The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About39-Public Works ,lie NO. 1~.jU-L44 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~rom: GENE R. KLATT, Acting Director Subject: Adoption of Negative Declaration for the ~roposed vacation of a portion of Meyers Road, West Little League Drive Llept: Publ ic Works/Engineering Date: 7-27-88 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 12-17-84 __ Resolution No. 84-540 adopted approving the final map of Tract No. 11118, accepting dedications and authorizing the execution of an agreement. 03-07-88 __ Recommendation from Traffic Safety Advisory Committee that old Meyers Road not be reopened for traffic, accepted and affirmed. 04-04-88 __ The City Engineer and City Clerk were authorized to proceed with the vacation of Meyers Road, west of Little League Drive, and Plan.No. 7090, showing the proposed vacation, was approved. 07-18-88 -- Finding of Need for Health and Safety made. Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for the vacation of a portion of Meyers Road, west of Little League Drive, be adopted. 2. That a finding be made that the vacation of a portion of Meyers Road, west of Little League Drive, is consistent with the interim policy document. cc: Jim Robbins Jim Richardson Jim Penman Andy Green Planning Department J ---_.~--~ Signature - ---, -_._~------~----- ----------_.~-_._--_._---~_.._~---- Contact person: . Mi chael W. Grubbs Phone: .- .-------Mii.-p---- ~--------- Supporting data attached :__ S t ai!..!-_ e po r t & I nit i a 1 S t u d y Ward: 5111 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Wages on W.O. 01266 Source: (Accl. No.) 001-000-41787 -- --,' --.__.,.~- -----------_._-~--~._--_. Finance: filing fees. (~~ 1), (Acct. Description) Vacation Council Notes: -_._--,--~--- -----_.__.~---- -- Agenda Item No. _1q 7~_0262 CI. { OF SAN BERNARD~~.jO - REQU"~T FOR COUNCIL AC'. _ON STAFF REPORT On 12-17-84, Resolution No. 84-540 was adopted approving the final map for Tract No. 11118, which dedicated to the City a new alignment for Meyers Road, indicating that the old Meyers Road would be vacated by a separate document, after the new Meyers Road was constructed. Old Meyers Road was temporarily closed to vehicular traffic, and has not been reopened since. On June 23, 1988, the Environmental Review Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 88-20, vacation of a portion of Meyers Road westerly of Little League Drive, based on the attached Initial Study. The public review period was from June 30, 1988, to July 13, 1988. No comments were received during the review period. A Notice of Determination will be filed by the Planning Department after adoption of the Negative Declaration. The Planning Department has determined that this project is consistent with the interim policy document. 7-27-88 1:'.02(,4 I ~Q~ . I IS \ -' t<\-~' " IS '" c;< l" "'~ \~ \,\ .;..~ ~o (" ,.' ,oO- '3 :u ARE~ 10 9E VReA TED (0,,0 ....,..u 1.4) '.. 3... I, 31 10 .30 \- ~ No SC"LE I',fEP./,fEp .8!J: I.. F~~5S'I , C'/I.C/C.P .By: P.4 i,!' : 3-:: z.. - SF; ?ki! (/A(Ar,s-p 5#OWI/ T.1II/./ 511ft'/! T I or I CITY OF 54,AI BE/(JM,fPIJ./O PtJ8/./e &,I/O!?/( j PE,PJ..I(.T'j,(~Nr EIJIiIIo/EE.fIJ/~ PII/lf/IMI ,fE-f1.. PlfoPE.fry J&4TI0'" ;.//lli//I/) STREfTVI/CRTION: PORTION O~ ME'fEI!.S ~c..o W~T OF /../TTLE U"G-". Dlltvr; FfJ.E AJO. 15.30-1'1" Pi.-4N /./0. 70'10 .,... C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8806-3901 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Scott Wright, Planner I SUBJECT: Public Works No. 88-20 A Street Vacation of a Portion of old Meyers Road DATE: June 28, 1988 (7485) COPIES: Counter, Library ------------------------------------------------------------- The attached Environmental Impact Checklist is to serve as a full Initial Study for Public Works No. 88-20, a streel vacation for a portion of old Meyers Road located westerly of Little League Drive and easterly of Tract 11118. The vacation of a portion of Meyers Road will have no significant impacts on the environment and will require no mitigation. The portion of Meyers Road to be vacated is already blocked off to traffic. Its presence in the High Wind Hazard and High Fire Hazard Areas and in "Greenbelt" Zone B is insignificant because it does not constitute a second means of access to any residential areas. RJ;;CPW1J;;t:JPATION Accept the attached checklist as the Initial Study for Public Works No. 88-2Q. ~ -rlT LJIU-0JI SCOTT WRIGHT Planner I csj , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "'" PLANNING DEP ARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST """ ~ , """ A. BACKGRO!JlID Application Number: Public Works 88-20 Project Description: To vacate a portion of old Meyers Road. Location: Westprly of T,; +-+-1 p T,PrlCJllP f1riup f'Yn t-ho p::lc.rpl""1 ~' side of Tract 11118 . Environmental Constraints Areas: Hiqh Fire Hazard Area, Hiqh Wind Ha7.Flrn Arpi1. ~rppnhplt- 7.nnp R General Plan Designation: N/II -- Zoning Designation: N/A B. f:ll'fIFQNMf:NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1- Eaf"th Resources Will 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 15% natural grade? X c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? X d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? X """ ~ PAGE' OF a REVISED 12/87 SW/csj , PW 88-20 Yes No Maybe " e. Soil erosion on or off the project site? x f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? x g. Development subject mudslides, other similar within an area to landslides, liquefaction or hazards? x h. Other? x 2. bIR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial an effect quality? air upon emissions or ambient air x b. The creation of objectionable odors? x c. Development within a high wind hazard area? x 3. !'IbTEE_ 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? x 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? x e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? x f. Other? x lio... ~ RE'JISED 12/81 PAGE: 'JF 3 PW 88-20 , Maybe 4. BIOLOGIC~L R~SOURCE~: 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 . LAND_ USE: result in: will the proposal a. A change in designated Plan? the land on the use as General b. Development within an Airport District? c. Development within "Greenbelt" Zone A. B. 0 r C? d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? e. Other? .... Yes No x x x x x x x x x ~ .) REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 9 x x PW 88-20 r Maybe "" 7 . MAN-MADE Hj\.?:bFP$: 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? B. HOUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. TBb~~PORTATION/CIRCULATION: 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, parking structures? or demand for facilities/ c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? d. A:teration of present patterns of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .... MEVISED 10/87 Yes No x x x x x x x x x x x x ~ PAGE 4 OF 8 PW 88-20 ,. Yes No Maybe ""'" g. h. A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? of x Other? x 10. ~UBLIC SERVICES will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. b. c. d. e. g. Fire protection? x Police protection? x Schools li.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? x Parks or other recreational facilities? x Medical aid? x f. Solid waste? x Other? x 11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal: \. REVISED 10/87 a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? x 2. Electricity? x 3. \Vater? x 4. Sewer? x 5. Other? x b. Resul t in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility x c. Require the construction of new facilities? ~ x PAGE50F8 PW 88-20 r Maybe '" 12. AESTHETJ~~: 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? 13. Could the ~PyTURAy--FESOURCES: proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. physical or aesthetic to a prehistoric or site, structure or Adverse impacts historic object? 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 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 Yes No ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF 8 x x x x x x PW 88-20 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 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 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 E~NIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) Qt=\IIC::Fn " 1':l.7 PAGE; :)F 8 , PW 88-20 '" D. DETERMINAT]:ON On the basis of this initial study, Q 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 in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o The proposed project ~ffiY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA t,~ ,,'::LlJfc1c ,,17>:1-- ttYI(}V (('11M l1-ra/ Name and Title //, ' ,,I ) ,ul.J,I.<-t '- (.l:Y Signature Date: ~. _~I 3 -f't! "- ~ PAGE 8 OF 8 n....."'~Cf"\ .",Q7