
'-.:.!
~
~'\.
~
OIR C OR OF PUILI K
Pnp.l'.d b,. L. FOGASSV
Ch.cll.d b, I 1IJ/'-f1. V
O/llTE I J- -~
ARE/ll V/llC/llTEO SMOW" THUS
Sh..'
1 of 1
FILE NO.1 //1. ~ 1.67
PLAN "a.. 7"'''
.
.
~
J 2
..__L..___.. -----
-----.------
J:
CJl
~
'"
...
-I
---- ---
r
---------
u_c ,". I.'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC HOAKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
REAL flnOflERTV SECTION
STREET I ALLEV YACATION I
ESPURNIR STREET WUT
0' .. H" .sTRoE ET
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PlANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
AGENDA
ITEM *
CASE Public ~rks No. 89-16
HEARING DATE
c-, R-3
1] R-3
T1 R-3
aT R-I
0-' ~
0-' i II-I
:z:
... ~
...
c . lot-I
Iii
C
...
...
'0. ! lot-I ~
.0. Iot.1
...
"0" "0" 11-2 .
R-I ~
.
"0" .
~ w
11-2 ;I
.
..... .'" R-I w
.
0-'
0-' .II HIGH C M .
ac_
A M-' 11-2
R-3
c
R-3 ~~ eJ&!I CoM C-Iot
fffi]
R-3
CoM
II-I
R-I
.0.
..S T a-I IH
( ~~~
VV
R-' ~) R-I
~..
v-'
....
C T R-I R-I
D
R-I R-I R-I R-'
..