HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - AWARD BID BEGONIAS LANE PARK (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
CONSENT CALENDAR Jeff Kolin
DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1992
SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR BEGONIAS LANE PARK
DEPARTMENT: PARKS AND RECREATION
RESOLUTION NO. 92-51
BACKGROUND
The Parks and Recreation Department has completed the environmental review and
bidding process.for the Begonias Lane Park Project. Begonias Lane Park is a 4.5
acre neighborhood park located off of Begonias Lane just west of Shadow Pines
Boulevard in East Canyon Country.
On December 19, 1991, the Community Development Department prepared an initial
study on the project's impacts pursuant to theprovisions of CEgA. Based on the
information identified in the initial study, the project will have no
significant adverse impact on the environment due to the inclusion of mitigation
measures set forth 'in the initial study and a negative declaration has been
prepared and is on.file in the City Clerk's office for review.
The construction of the park will include base bid items such as grading,
utilities, drainage systems, a restroom building, lighting, sidewalks,
irrigation, and landscaping. The City will also be able to purchase additive
alternate items which will include a children's play area and basketball court.
A total of ten proposals were submitted to the .City and publicly opened at
11:00 a.m., on Tuesday, January 28, 1992. The engineer's: estimate for this
project base bid was $426,000, the following bids were received:
NAME BASE BID
Axis Construction
$273,963
Joe Hale Construction
$293,000
MS Construction
$326,200
Terra -Cal Construction
$329,950
Roman E.C.D. Inc.
$346,500
California Landscaping
$391,740
Valley Crest Land.
$399,000
McAlpine and Salyer
$431,876
Wang.Milestone
$491,511
Unique Builders
$490,000
Adopted. -
ADD ALT TOTAL BID .
$166,401
$440,364 Disqualified
$189,000
$482,000
$136,500
$462,700
$230,790
$533,740
$218,500
$565,000
$215,250
$606,990
$218,100
$617,750
$183,519
$615,395
$162,789
$654,300
$189,000
$679,000
Agenda Item:
The .award of this contract is to be made to the lowest base bid proposal if the
City elects not to purchase all add alternate items as identified in the project'
specifications. The City has elected not to purchase all add alternate bid
items at this time. The apparent low bidder for the base bid, Axis
Construction, has been disqualified based on their submittal of an incomplete
proposal. Axis Construction failed to submit addendum number one with their
proposal.
It is recommended that the Begonias Lane Park contract be awarded to Joe Hale
Construction who submitted the lowest responsible base bid complying with the
project specifications. Reference checks have been positive and their expertise
and understanding of the projects scope of work qualifies Joe Hale Construction
for this project. The total contract amount is to include the following:
Base Bid $293,000
Add. Alt. (Children's Play Area) $79,000
Add. Alt. (Basketball Court) $30,000
TOTAL $402,000
A ground breaking ceremony for the park is scheduled for the end of March.
Construction is scheduled to begin the first week in April and -will be completed
in September. A 90 day plant establishment period will end in December of 1992,
at whichtimethe park will.be opened to the public.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in account 25-99017-227 to construct the base bid program
for this park. Savings from completed capital projects accounts 25-99005-227
and 25-99013-227 can be used to purchase several add alternate items.
It is recommended that the City Council certify the negative declaration
prepared for this project by adopting Resolution No. 92-51 and award the
contract for Begonias Lane Park to Joe Hale Construction in the amount of
$402,000 and that an additional $40,000 be encumbered which may become necessary
for change orders once construction begins.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution 92-51
WW/lak
PRCOUNC:94
RESOLUTION NO. 92-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-189 FOR
THE BEGONIAS LANE PARR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LOCATED AT AN
APPROXIMATELY 4.8 ACRE PARCEL HAVING FRONTAGE OF 504 FEET ON THE
EAST SIDE OF BEGONIAS LANE APPROXIMATELY ONE-QUARTER MILE SOUTH
OF POPPY MEADOW STREET, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings
of fact.
a. The City of Santa Clarita proposes to construct a public neighborhood
park for passive recreational uses. This project includes the
construction of a sand box with assorted play equipment, a walking
path, picnic area, rest room facility, and basketball court. A
landscaping and an irrigation system is also included as part of the
project design.
b. On November 13, 1991, the City's Parks and Recreation Department
prepared and submitted an environmental questionnaire along with
project plans to the Community Development Department. The Community
Development Department reviewed the proposal to assess potential
environmental effects, and General Plan consistency.
c. This proposal is determined to be a project per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been reviewed pursuant to
its provisions. On December 19, 1991, The Community Development
Department completed the Initial Study on this project and determined
that this project as proposed would not have any significant effect
on the environment, nor would it impact resources protected by the
California Department of Fish and Game and that a finding of de
minimus impact on such resources is appropriate.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact and upon studies
....and investigations made on behalf..of.the.City..Council,.the.City Council
further finds as follows:
a. At its meeting of February 25, 1992, the City Council considered the
staff report and all corresponding environmental documents including
the Negative Declaration and the Initial Study for the project.
b. Based on the Initial Study, the project does not have the potential
to adversely effect the environment or resources under the protection
Resolution No. 92-51
Page 2
of the California Department of Fish and Game, and no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of the construction of Begonias
Lane Park.
c. A proposed Negative Declaration was prepared for the project based on
the Initial Study findings and the -determination that the proposed
project could not have a significant effect on the Environment.
d. A notice of environmental assessment was posted and advertised, and
the proposed Negative Declaration was made available for a 21 day
review period in compliance with the City's adopted CEQA resolution.
e. No correspondence regarding the project has been received from any
agency, or from the public, during the 21 day review period.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City
Council hereby determines that;
a. The project is compatible with existing development in the area,
consistent with the Residential Suburban General Plan land use
designation, and complies with the uses allowed in the R-1 10,000
(Single Family Residence) zone.
b: The project will not have a significant impact on the environment or
on resources under the protection of the California Department of
Fish and Game.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council -of the City of
Santa Clarita, California as follows:
a. The City Council hereby certifies the Negative Declaration prepared
for the project.
b. The City Council hereby approves that a final determination of
Negative Declaration be issued.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992.
Jill Klajic, Mayor.
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
Resolution No. 92-51
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing
Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 1992 by
the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
ENV/135
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT: Begonias Lane Park Capital Improvement Project
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO: MCI 91-189
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: An approximately 4.8 acre parcel having frontage of
504 feet on, the east side of Begonias Lane approximately one-quarter mile
south of Poppy Meadow Street.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The City of Santa Clarita proposes to construct a
public neighborhood park for passive recreational uses. This project includes
the construction of a sand box with assorted play equipment, a walking path,
picnic area, restroom facility, and basketball court. Landscaping and an
irrigation system is included as part of the project design.
.............................................................................
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[X]City Council [ ]Planning Commission [ ]Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect
upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted
pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required. [ ] are attached. [x] are not attached.
.............................................................................
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared
Reviewed
Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner
(Name/Title)
Don Williams, Senior Planner
(Name/Title)
Approved b Don Williams,. Senior Planner
Signa re) (Name/Title)
.............................................................................
Public Review Period From 1/21/92 To 2/11/92
Public Notice Given On 1/21/92
[X] Legal advertisement. [ ] Posting of properties. [ ] Written notice.
................................................,......... ................
CERTIFICATION DATE: February 11. 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NO: 91-189 Case Planner: Jeff Chaffin.
Project Location: Fronting on the east side of Begonias Lane approximately
one-quarter mile -south of Poppy Meadow Street.
Project Description and Setting: The City. of Santa Clarita proposes to
construct a neighborhood park for passive recreational uses. The 4.8 acre
project site is currently vacant, and is within a residential area surrounded
by hillsides. The undeveloped site has been previously graded,. and is
sparsely covered with native grasses. This project includes the construction
of a sand box with assorted play equipment (i.e. swings, slide, see -saw,
climbing bars, etc.), a walking path (with exercise circuit), picnic -tables,
benches, restroom facility, and basketball court. Landscaping with turf grass
and shade trees, along with an irrigation system, is also part of the project
design.
General Plan Designation: RS --Residential Suburban, 3.4-6.6 dwelling units
per acre.
Proposed City Zoning: RS --Residential Suburban Family Zone.
Applicant: The City of Santa Clarita.
Environmental Constraint Areas: Drainage, hillside development, light and
glare, aesthetics, and recreation.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ ] [x]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [x] ( ] [ ]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [ l [ I • [xl
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ I [ I [xl
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] [ ] [x]
YES MAYBE NO
f.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes,•landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... I ] I ]
[X]
g.
Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ ] I I
[XI
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ l I I
[XI
i.
Earth movement (cut.and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ ]
[x]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ ] [ ]
[x]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ I
[x]
1.
Other? [ ] [ ]
(x]
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [ ]
Ix]
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [ ]
[x]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ ]
(XI
d.
Other? [ ] [ ]
[x]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [XI I I
I ]
b.-
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. I I E I
IX]
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... I 1 I I
IXI
d.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] I I
[x]
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [.]
Ix]
r
-2-
YES MAYBE NO
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? .......... [ ] [
] [xI
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ I I I
I IxI
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ] [
] [xI
i.
Other? [ ] [
I [XI
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,'
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ ] [
I [x]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] [
] [x]
C.
Introduction of new species -of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ........... [ ] [
I [XI
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ...................................... [ I I
I [xI
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? .................... [ ] [
I [x]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [
I [x]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [
] [x]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [
I [x]
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........ ( ] [
] [x]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [
] [x]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] [
] [xI
-3-
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? .......................
YES MAYBE NO
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ]
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? .... f 1
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria2 ...................... [ ]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? [ l
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? [ ]
10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will .the proposal:
a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? ... [ 1
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not.
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?.. [ ]
.... ...........
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plant
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? [ l
...............
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? [ ]
b. Other? [ ]
-4-
[ l [xi
[ I [XI
YES MAYBE NO
12. Housing. Will the proposals
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ]
[ ] [x]
b. Other? [ ]
I ] [x1
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ J
I') (x]
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ]
[ ) [x]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................. [ l
I 1 [x)
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. I ]
I I [x]
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ]
[ ] [x]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..................6........... [ ]
[ 1 [XI
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? ....................... I ]
I 1 1x1
b. Police protection? ......................... [ ]
[ ] [x]
C. Schools?.............6...........6......... [ 1
[ I [x]
d. Parks or other recreational facilities) ... [ ]
[ ] [x]
e. Maintenance of public.facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ]
( 1 [xl
f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ]
[ ] [xl
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . .................................... [ ]
[ ] (XI
-s-
YES MAYBE NO
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ]
[ ] [x]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ]
[ ] [x]
b.
Communications systems? .................... [ ]
[ ] [x]
C.
Water systems? ............................. [ I
I ] [x]
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ].
[ ] [x]
e.
Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ]
[ j [x]
f.
Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ]
[ ] [x]
g.
Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ]
[ ] [x]
17. Human Health.• Will the proposal result in:
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ]
[ ] [x]
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... [ ]
[ I [XI
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ ]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [x]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in thealteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. ( ]
-6-
YES MAYBE NO
b. will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... ( ]
I (XI
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. C ]
I I 1x]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ]
I 1XI
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUSft FINDING
Will the project have an adverse effect either
individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians; and related ecological communities,
including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends
for its continued viability".
Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code.) ................. [ ] (N/A] [x]
-7-
B. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Secti Evaluation of Impac
1 The project site is currently vacant, and centrally located within a
residential neighborhood. The site is accessible from Begonias Lane
and Via Gardenia. Previous grading has been done on-site for
anticipated construction of recreational facilities. Sail compaction
will be done in preparation for construction of restrooms, walking
paths, and basketball court. This compaction is necessary for
structural stability and will not result in changes in the geologic
substructure at the project site,
Because the site is relatively flat, the existing topography will
remain intact; no unique geological or physical features have been
identified at the site. Erosion, siltation, and deposition should
not result due to the implementation of required landscaping and
drainage control measures. The project site is not located within
any identified geologic hazard area. No landslides, earthquake
faults, or other evidence of ground failure have been identified at
the project site.. All construction shall be subject to the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code and applicable building
ordinances of the City of Santa Clarita. This proposed project is
not expected to result in any geological impacts, and no significant
impact is anticipated.
2 The construction of these recreational facilities will not result in
any increase of air emissions. All construction activities and heavy
equipment useage will be regulated by existing standards of the South
Coast Regional Air Quality Management District. All City standards
regarding air quality control shall be observed during the
construction period. This proposed project is not expected to result
in any changes to air resources. and no significant impact is
anticipated.
3 Flood hazards do not exist at the project site because it is not
located within any 100 year floodplain; no "blue -line" streams are
present. An increase in surface runoff is expected to result with
this project due to the ;impervious surfaces created by construction
of restrooms. walking paths, and basketball court. Drainage
improvements are designed into the project which should not only
accommodate project runoff, but also control the existing runoff at
this vacant, unvegetated site. New drainage facilities and
landscaping will actually improve site. drainage by reducing and
conveying uncontrolled runoff to existing flood control facilities.
All Building and Safety Department requirements shall be included as
part of the project design. Irrigation for landscaping and use� of
restroom facilities should not result in a significant increase in
water consumption. This proposed project is not expected to result
in changes to water resources, and no significant impact is
anticipated.
-8-
4, 5 The projeci site has not been identified as a unique or significant
ecological area. Prior disturbance from existing grading and
adjacent development has significantly reduced the habitat value on
and adjacent to -the project site. Habitat losses which may result
from the construction of this park facility is considered to be
negligible due to the prior grading on the project site and
development of the adjacent area. No rare or endangered plant or
animal species are known to occupy the.project site, and this project
should not result in any change in diversity or numbers to any
existing population on or adjacent to the project site. Project
landscaping will introduce native drought tolerant vegetation to the
site. This proposed project is not expected to result in any changes
to plant or animal populations or habitat, and no significant impact
is anticipated.
6 Typical activities associated with the use of the project site as a
park would not involve the operation of mechanical equipment
generating noise or vibration. This facility will be available for
public use from 6 AN to 10 PM, seven days per week. The days and
hours of operation. will limit the times at which noise associated
with passive family oriented recreational uses (i.e. use of
children's play equipment, basketball games, jogging, frisbee,
picnics, etc.) will occur. A landscaped berm is included in the
design of the park, which will serve as a noise barrier between the
park site and adjacent residences. The placement of play equipment
and landscaping materials (trees and shrubs) will . effectively
eliminate nuisance noise to adjacent residences. The use of this
site as a park will not substantially increase ambient noise levels,
and no significant impact is.anticipated.
7 Lighting for this project will be in compliance with the Uniform
Building Code. Building entries and activity areas will have
adequate lighting for safety and security purposes. Exterior
building design shall not include any reflective materials. This
facility will be illuminated by light fixtures atop standards with
shrouds which direct light downward. This type of lighting is
designed so that -only the intended area is illuminated. A landscaped
berm is included in the design of the park, which may provide
shielding of light and glare between the park site, and adjacent
residences. This proposed project is not expected to result in any
nuisance light or glare, and no significant impact is anticipated.
8 The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use designation for the
project site is IRS" (Residential Suburban, 3.4-6.6 � dwelling units
per acre). The proposed zoning of the property.is IRS" (Residential
Suburban Family Zone). The City's General Plan provides standards
for park sites. Neighborhood parks, such as this, should "be located
centrally to the residential development served whenever possible.'
The site was previously graded for construction of a neighborhood.
park as part of the original tract development under the jurisdiction
of Los Angeles County. This project conforms to the General- Plan
designation and the Uniform Development Code. Alterations to
existing and planned land uses an the project site and adjacent area
will not result from this project, and no significant impact is
anticipated.
9 The proposed project includes construction of. restrooms, walking
paths, sand box with play equipment, and basketball court. An
incremental increase in the consumption and use of non-renewable
natural resources is expected to occur during construction only. The
long-term use of this site for passive recreational purposes will not
result in an increase in the consumption of natural resources, and no
significant impact is anticipated.
10 The project site is currently served by the local firefighting and
law enforcement agencies. Access to and from the site is existing
and shall remain. The use of the site as a neighborhood park will
not involve explosive or toxic materials. This proposed project is
not expected to result in any changes to public safety, emergency
evacuation, potential explosion, or exposure to toxic materials, and
no significant impact is anticipated.
11. 12 No existing housing would be removed or created to construct this
project. The project will serve the adjacent residential area, but
will also be available to anyone for recreational use. This project
is not the type to generate additional population to the City (no
unusual or unique facilities or events are included in this
proposal.) No significant impact to population growth or density is
anticipated.
13 The majority of vehicle traffic to and from the project site is
expected to be generated by neighborhood residents. It is expected
that the majority of users would visit the park via bicycle or on
foot. This project is not of the size and type to generate a
substantial number of vehicle trips. The majority of vehicle trips
to the project site are expected to occur during non -peak traffic
hours. Net traffic movements would remain: relatively unchanged. No
significant traffic impact is anticipated.
14, 19 The development of the project site as a neighborhood park will not
result in an increased demand on governmental services. The site is
currently served by adequate police and fire protection which can
accommodate the new structures and related uses. Maintenance levels
of public facilities and roads will not substantially increase due to
the implementation of this -project. The City Parks and Recreation
Department is currently staffed and budgeted to provide for the
operation and maintenance of this proposed facility. As the City's
park system grows, additional personnel may be provided to serve this
proposed project and the other facilities in the park system. This
proposed facility will provide needed recreational amenities and
opportunities to local residents. The proposed project is not
expected to result in any changes to public services, and no
significant impact is anticipated.
15 This proposed facility will not require the use of substantial
amounts of energy due to its size and character. Electricity will be
provided to the proposed restrooms and site lighting system. The
proposed project is not expected to result in any changes to.energy
resources, and no significant impact is anticipated.
_10-
16 All utilities currently serving the project site can accommodate the
needs of the project, without expansion or alteration to 'any utility
system. This proposed project is not -expected to result in* increased
service demands on public utilities, and no significant impact is
anticipated.
17 Cleaning materials,' paper products, and lawn maintenance tools may be
stored at the site. These items shall be stored and secured, and
will not pose a safety hazard. The proposed project is not expected
to result in any adverse effects on human health, and no significant
impact is anticipated.
is Development of the proposed park facility will" not obstruct any
scenic vista or public view, primarily due to its location. The
project site is at the base of a ridge which borders the site to the
north and vest; existing single family homes are to the east and
south. No silhouette of any proposed structures will be seen along
the skyline from any public road -or viewing area. Development of the
park site will incorporate substantial landscaping, including
provision of turf grass, ornamental shrubs, trees, and landscaped
berming. The size and appearance of the proposed structures will be
aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area, and no
significant impact isanticipated. .
20 The project site has not been identified as an archaeoiogically
sensitive area. Any cultural or historical resources which may -have
been present in the past have likely been disturbed or removed by
past grading and construction activities on and adjacent to the
project site. The proposed project is not expected 'to �esult in
additional loss of archaeological or historical resources, and no
significant impact is anticipated.
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in
part, 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.
1. 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 sus-
taining 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 important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? .................. I I 1XI
2. 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.) ........... I I 1XI
3. 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 an each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.) I 1XI
4. Does the project -have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects -on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... I (XI
-12-
D.
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [x]
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 in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . ....................................
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ..........................................
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
01A-�,4AA Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner 12/19/91
(Sigyft0) V V (Name/Title) (Date)
RevhOed ar�� approved by:
JC/464
(Name/Title)
-13-
12/19/91
(Date)