The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About92-Planning CI'i''- OF SAN BERNARDIO - REQUE:.:r FOR COUNCIL rtC!.r'~N From: R. Ann Siracusa Director of Planning Planning R EC'O. - AD M19IWltCf.. \":[1 ADS 2 F f',1, If: ~l~ Traffic Signals at the intersection of University Pkwy, and College Avenue Mayor and Council Meeting of September 8, 1987, 2:00 p.m. Dept: Date: August 18, 1987 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Action: On July 23, 1987, 1987, the ERC considered the proposal to install traffic signals poles, pull boxes, conduit and controller at the intersection of University Parkway and College Avenue. Recommended motion: Adopt a finding of consistency with the General Plan, i,e, the Verdemont Area Plan, Adopt a finding of exemption from CE~A. ~~~ Signature R, Ann Siracusa Contact person: R. Ann Siracusa Phone: 384-5357 5 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No, ?~ CIT'r OF SAN BIERNAFiDI~ - RIEQUO FOR COUNCIL Ac\..bN STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION, This is a plan to install a fully actuated traffic signal with pedestrian button, poles, pull boxes, conduit and controls at the intersection of University Parkway and College Avenue. (See Exhibit "A".) The intersection serves as an entry point to Kendall Elementary School as well as egress and ingress to four residential area. University Parkway, a six lane arterial street has' a traffic couI1t of 16,440 vehicles per day at the intersection, College Avenue, a collector street, has a traffic count of 3,440 and has a two way stop sign. Pedestrian usage at the intersection now requires a school crossing guard, GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY: The Verdemont Area Plan designates University Parkway as a major arterial street, This proposal does not conflict with the circulation element of the General Plan. The plan has met the Cal Trans Signal warrants criteria, ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: At their regularly scheduled meetinz of July 23, 1987, the Environmental Review Connnittee determined that Public Horks No. 37-8 to be categorically exempt under the provisions of Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, (See Exhibit "B") REQUESTED ACTION: Due to the Officer of Planning and Research and court restrictions on public works projects the City Attorney has suggested that all such projects be viewed by the ERC prior to the City Council's review and action. Action on the required Health and Safety findings were scheduled on the Council's agenda prior to this proposed action. SYNOPSIS OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Adopt a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Adopt a finding of exemption from CEQA, 75-0264 . - JO _ a_ . - - EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM # LOCATION CASE PW 87-8 HEARING DATE L "0" , ""~ __ EXHIBIT "B" '-' ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE \... ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ , ~ ~ A. BACKGROUND 1. Case Number (s) : PUBLIC WORKS 87.,8 Date: 8/2/87 2. Project Description: installation of traffic si~nalr poles pull boxes, conduit and controls at the intersection of 3. Genersl Location: University Parkway and College Avenue, Il. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS YES MAYBE NO - 1. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi- cated on the General Plan, either on project site or X within general area? - - 2. Would significant increases in either noise levels, dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener- ated from project area, either during construction or from completed project other than those result- X ing from normal construction activity? - - 3. Will proj ec t involve application, use or dispoaal of hazardous or toxic materials? X - - 4. Will any deviation from any established environ- mental standards (air, water, noise, light, etc.) and/or adopted plans be requested in connection X ' with project? - - 5. Will the project require the use of significant amounts of energy which could be reduced by the X use of appropriate mitigation measures? - - 6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or congestion? X - - 7. Could project result in any substantial change in quality, quantity, or accessibility of any portion of region's air or surface and ground water re- X sources? - - .... . WAY I. EAC. FORM A -~-+- . - - 8. Will project involve construction of facilities in an area which could be flooded during an inter- mediate regional or localized flood? 9. Will project involve construction of facilities or services beyond those presently available or pro- posed in near future? 10. Could the project result in the displacement of community residents? II. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro- ject area unique or rare (i.s. not normally found in other parts of country or regions)? 12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical sites in vicinity of project area which could be affected by project? 13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea- tional area or area of important aesthetic value or reduce or restrict access to public lands or parks? 14. Are there any known rare or endangered plant species in the project area? IS. Does project area serve as habitat, food source, nesting place, source of water, migratory path, etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish species? l6. Will project be Located in immediate area of any adverse geologic nature such as slide prone areas, highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.? l7. Could project substantially affect potential use or conservation of a non-renewable natural resource? lB. Will any grading or excavation be required in connection with project which could alter any existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill- side, canyons, drainage courses, etc? 19. Will any effects of the subject project together or in conjunction with effects of other projects cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on the environment? YES ~ MAYBE NO ..x ..x ..x -.X. -.X. -.X. -.X. ..x. x x x x lAC, FOIl.. A ~ '- -- C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS If any of the findings of fact have been answered YES or MAYBE, then a brief clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed). D. MITIGATION MEASURES Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts: E. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, o We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o We find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [J We find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X We find that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA --- Section 15301. Class 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA YdLt~ {.R/#- (Secretary) Valerie C. Ross. Planner II DATE: h- 1-:3 /<;87 I , \... '~ MAY '., ERe. FORM A