HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-Public Works
. CIO OF SAN BERNARDICb - REQOT FOR~ COUNCIL AC'JON
From: GENE R. KLATT, Acting Director
Dept: Public Works/Engineering
Date: 7-27-88
Subject:
Adoption of Negative Declaration
for the proposed vacation of a
portion of Meyers Road. West
Little League Drive
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
affi rmed.
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
/
/
/,
" /( ~,//\"
Signature
-
Supporting data attached:
Michael W. Grubbs
Map
Staff Report & Initial Study Ward:
Phone:
5111
Contact person:
5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: Wages on W.O. 01266
Source: (Acct. No.) 001-000-41787
Finance:
fees.
t),
Acct. Descri tion
Vacation
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
J
(t7 .
.. .
CI10 OF SAN BERNARDIC - REQlQsT FOR COUNCIL AQION
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
75-0264
c
o
o
.:)
"
's
'Ii
,;<
l"
,,~ \I~
I' ","
-r-O' r(f
,">
....
'3
I~
.3~
II
,3.
10
.Jo
~
ND SCIILE
P,fEP,fI{Gp .8!1: t, rC6-It'5S'j
C'1I/FcJ(JOQ .By:
P,47",!' : S-.!z.- 8R
-IP..FA. f/~(Ir..p 5"#OfAlt/,/I V.I
.JJlEET
I CF /
1////1///'1.
I ,t:'fJ,E-" ,(/0. 1$. $O-Z'f'f
PJ.,fN AlO. 70'10
'fO~
1'\01 IS
~~.
~
ARe~ TO BE
\{ACIl TiD
(. ~..O All,.... U)
P . 1~1..1.. ....
0,.. .- ee.
. ...
~.3Iq
81
CITY OF f4A18E,fJ./~,ePIJ./O
PI/Sue WOI{I( j Pk,l'.(,(T,uI!'Nr
ENilIAlEE,(IJ/$ PIVIPON
Ill,f' pl(oPE.pry J&~7"IOA/
5 rRE!r VIIC"RTION:
PORTION OF "".'US ~uo
WUT OF L./TTL IE l.I/IlCo". Dltlll~
,
o
o
o
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 street
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 wGreenbeltW
Zone B is insignificant because it does not constitute a
second means of access to any residential areas.
REC9J4M:&NPATION
Accept the attached checklist as the Initial Study for Public
Works No. 88-20...
S :-t.;{{ ~J /U,~
SCOTT WRIGHT
Planner I
csj
"
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
"'"
BACK GROY ND
Application Number:
Public Works 88-20
Project Description:
To vacate a portion of old Meyers Road.
Location:
Westp-rl y of To; t't-l t=J. T.,;:Io~gl1~ nr; up. nn Tho. a.:::ac:d"'or' ~I
side of Tract 11118.
Environmental Constraints Areas: Hiqh Fire Hazard Area. Hiqh
Wind Hazard Arpa. ~rppnhplt' 7.nnp R
General Plan Designation: N/A
zoning Designation: N/A
B. ~NVIEONM~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. Ea~th 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?
x
""
~
REviSED 12/87
PAGE' OF a
SW/csj
II
o
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.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
Yes
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area? X
3.
WATER 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
PW 88-20
o
"""
No Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE: OF 8
,
o
11
o
.Q.
,
4.
BIOLOGICAL 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_:
6.
....
REVISED 10/87
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?
LAND USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a.
A change in
designated
Plan?
use as
General
the land
on the
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?
Yes
PW 88-20
o
No Maybe
"'"
J{
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 3 OF 8
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~FP$:
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. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a.
existing housing or
demand for additional
Remove
create a
housing?
b. Other?
9. ~RA~SPORTATIqN/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, park ing
structures?
or demand for
facilitiesl
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation 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
PW 88-20
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PAGE 4 OF 8
.
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
Other?
of
h.
10. FUBLIC SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
c.
Schools (Le. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
11. UTILITIES: 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
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b.
Resul t in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PW 88-20
Maybe
PAGE 5 OF 8
. .
o
,
[
o
o
12. AESTHETICS:
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?
~Y~TURA~--FESQURCES:
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 eliminate
Yes
PW 88-20
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
PAGE 6 OF 8
o
.....
~
. ,
o
o
o
PW 88-20
o
"""
r
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
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 E~~IRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
lro.. ~
REVISED le/S7
PAGE 7 OF 8
J .
o
o
o
PW 88-200
"
~
D.
DETERMINAnON
On the basis of this initial study,
r-A' 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.
o
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
f/vVIKlJtJ/vIel/17fl,. tUt/€-N ClJNUrr~
Name and Title
iUtkP (['1#
Signature
Date: 6- 7:3 -2;f)
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8