Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-Public Works . .... - ~..... ~ File No. 15.30-269 - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTHJN CITV OF SAN BERNARDINO Date: 5-02-89 J'\doption :>f Negative Dec] aration Subject: & FindinCj of Consistency with the Interim Policy Document-Vaca- tion of portion of Sunwest Court north of Hospitality Lane, Public Works Project No. 89-10 ~ From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Dept: Public works/Engineering Synopsis of Previous Council action: 02-20-89 -- Authorization to proceed granted and plan approved. U3 :<< " t...:::I ~ ;j;; j -< , I lIooo '. ..,. l:;lI ,1'l ~ , _..j" ~ '~ :Ii 1..- ("l ,. . ~,r.'t1 , .'"t-." 0.) ;'I'J . !J';'''f ' ".~ 'I ~9 Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for Public works Project No. 89-10, vacation of a portion of Sunwest Court, north of Hospitality Lane, be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that the vacation of a portion of Sunwest Court, north of Hospitality Lane, is consistent with the Interim Policy Document. cc: Jim Robbins Jim Richardson Contact person: Roger G. Hardgrave Phone: Staff Report, Initial Study, Supporting data attached: Neqative Declaration & Map Ward: 5025 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Waqes on w.O. 01266 Source: (Acct. No.) 001-302-53157 Acct. Descri tion Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. ID .. ...,... - .... ."y:;:.,p SAN ..RNARDI.' - REQUEW FOR COUNCIL ACn6N STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 89-10 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Re- view Committee at its meeting of 3-30-89. A l4-day public review period was afforded from 4-06- 89 to 4-19-89. 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. 5-02-89 1'-0264 - - """...... -" .....; ,', ---'0,...- o ~ITY OF SAN BERNA....DINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY , CITY OF SAN BERlfARDINO PLANNING DEPAR'l'MEN'l' INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC WORKS NO. 89-10 TO VACATE A PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (SUllWEST COURT) ON THE EAST SIDE OF SUNWEST COURT, NORTH OF HOSPITALITY LANE KARCH 30, 1989 PREPARED FOR: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIc WORKS CITY OF SAN BERllARDINO . PREPARED BY: RAg CANNADY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 300 NORTH non STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 . I , ,.; " - ........ CITY OF SAN QRNAh"INO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY The proposal is to vacant a portion of public right-of-way on the east side of Sunwest Court and north of Hospitality Lan.. The area was formerly used as turn radius before Sunwe.t Court was straightened. , '\.....- -;:,; 0 ::; ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA nON AND MITIGATION MEASlEiES l (,- 1.q. The proposed vacation is located in a Liquefaction Zone. Liquefaction studies are required only when projects involve structures for human occupancy. Since the project does not include any structures, no study is required. 9.d. The Enqineerinq/Public Works Department has determined that the portion of the public riqht-of-way to be vacated .eets state criteria/quidelines for vacation.' The proposed vacation also meets the current levels of service, the circulation needs of the area and the City's Street and Hiqhway Master Plan. The reversion of the riqht-of-way to the adjacent parcel in and of itself will not create any siqnificant health and safety impacts. 11.a.5. The proposal may impact existinq utilities or require the construction of new facilities if easements are not reserved. This potential impact shall be mitiqated by reservinq easements for all existinq utilities. PCAGENDA:PW89-l0 - - <".' ~ o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ....... -...I " '- r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ "'" Ill. r A. BAC1tGRO~~ Application Number: Public Works 89-10 Project Description: To vacate a portion of Sunwest Court formerly I)Sl!!d as a turn radius bl!!forl!! Sunwl!!st Court was straiahtened Location: The east side of Sunwest Court, north of Hospitality Lane Environmental Constraints Areas: Liquefaction Zone General Plan Designation: MU-2, Tri-City/Commerce Center Mixed Use Zoning Designation: C-3A, Limited General Commercial District B. I~B~~~~PACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. !tI~h Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth fill) more? movement (cut and/or of 10,000 cubic yards or x b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15' natural grade? x c. Development Alquist-Priolo Zone? within the Special Studies ,x d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? Il.. . x REVISED 12/87 ~ PAGE 1 OF 8 . ' ...... , ,..- '-..I 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. ~lS_~QYRCES: Will the proposal result in: 3. iIlo.. FleVISEO 12/87 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? ~Ari' 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? , Yes No x x x x x x x x x x x Maybe :.) ""'" x x ~ PAGE 2 OF 8 - -" ..... ( 4. Yes Maybe No BIOLOGIQI!JtU.P~I: 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? in the number of any rare or endangered of animals or their x x c. Other? 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: 6. a. Increases in existing noise levels? x b. Exposure of people to noise levels over 65 interior noise levels dB? exterior dB or over 45 x x c. Other? LAm>_~: 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,B, or C? x d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? x x e. Other? ReVIsED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 .c . ~ '- .J ('") ( 7. MAN-MADE HAnN>~: 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? of c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? 8. RQY~: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. 1'~NSPOR'l'ATIO!lillRCULATION: 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, or demand for new, parking facilitiesl structures? c. Impact upon existing public transpOltation 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 No x x x x x x x x x X. x Maybe ) " x ~ ,,,QI . OF . . ( - 1"'", .:) Yes g. A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? of h. Other? 10. fYm4~ SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? c. d. g. a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? Schools (Le. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Medical aid? f. Solid waste? Other? 11. YIlLITIES: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? b. c. Ilo.. REVISED 10/87 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? 3. Water? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? all existing utilities 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 ... Maybe ~ x ~ I'AQI! S 0' . - .c ( 'W'..... /'". ,..., , '-" '-I 12. AESTHETI~: 13. 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? ~9~~URA~~ESQURCES: proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Could the b. Adverse impacts historic object? physical or aesthetic to a prehistoric or site, structure or c. Other? 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 eliainate - Yes - ,... x x - '\ -' No Maybe x x x x PAGE 8 OF . 1!0 - ..,- ..... -...-.. ...... ~ . I '.... f" ..., ........, '...,I :) - , Yes No Mayb. ~ ( 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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x x C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) ~ ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF tI , ~ *' .1...... "'" 'lI: ;) o ,.. l14Celwl .,. \J .._.... """-i",., ...... IV . . . er:J1j. ......----..- i ..... .... ~ \ : lo- 0.<" . III f . ... __ _____ ____ '" ~ ~.,.\ ~ HOSP,TA~/TY ! Po',~ "" ~ 3 ~ III "!; . STREET I . .".'"', '..",'; AREA TO Bf "R~RTE/) Po,. Z 1\0 0,1 q~ DI C OR OF flUILl KS CITV EHGIHUIt P".p.".d II,. L. FOGASSY SIl..t CIl.cll.d II,. 1,/. "" ." t! ZHJ 1 of 1 DIIlTE: 0 -'6-" ARrlll VACIIlTID SHOWN THUS ~~~~ FILE NO.. ,$. ,fJ-.2,.7' PLAN HO.I 7,23 ifl~' \ p~ z LANE p.r, III ... ~ ~ ~. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PU..IC NORkS DEPMTMliiNT ENGINEERING DIVISICIN REAL PRo.-ERTV _CTICIN STREET I ALLEV YACilVICIN . Ptn 01' Sunwrsl Court, Hlo #0 Spl't (l My L a n~ 'J - ....... - 'I.- "..... ~ ~ '-' .""" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PlANNING DEPARTMENT ... AGENOA ... ITEM ,. LOCATION CASE Public Works 89- HEARING DATE ..,j ... CoM M-I M-I IH CoM M-I .0. C'M C'M CoM .. I CoM >: ~ : I .0. .0. ... ~ c ~ .. a:: ... ~ ~ . CoM CoM CoM C"A CoM CoM . C.M 3 C-'" .. C"A c-", c.", C-'A c-", ...nlls,....'1 I .. "- C>JA \ , INTERSTATE CV TtJ . C10tl :: C'M CoM CoM C'M n . , ~ L.-.: .. CoM GO\. ") .. il .. .1 CoM C.M ~ .. CoM "-1 . / , ~ '"' - '-' .-, ::; ~ """IiI ( DETERMIllA!J2!l 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. o The proposed project could have a significant effect on the ~ environment, although there will not be a significant effect 1n ~ this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 4\,;" L""'v\';r--,., -I):.,(,,>{ , Na", and T i ';.1 e {" ~_. 1%.1 ~Lf1n Signature /1 . Date: (j f'~{ f LI ;;'./f;~ ~.t..c:~ p ,- ~ .. - U)/~ I( Ie; 19 llo... ~ REVISED 12/87 PAGI . 0' .