HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-Public Works
-
4.
-
--
-
-
CITVC6F SAN BERNARDINOQ RE6(,EST FOR COUNCIL~TION
Adoption of Negative Declaration &
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE REC'O.-A:;ioWt ()~bject: Finding of Consistency with the
_ .. Circulation Element of General Plan
Dept: Public works/Enginee:J3a9gJUl 27 p~ 2: 03 --Vacation two East/West Alleys
bet. Massachusetts & Garner Avenues
Date: 7-26-89 & bet. 15th and 16th Streets
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Public Works Project No. 89-21
05-15-89 -- Authorization granted to proceed and plan approved.
Recommended motion:
1. That the Negative Declaration for Public works Project No. 89-21,
vacation of two east/west alleys between Massachusetts and
Garner Avenues and between 15th and l6th Streets, be adopted.
2. That a finding be made that the vacation of two east/west alleys
between Massachusetts and Garner Avenues and between 15th and
16th Streets, is consistent with the circ ation element 0 he
General Plan.
cc: Marshall Julian
~Jim Richardson
Supporting data attached:
Roger G. Hardgrave
Staff Report, Negative
Declaration. Map
Phone:
5025
Contact person:
Ward:
6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No. .tt. J
'CITv'6F SAN BIERNARDIN~ RE&6I!ST FOR COUNCIL ~TION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-
2l was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review
Committee at its meeting of 6-22-89.
A 14-day public review period was afforded from 6-29-89
to 7-12-89. No comments were received.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and
a finding made that the project is consistent with the circula-
tion element of the General Plan.
7-26-89
75-0264
.
-0
o
o
o
C I T Y
o F SAN B ERN A R
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8804-1505
elll \If SHt et~~~RO\N\l
~\l~'L,r 'IU?',,"
r :D 1V ." f\l""""
'~~'RctJlIt', eel I.
t.: \.i "\. \\".,.
D
S' J\IN 21 PI' I: S1
TO:
Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer
FROM:
Ann Larson-perbix
SUBJECT:
Environmental Review of Public works Projects
DATE:
June 23, 1989
COPIES:
Mike Grubbs, Senior Civil Engineer
------------------------------------------------------------------
At its meeting of June 22, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee
recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for the following
Public Works projects:
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-25 - To install sewer lines in
Jefferson Avenue and Hazel Avenue between "I" Street and "J"
Street.
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-26 - To install sewer lines in
Newmark Avenue, Severance Avenue and Electric Avenue between
40th Street, 39th Street and 38th Street.
~UBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 89-21 - To vacate two east/west alleys
between Massachusetts and Garner Avenues and between 15th and
16th Streets.
These Initial Studies (see attached) will receive a 14 day public
review from June 29, 1989 to July 12, 1989. Any comments received
during the review period will be addressed by the Planning
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 ~ith 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.
~ daAA..e71 - 0A~
Ann Larson-perbix
Senior Planner
ALP: clp
C5 MEMOPWP622
J1
II
J,..
-
.
-0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
Initial Study
Public Works Project No. 89-21
To vacate two east/west alleys between
Massachusetts and Garner Avenues and between
15th and 16th Streets.
June 22, 1989
Prepared for:
Public Works Department
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared by:
Ras Cannady
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
~
....L
J!
-
Jb.
-
. .
CITY OF S NARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Public Works Project No. 89-2l is to vacate two alleys between
Garner and Massachusetts Avenues and between 15th and 16th Streets.
The two alleys are paved and surrounded by single-family residential
units to the north, east and south, and a public school is located
to the west. The site is relatively level and located in a
liquefaction zone.
C5 ISPWP8921A
.lJ.
-
-
.
'0 . 0 0 r'\
.,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ""
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
'"- ~
,. """Il
A. BACKGROY@
Application Number: Public Works Project No. 89-21
Project Description: To vacate two east/west alleys.
Location: Between Massachusetts and Garner Avenues and between
15th and 16th Streets.
Environmental Constraints Areas: Liquefaction zone
General Plan Designation: RS, Suburban Residential (7,200
square feet)
Zoning Designation: N/A
B. ~~IBONM~NTAL-IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1- ~I~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
filll of 10,000 cubic yards or
more? X
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade? x
c . Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone? X
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature? X
Ii.. ~
REVISED 12187
PAGE 1 OF 8
.
'0
o
""
o
,
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.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
3.
~b!EB 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?
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
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
o
PAGE 2 OF 8
.)
L 1 tlIII - -
-
'0 --
. 0 0
0
,. '"
Yes No Maybe
4.
BIOLOGICaL R~SOURC~~:
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
x
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
c. Other?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
x
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
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
x
x
c. Other?
6.
~_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a.
A change in
designated
Plan?
the land use as
on the General
x
b. Development within an Airport
District?
x
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,S, or C?
x
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
x
e. Other?
1(
'-
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
-
.
7.
MAN-MADE HAj!!~:;:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
8. HOU~: will the proposal:
a.
existing housing or
demand for additional
Remove
create a
housing?
b. Other?
9. rRA~FQ.BTATIo&QRCULATION: 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, park ing
structures?
or demand for
facilitiesl
c. Impact upon existing public
transport~tion systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
REVISED 10/87
Yes
of
-
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
Maybe
PAGE 4 OF 8
.
'-
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
h.
Other?
10. F~~_SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
Schools (Le. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
11. QIILITIES: 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.
L Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
Yes
..;L
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
v
x
x
x
x
-
Maybe
PAGE 5 OF 8
- - .L
0 \'.
. '0 0
r Yes No Maybe """Il
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~TU~~--FES9URCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
l(
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
x
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
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 ID/a7
PAGE 6 OF a
-
.
>t-
"
'\'-1;
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
signif icant.)
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 IDI87
PAGE 7 OF 8
..
-
4.
6
-
-
-
.
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA TlON AND MfTIGA TION MEASLflES
l.g. The alleys are 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
the vacation meets State criteria/guidelines for vacation.
The proposed vacation also does not landlock any parcels and
will not create any significant health/impacts with .the
following mitigation:
1. All existing easements for utilities must'be reserved.
C5 ISPWP8921B
4.
-
~
:i
-
..l
.
D. DETERMINA11~
On the basis of this initial study,
r:K1 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
~ env.ironment 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.
c
o
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
Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner
Name and ~tle .
IJ____; ~Jtm-p;~
Signature
Date: ~~ d ~I } 'f. f'i
REVISED 12/B7
PAGE 8 OF a
.
l:7
'0
I
'" rN Sr~Eer
~
~
~
~
. I I , , I I i
. ,
I , . .
1 ,
1 I
I / I ! I I
I , , ,
I I
I t I 3~ ., , I l' I , I I. I I 12,
J. .5 I I
I I , I I , , I ,
f/ ff 'ff 'ff 'ff .. f ~~ fff,
~. :.u I~ ;1.1 ~I J ~ /111 ; II; 11 : It. ; If If I 15
I
I I I' I , I
I I ,
I , I I ~..., . 1 . I
-, , .
I I I O' ! I
I ~ 'd. ,
, , , I , , , 1 ,
~
~'I .,.~ ~
-< ~
!
~
~
EVANS
sr,e eEr
JO
, .
, , I , ,
. I , I I
I , ,
I I I I 1 I
, , I , I ,
I , I I
J .2- I ,1 ~I ~ , I
1 I I , I 7' t 1 :/0 III I~
, I
, , I , I z.' I , I
,
,
~I/ :.u :.t 1 AI; , , ~;
, .70 : " /I, 17' ,'- 'II I I~
1 ,
I I I
I . , 1 I I I I I
I " I I I
I I I I ,
I I I I , I I
I I I . , I
. I
,
~ 15rH Sr.f2.EET
.~.
lL
III
~
~
:>
<
~ ~r
~~
::
~
"
<
II)
III
~
~
So'
I
Nor TO .s~ALE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUa.IC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
REM.. ..IIla-ERTY SECTION
DI lECTOR OF PUILIC WORKS JCITV EHGI"UR
P...p....d 11111 ~NIi 'DE ~.,... $h..t
Ch.cll.d 1111 I .AI -, d ~:;) LI i i
o.n I '" /4 ,., of
.RIE. V.C.TIO SHOWN TNUS ~
STAEET I ALLEY IIACM'ION I
rAP" ~ Wesr .ALLIE.~ /JE~1E1EH
~~ ~Itl. .A1llE.NU#! ~ HASS"eHUJCTTS
AV.-AlUE HOIe-TH o~ Ev'INS ..s;.6iE7j
SOIlTH d~ /I,TH .srlfUEl!E.r~ scu77-1
OF 1/14fJ& 'ne.Ellr" tJte.?H atr
15""f S~~.,
FILE "0.1/5.30-2.91 PLAIt "0.1 77-1.3
.
o
o
o
: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
CASE Public
HEARING DATE
works proiect
No. 89-21
June 22, 1989
AGENDA
ITEM #
..J1 "., \. \'~'~1'-
3rnm-
"-I T e....
.., ... ~,' !~
5BB~BO~
'-!.JC!:JiC!:J-11
~~~i
>I, >I
C..SA
.
~-~--,! l@a
I [~-~...m
~. c'M
~ <ID T
..
.
.., "
C'3A - ;
.., -.
::c ..,
'"
M'I :: ..,
.. .-1
..
C.2 ;! '-1
..,
M.' ."
..,
'.
..,
,
..,
.-,
M.IA .
.
.
11'2
M"
@)
II.'
.,
..
~ ".14
::c
'"
::
..
CoM S
"'
T
c....
~IA
C'3A
II.'
.
T
11.2
~.,
11-'
T
....
C3A
II.,
C-3A
J
JI
]
l~ ,. I
~III-'
~~".,
~~
T T
C'3A
II.'
TEl
08
..
.
11"--'
II.'
..,
.,
T
R-'
T i R.I
.
rUIL ....,
"-
..,
EB IT] 'SIT;:~'
flo'~ II.'
R'3 I
11'3
11'3
R.'
T
T
T
T
.. C'3
T
tL:
I~ n I~ ..:1" T
C-3A
T